Presidential Elections

Can the Democrats re-craft the original intent of the signers of our Constitution from in-person voting to proxy voting, from voting day to voting week(s), from the electoral college voting to direct popular  voting, from known to unknown voters? Below is the revenant clause from our Constitution about presidential voting ... backed by the assumptions and original intent of its signers. You decide if we are moving too far afield from this document’s clear purpose.

Constitution — Article II Section 1 paragraph 4;

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the day on which they shall give their Votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

STAND UP FOR AMERICA!

Our Next President (It's Not Hillery)

Primary turnout may be a reliable indication of how the two parties can be expected to fair in the following presidential election. This certainly was the case in 2000 and 2008 ... reference the above Pew Research chart (click on to enlarge ... 2016 numbers are updated through March 6, 2016) ... see: Pew Research Numbers for greater detail and explanation. If Republican voters believe those phony AP polls that has Hellery Clinton beating either of their current Republican front runners, they are once again being lead around by the nose by this media malarkey.

Just looking at the above favorable gap between the primary turnout for the Republicans and the Democrats suggests that this November will bring a swing to the Republican candidate just like this surge took place for Obummer in 2008. Even though this gap is not quite as large for the Republicans now as it was for the Democrats then, there still are plenty of primary results to be added to these totals. (This chart could also have been used to predict Bill Clinton's win in 1992. Bush '43's win in 2000, and the contested contest in 2004.)

So, unless the Democrats get all those illegal immigrants to vote for Hellery (possible), it looks like Cruz or Trump will be taking the oath of office next January.

How Many Angels …

can dance on Ben Bernanke’s head?  I just finished watching the Bernanke news conference after the Federal Open-Market Committee (FOMC) meeting yesterday and today … and a vigorous round-robin discussion on CNBC with about eight monetary policy experts.  All the while the stock market sold off over 100 points (at closing, it is now down over 200 points) and the yield on the ten-year note bounced around and then climbed to as much as 2.4%.  This was because Fed Chairman, Bernanke said that, if economic conditions continue to improve in the direction of internal Federal Reserve Bank forecasts, its quantitative easing (QE, or $85 billion monthly purchases of U.S. securities and mortgages) would begin to be scaled back later this year … with the possibility that they would end entirely by mid-2014.

What does this all mean?  Only Big Ben really knows … markets move not just on the absolute direction of interest rates … but on the first, second, and even third derivatives of same.  This is reminiscent of the middle-ages theological discussions about how many dancing angels could fit on the head of a pin … or the Talmudic discussions among Hebrew scholars about the implications of a single scripture word.

One thing investors might be able discern from this calculus … and that is, if Bernanke’s sage words do come true, the Fed will soon be "removing the punch bowl" and our economy should slow down … even from current anemic levels.  This means that the Democrats might have a more difficult time recapturing the House of Representatives in 2014 and maybe even holding onto the Senate … but then, because of the resulting economic bounce, they possibly would have an easier time retaining the presidency in 2016. 

And they say that the Federal Reserve Bank is not political …