Of Terror, the IMF, Keynes, and the Fiscal Multiplier

OCTOBER 17, 2012 – Thursday October 11, International Monetary Fund (IMF) managing director Christine Lagarde said that both Greece and Spain should slow down their cuts to government spending. Well, not exactly. Her exact words were: “time is of the essence, meaning that instead of frontloading heavily, it is sometimes better, given circumstances and the fact that many countries at the same time go through that same set of policies with a view to reducing their deficit, it is sometimes better to have a bit more time” (Lagarde 2012). On its face, this makes little sense. But after wading through the doublespeak, and putting the entire quote in context, what it turns out she is saying is “slow down the cuts”. This is a complete reversal of two generations of neoliberal orthodoxy, and an implicit repudiation of the policies carried out by the IMF and its “sister” organizations in that period.

It is difficult to overstate the hypocrisy of Lagarde’s about face. The cuts against which she is now cautioning, were recommended in the first instance by … the IMF. It operates together with the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Commission (EC), as the so-called “troika”, which arrogantly entered the waters of economic crisis in Greece, and then Spain, saying that there would be help for these troubled economies, but at a price – absolutely severe and damaging cuts to services, pensions and jobs.


The resulting “adjustment” of economies in Greece and Spain has proven more catastrophic than the IMF had anticipated. At the same press conference where Lagarde argued it was time to slow the cuts, she had earlier said: “the unemployment rates that we see in advanced economies, in particular, and among young people, are terrifying and unacceptable” (Lagarde 2012).

Indeed. In Greece, overall unemployment in the first quarter of 2012 stood at 22.5%. By July the rate had risen to 23.6%. When that rate is “seasonally adjusted”, it rises to 25.1%. For young people aged 15-24 unemployment is even worse, in the first quarter standing at a horrendous 51.2% (ELSTAT 2012a; ELSTAT 2012b). In Spain, overall unemployment in August stood at 25.1%, for young people, hitting 52.9% (Eurostat 2012a; Eurostat 2012b). These terrible statistics can, unfortunately, be quite easily summarized: in these two countries, fully one-quarter of those who want to work are unemployed, half of all young people.

These statistics are, in fact, terrifying. But why has the IMF waited until 2012 to become terrified? It should have been terrified in Bolivia in the 1980s when IMF-sponsored “shock therapy” cuts smashed that country’s tin industry, driving thousands of miners back to the countryside to eke out a living in the coca fields (Kohl and Farthing 2006). It should have been terrified in Rwanda in the early 1990s, when IMF-sponsored structural adjustment helped to precipitate a catastrophic shredding of civil society, laying the basis for the genocide which riveted the world in 1994 (Chossudovsky 1998, 111–120). It should have been terrified in Indonesia in 1998, when structural adjustment led to a massive increase in poverty (Stiglitz 2003, 89–132).

The Washington Consensus 

Focus on the latter country for a moment. One of the key policy recommendations of the IMF and friends in Indonesia in 1998 was to eliminate government subsidies for food and fuel – measures which devastated the lives of the poorest in the country, and led to quite understandable riots (2003, 119). This is in line with the anti-state-intervention, pro-free-market ideology which underlies all IMF-backed structural adjustment programmes. This ideology is more than just prejudice – it is a complete, carefully worked out worldview. The IMF is associated – along with two other Washington D.C. based institutions, the World Bank and the U.S. Treasury Department – with what since 1989 has been known as the “Washington Consensus” (Williamson 1990). That consensus maintains that, in the face of economic crisis, governments should cut spending and open their doors to the wonders of the free market. Being faithful to this ideology does, in fact, mean targeting policies such as fuel and food subsidies as “market-distorting” which, if left in place, will hold an economy back.

Let’s examine the question of subsidies in just a bit more detail. In Rwanda, for instance, the question of subsidies was huge – but not subsidies to the poor. The market-distorting subsidies which were blocking development in Rwanda, were billions of dollars of subsidies given every year to Global North multinationals – a class of subsidies treated somewhat differently, however, than the food and fuel subsidies in Indonesia.

Emerging from colonialism with a very poor and very rural economy, Rwanda attempted to develop by acquiring foreign exchange for investment through a shift from subsistence farming to growing crops for export. This has proven to be a difficult road for many Global South countries, and Rwanda was no exception. In the Global North, governments spend tens of billions of dollars – particularly in the European Union and the United States – to subsidize key agricultural products. Cotton production in the United States, for instance, received $24 billion in subsidies from 2001 to 2011 (Kinnock 2011). Through a “complex system of loans and quotas” sugar production (and hence sugar export) from the United States receives billions of dollars of government support (Zumbrun).

These subsidies can’t be understood as support for the beleaguered, small farmer in either the U.S. or the E.U. The real beneficiary is not the poor farmer in rural Pennsylvania with 16 head of Angus, but rather the huge agribusinesses. Between 1995 and 2010, in the U.S. – according to the Environmental Working Group – 74% of all subsidies ($166 billion in total) were collected by just 10% of farmers, 62% of farmers received nothing (Mercola 2012). In 2009 in the E.U, “one of the biggest subsidies was $223 million, given to the French sugar conglomerate Tereos, one of whose subsidiaries produces rum on France’s Indian Ocean territory of Réunion. France’s Saint Louis Sucre also received multimillion-dollar subsidies and the British sugar giant Tate & Lyle received hundreds of thousands of dollars” (Walt 2010).

So countries like Rwanda get forced – by this system of subsidies to Global North agribusiness – into certain “niches” of agricultural commodities, such as coffee, not easily grown in the US or Europe. State support for agribusiness in the Global North squeezes them out of other potential export areas (Okonski). By the 1980s, Rwanda was dependent for 80% of its foreign exchange earnings on the export of coffee (Chossudovsky 1998, 114). But coffee is notoriously vulnerable to price volatility resulting from over-production. So when in 1989 the price of coffee collapsed, so did the Rwandan economy. This was reflected in ever growing levels of external debt. In 1985, the country’s total stock of external debt was just over 200% of its export earnings. By 1990, this had grown to 480% (The World Bank Group 2012).

Logically, a pro free-market institution like the IMF, implementing the “Washington consensus” should have said “free the market – eliminate subsidies to Global North agribusiness.”

There are other logics at work, however. The whole systemic issue of why Rwanda had been forced into the unsustainable niche of coffee-export driven growth was never addressed. The question of eliminating subsidies given by the rich countries to Global North agribusiness was never part of the discussion – that form of state intervention is tolerated by the IMF. The IMF insisted that the problems were internal to Rwanda, and in September 1990, it “imposed a structural adjustment program on Rwanda that devalued the Rwandan franc and further impoverished the already devastated Rwandan farmers and workers. The prices of fuel and consumer necessities were increased, and the austerity program imposed by the IMF led to a collapse in the education and health systems” (Robbins 1999, 271–272). The Rwandan state was massively downsized, its capacity to support health and education completely undermined, but the states of the Global North were left untouched, free to dole out billions to multinational agribusinesses.

In addition to impoverishing Rwanda’s people, this IMF imposed structural adjustment did nothing to restart the economy. Above we looked at figures for stock of external debt as a percent of export earnings. By 1991, this was 568%; by 1992, 821%; by 1993, 864%; and in 1994, it peaked at a horrendous 1,890% (The World Bank Group 2012). This didn’t terrify the IMF into rethinking its austerity prescriptions. Apparently, neither did the 1994 genocide, a genocide in large part triggered by these policies.

Finally – with this round of capitalist crisis coming home to roost in Europe – the IMF has succumbed to terror. The terror is not at the human devastation caused by its policies. If that were the case, the feeling of terror would have happened years earlier in Bolivia, Rwanda or Indonesia. The feeling of terror is happening now because the IMF is seeing what its policies are doing to countries in its own heartland, on the continent of Europe. It is looking down the road at the crisis spreading from the small economy of Greece to the medium-size economy of Spain, and then to a G-7 economy like Italy – and it has finally felt the terror and started to rethink its policies.

The Fiscal Multiplier

Lagarde’s public rethinking of the austerity agenda being imposed on Greece and Spain, was triggered by a perceptive question at a press conference, where a reporter asked her about “research that appeared in the World Economic Outlook about fiscal multipliers” (Lagarde 2012). The reporter had taken the time to read the 2012 edition of the IMF’s World Economic Outlook, and get to Box 4.1 on pages 41 to 43. The contents of this box are explosive. Entitled “Are We Underestimating Short-Term Fiscal Multipliers?” it, like Lagarde’s gloss on it, requires a little translation.

The term “fiscal multiplier” is used to describe the effect of government spending on national income. “A multiplier greater than one shows that government spending on national income levels is deemed to have been enhanced” (Investopedia 2012). True to their Washington Consensus ideology, IMF staff reports, prepared to justify the structural adjustment being imposed on Greece and being proposed for Spain, based their recommendations on an assumed fiscal multiplier of 0.5 (International Monetary Fund 2012, 43). This is worth dwelling on. These IMF staff reports were assuming that $1 spent by the government would lead to just 50 cents growth in national income. In other words, government spending was a net drain on economic growth.

Now – if that were true – well then, cut everything, cut it all. If government spending of $1 leads to only 50 cents of income growth, then this is unbelievably wasteful and inefficient. If that is the case, then it would be better to spend nothing, and just give the $1 to the private sector, where that $1 will at least be a $1 increase in income, and not the measly 50 cents the IMF staff were predicting. With this as an assumption, you can see how eager IMF staff would be to slash spending in Greece, Spain and elsewhere.

Except – they know think they were wrong. After doing some more investigation, “results indicate that multipliers have actually been in the 0.9 to 1.7 range since the Great Recession … in today’s environment of substantial economic slack … multipliers may be well above 1” (International Monetary Fund 2012, 43). If that is the case – if the fiscal multiplier is above 1 – then cutting $1 in government spending will reduce national income by more than $1. In other words, cutting $1 billion in government spending will lead to a greater than $1 billion cut in national income, and will accelerate economic decline.

You can see why this is explosive. If this is in fact true, then policy should be for increasing government spending, not cutting it. The IMF document cites a series of studies – and it would benefit from studying them and not just citing them. According to one, written by Michael Woodford, when the fiscal multiplier is in excess of 1, then “welfare increases if government purchases expand to fill the output gap that arises from the inability to lower interest rates” (Woodford 2011, 1).

Lagarde is terrified (see above) because the unemployment levels in Greece and Spain are equivalent to those during the Great Depression. So read on … “Under circumstances like those of the Great Depression … government expenditure multiplier should be larger than one, and may be well above one. … Hence, a case can be made for quite an aggressive increase in government purchases under such circumstances, even taking account of the increased tax distortions required in order to finance the increase in government purchases” (Woodford 2011, 33).

From Keynes to the movements 

This is a very old idea. In the context of another period of rather slack demand – the 1930s Great Depression – John Maynard Keynes organized his most influential work around exactly this notion – the relationship between government expenditure (public investment), national consumption, and thus aggregate employment (Keynes 2010, chap. 10). The irony couldn’t be greater. In the 21st century, sitting in the long shadow of the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009, the vehemently anti-Keynesian Washington Consensus ideologues are slowly, cautiously, stumbling back towards – Keynes.

It won’t be enough. Keynes is a whole lot better than the free market evangelism which has governed public policy in the neoliberal era. But we know from the difficulties the world economy entered into during the Keynesian era itself in the 1960s and 1970s that Mr. Keynes himself did not have all the answers.

Real policy reform will require immersing ourselves in the social movements which crises often generate. The people of Indonesia were not content to be passive objects of IMF, Washington Consensus, experimentation. In 1998 they rose up in a revolution, overthrew the dictator Suharto, and began the long march toward a society based on democracy and social justice. The tin miners who lost their jobs through IMF-imposed shock therapy in Bolivia, went to the coca fields, combined their forces with the rural coca growers (including Evo Morales), formed a powerful social movement, and became part of the revolutionary processes which stopped privatization of water in Bolivia, overthrew successive neoliberal regimes, and led to the installation of Morales as president of the now plurinational state of Bolivia.

The IMF is terrified. On the ground, the Spanish people have a better emotion – outrage. The movement of the indiganados (the outraged) in Spain, the rise of Syriza in Greece – these are some of the elements of the new social movements shaping a response to the IMF as this article is being written.

© 2012 Paul Kellogg


Chossudovsky, Michel. 1998. The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order. 2nd ed. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.

ELSTAT. 2012a. Employment-Unemployment. Labour Force (Quarterly) – Timeseries. Athens: Hellenic Statistical Authority.

———. 2012b. Labour Force Survey: April 2012. Athens: Hellenic Statistical Authority.

Eurostat. 2012a. “Harmonised Unemployment Rate by Sex, % (seasonally Adjusted).” Eurostat – Tables, Graphs and Maps Interface (TGM) Table.

———. 2012b. “Unemployment Statistics.” Statistics Explained.

International Monetary Fund. 2012. World Economic Outlook, October 2012 – Coping with High Debt and Sluggish Growth. World Economic and Financial Surveys.

Investopedia. 2012. “Fiscal Multiplier Definition.” Investopedia.

Keynes, John Maynard. 2010. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Orlando: Signalman Publishing.

Kinnock, Glenys. 2011. “America’s $24bn Subsidy Damages Developing World Cotton Farmers.” Poverty Matters.

Kohl, Benjamin H., and Linda C. Farthing. 2006. Impasse in Bolivia: Neoliberal Hegemony and Popular Resistance. New York: Zed Books.

Lagarde, Christine. 2012. “Transcript of a Press Conference by International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde and First Deputy Managing Director David Lipton.” International Monetary Fund.

Mercola, Dr. 2012. “Do You Have ANY Idea How Absurd U.S. Farm Subsidies Are?” Mercola.com.

Okonski, Kendra. “Who’s Really to Blame for Low Coffee Prices?” International Policy Network.

Robbins, Richard Howard. 1999. Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2003. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

The World Bank Group. 2012. “World Development Indicators (WDI) & Global Development Finance (GDF).”

Walt, Vivienne. 2010. “E.U. Farm Subsidies: Agriculture Benefits Raise Eyebrows.” Time.com.

Williamson, John. 1990. “What Washington Means by Policy Reform.” In Latin American Adjustment How Much Has Happened?, ed. John Williamson. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.

Woodford, Michael. 2011. “Simple Analytics of the Government Expenditure Multiplier.” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 3 (1) (January): 1–35. doi:10.1257/mac.3.1.1.

Zumbrun, Joshua. “Sugar’s Sweet Deal.” Forbes.com.

The colour line in the U.S. presidential election

OCTOBER 15, 2012 – In the run-up to the November 2 presidential election in the United States, polls are indicating an almost evenly divided electorate. As of this writing, support for President Barack Obama was standing just above 46%, support for Republican challenger Mitt Romney just above 47% (RealClearPolitics). Given these figures, imagine entering a room of 200 randomly chosen U.S. voters, with people sitting at tables by party-affiliation, but with no table signs to indicate which party-table was which. To avoid a night of tea-party polemics, you might reasonably wish to find a table of Obama supporters, and you figure the odds aren’t too bad – roughly 50-50. This is statistically true, but sociologically misleading. There is a straightforward way to qualitatively improve your chances of finding a table of Obama supporters, and avoiding a table of Romney supporters. The U.S. remains an extremely racially-divided society, and your encounter with an Obama supporter would be made much easier, with just a little research.

Follow, for a moment, the logic represented by Table 1, starting with Column 1, Share of Total Population.

According to the latest figures in the U.S. census, the country’s population breaks down as follows: approximately 1.2% are indigenous, 13.1% identify as African-American, 16.7% as of Hispanic or Latino origin, 5% as Asian, and 63.4% as white (Caucasian, excluding those who identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin) (United States Census Bureau 2012).

But this is not representative of the actual “voting universe” of the U.S. population. Fully 5.8 million U.S. citizens of voting age are excluded from voting – disenfranchised – because of laws in certain states which prohibit those with a criminal record from casting a ballot. Because of the widely-acknowledged, deeply racialized nature of the criminal justice system in the U.S., these laws disproportionately impact African Americans. For non-African Americans, these “felon laws” have the effect of excluding 1.8% of voting age adults. For African American citizens, the excluded percentage jumps to an astonishingly high 7.7% (Uggen, Shannon, and Manza 2012, 1).

To fully understand the intent and origin of these laws, examine for a minute where their effect is the most pronounced. “In six states – Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia – more than 7% of the adult population is disenfranchised.” In Virginia and Kentucky, the figure is 20% or one in five. In Florida the figure is 23%, almost one in four (Uggen, Shannon, and Manza 2012, 1–2). Five of these – Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia – were part of the old, racist Confederacy where plantation slavery was deeply entrenched until the Civil War. Kentucky was a border state with divided loyalties. In the post Civil War era, the old white racist power structure found many methods to continue the disenfranchisement of African American citizens. Laughlin McDonald, Voting Rights Program Director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is quoted in The Huffington Post, saying: “There’s no question this has a basis in race discrimination. It’s part of the history of the racial minorities in the South. The Southern states adopted a whole variety of measures to take away the right to vote after Reconstruction” (McLaughlin 2012).

Column 2 displays this 7.7% figure for African-Americans, while “1.8%” has been entered for all others, as the only two categories for which we have readily available statistics are “African-American” and “non-African American”. But given the enormous weight of African-Americans in the U.S. prison system, this will not appreciably distort the statistics. Column 3 shows the way in which this reduces the percent of the African-American population available to exercise their franchise, Column 4 expresses this as a percent (of all adults who are not excluded from voting by the ‘felon laws’).

Another adjustment has to be made (Column 5). There are quite different patterns of voter participation depending on ‘race’ or ethnicity. A reasonable benchmark would be the last (2008) presidential election. In that election, just 47.0% of Asian Americans voted, 49.9 percent of Hispanic-Latinos, 65.2% of African-Americans, and 66.1% of non-Hispanic Whites. We do not have accurate figures for Indigenous voters and “others”, so for those two categories, the overall turnout rate of 63.6% has been entered (Mark Hugo 2009). Column 6 shows the resulting percentage of actual voters by ‘race’ and ethnicity, while Column 7 expresses this as a percent of all adults who are likely to vote.

Using these statistics, Table 2 attempts to compare and contrast the voting tendencies of these groups, beginning with the raw data for each candidate listed in Columns 1 and 2.

For Indigenous people, we do not have reliable information. In poll after poll after poll, when it comes to national politics, “Indian country is invisible,” in the words of Mark Trahant (2012). But given the fact that nearly 90% of indigenous voters in 2008 supported Obama (and given the tea-party base behind the Romney campaign), it is not unreasonable to expect an overwhelming majority to also support Obama in this election (Native Vote Washington 2008). Among African-Americans, support for Obama is also overwhelming. One recent poll had 94% of African-Americans supporting Obama and none supporting Romney (Murray 2012). More reasonable, probably, are figures from Gallup showing support for Obama at 88.5% and Romney at 4.5%. According to the same Gallup poll, among the Hispanic-Latino population, support for Obama runs at 61% compared to 26% for Romney. But for non-Hispanic whites, only 38% support Obama, compared to 54.5% who support Romney (Newport 2012). For the 0.6% who fit into none of these categories, we can, for the purpose of argument, arbitrarily split their vote 50-50 between Obama and Romney. This will not significantly change the results.

Two more steps are necessary to complete the voting profile for each candidate. The percentage figures, above, do not add up to 100, because they include those who support neither candidate, those who do not intend to vote, and those who have no opinion. The task here, however, is to restrict this to a universe of only Obama and Romney supporters. This is reflected in Columns 3 and 4, figures for each candidate adjusted so that their total adds up to 100 for each category. That done, we get our close to final results in Columns 5 and 6. There you can see the results for each candidate, by category, adding up to 46.3% for Obama and 47.3% for Romney.

Table 3 translates this into percentage terms (the percentage of supporters for both Obama and Romney who come from each of given categories of U.S. citizen).

Look first at the column for Romney. An astonishing 88.5% of his supporters are white. The television images from the Republican convention were not misleading, when they portrayed an audience so white, that wearing sunglasses while you watched them on television was not a bad idea. No other category makes it to double-digit support. Just 1.24% of his supporters are African-American, 7.42 percent Hispanic or Latino, 1.93 Asian, and 0.26 Indigenous.

Contrast this with the support base for Barack Obama. More than one-quarter of his voting base (26.72%) is African-American, more than one-fifth (20.43%) Hispanic or Latino, 4.27% Asian and 2.40% Indigenous. White supporters for Obama make up less than half (44.51%) of his voting base, almost exactly half the percentage figure for Romney.

Finally, we can go to our room of 200 randomly chosen U.S. voters, and orient ourselves much more easily. A seating plan which divided the room between tables of Democrats and tables of Republicans would clearly reveal the colour line which continues to mar U.S. society. Of the 200, 102 would be Romney supporters, 98 Obama supporters. Of the 102 Romney supporters, fully 90 would be non-Hispanic whites, there would be no Indigenous people, 2 Asians, 8 Hispanic, and 1 African-American.

The 44 white supporters of Obama, would be outnumbered by the combined presence of 26 African-Americans, 20 who identify as Hispanic or Latino, five with an Asian background, and two Indigenous people.

There is another factor that needs to be taken into consideration – gender. More women support Obama (50%) than Romney (42%), but this is only because Obama has the overwhelming support of African-American women (89%) and Hispanic-Latina women (66%). When the universe is restricted to white women, Obama has the support of only 42% compared to 51% for Romney. Given the Republican positions on gender issues, this is a rather shocking statistic.

Let’s save the worst for last. In the universe of white men, Romney leads overwhelmingly with 58%, Obama far behind at 34%. Think about this. Just one white man in three supports Barack Obama. When the universe is restricted to those who are going to vote either Democrat or Republican, virtually two-thirds of the white men in that universe will be voting for Romney.

So go back to the room of 200 randomly chosen U.S. voters. If you are looking for a conversation about improving accessibility to health care, then scan the room, and avoid the table which is all white. Odds are that two-thirds of those at the table will be Romney supporters, and avidly opposed to “Obamacare” (and same-sex marriage, tax increases for the rich, regulation and control of the sale of semi-automatic weapons, etc. etc.). If it’s a table of white men, you’re in even more trouble.

You will quickly pick out the multi-racial table. Grab a chair, and you can have a dinner conversation, as opposed to a tea-party polemic. Not that there won’t be some arguments. While you’re discussing healthcare and choice on abortion, it would probably be a good idea to raise, for instance, the question of the use of drones for extra-judicial and illegal bombing, assassination, and the killing of civilians in Global South countries. The dinner might get uncomfortable as a result, but it’s an important issue to raise nonetheless.

In 2008, Obama won because his base enthusiastically mobilized. In 2012, his re-election is in jeopardy, because big sections of that base have become disillusioned. Obama’s whole presidency has been about taking his base for granted, and trying to look “moderate” to increase his support in the largely white Republican world. It’s a dangerous strategy, because a) there is little evidence that the white Republican base is about to shift in numbers and b) without a big turn-out from his own base, he could lose.

This is particularly true because Romney has no such qualms. His disgusting remark writing off 47% of the U.S. electorate was based on the realization that he has little hope of breaking out of his white citadel. His whole strategy now is to do everything he can to mobilize that base, increase its turnout at the polls, and swamp the Democrats with a mobilized, angry, anti-Obama (white) vote.

In 1903, the great African-American scholar W.E.B. Du Bois picked up a term used earlier by Frederick Douglass. “The problem of the twentieth century,” he wrote in one of his masterpieces, The Souls of Black Folk, would be “the problem of the color line” (Bois 2005, chap. The Forethought). Our brief examination of the 2012 U.S. presidential election, shows that this colour line remains a problem in the second decade of the 21st century.

© 2012 Paul Kellogg


Bois, W. E. B. Du. 2005. The Souls of Black Folk. Kindle. New York: Bantam Classics.

Mark Hugo, Lopez. 2009. Dissecting the 2008 Electorate: Most Diverse in U.S. History. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Centre.

McLaughlin, Michael. 2012. “Felon Voting Laws Disenfranchise 5.85 Million Americans With Criminal Records: The Sentencing Project.” Huffington Post.

Murray, Mark. 2012. “NBC/WSJ Poll: Heading into Conventions, Obama Has Four-point Lead.” First Read.

Native Vote Washington. 2008. “Obama Draws Nearly 90% of Native Vote.”

Newport, Frank. 2012. Obama Remains Women’s Presidential Pick; Romney, Men’s. Washington, D.C.: Gallup.

RealClearPolitics. “2012 – General Election: Romney Vs. Obama.”

Trahant, Mark. 2012. “Elections 2012: Invisible in the Polls – Why Indians Don’t Count.” Indian Country Today Media Network.com.

Uggen, Chirstopher, Sarah Shannon, and Jeff Manza. 2012. State-Level Estimates of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 2010. Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project.

United States Census Bureau. 2012. “State & County QuickFacts.”