If the Election Goes to the House of Representatives

What happens if the presidential election goes to the House of Representatives?
You could be in for a surprise; the process may not work the way you believe.
By: George Noga – March 2, 2016

      MLLG is providing this post as a service to our readers. It is way too early to speculate about the outcome of the election; however, the possibility of a third (or fourth) party candidate is much greater this year. Michael Bloomberg is poised to enter the race and to spend billions of his own money under a variety of scenarios such as a Trump nomination or a Clinton indictment or medical crisis. Trump could run if denied the Republican nomination. There are some other plausible scenarios as well.

    Most Americans know if no candidate receives a majority in the Electoral College, the election goes to the House of Representatives (“House”). Once the election goes to the House however, the process operates much differently than is generally believed. You may want to print this post and retain it for future reference just in case.

    In early January 2017 in a joint session of the new Congress, the President of the Senate opens the Electoral College ballots; tellers count them; and the results are announced by state in alphabetic order. If there is no majority, the Twelfth Amendment prescribes what happens. The House must choose among the top three receiving votes in the Electoral College – the 12th Amendment says this is to be done “immediately”.

    Each state gets one vote regardless of size; Wyoming counts the same as California. To be elected president, the winner must receive 26 votes. Under a rule of the House (not a Constitutional provision) a majority of each state’s delegation must vote for one candidate. Florida has 27 house members; a majority of 14 is needed for Florida’s vote to count. There are 7 states with only one house member (AK, DE, MT, ND, SD, VT and WY); how they vote determines their entire state. If there is no majority (a tie for example) that state’s vote is not recorded. The process continues as long as necessary.

    Meanwhile, the Senate chooses the vice president from the two highest vote getters for vice president. Each senator gets one vote and a majority of 51 is needed for election. There is no requirement that the Senate coordinate its vote with the House and it is possible the president and vice president could be from different parties. Note: The 12th Amendment requires a quorum of two-thirds of the Senate to be present before voting for vice president; thus, any party with 34 senators could prevent a vote.

    The term for President Obama and Vice President Biden ends at noon on January 20, 2017. If the House has not acted by that time but the Senate has, then the Senate’s choice for vice president becomes Acting President. If neither the House nor the Senate has acted by January 20, then the Speaker of the House becomes Acting President with the President Pro Tempore of the Senate next in line.

    The president has been elected only once before under the 12th Amendment. In 1824, a four way election between Andrew Jackson, John Quincey Adams, William Crawford and Henry Clay left Jackson 32 votes short of an electoral college majority. Clay threw his support to Adams and on the first ballot Adams received 13 votes of the 25 states then extant – giving him a bare majority and the presidency.

    The next time you find yourself in a conversation and someone brings up the possibility of the 2016 election going to the House, you will be loaded for bear.

 The next post on March 6th revisits our favorite topic – climate change.

America’s Conflict with Radical Islam Dates to 1785


Visit the new MLLG website; it contains the best posts of all time.
Conflict between radical Islam and America goes back 231 years.
By: George Noga – February 28, 2016

     We will get to America’s first encounter with Islamic terrorists, but first a few words about our new More Liberty – Less Government website. The website now is ready with most writings from mid 2011 to the present already on the website and more being added each week. Eventually, there will be over 75 past posts plus all 2016 posts. The website already has experienced thousands of hits even though I have yet to mention it in a post. Moreover, our posts now show up in Google searches (especially our Guns in America series). Go to www.mllg.us and you will find the following:

  • A heading titled “About MLLG & Author” with much background information
  • Most posts from mid 2011 to the present – more being added all the time
  • Chronological and topical indexes plus a “Search Window” for finding posts
  • The best posts of all time and the best series of all time
  • All the most recent (2016) postings in order of publication
  • A portal to subscribe to the blog so you will receive all posts via email
  • Links to all the usual social media

    You will find extensive information about MLLG and also about yours truly, including some things that may surprise you. If you enjoy reading our posts, you will enjoy browsing the website and finding all our most popular posts and series including: Defining Liberalism, IQ in Society and Public Policy, The Gods of the Copybook Headings and many about climate change including Warming Throughout the Solar System. It also is a great way for your friends and associates to learn about our work.

America’s First Encounter with Muslim Terrorism

     In 1785 (231 years ago) Dey Muhammad of Algiers declared war on the United States and captured several American ships. Soon thereafter,  John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, American diplomats in London at the time, requested a meeting with the ambassador from Tripoli regarding piracy by the Barbary States. The meeting took place in early 1786 and Adams and Jefferson sent a letter dated March 28, 1786 summarizing the meeting to John Jay, at that time the US Secretary of Foreign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation.

    Adams and Jefferson asked the ambassador why the Barbary States made war upon the United States which had done them no injury. Adams and Jefferson went on to say that America considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador’s response to Adams and Jefferson as contained in their letter to John Jay is excerpted in the following paragraph.

     “The actions of the Barbary States are founded on the laws of our Prophet, Mohamed. It is written in our Koran that all nations who do not acknowledge our  authority are sinners. Therefore, it is our right and our duty to make war upon such infidels wherever they can be found and to make slaves of all that are taken prisoner. Moreover, any Muslims slain in battle are sure to go to paradise.

     Eventually, the US fought two Barbary wars in 1801-1805 and again in 1815-1816. In the first war, a combined land and naval assault by the US Marine Corps on Tripoli won the war; in the second, the US Navy, led by Commodore Steven Decatur, forced a peace treaty on the Barbary States. Thereafter, the Barbary States did not capture any more US ships although they continued to pillage and plunder those of other nations.

     Not much has changed in over 230 years; is there a lesson here from the past?

 The next post revisits our favorite topic – climate change; it is not to be missed!

The Origin of Government

Economic means must precede political means; production must precede
consumption; how prehistoric economies led to the origin of government.
 By: George Noga – February 21, 2016

    Economic means must precede political means. That axiom by Tom Palmer explains why there are no governments among primitive societies. They have leaders but never a state. Hunter-gatherers and nomads don’t generate enough of an economic surplus to support a permanent predator class. Nonetheless, such societies were victimized by roving bandits (precursors of government) who moved on once they plundered what little was available. There was no reason for them to stay. Also nomads and hunters were not stationary and hence not easy targets for predators.

    Everything changed once people settled permanently and established agriculture. Now they generated a regular economic surplus and were vulnerable because they had to remain in one location. Once again, roving bandits came, pillaged and plundered. However, the bandits were not stupid; they grasped the opportunity. Now there was a reason for them to stay and to plunder permanently. Hence, roving bandits morphed into stationary bandits who, through sheer force, subjugated the people and kept out other roving bandits. They thereby acquired and enforced a monopoly on physical violence within a given territory and, voila, government was created.

    The etiology is clear enough. An economic surplus is an a priori condition for the existence of a state. Government cannot exist without entrepreneurs; they have to build it before government can plunder it. Without those who invest, take risks and build businesses, government could not exist. Even the earliest farmers had to invest (plant seeds, tend crops) and take risks (drought, pestilence) while the now-permanent bandits did nothing constructive and often imposed obstacles to hinder productivity.

    Things are no different today. Permanent bandits, who now sanctimoniously go by titles such as kings, emperors, presidents and prime ministers, plunder through their enforced monopoly on violence. America is little different simply because our rulers govern with the pro forma consent of the governed. They call themselves mayor, governor, congressman or president but they behave like the bandits of yore. They plunder from the rest of us to enrich themselves in many ways – licit and illicit.

    Some like Barack Obama (“You didn’t build that”) and Hillary Clinton (“Businesses don’t create jobs“) have the sheer chutzpah to claim government is the source of economic success. Even barbarians of prehistoric times clad in animal skins would have found that absurd; lacking economic knowledge, they nevertheless understood that plunderers did not help the plundered create their businesses. They also viscerally understood Say’s Law that production must always precede consumption, i.e. there was nothing to be plundered until someone produced something.

    We might even be better off today with the bandits of ancient times. Sometimes they got sated and left us alone. Some grasped that plundering less today caused the economy to grow faster so they could plunder more tomorrow, thus benefiting both plunderers and plunderees. Bandits understood imposing arbitrary rules, regulations and creating uncertainty was counterproductive to the amount of plunder. Our current crop of stationary bandits never gets sated and is less enlightened than its ancient barbarian predecessors who stormed down from the steppes of Central Asia.

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
The next post describes America’s first encounter with Islamic terrorism – 230 years ago.
Do you know what it was?

Guns in America – Summary and Conclusions


Facts about guns are far different than most believe. Gun violence is down 50%; we
compare favorably with other countries; solutions are possible if we abandon dogma.
By: George Noga – February 14, 2016

     There is one overarching reality about guns in America. The Constitution grants Americans the right “to keep and bear arms” (underlining added). Thus we have a right not just to own guns but to bear them, i.e. to hold and to carry them. The Second Amendment is broadly misunderstood as being about target shooting, hunting, militias or self defense. It has nothing to do with any of these. According to well documented and copious references, the framers understood the second amendment as a political right for citizens to protect their liberty against tyrannical government.

     Guns are a political and cultural flash point exacerbated by media anti-gun bias. The facts are far different than widely believed. Gun violence is down 50% in 20 years. Most (60%) gun deaths are suicide; other causes include police, self defense, mental illness, crime and accidents. Homicides are a distinct minority. Guns stop crime 2.5 million times a year and have stopped a terrorist attack (Texas) and numerous rampage shooters. The ratio of murders to guns has plummeted 70% providing prima facie  evidence that more guns do not result in more crime.

     Liberals like to talk about gun control because their vapid dogma has no solutions to Islamic terrorism, horrific public schools, economic stagnation or mass shootings. They live in plastic bubbles and go through life without ever knowing a gun owner. They only hear about guns in connection with crime. They can’t imagine the many places where guns are a normal part of life. Paradoxically, gun violence is greatest where there is long-term liberal governance and uber-strict gun laws.

     Most Americans (and foreigners) believe gun violence in America is much worse than in other developed countries. Yet, most of America compares favorably with Canada, England, Europe and Asia. Many places in America are safer than all of the aforementioned places and some are safer than Australia, which forcibly confiscated guns in 1996. Gun crime is a regional issue; national gun laws are largely irrelevant. There is no correlation whatsoever between gun violence and gun laws.

     There are actions we can take immediately to reduce mass shootings. The biggest impact would come from treating or institutionalizing possibly violent schizophrenics. The copycat effect is real and fueled by over-the-top media coverage of mass shootings which contributes to future shootings. The media could report the news without sensationalizing it to attract other psychopaths. We can implement the successful run/hide/fight strategy that businesses have used to reduce workplace shootings by 70%. Gun free zones are an open invitation for mayhem and must be eliminated. Finally, we can change the culture and restore the guardrails for society.

     The sine qua non for progress against gun violence is to make guns non-political and non-ideological as we have with tobacco. As a corollary, there must be a laser-like focus on truth, logic and real world solutions. Myths and shibboleths about guns must be abandoned no matter how comfortable they are to intellectuals, the media and political, religious and cultural elites. The alternative is Groundhog Day where after each inevitable tragedy we perform the same kabuki and nothing ever will change.

The next MLLG post describes the origin of government – don’t miss this one!

Guns in America – Minimizing Mass Shootings


Some mass violence is inevitable; however, it can be greatly reduced if we take off
our political and ideological blinders. This post shows the way to achieve that goal.
By: George Noga – February 7, 2016

     Following are five actions we can take to reduce mass gun violence; they are listed in the order of importance, i.e. the most effective are listed first.

1. Treat or institutionalize the violently mentally ill. Imagine living in a country where those with advanced dementia wander the streets without medical care, food or shelter. Imagine such a policy was based strictly on political dogma? That is precisely America’s policy for untreated violent schizophrenics. The 70,000 untreated and potentially violent mentally ill are condemned to tortured lives – and all in obeisance to liberal dogma. When there is a shooting by one of these miserable souls, liberals blame it on guns – also in obeisance to their dogma. Progressives refuse to institutionalize or force treatment due to their twisted beliefs. Since 1960, beds in US public psychiatric hospitals are down 90% despite an increase in population of 150 million.

2. Reform media coverage. Media should begin its reform with honest reporting about guns, including the 2.5 million times each year legal guns prevent or stop crime and all the mass shootings that were stopped by guns (listed in Part I). The key media reform is reducing the copycat effect caused by their over-the-top 24/7 reporting. When there is a copycat shooting, the media blame it on guns, ignoring their own culpability. The copycat effect is real and well documented since 1774 when Goethe’s classic, The Sorrows of Young Werther, resulted in a spate of copycat suicides.

3. Eliminate gun free zones. Signs proclaiming gun free zones are welcome mats for rampage killers. Gun free zones increase the danger to those within. The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 needs to be repealed. We need to make school choice universal so parents can choose to send their kids to a school where they are safe. How many liberals would then choose to send their children to a gun free school or to erect a sign in their front yard proclaiming: This home proudly is a gun free zone?

4. Learn from business. Mass killings in the workplace are down 70% in the past 20 years and without any changes to gun laws. Only 5% of recent shootings have involved businesses, which have become adept at understanding personality and risk. Most businesses use the run-hide-fight paradigm; they don’t ignore threats; they have violence prevention programs and they practice deterrence. They change the calculus in a killer’s mind that he will be able to control events until the SWAT team arrives. And yes, that involves guns. Corporate shootings are way down because businesses are non-political, non-ideological and are interested only in real solutions.

5. Change the culture. We have lowered standards for personal and civil conduct; long established rules, limits and barriers have been ignored and destroyed. We have removed all the guardrails for our society. When standards are lowered, those at society’s margins go off the tracks. Intellectual, political, media, cultural and religious elites need to rediscover good manners. Progressives need to bestir themselves and consider the effects of the vitriol they have injected into the public discourse.

We must recognize some mass killings are inevitable and not consternate over every one in a never-ending, in-your-face, 24/7 news cycle. There is much we can do now to reduce rampages. Taking the five actions outlined herein is a great place to begin. First, however, we must shed liberal shibboleths about guns and move forward in a non political, non dogmatic manner. We need a laser-like focus on truth, logic and real solutions, even if that means abandoning cherished myths about guns in America.

 Next up is Part IV – the final in our series: Guns in America.

Guns in America – Comparison to Other Countries


Comparisons to other countries prove beyond reasonable doubt that
gun violence is not related to gun laws or to the number of guns.
By: George Noga – January 31, 2016

    Gun ownership is a political right enshrined in our Bill of Rights for citizens to defend their liberty against tyrannical government. However, the second amendment states Americans have a right “to keep and bear arms” (emphasis added). It is thus a Constitutional right not only to own guns but to bear them, i.e. to hold or carry.
Source Note: The following data are from Pew Research, World Bank, UN and FBI.

     Pew reports the US homicide rate has halved over the past 20 years as population increased 60 million, guns 100 million and concealed/open carry rose. The murder rate in America is the same as in 1950. The ratio of murders to guns has fallen 70%. Due to anti-gun media bias, however, most Americans believe murder rates are soaring.        

    We begin by comparing New Hampshire (“NH”) to its neighbor, Quebec. NH enjoys the US second amendment but also has permissive gun laws, as should be expected of a state with the motto: Live Free or Die. Canadian gun laws are uber-strict with prohibitions against certain type guns and a national gun registry which includes handguns. Moreover, Quebec has the toughest gun laws in Canada. Surprise! Homicide rates in New Hampshire and Quebec are identical. New Hampshire and many other states are among the safest places on Earth for homicides. The NH homicide rate is even lower than Australia’s, which forcibly confiscated guns in 1996.

     It is not just Quebec and NH. British Columbia has one of the lowest homicide rates in Canada but 9 US states are equal or lower while 23 states have a rate equal or lower than Manitoba, which is average for Canada. In the US and Canada, the 5 highest murder rates are in 2 US states and 3 Canadian territories. Of states/provinces with the lowest homicide rates, some have permissive gun laws and some are restrictive; it is the same for states/provinces with high homicide rates. There is no correlation between homicide rates and gun laws; differences in murder rates are not the result of gun laws.

    Let’s take a peek at our other neighbor, Mexico. There is virtually no legal access to guns in Mexico; there is only one gun store in the entire country. Mexico’s weapons laws are so Draconian, the US embassy advises visiting Americans not to carry even a pocket knife. Nevertheless, the homicide rate in Mexico is 300% that of the US.

    Much of the US compares favorably to the rest of the developed world. The homicide rates in Europe, Asia and Australia range between 1 and 2 per 100,000; this is higher than NH with 1 murder per 100,000 people. Many other states also compare favorably. Even countries that confiscate guns experience little or no change in the overall homicide rate. Gun homicides may decrease slightly relative to total homicides, but the overall rate is unaffected. Changing the instrument by which you are murdered is not worth forfeiting your gun rights. Some conclusions jump out.

  • The homicide rate in much of the US is roughly the same as in Canada, England, Europe, Asia and Australia despite the vast differences in gun laws.
  • Parts of the US (and Canada) have higher (some much higher) homicide rates due to regional differences and irrespective of gun laws and gun availability.
  • Homicides rates are regional in nature; thus, national gun laws are irrelevant. In North America 3 of the 5 worst places for homicides are in Canada.
  • National and local gun laws and even confiscations are irrelevant to homicides.
  • Draconian gun restrictions (Mexico) do not prevent rampant homicide.
  • Easy access to guns does not lead to an increase in the murder rate and, in fact, coexists with a rapidly falling murder rate. More guns, less crime?
Part III of Guns in America is next; it offers solutions to mass shootings.

Was 2015 The Hottest Year Recorded? Not So Fast!

Climate change acolytes and their yellow dogs in the media are flogging
2015 as the hottest year ever. This is a factual, objective look at the data.
By: George Noga – January 27, 2016

     One objective of the new MLLG blog is to be more attuned to current events. The media frenzy flogging 2015 as the warmest year on record and stoking global warming panic demands a timely response. Following are the facts and nothing but the facts.

Some data (surface readings) do indeed show last year as the warmest, although satellite data do not support that finding. What is not being reported is the temperature rise in 2015 was wholly the result of a powerful El Nino that began in early 2015 and hence influenced temperature for the entire calendar year. Without the El Nino effect, 2015 would have been another hum-drum year with no observed warming.

The warmest prior year on record had been 1998, not uncoincidentally the year of the last powerful El Nino which raised temperature .25 degrees over 1997. However, in 1999 when El Nino transitioned to La Nina, global temperature fell .30 degrees, more than offsetting the 1998 increase. Usually (but not always) the subsequent La Nina cooling is greater than the El Nino warming. Thus, temperatures in 2016 or 2017 will revert to where they were before the 2015 El Nino. Note: It may be 2017 only because the transition to La Nina will not coincide well with the calendar year.

Temperatures since 1998 (and data since the Little Ice Age) match up well with a solar caused, non anthropogenic climate model. There has been a secular warming trend for 150 years which began well before carbon dioxide was a factor. The warming has been moderate and non-linear, often with long periods of little or no change. There even have been intervals of cooling; witness the global cooling panic of the 1970s. With adjustments for El Nino, global temperatures for the most recent 20 year period have been flat and comport extremely well with the secular warming climate paradigm.

     Moreover, the gestalt of climate change fits the secular-solar model whereas computer models based on CO2 all yield wrong results. No computer model to my knowledge ever has been updated. Ponder that for a moment; there have been no changes to the models for 20 years despite highly contradictory real world data.

     There have been no updates to the computer models for one reason only. It is impossible to create a computer model that incorporates the actual results of the past 20 years while simultaneously projecting any significant global warming scenario. It is impossible because climate change is a solar phenomenon unrelated to CO2.

Bien-pensant climate fanatics and their media sycophants tout the temperature in 2015, the recent blizzard-of-the-century and any extreme weather event to support their climate religion. Yet, facts are stubborn things and they unambiguously tell us there has been no warming err, climate change for 20 years – net of El Nino.

Are there any climate religion fanatics out there willing to risk some of their own money on a significant wager that temperatures will not revert to the pre El Nino pattern in 2016 or 2017?  If so, I just may be able to get you some action.

The next post resumes our Guns in America series; look for it in a few days.

Guns in America – Liberal Bogeyman

Progressives use guns as a bogeyman because they do not have real solutions. They
won’t confront the reality of evil so they inveigh against the instruments of evil.
 By: George Noga – January 24, 2016

     To begin this Guns in America series, there is one categorical truth to be chiseled in granite. The right to own and bear arms is not about target shooting, hunting, militias or even self-defense. It is first and foremost a political right put in the Constitution specifically for citizens to protect their liberty against tyrannical government. The literature is rife with quotes from the founding fathers to that effect.

Let’s turn to President Obama’s recent actions. First some history. The 1968 Gun Control Act mandated gun sellers obtain a federal firearms license even if they sold only a few guns from home. President Clinton changed that in 1994 by requiring a storefront operation for retail sales but licensing exemptions for other gun sales. Fast forward to 2016; Obama reversed Clinton, claiming storefronts are irrelevant and mandated home, gun show, flea market and internet sellers be licensed. All Obama has done is take the country back to where it was 48 years ago – basically rearranging the furniture. Predictably, this will have absolutely no effect on anything.

Gun control is a progressive kabuki. Liberal politicians dog whistle to their base but kowtow to the 42% of gun owning households. They promote toothless incremental changes. When the inevitable tragedy occurs, they resort to the same antediluvian canards knowing they will fail and then blame the NRA when it happens.

Despite all evidence and logic against it, gun control has become part of the liberal pantheon along with climate change, organic food and recycling. Following is but a partial list of the contradictions and disingenuity inherent in their beliefs.

  • No Obama action would have prevented any mass shooting. Reporters asked Josh Earnest (Obama press secretary) at a news conference to name any mass shooting that would have been stopped by Obama’s actions; he couldn’t.
  • Gun homicides in America decreased by nearly 50% since 1993; gun violence not resulting in death plummeted by way over half. This happened while population increased 60 million and gun ownership proliferated.
  • Over half of gun deaths are suicides and fewer suicides are from guns than from prescription drugs. The US suicide rate is similar to countries with strict gun laws and is far below paradigms of gun control such as Japan and South Korea. The ultimate liberal contradiction is they favor assisted suicide and euthanasia all the while railing shamelessly against gun suicides. Go figure.
  • Gun violence is greatest where there is liberal governance with uber-strict gun laws; think, inter alia, Chicago, Washington, Cleveland and Detroit.
  • Guns are used 2.5 million times a year to stop or prevent crimes. The only time terrorists were foiled was in Texas by an armed off-duty cop. Other mass killings stopped by armed citizens: Appalachian State, Shoney’s, Pearl Mississippi High School, Clackamas Mall, Edinboro School and New Life Church.
  • Broken window policing (gun control for bad guys) was working until liberals put an end to it. They don’t just want the bad guys’ guns, they want yours.
  • Liberals’ revulsion of guns is cultural. They live in a plastic bubble and never meet gun owners. They hear of guns only in connection with crimes. They are arrogant and condescending such as in “clinging to their guns and religion“.
  • Every time the left has a paroxysm over guns, there is a rush to buy more guns and ammo. It is a godsend to gun stores; you’d think they would learn.

Liberals use guns as an imaginary monster because they have no real solutions to problems such as Islamic terrorism, failing schools, a torpid economy or mass shootings. They just trot out their same fusty, doctrinaire, dog-eared shibboleths.

Next up is Part II – Guns in America compared to Canada and other countries.

Keys to the 2016 US Presidential Election

By: George Noga – January 17, 2016

  With Iowa caucuses two weeks away, now is a good time to present some perspective about the forces that will shape the final outcome in November. There are three general electoral keys that have stood up from Washington’s time to today.

  1. There are no permanent majorities in America: Progressives and the media dream the present demographics of race, gender, age and class will result in a permanent majority. They are ignorant of history and the genius of Madison’s Constitution. These are the same folks who consternated in 1988 that the GOP enjoyed a permanent majority. Issues, positions, alliances and demographics continually shift and minority parties skillfully adapt.
  2. The longer a party is in power, the more likely it is to lose: The odds get ever and ever higher that a party will lose the longer it holds office. Only once in the past 150 years (Reagan-Bush Sr.) did the same party succeed a full two-term president. Americans like change and understand power corrupts.
  3. Economics trumps all else: Remember Bill Clinton’s mantra “It’s the economy, stupid“? People talk about other issues but vote their pocketbook. The US is experiencing chronic stagnation and many key economic metrics have tanked. Business is not investing due to higher taxes, hyper regulation and uncertainty. When the Democrats soak the rich, they drown the middle class.

Following are some electoral keys specific to the current political landscape.

  1. Polling as we know it is dead: Polling also is unreliable, often fraudulent and manipulated by the media. Statistics are fine for randomly picking a few marbles from a jar and making accurate inferences about the contents of the entire jar. Political polling no longer works because 40% of Americans have no land lines; caller ID screens calls; phones are used only for outgoing calls and when someone does answer, they refuse to be interviewed. Gallup and Pew have given up and will not conduct any presidential primary polls in 2016.
  2. ObamaCare remains wildly unpopular: The recent Kentucky election is a case in point. Four days before the election for governor, the Democrat (Conway) led the Republican (Bevin) by 3 points; for senate, the Republican (McConnell) led by 7 points. Bevin won by 9 points – a swing of 12 points and McConnell won by 15 points – an 8 point swing. All or most of this swing is attributable to voter dissatisfaction over ObamaCare which Bevin made a huge issue.
  3. Demographics cut both ways: Democrats may enjoy an edge among certain ethnic, age and gender groups; however, in the 2014 election, Republicans made notable gains among Hispanics, women, Asians and millennials. It will be easier for Republicans to make further gains in these groups (and gains among black voters) than it will be for Democrats to increase their support among white males, which is at 35% and in free fall. Moreover, it is apparent that race, class, gender, age and economic warfare are losing their effectiveness.

I close with two final keys: (1) Real votes trump polls. After Iowa and New Hampshire, real people casting real votes will result in clarity that cannot be found in any poll. (2) It is far, far too early. In 1988 Dukakis led Bush by 17 points and Bush won by 7 points, a swing of 24 points in a short time. Reagan trailed Carter into October of 1980 and in November won by 10 points and carried 44 states.


Barring a meltdown by one party or the other, it will be a dogfight and we are not likely to have a good idea of the outcome until at least some time in October.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The next post will be part I of our multi-post series entitled, Guns in America.

  Part I explains why guns are a liberal bogeyman. Don’t miss this provocative series.


My Days with Jeb Bush and Rand Paul 

By: George Noga – January 10, 2016

     I have spent the better part of entire days one-on-one with Jeb Bush and Rand Paul; this is a simple account of the time I spent with each. Let’s begin with Jeb.

In the 1990s I founded the first school choice program in Florida by raising money to pay for private school for disadvantaged kids. The program was an instant success and I asked Jeb to speak at our inaugural banquet. While conversing with Jeb at the dinner, he asked if there was anything further he could do to help. Not being one to pass up an opening of such magnitude, I averred that since we had a waiting list of over 2,500 children, he could help me raise more money to fund these kids.

Without a moment’s hesitation, Jeb committed a day of his time to help raise money. The arrangements soon were made; I was to pick up Jeb at the airport one morning and drop him where he had a speaking engagement later that afternoon. Jeb was by himself, without staff or security, and we spent the day driving from meeting to meeting with heads of foundations and corporations. Jeb was well briefed and did his best to help me raise money. He solicited my thoughts about how best to expand school choice in Florida. He always was pleasant, modest and unassuming.

Jeb later got a corporate tax credit scholarship bill through the legislature permitting businesses to obtain dollar-for-dollar tax credits for donations to qualified scholarship funding organizations such as the one I started. Fast forward to 2016; the organization I founded now raises $300 million annually to fund nearly 70,000 scholarships for children from poor families attending failing government schools.

My day with Rand Paul occurred recently. Senator Paul and his family had planned a vacation to Disney World and, being a low handicap golfer, he wanted to play a great course while here. I serve as co-chair of the Center-Right Coalition of Central Florida and am known in political circles; further, my son had once done volunteer work for the senator. To complete this circle, I happen to belong to a club with a highly regarded golf course. The arrangements soon were cemented.

Rand drove his wife and children from Kentucky to Orlando without staff or security, He arrived at my club precisely on time. We practiced, played 18 holes (sharing a golf cart) and had a two hour lunch afterward. He never once used or even looked at any electronic device. He was an accomplished golfer and shot his handicap on a difficult golf course. At lunch, where we were joined by a few others I had invited, he solicited advice from each person about what needed to be done for the good of the country and answered all questions in a straightforward manner.

Both Jeb and Rand met Teddy Roosevelt’s famous approbation of “Hale fellow, well met“. They were unerringly pleasant, modest and solicitous of others. They did exactly what they said they would. Our beloved republic would be in good hands with leaders that had the character of Jeb Bush and Rand Paul.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The next MLLG post identifies the keys to the 2016 election – look for it in about a week