What does this mean and why do we think it makes no sense? There are several reasons why Common Sense Authors questions all this. Up until the end of January 2008, the candidates have visited for several months the so called “early States” endless times, have spent many millions of dollars in campaign advertising, have gone door to door to ask people for their vote. There have been numerous televised presidential debates with candidates in both major parties. Now what do they have to show for all this? Voting has only taken place in seven States with a combined population of somewhere near 38 million people, the equivalent of California.

Super Tuesday Revealed

On February 5 or as it is called ‘Super Tuesday’, the combined total of population in these 22 States is slightly less than 150 million. That is nearly four times the amount of people as in the previous seven States. Considering that the Republican candidates have been campaigning full time in Florida up until January 29, they now have less than one week to woo voters in these 22 States. Makes perfect sense, does it not? We do not think so!

We have previously written that what counts at the party conventions in summer are delegates won by the candidates at the caucuses and primaries. In the first seven States, the Republicans have assigned 211 delegates (out of a total of 2380) while the Democrats have distributed 174 delegates (out of a total of 4050). Here comes Super Tuesday and the number of delegates at stake on this one day is 1026 on the Republican side while the Democrats will assign 2064 delegates. We have to ask again: Makes perfect sense, right? Once more, we do not think so! In case you want to verify the numbers, check out their source.

While the delegates on the Democrat side will be assigned proportionally based on voting result percentages, the Republicans have two ways of assigning delegates: Proportionally and Winner-take-all (where the winner of a State’s election will get all delegates). Out of the 22 States, ten use Winner-take-all rules; Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and Utah. The combined delegate count in those States is 634; California with 173, Georgia with 72, Missouri with 58, New Jersey with 52 and New York with 101. The candidates have a week to campaign actively to get those delegates; will they spend a lot of time in Connecticut with 30 delegates, Delaware with 18 delegates, Oklahoma with 41 delegates and Utah with 36 delegates? We do not think so!

One could be so bold to guess that John McCain will most likely not be challenged in Arizona and his rivals might not contest Mitt Romney winning Massachusetts and Utah. Mike Huckabee has probably figured out that his best chances are States with large number of evangelical voters and his home State of Arkansas. It would not be unreasonable to think that Rudy Giuliani will concentrate on New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. How about Illinois where 70 delegates are at stake proportionally? Do you think that any candidate will fly to Alaska to get a majority of their 29 delegates?  How about the 18 delegates in the Winner-take-all contest in Delaware? Will any candidate spend a lot of time there? We do not think so!

Caucus Sense?

You probably understand by now why we question this scheduling system designed by the two major parties in holding caucuses and primary elections in the States of our country. Why would tradition dictate this so called ‘retail campaigning’ in a few small States early where not really many delegates are at stake and then hold election with almost half the States on a given day where the candidates have little hope of visiting in the week leading up to Super Tuesday?

Another aspect that should be considered is the fact that several candidates are now simply running out of campaign funds since they spent quite a bit of it early on and now will hardly have the time to attend fundraisers because they have to try and meet as many potential voters as is humanly possible. One reason why this is very unusual this year rests with the fact that there are no incumbents or heir-apparent running. There have been no clear frontrunners in either party even though many thought that Hillary Clinton had to be called the favorite on the Democrat side. But this has been proven wrong in that she and Barack Obama have turned it into an exciting race for the nomination. With proportional assignation of delegates, we do not think that a winner will be declared on February 6 on the Democrat side. The same holds true for the Republicans, while a candidate might appear to be a frontrunner after Super Tuesday’s results have been published, there are still over 1100 additional delegates yet to be assigned after February 6.

Caucus Remedy?

While all of this is now playing out according to the adopted rules, we have to raise the question if the two major parties might not be advised to come up with a better system for 2012 when the next Presidential primary elections will be held. While we would not propose a single primary/caucuses election date for all States some time in the spring, could it not be organized in such a way that on four such first Tuesdays from February to May the various States would agree to hold their primaries/caucuses in proportion that an almost equal amount of delegates would be at stake. This would allow the candidates to reach voters in most states and therefore give voters a better chance to possibly observe one or more candidate nearby.

After all, should the voters not play the primary role in these elections? Why should voters in many States have to decide what the polls show and the media puts out on the candidates? It is wrong. A vote for a candidate should not be placed on who is the frontrunner at any given time nor should a voter be put in a position where his or her vote does not even matter any longer. It would also allow all candidates to concentrate for an entire month on the 12 or 13 States where elections are being held on a certain Tuesday. While all candidates can spend a lot of time raising funds for their campaigns in the time leading up to the actual election dates (the entire year prior to election year), they can take some time off for the holidays and start right after New Year’s in earnest. What we have right now is not correct and we repeat once again,

It simply makes no sense!

This article and others on Common Sense Authors are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

Utter Nonsense! is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The delegates are being selected in both parties based on party membership and standing or if they are officeholders such as governors, State and U.S. Senators and Congressmen. Both parties have in the past determined the number of delegates for each State based on population. As a result, the Democrats have a total of 4050 delegates and the Republicans have a total of 2380. To become the party nominee, a candidate has to get ‘fifty percent plus one’ of those delegates. So much for the process at the party conventions. The delegate assignation happens based on the results of the State primaries and caucuses by using two major methods. Some States assign delegates proportionally while many other States have a ‘winner take all’ process. These decisions have been made by the party officials at each state level and are generally accepted by voters in all states.
 

After just a few primaries and caucuses, it is bewildering to see how polls and pundits are already picking the ultimate party nominees based on who has won what and how many delegates he or she has at this early stage. It is amusing to see that the various delegate-counters cannot even get a uniform count this early in the process. For instance, a source called Real Clear Politics shows that until now 313 Democrat delegates have been assigned to candidates while the Associated Press source lists only 67 delegates in that party as having been assigned. On the Republican side, both sources have identical numbers, namely 101, but they differ in the number of delegates for each candidate. Another source, MSNBC has different number for both party’s candidates.

Let us not try to find out where their differences are, at this point who cares when only 101 Republican delegates out of a total of 2380 have been assigned. To be specific, do the 42 or so delegates assigned to Mitt Romney mean he will win the nomination? Of course not! In fact, they mean absolutely nothing. Nor does it mean that John McCain has no chance because he has only 19 delegates. Instead, let us look forward to what is coming up until February 5, the so called Super Tuesday, by only seeing the picture on the Republican side:

• January 19, South Carolina primary – 24 delegates – proportionally awarded

• January 19, Nevada caucus – 34 delegates – proportionally awarded

• January 29, Florida primary – 57 delegates – ‘winner take all’

• February 1, Maine caucus – 21 – proportionally awarded

• February 5, 20 States hold primaries or caucuses – 1064 delegates; of which 689 delegates will be ‘Winner take all’ and 375 delegates will be awarded proportionally.

What does this mean? The Republicans will have awarded by way of both methods a total of 1301 delegates, 746 of those are by ‘winner take all’ assignation.  The larger states on this day, February 5, are California (173), New York (101), Georgia (72), Missouri (58) and New Jersey (52) and they are all in the ‘winner take all’ category. After this date, there are another 1079 delegates to be assigned in the remaining 22 states where primaries and caucuses will be held until June 14.

Does it therefore make any sense on the part of the pundits when they tell us that Mitt Romney (42 delegates to date) has no chance in getting the nomination while John McCain (19 delegates to date) is the front-runner in the Republican race for the White House? There is only one answer to this question: Absolutely Not!  

This is unadulterated nonsense and nothing more than wishful thinking on their part. They are no more qualified than a pre-schooler in making these kinds of statements. In fact, they should all without exception be ashamed of themselves for going on television or writing articles in newspapers and magazines and attempt to convey that they know what they are talking about.

This is as stupid as projecting passing a driver’s license test after having answered the first question. One hundred and one delegates have been assigned to seven different candidates on the Republican side and with over 2300 delegates yet to be won; only fools would try to tell the rest of us the outcome of this Republican. Common sense should tell us that this is pure craziness and we should not waste any time listening to these self-proclaimed experts. Why would any person for instance in California pay any attention to what happened in two very small states, Iowa and New Hampshire where the election processes were at a minimum questionable in that last minute party switching was allowed and where so called independents could vote in either Party. Everybody in California and for that matter everywhere else should look at all candidates and listen to what they say, what they are for and what they are against and then decide who to give their vote to. Common sense should not allow any other process when it comes to voting for someone who could become the next President of the United States. This article and others on Back to Common Author are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

So Far: Numerically Insignificant is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

They also predicted that if Mitt Romney would not win the New Hampshire primary, he was finished and if John McCain would win New Hampshire he would have to be considered the frontrunner of the Republican Party. What nonsense! Do these people have no concern over losing their reputations as political commentators and analysts? Apparently not! Another interesting comparison that should be made is that the pollsters and pundits could not call the results of the Iowa caucuses since they were considered “too close to call”.

In reality, Barack Obama won over his competitors by huge margins of eight and nine percentage points. Mike Huckebee beat Mitt Romney by nine points. The opposite happened in New Hampshire. Mr. Obama was going to beat Mrs. Clinton by more than ten points while the race on the Republican side was tightening so much that a prediction could not safely be made. They could not have been more wrong. We like to refer you to an article we posted on August 30, 2007 entitled “The Uselessness of Polls”. We feel sort of vindicated in that now when the elections are actually taken place, they still cannot get it right, for that matter they are not even close. Furthermore, as it stands right now, Mitt Romney (considered ‘finished’ after his second place showing in New Hampshire) is leading the Republican candidates in the delegate count over all the others. He has 24, Huckabee has 18 and McCain has 10 while the other fellows have even fewer.

Common sense should suggest that it might be best if we all think for ourselves and compare the candidates and then decide by ourselves whom to vote for. After all, this is what primaries are all about. It is a selection process designed for individuals to select their favorite candidate, whom they believe to be best suited to become President of this country (and with it the leader of the free world).

It should not be that people depend on what polls indicate and what self-appointed political experts tell them. We can listen to what they have to say, but in today’s world where we all can visit the campaign websites of the candidates and compare our own personal beliefs with theirs; we can make up our own minds after what they have stated. We can also watch any number of the many candidate debates and see and hear for ourselves how they come across, how they answer questions, how they conduct themselves and so on.

The next primary will be held on January 15 in Michigan where 30 delegates are at stake on the Republican side and none for the Democrats. You might wonder, how can this be? The state’s Democratic Party in Michigan was penalized by the Democratic National Committee for moving their primary to an earlier date and decided to disallow any delegates at the National Convention in August of this year. The thing to look for in Michigan is this: It is allowed to cross party lines and vote for a candidate in another party during a primary. This could mean that since the Democrats votes are nullified when it comes to convention delegates, they might vote in large numbers in the Republican primary and can totally distort the results in this event. For this reason, do not pay any attention to polls and pundits leading up to the Michigan primary, there is no way that anybody can even approximate the outcome of this election since nobody can predict what will happen there. There is a precedent for this: In 2000, John McCain beat George W. Bush in Michigan with the help of a large number of cross-voting Democrats. With this year’s reality in this state, we could easily see a repeat of this happening again.

Finally, on December 8, 2007, we posted an article entitled “Antiquated Election Processes” wherein we described the voting procedures in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Yet, these are not the only states where other such things are allowed and how they in different states allocate their delegates to the two Party Conventions later this year. We will try and shed more light on this in our next post, stay tuned.

This article and others on Common Sense Author are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

Presidential Primaries are 5% Completed is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

We posted an article about the Iowa caucuses in the past and took a closer look at their – what we consider – antiquated voting procedures and even the media took the time to describe them. The only point of interest is the fact that these procedures were not questioned at all while at the same time the importance of this election, if one can call it that, was constantly hyped. “This election could make or break candidates” we were told. Laughable as this is, it turned out to be true for those who did not get one percent of the vote. Democrat Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd suffered just such a ‘fate’. Wow, what a prediction by the media. Common sense should have told them that a very long time ago. There are a few more candidates on both sides that will sooner rather than later realize their unrealistic expectations and deflated political egos and drop out as well (see our article posted on November 14 called ‘Presidential Race Update’).

We also posted an article about the uselessness of polls in the past (August 30) and we feel vindicated since all polls up until Iowa caucus day predicted close races on both the Democrat and Republican sides – too close to call – was the most used buzzword here. Some polls had some candidates ‘surging’ while other polls simply could not predict the outcome. Add to this the punditry, the highly respected media members who wrote hundreds of articles and reported and opined daily (and some even hourly) on television shows and on talk radio. Not one individual even came close to predicting the real outcome of the Iowa caucuses.

Let us take a closer look:

On the Democratic side, it was assumed to be a three-way race, apparently too close to call and where the outcome would depend on the individual candidate’s campaign machinery and organization. In reality, Barack Obama (U.S. Senator from Illinois) at 38 percent won by an impressive eight percent margin over second place finisher John Edwards (former Senator from North Carolina) who received 30 percent of the vote and by nine percent over Hillary Clinton (Senator from New York) who garnered 29 percent. This was not a race! The margin of victory for Mr. Obama was impressive.

On the Republican side, it was supposed to be a two-way race and ‘too close to call’. Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas received 34 percent of the votes and beat second place finisher Mitt Romney (former governor of Massachusetts) by an impressive nine percent margin. Romney had to settle for 25 percent of the votes cast.

What happened here, how could things go from ‘too close to call’ to landslide margins within a few hours? The answer is very simple in that it is common sense: Polls are NOT reliable and the self pronounced political experts do not really know what is going on but give us their personal and in many instances, unreliable opinions. Instead of analyzing the candidate’s programs and proposals in more detail and then presenting the results of their fact finding to us common folks, they take the easy job of just giving us their opinions and beliefs. From the very start, we here at ‘Consider Common Sense’ have emphasized the importance for everybody to think for oneself and not just accept at face value what others are telling us. We like to recommend this to all you website visitors once again by just using the small example of the Iowa caucus event. And the reliability of polls should also be severely questioned. This will be especially important when Super-Tuesday (February 5, 2008) comes around and when millions and millions of voters in 22 other states will go to the polls to cast their votes.

To us, the Iowa election results have shown several realities. In a state where the black population amounts to no more than two percent, Barack Obama, a first time Senator from Illinois has won an overwhelming victory over an opponent considered to be unbeatable, namely, Hillary Clinton, former First Lady and current Senator from New York. His message, while short on specifics, was nonetheless inspiring and convincing and he deserved the victory. It also indicates that Americans do no longer vote against candidates based on their race and skin color. This is truly remarkable in the face of the continuing attempts to divide us by race and skin color, we here believe that we have overcome those prejudices and that is very good and positive for America.

On the Republican side, the results reflect reality in that a very large number of evangelical voters decided to vote their religion by supporting Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist minister. And yet, 25 percent of the votes were cast for Mitt Romney, a member of the Mormon Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints). Also a positive sign considering the fact that Iowa has a huge population of evangelical Christians and a very small group of Mormons. It will be interesting to see if this pattern will continue into the next 49 primary states, we believe this not to be the case yet we will keep you posted and continue to bring you our analyses.

This article and others on Common Sense Author are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

Iowa Caucus or Circus? is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

There is rarely a day when we are not being told by the media about the latest poll results about any kind of issue, be it nationwide, statewide or local. And like the vast majority of people, we read them and waste no time thinking about them, there is seldom a poll that is at best being acknowledged or talked about for more than a day. There are more important things in life!

In this context, one has to wonder why these various polling firms are ignoring this and just keep on polling, asking the same or different people questions about issues, topics and political candidates. Do they, these pollsters, really believe that we like to know on a daily basis how the nearly twenty presidential candidates are doing in the latest polls? Especially this early in the race with the earliest primaries still nearly five months away and the general election slightly less than fifteen months away.

When we take a closer look at these polls, the sample sizes for the vast majority are at or below a thousand people asked. And then we get with that some accuracy factor of plus/minus 3 to 4 percent, whoopee. In a country with a population of 300 million people, those polls should be taken seriously, right? We don’t think so! Do not get us wrong here at ‘Back to Common Sense’, we do not care that they are polling daily.  However, our question is: Why do the collective media outlets think that we, the population, care about those results and in fact, cannot get enough of them?

Let’s be serious. Does it at this point in time really matter that, for instance, Hillary Clinton is up by 15 or 20 points over Barack Obama in the polls? Or that Rudi Guiliani is ahead in nationwide polls on the Republican side on a certain Wednesday in June or July 2007? These poll results are truly useless to anybody except as advertisement for the campaigns of the various candidates. And yet, they do their own polling and, based on the results of other polls, either believe them or make fun of them as being totally unreliable. So much for that important fact!

Another significant element of polls is the way the questions are posted. Over the many years of nationwide polling these firms have developed ways to make the respondents answer in ways that can tremendously influence the outcome of such polls. We do not think that we have to explain that here. All we are saying is that polls can be and are being manipulated in the way the questions are stated and the cross section of those being polled. Therefore, these early polls are meaningless and we shall treat them as such: Useless! Not until clear choices are in front of people, in other words, when it comes down to the two final presidential candidates or even the presidential tickets in either major party can we expect some kind of approximate accuracy from the polling firms. Especially from those who are using a method of ‘roll-over polls’, this is where they poll daily and combine the results to get firmer results and detect trends, be they upward, steady or downward for candidates. We believe that point in time to be about eleven months away after the Democrat and Republican Party conventions next summer. We will talk polls then!

This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

Uselessness of Polls is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

     The 2006 congressional elections are history….and, they made history! The Democrat Party gained control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1994 and they also got control of the U.S. Senate by winning the necessary seats. While the final votes are still being counted, i.e., the absentee and provisional ballots, the final configuration of the number of House seats for the two major parties is not yet determined. It looks like that the Democrats will have in the end 233 members and the Republican will have 202, a swing of 31 in favor of the Democrats that puts them in charge of the House of Representatives! They needed to gain 15 seats to become the majority party and they won 31, a clear majority.  Source

     In the Senate, the Democrats and the Republicans each had 49 seats but with the two so called ‘Independent’ senators, the Democrats will control the Senate. Joe Lieberman of
Connecticut was a Democrat Senator before he was defeated in the primaries and he ran as an independent and won. The other independent is Bernie Sanders of Vermont, he was a congressman before this election and is considered a Socialist, i.e., to the ‘left’ of most Democrats.

     Without an accurate count of the total votes cast in all 435 House races (over 58 million votes were cast in the 33 Senatorial races), based on precedent, it can be safely assumed that about 70 million Americans voted for candidates running for a House seat. Accepting the premise that Democrats and Republicans voted for members of their respective parties, the 15 percent of Moderates amounted to approximately ten million voters. This is where it becomes interesting:

     Remember, the Democrats needed to take fifteen congressional districts away from the Republicans in order to gain control of the House of Representatives. A closer look at the thirty-one individual races where Democrats won seats formerly held by Republicans brings out an incredible fact: 18 of those 31 races were decided by a total combined vote count of under 130,000 votes in favor of Democrats! That is very close to say the least. Had they gone the other way, the Republicans would have maintained control of the House of Representatives. Again, assuming that these 130,000 votes were cast by Moderates and that about ten million swing voters cast ballots, this is only 1.3 percent of this group, definitely a very minor change in the overall picture.

     In the Senate, the race was even closer. The vote differential in Montana was 2,847 in favor of the Democrat candidate Tester over incumbent Burns and in
Virginia, the difference were 7,231 votes for Democrat Webb over the Republican incumbent Allen. Combined, a vote swing of 10,078 would have given the Republicans 51 seats in the Senate and therefore control of that chamber. Again, assuming that these votes were cast by Moderates, the percentile is even smaller than in the House races (10,078 out of approximately 8.75 million votes equals a tenth of one percent), a very miniscule difference!

     In the coming weeks and months all 2006 election results will be finalized and it will validate the overall outcome as we know it now with the possibility of only minor adjustments. But that does not matter! This year’s election was a close one and we think we demonstrated that above.

     One thing should therefore be understood and accepted by us all: This was not a landslide nor was it a blue wave (the color we attribute to Democrats) or whatever else the Democrats want to call it. Any time control of the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives changes, it is historic.

     Common sense and logical thinking tells us that we should not accept things at face value when presented by the media. It will remain to be seen what the change in Congress will bring us and we might very well be in for interesting times in the next two years.
     This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

Election Result Analysis and Review is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

     The day after the election, President Bush acknowledged that he and his party had taken a “thumpin”. The euphoric pronouncements by the pundits on TV and headlines and articles by the writers for most of the major media outlets hailed the results as ‘historic’, ‘the blue wave’, ‘of landslide proportion’ that gave them similar laudatory and glorified terms. The Democrats themselves announced that in this election, the American people have spoken and given them a clear mandate to govern.

     While the main election theme for the Democrats was “It’s time for a change” without any specifics, they now claim that the American people want an increase in the minimum wage, and end the Iraq war as soon as possible (troop withdrawals to start in four to six months), increasing taxes and allowing current tax law to lapse, i.e., allowing tax rates to go up and some even talk about healthcare for all Americans etc, etc. They believe they can achieve all this because President Bush is now in his last two ‘lame-duck’ years and therefore has to go along.

     We say, Not so fast, let’s give the election results a reality check and let’s start with some basic facts: Everybody should know that the American electorate is comprised of approx. 41-43 percent each of Democrats and Republicans. That leaves about 15% for the group called the ‘Moderates’. While in all elections, the Democrats and Republicans face essentially two choices: To vote or not to vote, they seldom if ever cross party lines to vote for a candidate of the opposite party. It is the moderates who, based on their ideology and flexibility in beliefs, can vote for either party, dependent on how they feel and lean in every election. That is why they are called the ‘swing voters’ and it is true, they swing the elections to either party if the issues are clearly defined.

     It is also a fact that the war in Iraq weighed very heavily on people’s mind, and it should when one considers the constant drumbeat of negative reporting by the media coupled with their, the media membership, overwhelming disdain for President Bush. The botched Immigration legislative attempts were also an issue and to some minor extent elements of corruption and scandal (the four week hype about a Republican house member’s e-mails and instant messages to a ‘page’ in the House of Representatives when he was no longer a ‘page’ was nauseating).  Nevertheless, the composite of these things contributed heavily to the general feeling that things were not going at all that well in
America.

     It can be argued that the Republicans who voted this year were willing to ‘stay the course’ and that they voted Republican because the Democrats gave them really no positive reason to vote for them. It is equally certain that the Democrats voted for their Party because they strongly disliked, if not even hated, President Bush and ‘it was therefore time for a change’ to gain power again in Congress after a dozen years.

     That leaves the moderates, the group in the middle who mostly voted their feelings they apparently accepted the gloomy pictures the media had painted about the war, the President, the so called ‘do-nothing Republican congress’, the corrupt lawmakers who seemed to be Republicans and on and on.

     We believe that it has not given the Democrats a mandate to push for a substantial increase in the minimum wage; nor do we see an immediate withdrawal of troops out of
Iraq as the result of this election. Common sense should tell us that it might serve the Democrats well to be realistic and not overly optimistic when it comes to setting a new agenda as they begin to govern the Legislative branch of the
     United States. The American people have Not given them a blank check for their so called agenda when one considers the above tabulations about the closeness of this election!
     This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

The People Have Spoken is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.