My Face Book Friend Michelle wants five children (she has three) and she is debating when to bring the 4th and 5th into the world. Not everyone is encouraging of her in this regards. Several people cite "money - the expense of raising children" as the reason for not having more children, or, for cutting off at 3, or 4 at most. PSAW, says I. You want 'em, you go make 'em kid. Beucase I already KNOW you are one hell of a mother, you have one hell of a husband, and you WILL make it work!

LONG time ago, my youngest sister Marianne and I were talking, and we both agreed, we wanted no kids.  Marianne's reason was that the world is such a harsh, cruel place.  My reason was more selfish; I didn't want to foul up a kid as badly as my folks fouled up their kids, doing nothing particularly wrong (except for the part about willful ignorance).  

WELL, it turns out, that both Marianne and I have some parenting chops.  

After learning how to make unanticipated babies just a month shy of my 33rd birthday (and, trust me, I stopped doing it), my ex-wife and I were blessed with a son, Adam James, who literally SAVED BOTH OF OUR LIVES.  He gave her something to love and care for that needed her nurturing ways; he gave me healing - he's been reaching out and touching old, bedraggled, boozer, homeless, stinking old men ever since he was one year, two weeks, and one day old.   

Marianne's wife brought into their marriage a daughter, and so it was given unto Marianne, almost 20 years ago, the great joys and delights of being the disciplinarian mother to a precocious 7 year old, who is a minor internet phenom for having written, at her charter school, in response to the question: "What is a family?"  this answer:  "A family, I think, is a lot of people, or maybe not so many, that love each other."  

One son was more than enough for me (didn't hurt that he had 3 cousins who all used to come over to our house on Saturdays, where, we literally, did NOTHING, EXCEPT, talk, play cards, play video games, eat, drink, engage in free speech, watch incredibly poorly chosen movies (all the way through, dammit, if they were gonna have night mares, they were gonna have night mares about what really happened in the movie, and not about why they imagined might have happened, had I pulled the plug) ... and THOSE GLORIOUS DAYS, those were the best days of my life:  just the five of us boys, hangin' out, the four of them total engaged and invested in one another, and me, room service, and privy to each and every conversation, each and every swear, each and every drop of blood leaking from the video game slaughters.  THOSE GLORIOUS DAYS (and I knew they one day would end, but, what a friggin' run I had!).

Maybe I am one of the poor slobs who was predestined to perdition because I couldn't believe God wasn't really something better than a vindictive hard ass.

(This is me writing to a former little league team mate, Jack, after having caught up with his auto-biographical notes for the graduating class of 1969 which included so many of my grade school classmates from the town in which I grew up and was raised):

I started out at WIU as a music major, but music majors (with vocal emphasis) had to take 24 more credit hours to graduate than did any other major at any of the departments. And anyway, all I wanted to with my music was to play it. So I took the easy way out and switced my major to math, told everyone I would become an actuary upon graduating, and did. Made a lot of money, too, by most peoples' stamdards. Then one day, it hit my like a ton of bricks - I was counting the sick, counting the dead, raising premiums on the aged and the infirm, and helping to design and price manipulative products to be sold by the unscrouplous to the unwary. And now, I am about to begin another iteration of my career, merging my love of making music with fund-raising for 1st responders, village & park district employees, and public education.s AND I SLEEP very well at night. Mark Jack writes back: I am back into playing music too. I have memories of great emotional connection with audiences and really taking people to places they could not otherwise go. So far I have not had that kind of experience. Maybe it was all in my own head, or maybe I lost it or just have not recaptured it. I will keep at it and see what happens. After my message to you I remembered that your father had been a much admired teacher (Math as I recall), but that he had left Streator High a year or two before I started in 1964. So that meant you would have left town before you went to high school and never attended SHS or were in the SHS band. I have a few strong recollections of you, and I recall that you were a really nice guy. Do you remember that Dave Raymond and I used to call you "Walkee" because, as a batter, you would avoid swinging, hoping to get a walk so you could get on base. I wasn't much of a hitter and the only time I ever got on base was on an error or fielder's choice. I have a recollection of you hitting grounders to me once in the infield. So you would have been eleven years old and I was twelve when we played on the same team. I have a twelve year old and it struck me that you were a lot more mature, as I remember you, than he seems to me to be, and I suppose I remember myself as more mature as well. It may be that I don't appreciate the full depth and complexity of my son's inner life, and the interaction he has with his peers may be pretty much what I experienced. What sort of music are you doing? Do you play alone? I play guitar, electric and acoustic, and sing songs from the fifties, and sometimes earlier up to the ninties or so.  It is good that you can make some money doing it. I don't really make much money--just enough to help pay for equipment, gas, strings, my wife's dinner tab if she shows up.  As a judge I felt some ambivalence about being part of some of the injustice that has become law. I justified it because I was acting as a professional, and I felt a certain humility about it that prevented me from substituting my own personal views, rather than professionally determining what the law was and following it. I wasn't certain enough that I was right that I was prepared to nullify the law established by the people, pathetic as the results of democracy sometimes are, and make my own law. Of course I may have just been rationalizing, because there was always plenty of pressure to be a right wing ass hole. If you sentence a guy to a long term in prison, everybody, including the clerks, bailiffs, and the janitors come up and tell you "Good Job!" If you give somebody a break and give him probation nobody says a thing to your face, but you find out people are running your ass down behind your back, and even distoring the facts to make you look even worse. So, all in all, I am glad to be out of the business of dispensing retribution on behalf of an unforgiving and Draconian society. AS I was doing it every day, I didn't even consciously feel any stress or conflict, but after I was out of it I experienced a delayed reaction, and realized I had been internally in dissonance with myself. I had a family to support and five kids to put through college and being a judge provided nicely for those needs. I had lots of free time to spend with the family, and it was well worth the price I paid, but I am relieved to be out of it. From your remarks, it appears that God is something very real to you. I have never had much faith. I have studied a lot about religion and the history of Christianity. I have been trying to sort out those portions of it that are clearly of human origin, as opposed to the things that might actually come from and relate to God. Of course all of it, other than what one might experience in the form of revelation or internal communication from the Holy Spirit,comes from another person, whether it be the Gospels or the letters of Paul, who was a murdering persecuting religious fanatic, before he supposedly was spoken to by the Lord on the road the Damascus. As a Criminal Defense attorney I met a few people over the years to whom the Lord had supposedly spoken, so I am sceptical of the breed, particularly when, like Paul, they have a history of violence for the honor and glory of God. So far the best I can do is to conceive of God as the most perfect idea and entity I can imagine, without the traditional human flaws projected upon him, such as wanting people to bow down and worship him, and punishing people for eternity because they can't believe in him. Maybe I have faith that God isn't just the great feudal baron in the sky, imagined by a midieval society, and coincidentally demanding of his creatures, the same duties owed by vassal to Lord: fealty and obedience. Anyway, that is what my defense will be, if there really is an afterlife and one is judged by the standards of the Reverand Jerry Fallwell. Maybe I am one of the poor slobs who was predestined to perdition because I couldn't believe God wasn't really something better than a vindictive hard ass.  As I am so oft' wont to do, I replied, totally lacking in originality, with the song lyrics from Jethro Tull's Aqua Lung Album (Wind Up): When I was younger and they packed me off to school And they taught me how not to play the game I didn't mind it if they groomed me for success Or if they said that I was just a fool So to my old head master, and to any who cares Before I'm through I'd like to say my prayers I don't believe you,  you've got the whole damned thing all wrong, He's not the kind that you had to wind up on Sundays. So I left there in the morning, with their god tucked underneath my arm, their half-assed smiles, and the book of rules So I asked this God a question,  and by way of firm reply, He said, "I'm not the kind that you have to wind up on Sundays." So you can excommunicate me On my way to Sunday school, let all the preachers harmonize these lines: How can you tell me that I am my father's son When that was just an accident of birth I'd rather look around me, compose a better song 'Cuz that's the honest measure of my worth In your pomp and all your glory You're a poorer man than me as you lick the boots of death born our of fear. When I was younger and they packed me off to school And they taught me how not to play the game I didn't mind it if they groomed me for success Or if they said that I was just a fool So to my old head master, and to any who cares Before I'm through I'd like to say my prayers I don't believe you,  you've got the whole damned thing all wrong, He's not the kind that you had to wind up on Sundays. So I left there in the morning, with their god tucked underneath my arm, their half-assed smiles, and the book of rules So I asked this God a question,  and by way of firm reply, He said, "I'm not the kind that you have to wind up on Sundays." So you can excommunicate me On my way to Sunday school, let all the preachers harmonize these lines: How can you tell me that I am my father's son When that was just an accident of birth I'd rather look around me, compose a better song 'Cuz that's the honest measure of my worth In your pomp and all your glory You're a poorer man than me as you lick the boots of death born our of fear. I don't believe you, you've got the whole damned thing all wrong! He's not the kind, that you have to wind up on Sundays. Jack replies, almost immediately.  Aha!, Thinks I. A KINDRED SPIRIT! I recall hearing Ian Anderson sing that song at the University of Illinois Assembly Hall in the winter of 1971-72. I can understand a person getting angry at the religion and social and political dogmas that have permeated his consciousness. The reason we get angry is that even though we think it through, those ideas are still there working and affecting our emotions, in spite of our efforts to reject them. But the fact is, we humans are social animals and there is very little of us that does not involve interacting with others. Most of what we do, we do to try to impress somebody, and sometimes the people we try to impress are our parents, even a quarter century after their deaths, or some peers we remember from high school, whom we haven't seen in decades. But those folks are there in our imaginations, watching and judging us, and we are still trying to prove we are worthy of their respect and admiration. A person has to make the best of it, and try to get along with the burden of culture that he must carry through life, and perhaps carve some sort of identity and meaning out of the material reality and all the social bullshit. I would like to believe that God, if it exists, is not the personification of all the worst human traits- vindictive, authoritarian, and the greatest imaginable ego tripper. But it is hard to cast off six thousand years of Western Culture, create my own alternative culture, and really believe in it. I think it most likely that when we die our consciousness stops, the molecules in our body are recycled through the biosphere, and that is the end of us. If I am right, I will never know I was right. If I am wrong I will, according to the rules of the wind up God of our culture, be tortured forever for not arriving at a required state of belief. Conventional Wisdom is almost always wrong, so it is probably wrong about the nature of God, and I think it unlikely I will be tortured forever. I try not to feel angry about the disturbing notions my culture has infused into my consciousness. This is the way it has always been in human history. That is just the way we people are. We have to have religion to satisfy our need for cause and effect, and also as a means of social control, to justify the positions of the ruling class and to con the serf class into working their asses off and getting those same asses shot off fighting to protect and expand the holdings of the rulers. We also need the promise of pie in the sky to compensate us for having to eat shit on the earth. Actually, we in this particular time and place in history, have it better than any working serf class has ever had it and we don't have to eat too much shit. So the sensible thing to do is to enjoy this great opportunity we have to experience what life has to offer. I have a nice wife, wonderful kids, access to lots of books, fairly good health for an old fart, and I am retired and will probably never have to work again. My turn to exist and be conscious is about three fourths done, but I still have that one fourth left, and so I will try to savor it before the merry-go-round stops and they haul me off in a box. I think what I am describing here is something like Epicureanism.

"Politicians have acquired the automatic habit of prostrating themselves before those with vast sums of money. And this is one more of the many toxic byproducts of the growing inequality in wealth: a sense of community is increasingly destroyed, along with the moral values that hold it together. We are left with two opposing classes that inhabit two opposing worlds, and their clash is inevitable."

The Criminalization of the US Banking System. By Ann Robertson and Bill Leumer

Global Research, May 21, 2012

Bankers and Forgiveness When homeowners have fallen behind in their mortgage payments, whether because of a job loss or because the interest rates just shot up, the bankers have responded coldly. Led by their economic interests, they set their robo-signers working overtime on foreclosures, forcing millions of people out of their homes. Back during the height of this current economic crisis, when Congress considered passing legislation that would have allowed judges to lower home loans in order to prevent these foreclosures, the banks lobbied furiously and killed the legislation. But when the bankers themselves commit their own transgressions — not innocent and unavoidable transgressions like not paying back a loan because you lost your job thanks to the bankers’ recession — but actually breaking the law, the government not only forgives them, it virtually becomes an accomplice in their crimes. Robo-signing, for example, is a crime. It occurred when bank employees signed thousands of documents, claiming they were accurate, without bothering to verify their claim. Yet no one went to jail. In a recent New York Times article, Jesse Eisinger pointed out that the JPMorgan scandal has raised an array of questions:  “What did Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, and Doug Braunstein, the chief financial officer, know, and when did they know it? Were the bank’s first-quarter earnings accurate? Were top JPMorgan officials misleading when they discussed the chief investment office’s investments? … The first question on everyone’s mind should be whether any existing laws were broken.” (May 17, 2012). However, Eisinger was quick to point out in relation to the last question: “That it hasn’t been asked shows how little true accountability there has been since the financial crisis. No top-tier banker has gone to prison for the many bank failures, the deceptive sales practices or the misrepresentations of the books.” The laws for the 1 percent are treated by the government as if they were humble requests — nothing to be seriously enforced if the 1 percent decline to accept. The laws for the 99 percent are brutally enforced, not to mention the prevalent police brutality that occurs without any legal justification. Back in 2011, Gretchen Morgenson and Louise Story, in another New York Times article (July 7, 2011), reported federal prosecutors adopted a gentler code for bankers: “Federal prosecutors officially adopted new guidelines about charging corporations with crimes — a softer approach that, longtime white-collar lawyers and former federal prosecutors say, helps explain the dearth of criminal cases despite a raft of inquiries into the financial crisis. … The guidelines left open a possibility other than guilty or not guilty, giving leniency often if companies investigated and reported their own wrongdoing. In return, the government could enter into agreements to delay or cancel the prosecution if the companies promised to change their behavior.” More recently, Gretchen Morgenson has reported that a prominent Wall Street analyst and others suspect that “insider trading can and does occur regularly at many Wall Street firms. In their view it has become institutionalized…. Those in the know can get rich before the rest of us know what happened.” (The New York Times, May 20, 2012). And this failure of the Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) to prosecute these cases comes on the heels of its spectacular failure to indict Bernard Madoff, even after being presented with overwhelming evidence of his guilt. Although the financial industry is the recipient of the bulk of the government mercy, perhaps because it is responsible for the bulk of the crimes, the corporate world in general is a lucrative beneficiary. In the wake of the recent Wal-Mart Mexican bribery scandal, The New York Times (April 27, 2012), reported that, even though bribery of foreign officials is a crime, if past practice is any indication, no one will be prosecuted. The prominent example of past practice mentioned in the article was Tyson Foods. After listing a series of crimes committed by Tyson executives, the article concluded: “It’s axiomatic that people, not corporations, commit crimes. So what happened to the Tyson executives involved? Not only did the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission take no action against them, but the executives involved weren’t even named.” (The New York Times, April 27, 2012). Why is the government so intent on pursuing a double standard when it comes to enforcing the law on the 1 percent and on the rest of us? In part this mundane corruption is due to the cozy relation that has been cultivated between the politicians and the corporate world. If a politician or regulator plays the game and pleases the corporations, they can look forward to a financially rewarding career in the private sector after they leave office. Politicians, for example, routinely become lobbyists. The corruption is also due to this fact: “At least two-thirds of the U.S. senators drafting new financial regulations hold stock in banks or other companies affected by the legislation, such as Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co., disclosure statements show.” (Bloomberg, June 16, 2010).   But the final explanation is that politicians have acquired the automatic habit of prostrating themselves before those with vast sums of money. And this is one more of the many toxic byproducts of the growing inequality in wealth: a sense of community is increasingly destroyed, along with the moral values that hold it together. We are left with two opposing classes that inhabit two opposing worlds, and their clash is inevitable. Ann Robertson is a Lecturer at San Francisco State University and a member of the California Faculty Association. Bill Leumer is a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 853 (ret.). Both are writers for Workers Action and may be reached at sanfrancisco@workerscompass.org.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com  www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com © Copyright Ann Robertson, Global Research, 2012  The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=30979

© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

Five myths about independent voters

By Linda Killian, Published: May 17

1. Independent voters aren’t really independent.

Perhaps the biggest myth about independents is that they are closet partisans or “leaners” who are independent in name only but regularly vote with one party. True, about half of independents do fit into this category, but the rest are truly independent; their allegiance swings from election to election. They are persuadable, not polarized partisans. A recent Pew Research Center poll puts the number of swing voters this year at 23 percent — almost a quarter of the electorate.

In 2006 independents chose Democratic House candidates over Republicans, 57 to 39 percent. But in 2008, Democrats won independent voters by only eight points and lost them by 19 points in 2010. With that kind of track record, it is impossible to say that independent voters are reliably partisan.

2. Independent voters are less engaged.

In hundreds of interviews with independent voters, I found that they tend to be well informed and care about the political process — even though the two parties have done their best to alienate them through attacks, gridlock and dysfunction. About two-thirds of them say they are independent because “both parties care more about special interests than about average Americans,” according to a Pew survey.

Independent turnout is typically lower than it is among partisan voters. But in more than half of the country, independents are not permitted to vote in primaries, so they have no say in the candidates selected in the general election. It’s no surprise, then, that they are usually less satisfied with their candidate choices than partisan voters are.

Independents are more turned off than partisan voters by negative campaign ads and are more likely to say they want more substantive discussions from the candidates and the media. Independents take voting seriously but are less moved by partisan appeals. They care more about the deficit than Democratic voters do, more about the environment than Republicans do, and less about social issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion, than do voters from either party.

3. Independent voters want a third party.

I found no unanimity: Some of them think we do need a third- or multi-party system and consistently vote for outsider and third-party candidates, while others accept that this is a two-party nation.

The most successful third-party presidential candidacy in the past 100 years was when Teddy Roosevelt ran for a third term as a candidate with the Bull Moose Party in 1912 and won 27 percent of the vote. Roosevelt came in second to Woodrow Wilson and carried half a dozen states, including California, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Ross Perot, running as a Reform Party candidate in 1992, won 19 percent of the vote.

The third-party organization Americans Elect gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot in more than half the states, but did not attract a candidate who could generate much interest and officially suspended its effort Thursday. Many independent voters think it is more realistic to push for open primaries, and campaign finance and congressional redistricting reform that would open up the process to all voters and candidates, than it would be to try to create a competitive third party.

4. Independents are centrists.

Independent voters are more diverse in age, race, gender and income than Republican and Democratic voters. Most independents are socially liberal, fiscally responsible centrists, but some are also libertarians and far-left progressives. Sixty percent of independents say they are not aligned with a party because they agree with the Republicans on some things, such as the economy and national security, and with the Democrats on social issues.

I think of independent voters as falling into four key constituencies: NPR Republicans who are socially moderate and fiscally conservative; America First Democrats who tend to be male and more socially conservative (formerly known as Reagan Democrats); the Facebook generation of voters younger than 35 who lean libertarian on social and economic issues; and Starbucks Moms and Dads, suburban voters who make up a huge chunk of the electorate and are reliably unpredictable.

Washington and the nation at large may seem polarized, but a majority of voters consider themselves somewhere in between the two parties. These are not just independents, but centrists and moderates who still may be registered with one party, but at times vote for the other. Independents and their views are diverse — they don’t fit into either political party or neatly in the center.

5. Independent voters are disillusioned with President Obama.

In 2008, Barack Obama won 52 percent of independent voters to John McCain’s 44 percent, the largest margin a Democratic presidential candidate has received from independents since 1996.

Almost half of the independents who voted for Obama in 2008 did not vote Democratic in 2004; and independents made up 23 percent of Obama voters, according to a study by Third Way, a centrist think tank.

Because their numbers are growing and the Democratic and Republican parties are shrinking, independent voters, especially those in swing states, hold the key to the 2012 election.

Gallup polling has shown Obama and presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney in a virtual tie among independent voters. The most recent poll had Obama up two points with this group nationwide but also revealed that he has a nine-point lead among independents in 12 battleground states. According to a recent Washington Post poll, independents favor Obama’s support for same-sex marriage by a margin of 49 to 43 percent, but independents still think the economy is the most important issue and will probably make their decision based on how it is doing in the fall.

Ninety percent of Democrats and Republicans say they plan to vote for their party’s candidate, while a third of independent voters say they are not sure how they will vote. That means you will see a lot more visits by Obama and Romney to battleground states, trying to capture independent swing voters.

outlook@washpost.com

Linda Killian, a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, is the author of “The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents.” Follow her on Twitter: @lindajkillian.

Dead heat in Wisconsin recall

Internal Democratic polling shows dead heat in Wisconsin recall

By Rachel Weiner, Updated: Tuesday, May 22, 2:26 PM

Gov. Scott Walker (R) is not safe in next month’s recall election, Wisconsin Democrats say.


Walker has been pulling ahead of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D) in polls on the June 5 recall election sparked by the governor’s collective bargaining reforms. But internal polling from We Are Wisconsin, a labor-backed coalition supporting the recall, finds a dead heat.



Andy Manis
AP




Supporters of recalling Gov. Scott Walker celebrate in Madison, Wis., Jan. 17 after canvassers gathered about 1 million signatures.

In a survey of 472 recall voters conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research from May 19 to 21, Walker leads Barrett 50 to 47 — within the poll’s four-point margin of error. Barrett leads with independents, 50 percent to 44 percent.
We Are Wisconsin spokesman Kelly Steele argued that the polls showing Walker in the lead oversampled Republicans and that the “pre-mortems” are premature.
“[T]his race remains a dead heat, with Barrett solidifying and even building on his lead amongst Independents, and Democrats’ turnout operation in full gear as early voting and GOTV begin in earnest,” Steele said in a memo.
Three recent surveys gave Walker the advantage.
Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, showed Walker five points ahead in a survey conducted May 11-13. We Ask America, a Republican one, gave Walker a nine-point lead on the 13th. Marquette Law School showed the governor six points ahead in polling done May 9-12.
Barrett pollster Fred Yang told The Fix this week that internal campaign polling showed the race “neck and neck,” noting that the surveys being discussed in the media were conducted before the candidate’s recent ad offensive against Walker.

© The Washington Post Company

FINALLY: The republicans are starting to get it - the way to defeat Obama is to have him not get the democratic nominatinon (just like I been blogging now for more than a year): Obama challenged in Arkansas primary

Obama challenged in Arkansas primary

View Photo Gallery — President Obama on the 2012 campaign trail: President Obama’s reelection campaign is raising money and reaching out to voters and volunteers.

•   Text Size
• Print
• E-mail
• Reprints

By Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake, Tuesday, May 22, 9:52 PM

President Obama was on his way to winning his 34th and 35th consecutive Democratic primary contests on Tuesday night, heading for victories in Arkansas and Kentucky.

But Obama’s margin was surprisingly small in Arkansas — a state in which he was opposed by Tennessee lawyer John Wolfe, who had previously been on the presidential primary ballot in Louisiana, Missouri and New Hampshire and will be on the ballot in Texas next week. Wolfe has also run unsuccessfully for Congress four times.

27

Comments

• Weigh In
• Corrections?

Personal Post

Graphic

Explore the 2012 electoral map and view historical results and demographics

More from PostPolitics

The anti-Obama Democrats

Aaron Blake 1:18 PM ET

Just how many Democratic primary voters are voting against President Obama in the 2012 primary season? In short, about 15 percent.

Is Congress getting dumber?

Ed O'Keefe 5:00 AM ET

2CHAMBERS | Congress collectively speaks at almost a full grade-level lower than it did seven years ago, a new study finds.

‘Uncommitted’ takes 42% in KY primary

Aaron Blake 8:33 PM ET

It is the latest episode of the president taking less than 60 percent of the vote in a primary this year.

With 37 percent of precincts reporting, Obama took 59 percent to 41 percent for Wolfe. In Kentucky, with nearly all precincts reporting, 42.1 percent of Democratic primary voters opted for “uncommitted” rather than backing the president, who received 57.9 percent.

Those results come two weeks to the day after Keith Judd, a convicted felon incarcerated in Texas, won 41 percent of the vote against Obama in the West Virginia primary.

Although these results haven’t stopped Obama’s march to renomination — he officially clinched the Democratic nod on April 3 — they remain an indicator of not-insignificant pockets of unrest within his party.

That phenomenon isn’t limited to the 2012 election.

In 2008, Obama underperformed the showing of Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) in the 2004 election in places such as Arkansas and West Virginia, even as he was sweeping to a major national victory.

One easy explanation — and the one regularly espoused by some Democrats — for Obama’s struggles in Appalachia and portions of the South is simply that some white voters will not vote for an African American for president.

But although no one doubts that race may be a factor, exit polling suggests that the opposition to Obama goes beyond it.

And seasoned political observers who have studied the politics of these areas say race may be less of a problem for Obama than the broader cultural disconnect that many of these voters feel with the Democratic Party.

“Race is definitely a factor for some Texans but not the majority,” said former congressman Charles W. Stenholm (D-Tex.). “The most significant factor is the perception/reality that the Obama administration has leaned toward the ultra-left viewpoint on almost all issues.”

In Appalachia, many people are angry at the Environmental Protection Agency’s approach to mining, arguing that the Obama administration has made it more difficult for people in coal country to make ends meet.

In 2004, Kerry took 38 percent of the vote among white, non-college-educated people — shorthand for the blue-collar voters who were once a core part of the Democratic constituency but have faded away considerably over the past 30 years.

Among that same group in 2008, Obama took 40 percent of the vote, not a statistically significant difference from Kerry. Bill Clinton, a son of the South and someone far more culturally aligned with blue-collar voters, carried non-college-educated voters by a single point in 1992 and 1996.

“In states like West Virginia and Oklahoma, it’s just that voters are down on national Democrats generally and I don’t believe it is due to race,” noted former congressman Martin Frost (D-Tex.).

Regardless of the reasoning, it’s clear that there is a bloc of Democratic voters in every state who want to register their opposition to Obama.

In the 16 states in which voters have been given an alternative to Obama on the Democratic primary ballot — whether it be an actual candidate, a write-in or simply “uncommitted” — Obama is averaging 84.6 percent of the vote.

In the five states where there was a named opponent, though, Obama’s share of the vote is 72.7 percent.

Although the vast majority of those states are like Arkansas and Kentucky in that no one expects them to be genuinely competitive in the November election between Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney, notable exceptions exist.

In a non-competitive Democratic primary in the swing state of New Hampshire in January, a smattering of candidates took 18 percent of the Democratic vote, including 10 percent who chose to write in a candidate rather than back Obama.

Similarly, this month in North Carolina, which will host the Democratic National Convention this summer and is considered a tossup state, more than 20 percent of Democratic primary voters chose the “uncommitted” option over Obama.

Considering that he won North Carolina in the 2008 election by 0.4 percent over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — a 49.9 percent to 49.5 percent squeaker — even a minor abandonment of Obama by self-identified Democrats could make a difference this time around.