Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Democracy Dysfunction

If you’re American, did you vote on November 4, 2014? I feel it’s my civic duty, so I voted.

As expected, voter turnout was very low - less than a third of registered voters actually voted in many States. In 43 states, less than half the eligible population bothered to vote.

I know a lot of people who didn’t vote; they think that it’s simply not worth voting any more. Their excuses are all in the same vein: “The system is broken”; “It’s a waste of my time”; “It’s a joke”; “I’m not interested”; “I forgot”. You may be interested to look at a pie chart that shows the excuses Americans give for not voting. (1)

Democracy Experiment

Someone said about Democracy, “The combined thinking of hundreds of donkeys cannot produce the wisdom of one man.” Someone else said, “Democracy is dysfunctional – but there’s nothing better”. 

Most historians agree that democracy started in Athens about 2,000 years ago. It took only 250 years for their democratic system to collapse – when privilege, corruption and mismanagement took hold. (2)

About 2,000 years later democracy was launched in America. The U.S. Constitution was defined as a representative democracy – government by popular consent. America grew into the world’s leading power – economically, culturally and militarily. 

In Europe, democracies overtook almost all authoritarian monarchies and dictatorships. Many other countries assumed the democratic form of government. Some are evolving toward one-party, voter-blessed, autocracies; the Communist party controls China autocratically. India is the world’s largest democracy. 

The second democratic experiment is approaching 250 years; it has lasted as long as the first. But the lesson from Athens is that success does not breed success. Democracy is not the default. It is a form of government that must be created with determination and that will disintegrate unless nurtured by leadership. 

Today, in the US and elsewhere, democracy is disintegrating. If these model democracies collapse, it will soon run down elsewhere.

Democracy in distress

Repeatedly the American people are shown how anti-democratic their government really is.  The power of the big business corporate interests is seen regularly with massive corporate welfare and cronyism. Policies are designed to help the corporate and special interests, even if it means undermining jobs at home and expanding the wealth divide. The government is regularly pursuing rigged trade deals.

In America today there is widespread distress about the basic functioning of our democracy. Congress is viewed less favorably than ever before in the history of public opinion polling. When politicians are unable to reach agreement on important things like budget deficits, revulsion is widespread. (3)

A recent poll found that an overwhelming number of Americans agree that the political system is broken and needs to be fixed. It’s evident that there is widespread corruption of government by big money. Many are frustrated with the abuses of the political ruling class: incumbent politicians, lobbyists, the elite media, big business, big banks, big unions, lobbyists and big special interests. These people are more interested in protecting their own power than in doing what’s right for the country and the people. They are systematically rigging the system to serve themselves and they loot the national treasury at the expense of every American.

2014 Congressional Record

The current Congress is on track to be the worst ever since modern record keeping began. The divided House and Senate beat the previous record set during the 2011-2013 session. (4)

Federal Election Commission report found record highs in total outside spending for 2014. “Dark money” (spending by groups that conceal the identity of their donors) was made possible by weak regulations and Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United. This has increased dramatically both in dollar terms and as a percentage of total election spending. In other words, outside money is giving wealthy spenders more power than ever to buy influence over elections.

The key players in our political system, candidates and parties, are not necessarily accountable for outside spending. Non-candidate expenditures are not transparent, which hides the effects. Increasingly, outside spending is a way to avoid (or evade) election regulations – influencing elections without playing by the rules.

Price Tag

The total price tag for the 2014 midterms – an election which almost no one is paying attention to – will be nearly $4 billion. That would make it the most expensive midterm election in history and set the stage for a 2016 presidential contest that could approach double-digit billions in spending. (5)

Television gets the major share of election spending, so it fuels the flames. The 2014 midterm election cycle is the most expensive overall of all time, costing as much as $4 billion for all media in all the races across the country. The spend on broadcast advertising alone from Jan. 2013 until Oct. 23, 2014 is about $1.8 billion, even though there were fewer total ads run than in the past. (6)

Frozen Election Reform

Four years after the Citizens United decision revolutionized campaign finance, the Federal Election Commission still has not written any new rules interpreting what it means for candidates. 

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations has ballooned to a monstrous 200 volumes. This shows that government interference into the private lives of individuals has mushroomed and that our so-called democracy has become a danger to liberty.

Technology Subverted

New technologies, which have the potential to make our government more inclusive and responsive, are instead being applied in ways that challenge the very functioning of our democratic system. (7)

For example: Start with a Google account. In Google’s Ad Settings, there’s a list of “interest categories” assigned based on websites visited. Political campaigns make use of this kind of rich profile every time they purchase advertising from Google or its competitors. It allows campaigns to buy advertising targeting specific types of voters. 

Also, campaigns have rich profiles of their own, built by combining the voter-registration and voter-history information bought wholesale from data brokers as well as mailing list and donor information from campaigns, PACs, and parties. The availability of these rich profiles has changed campaign strategy and tactics.

Delayed Dilemma

Elections always highlight the many ways that democracy is being destroyed, and remind about the solutions that are needed to restore American politics.  But once the dust settles after Election Day, the impetus to fix things fizzles out, as it does after every big election. 

The winners will say there is not a problem because they won. The press starts covering the new administration. And weary voters look ahead to solutions, not back to old problems. That’s how our dysfunctional democracy always seems to limp along until the next major election or a national crisis. (8)

Despite the importance of traditional issues like an weak economy, poor job growth, a failed education system, and a tax system that works for no one, an overwhelming majority of voters recognize the simple reality: it is necessary to fix the broken political system first, before anything can be done to solve other important issues.

Political Polarization Must Stop

The battle lines of the new political order are emerging. When presented with the proposition that “the real struggle for America is not between Democrats and Republicans but mainstream America and the ruling political elites,” over 66% of voters agree. (9)

The vast majority of voters are tuning out the old “conservative vs. liberal” political discussion. Most Americans are not liberal or conservative. They are unified in frustration with the corruption of the political ruling class: incumbent politicians, lobbyists, the elite media, big business, big banks, big unions, and big special interests.

Change or Crash

The American Declaration of Independence proclaims that when a government does not support the rights and needs of the people, then “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Most Americans are fed up with the phony democracy that exists in the United States. Everywhere, people are engaged in democracy rebellions as many re-examine the nation’s roots, especially with the conflicting pressures of the current elections. Have we reached that point? Many think so.  (10)

Most Americans agree that the real struggle for America is not between Democrats and Republicans but the political and wealthy ruling elites.

Fading American Dream

An overwhelming majority say we must recruit and support for public office more ordinary citizens and fewer professional politicians. Not surprising when you consider that most people know that both political parties do what’s in it for them rather than fix our nation’s problems. The voters understand that what needs fixing is the political class.

The American dream is fading. Today, most Americans believe that their children will not have a future better than our present.


1. Most Popular Excuses For Not Voting: http://goo.gl/lG1U7B
2. Is American democracy headed to extinction? http://goo.gl/YejDTZ
3. The Illusion of Democracy in America: http://goo.gl/Ra9MQB
4. Current Congress might be histories worst: http://goo.gl/nxGnlT
5. 2014 will be the most expensive midterm election ever: http://goo.gl/b1zeVZ
6. TV Stations Benefit From Spending Bonanza: http://goo.gl/eqr7Wd
7. Blame Google for America's dysfunctional democracy: http://goo.gl/mk7Ces
8. Six fixes for American democracy: http://goo.gl/AKObXq
9. Infrastructure of American Democracy Is Dysfunctional: http://goo.gl/ol9VGU
10. Democracy can’t be fixed. It’s inherently broken: http://goo.gl/7n63mr

Jim Pinto
5 November 2014


  1. Jim,
    Very well stated. Democracy as it was in the United States is at serious risk of collapse when the electorate becomes apathetic and does not turn out to vote. Without the citizen voter exercising his/her right to choice who and how they are governed, the door becomes that much wider for influence peddlers.

    Esquire Magazine recently convened four ex-congressmen and senators - Senators Tom Dashcle (D) and Trent Lott (R), Congressmen Bob Livingston (R), and Barney Frank (D). They made 22 recommendations which would help the bicamelal system function better, and most are common sense that any businessman would appreciate. I happen to like the first the best. Establish a five day work week. Who would have thought

    Follow the link to the full set of recommendations .



    1. Bruce :

      I read the recommendations - and like them ALL. Clearly something needs to be done. But, if we wait for each of these recommendations to be voted on by House and Senate, it will NEVER happen!

  2. I did not vote because it does not change anything.

    It's just plain and simple as that.

    1. Art :

      That's exactly the reason whyy most people don't bother.

  3. Everywhere in the world, turnouts are down (except where voting is mandatory like Australia),
    A fairer system rather than our (inherited from Britain) first-past-the-post would also encourage better turnouts since in a rep-by-pop each vote is more important.
    And disallowing political contributions by companies, unions, etc and limiting donations to, say, $1,000 (as many nations do) would stop big groups from buying politicians...

    1. Here's an interesting summary link for Compulsory voting:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

      Limiting political contributions: This idea was completely called "Citizens United" (strange name)which spawned the creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from corporate and union treasuries. This unleashed huge amounts of outside spending in the 2010, 2012 and 2014 election cycles.

      As I mention in this blog, "The total price tag for the 2014 midterms will be nearly $4 billion, making it the most expensive midterm election in history. It sets the stage for a 2016 presidential contest that could approach double-digit billions in spending.

      This makes Democracy even more dysfunctional - through unlimited election spending.


  4. The bare truth always hurts. And your article hurts big-time.

    We are now at a junction, possibly a tipping point, where enough people are tired of the "we're the greatest" rhetoric, and because for all the reasons you have laid out, it just ain't so any more, and it's going in the wrong direction.

    We're at (past?) the stage of apathy, and are entering the stage of rebellion. The so called elite should read the history books and dwell on the French Revolution. The American (and some others') populace will eventually riot and rebel, and the revolution may not be polite and bloodless. It would be naive to assume that this cannot happen in the US of A.

    Personally I fail to see how the elite will do anything other than try to maintain the cushy status quo, head firmly in the sand, expecting tomorrow to be as yesterday. Probably one of those monumental miscalculations that future history books will print in bold letters.

    1. I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments - most people are turned off and simply don't vote any more.

      When will apathy turn to rebellion? History has shown that this has happened many times. I agree that it is naive to assume that this won;t happen in the US.

      And YES - the "elite" think that this will continue forever.

  5. I could not vote often, against the law! I could and did vote early. I made some small donations. Big corporate money won.

    1. I'm happy you voted. I did too. But small donations (yours and mine) won't make any impact on the PAC money being spent. And it's getting worse!

  6. "The total price tag for the 2014 midterms – an election which almost no one is paying attention to – will be nearly $4 billion. That would make it the most expensive midterm election in history" - one very depressing comment!

    1. Yes, the 2014 mid-term generated $ 4 billion - watch for the expected $ 10 billion to be spent for the 2016 election.

    2. I expect to see the spend over the next few months.
      What a disaster!

  7. More accuratly, we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Our founders knew very well of the dangers of true democracy. Athens is the usual example used. There a skillful orator would lead the crowd to poor decisions and finally to military campaigns fatal to the city-state..
    Our Constitution specifiies that Senators are to be chosen by the State Legislature for a term of 6 years. The XVII Amendment under Woodrow Wilson changed this to direct election by the citizens of the States, thus making the senators more powerful and making possible the Senator-for-Life we have today. This greatly increases the temptations and dangers of corruption as we have seen.

    1. You're right - America is a Republic, not a Democracy. But, that does not change the enormous spending to affect everyones votes.

      Woodrow Wilson (USA President 1913 to 1921) did not, could not, foresee the damage that his decision has caused - one of the major problems is that elected officials spend too much time raising money to assure their re-election. This puts them in the pockets of lobbyists and wealthy individuals.

  8. Kind of alarming...... compare it to the EU elections..... Low voter turn up every time.
    Stories of EU officials fixing expense accounts to get more money. Dreaming up regulations which only cost money and no one benefits.... Seemingly huge influence by the big corporations. And a continuous self interest driven arguments by member states stifling any decision making... Sounds familiar?

    1. Is this part if Democracy dysfunction everywhere these days??

  9. Voting should be compulsory as it is in Australia - everyone votes or gets
    fined for not doing so.
    This would certainly fix the turnout problem.

    The American Election cycle is far too long. In Australia the campaign is
    relatively short( I think 30-60 days ) so it is just not possible to spend
    that much money in so short a period.

    National Conventions should be eliminated - they are only an opportunity
    to waste more money rubber stamping a decision that has already been made.

    Senators and representatives need to be busy making laws not wasting time
    on raising money for their re-election campaigns. If we could shorten them
    to 30-60 days hopefully they would need less.

    And then perhaps we would have a system that worked better.

    Dick Thompson

    1. I support compulsory voting. It's a civic duty and will help a lot, in my view.

      Yes, the American cycle is far too long. The 2016 Presidential campaigning has already started. Who can stop it??

  10. In France, they have capped the amount spent by anyone in an election. And
    election may be invalidated if over expense or not correctly reported.

    Would this be applicable to US ?

    1. Capped spending - what a wonderful idea!

      The problem is, that change would need to be voted in my Congress and the Senate. So, it won't happen.

  11. In India's 2014 election we had a huge voting percentage intent on throwing out pathetic,incompetent and supremly corrupt government.The systems in the US are not as bad and the common citizen still enjoys the benefits of good governance like free education in pretty decent government run schools,24/7 electricty and water(may not be percieved as benefits in the US) etc.The fact is, citizens in the US enjoy a high standard of living so high level corruption really does not affect them directly execption being the 2008 collapse of the Big Banks leading to financial crisis.May be that is the reason they do not vote.If the two parties cannot fix the issues they must look at other parties(if not available,form one) to take the nation ahead.

    1. In the US is that there is no corruption at all at lower levels. If you try to bribe a policeman, he'll take you to jail.

      Sadly, blatant corruption is widespread only with Congress and Lobbyists. (Definition: Lobbyist - someone whose ONLY job is to lobby!)

      In addition to campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates, companies, labor unions, and other organizations spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington's legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house.

      In 2014, $ 2.41 billion was spent on lobbying, with 11,509 people employed as lobbyists. Link: https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/

  12. Most of the people I know who did not vote should not have voted. They were uninformed (read stupid) about the issues in spite of the 4 billions spent in public education (read advertizing). Legally forcing a person to cast a ballot about issues of which he/she is ignorant only appeals to the dim witted. Anyone have any idea how to make citizens knowledgeable about the issues.

    1. Rodger :

      A LOT of people who did not vote are NOT stupid or uninformed - they are simply turned off - I listed some of the feelings: “The system is broken”; “It’s a waste of my time”; “It’s a joke”; “I’m not interested”; etc.

      The system is very clearly biased by big money. Much of the $4 billion spent was on TV advertising, and most of that on attack ads, not positive information. Intelligent people simply don't have any trust in the fairness of the system.

    2. We have yet to find any system that breaks us free from the "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds". "We" are vulnerable to this regardless of how we arrange ourselves. There will always be those who choose to exploit this vulnerability. The "problem" is not them, it is us! We have yet to find a system which provides an Evolutionary Stable Strategy for "us". [Therefore this system will fail, and it is only a matter of when and how].

  13. Jim--You may not like what I have to say. I am politically far right. I do not think people that are not INFORMED about the issues should even be allowed to vote. This lack of interest on the part of some to vote is in my mind an indication of their ignorance concerning the issues. If one knows how the election will effect them then more than likely they would be INFORMED and they would then vote for their personal benefit.

    I could go on and on concerning this country's situation, but "far right" pretty well explains it all.

    I am very pleased with the results of the election. Now--if Obama would just resign, we would all be better off.

    Lanny Counts

    1. Lanny :

      I'm delighted that you commented on this blog.

      I completely agree with you that people should (MUST) be informed about the issues. Otherwise, they'd be voting "blind".

      The problem is that many people who ARE informed are turned off because of the overwhelming advertising on both sides, with mis-information and negative attacks.

      You seem to be pleased with the results of the recent elections, when about 30% of the people who are eligible to vote actually voted. My point is that 70% did not bother to vote. Sure you don't think that 70% "are not informed". And sadly, most of those who DID vote were polarized by big advertising budgets.

      You are clearly anti-Obama - I am not.

    2. Correct--I am anti-Obama. As you may recall--I strongly believe in "Fair, Right and Good" . Obama does not even understand the meaning of any of these THREE words. He lies by omission, he is only fair when it is too his benefit, and he was not "good" enough to make a short phone call to the prez of Mexico to demand the release of the marine who accidently entered Mexico with guns. With your intellect, I simply do not understand how you could in anyway support a man of such low character. You are tooooo good to accept a person of such low character.

    3. Your have your view, I have mine. Please, let's not make this a rant or a referendum on Obama.

  14. Jim:
    I read your blog and was quite impressed with your analysis. However, I believe that the Supreme Court was correct in its majority decision for Citizens United vs. FEC. The constitution protects free speech which is one of the most important protections citizens can have. Without it, freedom is non-existent.

    The question that has been brought up is does corporations have the right of free speech. I believe you cannot draw the line since corporations come in all sizes from 1-person companies to companies the size of Amazon (which started with just a few people). Why would I lose my right to free speech if I decided to incorporate my business.

    Actually the problem isn't with corporations vs. individuals. It is that some corporations that have lots of money and they wish to use this money to increase their business and even make more money.

    Individuals with lots of money are not considered a problem since they are not a corporation (unless they are running a corporation) and thus do not have reasons to influence the government the way corporations do. However, in many cases, they also have good reasons to influence the government in such areas as taxation and trust law.

    So how do we really allow free speech for all? The answer is quite easy. The best analogy I have to explain this is by referring to another right in the constitution - freedom of religion.

    Because of the importance of freedom of religion for all citizens, the government has accepted what is commonly called a "separation of church and state." That is, the government is not to meddle in the affairs of religion and is not to pass laws controlling religion. Religious freedom is alive and well in our country because of this. Yes, there are continuing issues on displays of religion in public schools and other public facilities, but that is another issue to be left for another blog.

    So why not consider the concept of "separation of commerce and state!" Certainly a strange concept today but our founding fathers operated under this idea even though it was not included in the Bill of Rights. If it was included - or added - the problem of big money influencing the government would not exist.

    Consider a government that cannot pass laws and regulations helping or hindering any business, from a small startup to a major corporation. Even though some rich corporation gives a congressman a million dollars to pass a tariff protecting the corporation's business, the congressman would have no power to do this.

    Yes, just as Separation of Church and State prevents our government from becoming a Theocracy, Separation of Commerce and State would prevent our government from becoming a Oligarchy - which is the direction it is moving into.

    1. Stan :

      Your argument that corporations of all sizes have the right of free speech doesn’t fit this situation. Corporations can be multi-billion-$ companies controlled by just a few individuals. Clearly wealthy people who control large corporations can use their money in ways that jeopardize fairness, legitimacy and honesty.

      The Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4. It’s important to review the 4 dissenting opinions – "The four dissenting Justices were vocal and vociferous: They voiced the concern that allowing unfettered spending by rich corporations will allow those corporations to influence the outcome of elections in sweeping ways.”

      Here are some links that I trust will help:

      Text of the Supreme Court, Citizens United (5:4 decision) dissenting opinion:

      It’s long – here’s the plain English version:

      In my opinion, your comparison to the “freedom of religion” and your argument relating to the separation of church and state, and drawing the analogy to a hypothetical “separation of commerce and state” is abstruse and does not appeal to me.

      Milton Friedman said, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

      Let’s look at the results since the “Citizens United” decision was validated in 2010. After the new law was passed, political spending skyrocketed.

      The 2010 elections saw a record-breaking $489 million spent by outside groups — 4 1/2 times increase over 2006. The new breed of Political Action Committees, so-called super-PACs, started proliferating, spending unlimited sums of money directly to support or oppose candidates.

      The 2012 election cycle cost over $6 billion. The total price tag for the 2014 midterms – an election that almost no one was paying attention to – was nearly $4 billion, the most expensive midterm election in history. It sets the stage for a 2016 presidential contest that could approach double-digit billions in spending.

      Please review this NY Times article:
      How Much Has Citizens United Changed the Political Game?

  15. Jim:

    After reading the literature, my comments still hold. Let me explain from a different point of view.

    I believe in laissez faire capitalism. It is the only system based on individual freedom. If we even had a part of this system in effect, any law that Congress passes that limits that freedom would be overthrown by the Supreme Court.

    Today we have a Socialistic/Oligarchy form of government. All the evils that we see today result from that type of government - a type of government where people in power can pass laws restricting individual liberty. And of course in this type of government, money buys power.

    As Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

    If Congress had no power to remove anyone's freedom by passing laws telling one how to live his or her life, how much money to keep, what to smoke, etc., it would not mean anything for a rich person to influence a congressperson.

    In any case, Jim, we have different philosophies. I suggest we rest our cases rather than continuing to blog back and forth on this issue.

  16. I agree and I disagree. There are those who have said that only those who pay taxes should vote. That disenfranches those who have little. The "voters" who bother me are the mindless who are told how to vote by those who will profit by the election of a specific person, or even worse, party. I believe that Wilson did know how the senate would change when directly elected. It is one of the steps towards moving more power to Washington. A senator elected by the state will better represent his state, and will not be in a position to use his power to ensure a life long career in power and comfort. We all understand how power corrupts all who do not very strong ethics. I will bet that all of us can remember how even a little power creates temptations. Term limits would lead to the loss of a few good leaders, but I believe that on long term balance we all would gain. Then there is the issue of Social Security. Sounds wonderful, I believe that it has led step by step to a belief held by far too many that "Washington cares and will take care of us", that damages the concept that we each need to take care of us and ours. Thus even a little power (I will have income forever) creates the corruption of depending on it. I hate to think about what is going on now in the continuing centralizing of power, which is well known to finally fail. I want to feed the starving, clothe the naked, house the homeless, raise the dead to life, But not with borrowed money. It does not work, finally you go broke and all the bad things happen to everyone.

  17. Your subject is so important that I feel duty bound to expound on the subject of languid voter turnout in America.

    I live in a small semi rural corner of New Mexico adjacent the city of El Paso Texas which has a population of roughly a million persons. I am retired and have plenty of time to converse with and chat up a wide cross section of the locals. They have a variety of views on voting which I shall enumerate in no particular order. For the record this is a heavily Democratic area that just re-elected a republican female Governor.

    Some feel unable to discern the real issues sufficiently from news sources to intelligently cast a vote so they choose to let those who possibly understand the issues better make the decisions. Did you read the 20,000 page Obama care law?

    Some feel the massive advertising campaigns are stampeding party loyals into the polls in such large numbers that a person’s thoughtful vote doesn’t matter anyway. Statistically speaking, stampeding a large number of chimpanzees into pulling red or blue levers will result in a tie. The news will report a “close race” or more dramatically a “hotly contested” one. Chimpanzees are not affected by advertising so statistics will hold.

    Politicians will say any thing to get elected, so no reason to listen to their canned speeches whether in English or Spanish. They cite examples of political lies from local to national levels. They quite naturally remember the most recent lies from the present regime with some older ones recalling Bush senior’s “read my lips, no new taxes”.

    Some younger ones surprise me by noting that Washington doesn’t follow the laws (Constitution) so what difference does voting make anyway? Supreme Court ruling Fine really means Tax is one case.

    One older gentleman, of Spanish decent honestly asked me if the voting levers were actually connected to any thing! What disenchantment for a citizen living in a US State whose motto is “Land of Enchantment”?

    Jim; you are right to rile against low voter turnout and billion dollar advertising campaigns for off year elections but they are only the symptoms of the real disease. The underlying disease is voter disbelief in the effectiveness of the system! Why engage in an exercise in futility? The present objective American voter feels disenfranchised! A disenfranchised citizenry is the seed bed for revolution I fear.

    1. Rodger:

      Thanks for the insightful comments.

      Who could/would ever read the 20,000 pages Obamacare law??

      Yes, the basic facts show that thoughtful people refuse to vote - they simply don't bother. Their "not voting" is a vote against the system.

      Yes indeed, "disenfranchised citizenry" will revolt sooner or later. But how? The "people" rallied against Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin, but with BIG money behind him (much of it from out of state) he won!

      We'll see more and more of the Wisconsin type rallies till something happens - inevitably.

      Stay thinking!