American Parties
Snow has fallen for the first time in this autumn in north and northeast Japan. It is a little earlier than an ordinary year.
SECTION I: American Presidential Election
Having observed the American politics from Japan, the distinction between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is partially stark and partially vague.
The Republican Party looks more affiliated with traditional American Christianity, since JFK, a Catholic president, was from the Democratic Party. Especially Juadists strongly support the Democratic Party. Catholic Hispanics seem to also join more the Democratic Party. But, traditional protestant Americans have backed the Republican Party.
So, at the deepest level of the America presidential election, a conflict between two religious camps has essential momentum. Yet, some Japanese list features of each party as follows:
Republican Party:
- Fundamentalist Christianity
- Market Fundamentalism
- Under influence of Rothschild
Democratic Party:
- Social Democracy
- Keynesian
- Under influence of Rockefeller
However, according to a study on California in 2002:
(Share) Group....Democrat (%)... Republican (%)
(.69) White (non-Hispanic)... 40... 42
(.16) Latino... 60... 21
(.07) Asian/Pacific Islander... 42... 36
(.07) Black/African-American... 78... 7
In the above categorization, the total supporters for the Democratic Party is 45.6%, while those for the Republican Party is 35.35%.
Therefore without any special bias or incentives working favorably for Republicans, the U.S. President must be always elected from Democrats. So, the true winner of the 2000 Presidential Election must have been Mr. Gore but not Mr. W. Bush. And, it does not looks so strange or a surprise that Mr. Barack Obama won the 2008 election. Mr. Obama's success in 2008 must have been more due to his being a Democrat rather than being an African American.
(Click to enlarge.)
The most important factor to decide the outcome of the US Presidential election however seems to be an unemployment rate.
In this context, there are two noteworthy patterns in the past.
1) In 1992, though President Mr. George W. H. won the Persian Gulf War, he lost the 1992 election against Mr. Clinton. It is because the unemployment rate was in an upward swing.
2) In 2004, as President Mr. W. Bush was winning the War in Iraq, he won the 2004 election against Mr. John Kerry. But yet, the unemployment rate stayed relatively high.
As President Mr. Obama took on Osama bin Laden, he seems to fulfill part of conditions to apply the above precedent examples. So, the issue is whether he will lose the 2012 election because the unemployment rate is in an upward swing, or he will win while the unemployment rate stays relatively high.
Conversely, if American voters think that the unemployment rate is in an upward swing, Mr. Obama will surely lose, but if American voters think the unemployment rate stays simply high, Mr. Obama will probably win. Nonetheless, the rate is very high around 9%.
From a historical point of view, Mr. Obama can lose the 2012 election. It is so, since there is a very important factor: China.
One of the reasons why the American jobless rate is so high now is China. Rich Americans and rich American companies opt to use the cheap labor force of China more than the relatively expensive American labor force. It is similar to the situation in Japan. This business climate has caused long-term deflation in Japan and eventually stark unemployment in the U.S. And, as the U.S. Government led by the Democratic Party cannot correct imbalance, another party will be naturally in charge. Traditionally, the Democratic Party has been tough to Japan requesting correction of trade imbalance between the two countries. But, the Democrats cannot handle China well. So, though it is the Bush Administration that promoted strongly trade and business with China in 2000s, American workers have to now rely on the Republicans, expecting them to take a tough stance against China. It is estimated so, despite a fact that the Republican Party is supported by rich Americans and rich American businesses who are beneficiaries in the present US-China relationship.
Put simply, if a Republican candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election promises that he or she would handle China more deftly and make China import more American products, export less to the American market, or invest more into America, he will have a more chance to win in 2012.
So, the hidden agenda for the 2012 election must be China. And, Rockefeller is too friendly to China, though it is not clear how Rothschild wants to see China make America suffer.
SECTION II: American Unemployment
When the president was changed, the U.S. unemployment changed.
However, according to a study on California in 2002:
(Share) Group....Democrat (%)... Republican (%)
(.69) White (non-Hispanic)... 40... 42
(.16) Latino... 60... 21
(.07) Asian/Pacific Islander... 42... 36
(.07) Black/African-American... 78... 7
In the above categorization, the total supporters for the Democratic Party is 45.6%, while those for the Republican Party is 35.35%.
Therefore without any special bias or incentives working favorably for Republicans, the U.S. President must be always elected from Democrats. So, the true winner of the 2000 Presidential Election must have been Mr. Gore but not Mr. W. Bush. And, it does not looks so strange or a surprise that Mr. Barack Obama won the 2008 election. Mr. Obama's success in 2008 must have been more due to his being a Democrat rather than being an African American.
The most important factor to decide the outcome of the US Presidential election however seems to be an unemployment rate.
In this context, there are two noteworthy patterns in the past.
1) In 1992, though President Mr. George W. H. won the Persian Gulf War, he lost the 1992 election against Mr. Clinton. It is because the unemployment rate was in an upward swing.
2) In 2004, as President Mr. W. Bush was winning the War in Iraq, he won the 2004 election against Mr. John Kerry. But yet, the unemployment rate stayed relatively high.
As President Mr. Obama took on Osama bin Laden, he seems to fulfill part of conditions to apply the above precedent examples. So, the issue is whether he will lose the 2012 election because the unemployment rate is in an upward swing, or he will win while the unemployment rate stays relatively high.
Conversely, if American voters think that the unemployment rate is in an upward swing, Mr. Obama will surely lose, but if American voters think the unemployment rate stays simply high, Mr. Obama will probably win. Nonetheless, the rate is very high around 9%.
From a historical point of view, Mr. Obama can lose the 2012 election. It is so, since there is a very important factor: China.
One of the reasons why the American jobless rate is so high now is China. Rich Americans and rich American companies opt to use the cheap labor force of China more than the relatively expensive American labor force. It is similar to the situation in Japan. This business climate has caused long-term deflation in Japan and eventually stark unemployment in the U.S. And, as the U.S. Government led by the Democratic Party cannot correct imbalance, another party will be naturally in charge. Traditionally, the Democratic Party has been tough to Japan requesting correction of trade imbalance between the two countries. But, the Democrats cannot handle China well. So, though it is the Bush Administration that promoted strongly trade and business with China in 2000s, American workers have to now rely on the Republicans, expecting them to take a tough stance against China. It is estimated so, despite a fact that the Republican Party is supported by rich Americans and rich American businesses who are beneficiaries in the present US-China relationship.
Put simply, if a Republican candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election promises that he or she would handle China more deftly and make China import more American products, export less to the American market, or invest more into America, he will have a more chance to win in 2012.
So, the hidden agenda for the 2012 election must be China. And, Rockefeller is too friendly to China, though it is not clear how Rothschild wants to see China make America suffer.
SECTION II: American Unemployment
When the president was changed, the U.S. unemployment changed.
Conversely, American voters changed the president to change the unemployment rate in most cases, ironically, for less or more.
(Click to enlarge.)
Let's check who have employed American workers the most:
Let's check who have employed American workers the most:
1. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE:WMT)
>Workers: 2.1 million
>Revenue: $422 billion
2. International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM)
>Workers: 436,000
>Revenue: $100 billion.
3. United Parcel Service, Inc. (NYSE:UPS)
>Workers: 400,000
>Revenue: $50 billion
4. McDonald’s Corp. (NYSE:MCD)
>Workers: 400,000
>Revenue: $24 billion
5. Target Corp. (NYSE:TGT)
>Workers: 355,000
>Revenue: $67 billion
6. The Kroger Co. (NYSE:KR)
>Employees: 338,000
>Revenue: $82 billion
7. Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE:HPQ)
>Workers: 324,000
>Revenue: $126 billion
8. Sears Holdings Corporation (Nasdaq: SHLD)
>Workers: 312,000
>Revenue: $43 billion.
9. PepsiCo, Inc. (NYSE:PEP)
>Workers: 294,000
>Revenue: $58 billion
10. Bank of America Corporation (NYSE:BAC)
>Workers: 288,000
>Revenue: $134 billion
.http://247wallst.com/2011/04/24/americas-ten-largest-employers/2/
Almost five million Americans are employed by the above largest enterprises.
There are more than six million long-term jobless people in the U.S. The total number of unemployed citizens in America is said to be around 15 million. So, to solve the long-term unemployment problem, the U.S. needs another Wal-Mart, IBM, and so on. To solve the total unemployment, the U.S. needs two more Wal-Marts, IBMs, and so on.
But, in fact, it is China that now runs another Wal-Mart, IBM, and so on. What is requested of the U.S. President is ability to help establish another Wal-Mart, IBM, and so on. Or, he or she has to at least stop transfer of business and work to China from America.
(to be continued...)
*** *** *** ***
(In the past week access to this blog is mainly from Russia, the U.S., Germany, India, the U.K., India, Ukraine, Australia, Canada, etc.)
Joh 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.