Category Archives: Transhuman News

Michele Bachmann: Early in the 2012 presidential race, U.S. Rep. Bachmann looked like she might have an edge in Iowa. She became the first woman to win the Iowa Republican straw poll, edging out Texas congressman Ron Paul and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who finished third. But it was a dubious predictor of the caucus: She finished sixth, dead last, and dropped out of the race the next day. She may have helped nix the straw poll, too: Iowa Republicans have since dropped the tradition.

Tim Pawlenty: No Iowa straw poll would have been good news for Pawlenty, who ended his campaign in August 2011 shortly after finishing in third place. The former two-term Republican governor had been burning through campaign cash all summer, and his team hoped a decent finish in the poll could keep them going for at least a few more weeks. He dropped out the day after the poll and shortly afterward threw his support behind the eventual Republican nominee, Mitt Romney.

Walter Mondale: Vice President Mondale was so overwhelmingly the favorite for the Democratic Partys nomination in the 1984 Iowa caucus that most of the news focused on who would finish second. He won in a landslide in Iowa with 49% of the vote. The second-place finisher, former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, pulled in roughly 16% support. Hart rode his surprise finish into another surprise victory in New Hampshire but Mondale was still the eventual Democratic nominee that year.

Hubert Humphrey: President Lyndon Johnsons unexpected late withdrawal from the presidential race in 1968 meant a late start for the vice president and former U.S. senator. He missed earlier state primaries, and Iowa didnt do an early caucus back then. Instead, he relied on prominent figures in the labor movement and Democratic Party to help him win over delegates. He eventually landed the nomination, beating another Minnesotan, Sen. Eugene McCarthy, in the process.

See original here:
How other Minnesotans have fared in Iowa - Minneapolis Star Tribune

On November 22nd of last year, the US government announced it would impose sanctions on Irans information minister for his alleged role in limiting domestic Internet access while protests raged in that country over increases in gas prices.

At the time, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin condemned the Iranian government for censuring information that Iranian citizens could view online, stating that, Irans leaders know that a free and open internet exposes their illegitimacy, so they seek to censor Internet access to quell anti-regime protests.

The Iranians were evil, said the US government official in charge of economic sanctions, because it restricted what its citizens could read in the international press.

Our government would never do thatright?

Wrong. Yesterday, the US government knocked Irans state news agency, FARS, off of the Internet entirely, citing US sanctions against the country.

What that means is the Iranian news service is being censored by the United States government and that Americans will therefore no longer be able to see anything from this foreign media outlet.

Exactly what Mnuchin accused Iran of doing back in November.

Zerohedge writes, as Irans PressTV describes further:

The news agency said that it had received an email from the server company, which explicitly said that the blockage is due to an order by the Treasurys Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and its inclusion in the list of Specially Designated Nationals (SDN).

The agency attached to its post a screenshot of its website with the message http://www.farsnews.coms server IP address could not be found."

Americans are not allowed to see the Iranian perspective on the Middle East because the Beltway bombardiers and their bosses in the military-industrial complex depend on successfully demonizing all Persians so that Americans will accept their annihilation in another neocon war. If Americans are allowed to see the Iranian perspective they might not be so supportive of the slaughter the neocons are cooking up.

The bottom line is this: the US Administration cites Irans restricting of outside media as evidence of the evil nature of the Iranian government, all the while scrambling to restrict American citizens access to Iranian media outlets.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Hypocrisy.

Daniel McAdams is director of the The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity. Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

Excerpt from:
The Unbearable Hypocrisy of US Sanctions on Iran - Antiwar.com

The 2020 Democratic primary contest has not yet begun, and yet several contenders have already experienced what some commentators have called a surge, where their polling numbers rise dramatically in a relatively short period of time. Peter Finn and Robert Ledger write that the term is a catch-all which hides a diverse collection of reasons as to why a candidates support may increase at the national or state level. Such surges should be read with caution, they advise, as success in certain states or even nationally may still not mean a candidate will clinch the partys nomination.

Even casual followers of US politics over the last year will likely have been struck by continual discussions of Democratic presidential candidates surging in the polls. In July 2019, for instance, California Senator Kamala Harris surged in polls following a strong debate performance, in September Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren surged, whilst former Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigiegs much vaunted surge in Iowa in November generated a seemingly endless stream of headlines.

Even early in 2020, we have seen talk of a (Vermont Senator) Bernie Sanders surge, a Tom Steyer surge and discussion of how the large amounts being spent by billionaire candidates like Michael Bloomberg, and Steyer, is leading to shifts in voter preferences by the spending of eye-watering amounts of cash. Slate even publish a weekly email newsletter on the presidential election called The Surge.

Yet, beyond being a continual driver of traffic to news sites via the production of, often over the top headlines, the much vaunted surge is actually a catch-all term used as short-hand for a complex group of processes that lead to a rise in the poll numbers of a candidate in a short period.

Perhaps the best-known, subsequently lampooned, surge primary was for the Republican nomination in 2012 when Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee and Herman Cain all had a brief (or extended) moment in the sun at the top of the opinion polls. Yet, Mitt Romney, who was consistently near the top of the pile and never really had a significant surge, won the nomination.

However, even within a single race surges, generally understood as a rise in the poll numbers of a candidate within a short time period, can occur for a variety of complex reasons. They can, for example, be national or state centric phenomena (either of which may be the result of the actions of a candidate on a national or state stage), or could happen as a new candidate enters the fray and draws supporters away from those already established in the race: especially if a new entrant is a well established player or has deep pockets. Conversely, a surge may arise when a candidate drops out and others seek to pick up their supporters. One explanation for the recent surge of Bernie Sanders, for instance, is that he has picked up Kamala Harris supporters. In another scenario, within a race of established candidates, some may rise as they attempt to coax supporters from their opponents.

A surge can be a short-lived sugar high, with candidates falling back to their prior position relatively quickly or lead to a sustained rise in poll numbers and the establishment of a new equilibrium in a race. The phenomenon can occur at precinct, city, district, state or national level and within intra-party primaries or in races between candidates from opposing parties. Moreover, given that disparities can exist between polls and reality (whether resulting from the under-polling of certain groups, respondents giving false answers or the misreading of what is animating voters in any particular election), it is likely some surges go unnoticed (the if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it of surges, so to speak).

Though this is a far from an exhaustive list of how, when and where a surge can occur, it does start to demonstrate the complex set of processes that are subsumed under discussions of the surge label.

A surge can lead to increased media coverage, which could lead to further support, creating that elusive political currency, momentum. Nevertheless, surges should be read with caution. If the surge is limited within certain states, there is less likelihood that it will translate to the nomination. Pete Buttigieg, for instance, has surged in the early primary states but his candidacy could still be sunk if he cannot take any early momentum to, for instance, Nevada and South Carolina, in subsequent primaries. Likewise, an increase in the overall, nation-wide, horse-race polls could be misleading as, essentially, the primary will be won in only select states, with more influence falling to those earlier in the calendar. Seeing a surge in support in New Jersey, for example, (2020 Democratic primary date June 2nd) is probably too late in the election cycle to be consequential.

Candidates behind in the polls can attempt to manufacture a surge in the near term or, kicking the can further down the road, argue they will surge at the right moment. It might be that some candidates really are playing a long game and have built such future surges into their theory of the case. There is, of course, little point in moving into the top tier of candidates early on in a gruelling race, only to see your stature diminished as other candidates target you. That said, one should certainly maintain cynicism about a candidate with low poll numbers who argues that a surge in support for them is just around the corner. Moreover, as weve argued, the processes that can feed into a rise (or fall) in polling numbers are complex and it would be a foolhardy candidate who staked their chances of gaining the presidency (or any other office) on their ability to manufacture a short term surge, let alone a sustained rise in polling numbers in the future.

Please read our comments policy before commenting.

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP American Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.

Shortened URL for this post:http://bit.ly/31jCjYR

Peter Finn Kingston UniversityDr Peter Finn is a multi-award-winning Senior Lecturer in Politics at Kingston University. His research is focused on conceptualising the ways that the US and the UK attempt to embed impunity for violations of international law into their national security operations. He is also interested in US politics more generally, with a particular focus on presidential power and elections. He has, among other places, been featured in The Guardian, The Conversation, Open Democracy and Critical Military Studies.

Robert Ledger Schiller University Robert Ledger has a PhD in political science from Queen Mary University of London. He has worked for the European Stability Initiative, a think-tank in Brussels, lectured at several universities in London and currently lives in Frankfurt am Main. He is a Visiting Researcher (Gastwissenshaftler) in the History Seminar at Goethe University and also teaches at Schiller University Heidelberg and the Frankfurt School of Finance & Management. He is the author of Neoliberal Thought and Thatcherism: A Transition From Here to There?

Visit link:
Primary Primers: Why we should be cautious of candidate 'surges' - USAPP American Politics and Policy (blog)

By Thomas C. Frohlich, John Harrington and Hristina ByrnesJanuary 28, 2020 1:48 pm

As the first major contest in the U.S. presidential election process, the Iowa caucuses are considered very important. Since the first Iowa caucuses were held in 1972, the winner of nine of the 18 Iowa caucuses held by both parties eventually won the nomination.

However, while the caucuses tend to be good predictors of who will win each partys nomination, they are poor predictors of who will win the presidency. Only three presidential candidates who won the Iowa caucuses went on to become president George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama. Here is each presidents path to the oval office.

Just how important are the Iowa caucuses? To answer this question, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed each primary seasons top three candidates in the Democratic and Republican Iowa caucuses since 1972 (the first year of the Democratic caucuses), and 1976 (the first year of the Republican caucuses). We relied on data compiled by the Des Moines Register, a central Iowa newspaper owned by media and marketing company Gannett.

Because some incumbent presidents ran uncontested, the following caucuses were excluded from our list: 1984, 1992, 1996, 2004, and 2012; In these years, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama ran uncontested as their partys nominee. Incumbent presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were challenged in primaries by Ronald Reagan in 1976 and Edward Kennedy in 1980, respectively.

Uncommitted voter blocs, which are common in Iowa caucuses, were included on our list. In several cases, more delegates were undecided than were committed to any individual candidate.

Click here to see how much the Iowa caucuses matters to every Democratic presidential candidateClick here to see how much the Iowa caucuses matters to every Republican presidential candidate

Read the rest here:
Here's How Important the Iowa Caucuses Were in Every Election - 24/7 Wall St.

Come February 3 and the first major test of the presidential election season in the US will take place. Iowa will hold its caucuses and it will be the first major occasion to gauge the mood of the voters. Though Iowa caucuses do not have a good record in picking presidents but they certainly play a key role in trimming the fray. In 2008, the late John McCain finished fourth in the Republican caucuses but yet went on to bag the partys nomination. In 2016, too, President Donald Trump finished second best after Ted Cruz in his partys caucuses but yet bagged the nomination at the end and even went on to become the president. The winner of the GOP Iowa caucuses got a nomination in three of eight contested races but only George W Bush won the presidency, which was in 2000.

In the Democratic field, the top vote-getter in the caucuses went on to win the nomination in seven of 10 contested races and of them, only Jimmy Carter (1976) and Barack Obama (2008) bagged the presidency. The Hawkeye State in the Midwestern US has 99 counties and six electoral votes. In the 12 presidential elections since 1972, Iowa has been won by both the GOP and Dems six times each.

Here we take a look at the results of the Iowa caucuses for both major parties in the last five presidential election years (1996-2016):

Republican winner Ted Cruz

In the Republican field, the candidates who ended in the top six were Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Rand Paul and Jeb Bush. Cruz got 27.6 percent of votes while Trump received 24.3 percent. Rubio got 23.1 percent while Carson got 9.3 percent, Paul 4.5 percent and Bush 2.8 percent. Paul, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum suspended their campaigns as a result of a poor show in Iowa.

Democratic winner Hillary Clinton

In the Democratic camp, it was a thrilling contest as Clinton beat Bernie Sanders by 0.3 percentage points to become the first woman presidential candidate to win Iowa. Martin OMalley finished a poor third with a meagre 0.6 percent of the votes and suspended his campaign afterwards. For Clinton, it was a big improvement over her 2008 show in which she had finished third after Obama and John Edwards. Some even alleged that Clinton had won the wafer-thin contest through flips of coin though that was not confirmed.

Republican winner Rick SantorumFormer Pennsylvania senator Santorum had a very thin win (24.6 percent points to second place holder Mitt Romneys 24.5) in the caucuses that was never short of drama. Two prominent GOP candidates did not make it to the caucuses: Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty who pulled out after a low third-place finish in the Iowa Straw poll and businessman Herman Cain who suspended his campaign in the wake of sexual harassment allegations. The vote counts saw discrepancies and while Romney was declared the winner on the night of the caucuses by eight votes, it was announced two weeks later that the actual winner was Santorum and the winning margin was by just 34 votes. Other top candidates of GOP Iowa caucuses were Ron Paul (21.4%), Newt Gingrich (13.3%), Rick Perry (10.3%) and Michele Bachmann (5%). The voter participation was around 20 percent.

Democratic winner Barack ObamaIncumbent president Barack Obama ran unopposed for the Democrats that year.

Republican winner Mike HuckabeeThe 2008 Iowa caucuses were unique for McCain who bagged the nomination that year, finished fourth in the Iowa caucuses. Former Arkansas governor Huckabee bagged Iowa with the support of the Christian conservatives. He got 34.4 percentage points while second-ranked Romney got 25.2 percentage points. Fred D Thompson was third with 13.3 percent while fourth-place holder McCain got 13.1 percent. Ron Paul got 10 percentage points while Rudy Giuliani ended up with 3.5 percent. Huckabees victory put Romney under a great challenge while financial hardships saw McCain abandoning Iowa months ahead of the caucuses. Total voter participation was 20.7 percent.

Democratic winner Barack ObamaThe Democratic caucuses in Iowa in 2008 were absorbing. The heavyweight candidates in the fray including Obama, Clinton, Joe Biden, Edwards, Bill Richardson and others campaigned heavily across the state. Clinton led most polling in Iowa and across the nation but was overtaken by Obama who was seen more as an agent of change. Obama, a former senator from Illinois, received almost 38 percent of votes while former North Carolina senator Edwards ended second with 29.8 percent. Clinton was third with 29.5 percent while Richardson got 2.1%, Biden 0.9%. Biden and Chris Dodd, who also did badly, suspended their campaigns after the Iowa results came out. Total voter participation was nearly 40 percent.

Republican winner George W BushIncumbent president Obama ran unopposed for the Democrats that year.

Democratic winner John KerryThe Democratic field saw a close competition between four candidates -- John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt. Dean and Gephardt were in a close fight in the campaign phase but lost support as they targeted each other, helping the cause of Kerry and Edwards. Kerry, a former senator from Massachusetts, eventually won the caucuses with 37.1 percent votes while Edwards finished second with 32.6 percent. Dean ended third with 17.4% and Gephardt fourth with 11.2 percent. The voter participation was 23.3 percent.

Republican winner George W Bush

Former Texas governor Geroge W Bush led the GOP field that year and eventually achieved the biggest victory in a contested Republican Iowa caucus. He received 41 percent of the votes Publishing executive Steve Forbes got 30.5 percent which was surprising for many while conservative political commentator and former diplomat Alan Keyes from Maryland finished third with 14 percent. Gary Bauer was fourth with 8.5% and John McCain got 4.7%. The voter participation in the caucuses was 14.1 percent.

Democratic winner Al GoreFormer vice president Al Gore faced little difficulty in the Democratic caucuses of 2000. He had one opponent and it was former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley. The latter came up with a progressive healthcare plan that looked more comprehensive than Gores and the former vice presidents closeness with departing president Bill Clinton also made him less popular for some voters, thanks to the scandal and impeachment trial the president found himself in. But Gore still won it handsomely, bagging over 63 percent votes as against Bradleys 35. The voter participation was just below 11 percent.

Read the original:
How the Iowa Caucus has affected the results of the presidential elections over the years - MEAWW

Paul Thornley(Photo by Caitlin McNaney for Broadway.com)

Paul Thornley is headed home to the Lyric Theatre. The talented actor who originated the role of Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Cursed Childwill reprise his turn inthe Tony-winning two-part play beginning on March 18. He'll replace Matt Mueller, who will take his final bow in the Broadway production on March 15.

Also on March 18, the production will welcome Brady Dalton Richards in his Broadway debut as Scorpius Malfoy, with current ensemble members James Romney and Aaron Bartz graduating to the roles of Albus Potter and Draco Malfoy. They'll succeed Bubba Weiler, Nicholas Podany and Jonno Roberts, who will play their final performance on March 15.

Joining the production's ensemble will be Gabriel Amoroso, Quinn Blades, Michela Cannon, Judith Lightfoot Clarke, Malcolm Fuller, Stephanie Gomrez, Jax Jackson, Spencer LaRue, Dan Piering, Alex Michael Stoll and Maya Thomas.

They'll appear alongside current principal stars James Snyder as Harry Potter, Diane Davis as Ginny Potter, Jenny Jules as Hermione Granger and Nadia Brown as Rose Granger-Weasley, along with ensemble members Brian Thomas Abraham, Stephen Bradbury, James Brown III, Will Carlyon, Lauren Nicole Cipoletti, Makayla Joy Connolly, Grace DeAmicis, Patrick Du Laney, Steve Haggard, Edward James Hyland, Jack Koenig, Rachel Leslie, Sarita Amani Nash, Fiona Reid, Kevin Matthew Reyes, Antoinette Robinson, Stephen Spinella, Tom Patrick Stephens, Erica Sweany and Karen Janes Woditsch.

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child began previews on March 16, 2018 and officially opened on April 22. The production took home six Tony Awards including Best Play.

Originally posted here:
Paul Thornley Will Return to Harry Potter and the Cursed Child as Ron Weasley; More New Casting Announced - Broadway.com