text:
Garth Turner to seek Liberal nomination in Dufferin-Caledon
Garth Turner is going to try and enter Federal politics for a third term in the House of Commons, this time as a MP for the Dufferin-Caledon riding. The former MP announced this week that he has officially submitted his papers to seek the nomination, and that those papers have been accepted. Mr. Turner, 60, represented the riding of Halton-Peel from 1988 until 1993, having been elected as part of the second Progressive Conservative majority government of Brian Mulroney. He sought the leadership of the party in '93 when Mr. Mulroney stepped aside, gaining 76 first-ballot votes before dropping out of the race eventually won by Kim Campbell. Mr. Turner served as Minister of National Revenue in the short-lived Campbell government before losing his seat in the Tory debacle later that year. Garth Turner returned to Parliament representing Halton as a Conservative under Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the 2006 election, but soon found himself at odds with his leader and was kicked out from caucus later that year. He eventually joined the Liberals after briefly sitting as an independent, and was defeated in last year's federal election by Lisa Raitt, now federal Natural Resources Minister. Riding Association President Jeff May has also announced plans to seek the nomination. No date has been announced for the nomination, but Mr. Turner said he expects that will happen soon. David Tilson of the Conservative Party is the current sitting member in the Dufferin-Caledon riding. Tilson is expected to run again and is widely considered the favorite in the mostly conservative riding.
Posted: August 20th, 2009 under News, Politics.
Tags: Caledon, David Tilson, Garth Turner, ontario, Politics


text:
Radio To The Power Of X
Kicking off its national advertising campaign, XM Satellite Radio will debut its 60-second spot today on more than 19,000 screens in 3,000 theaters across the country, constituting the bulk of movie screens in the nation.
XM's national ad campaign, dubbed "Radio to the Power of X," is a multimedia effort anchored by a television campaign developed by TBWA/Chiat/Day, and features artists such as BB King, David Bowie, and Snoop Dogg. The ad campaign effort will also include radio, magazines, newspapers, direct mail, outdoor, and online, and is intended to generate momentum for XM's commercial service launch slated for Sept. 12.
Commenting on the decision to launch its ad campaign on the big screen, XM president and CEO Hugh Panero said, "What better place to introduce America to XM than in movie theaters, where consumers are used to seeing and hearing great entertainment? We're coming to just about everybody's local theater to let them know that a new generation of radio-Radio to the Power of X-is coming to their local retailer in a few weeks."
Overall, the ad campaign attempts to define XM's brand as the ultimate radio experience. In the initial ad, musicians, musical instruments, a racing car, and other objects rain down across the country from an XM satellite. The company has also produced seven 30-second, genre-specific spots intended to give consumers a flavor of some of the programming that will be available. Some $45 million of the company's proposed $100 million advertising campaign will be concentrated in the fourth quarter of this year.
XM says it will offer 100 channels of digital-quality sound, including 71 music channels (more than 30 of them commercial-free) and 29 news, sports, and talk channels, for a monthly subscription fee of $9.99. XM Intends to launch commercial service Sept. 12, initially in San Diego and Dallas/Fort Worth, throughout the Southwest by mid-October, and then nationally in early November.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Election day winners and losers HR execs should watch
Democrats took the House, Republicans held their Senate majority and a number of state minimum wage initiatives passed.
Kathryn Moody Senior Editor
A historic midterm election with "unusually high turnout," according to The New York Times, allowed the Democrats to capture the House, ending one-party control of Congress and potentially laying the groundwork for a focus on healthcare policy changes.
"While it is too soon to tell, it is likely the Democratic-led House will look to expand upon the [Affordable Care Act], to improve the public exchanges and expand Medicaid; consider some type of expanded role for Medicare; fight efforts to weaken the public exchanges; build upon efforts to control prescription drug prices, and consider paid employee leave legislation," Steve Wojcik, vice president of public policy at the National Business Group on Health, said in a statement.
But Republicans cemented their control of the Senate, meaning employers will likely see President Trump's nominees for court and executive positions to be considered and approved at a faster rate, Michael J. Lotito, shareholder at Littler Mendelson P.C., previously told HR Dive. That also means any legislation to come out of the House will likely need to be heavily modified before anything reaches the President, Wojcik said. Immigration reform could be on the table, for example, though such a move would be difficult without Senate support, according to a statement from the Society for Human Resource Management.
On the state level, voters passed a number of measures that could impact employer policies. For a selection of those results, see below.
Minimum wage changes: Winners
Arkansas passed Arkansas Issue 5, the minimum wage increase initiative, with 68% of the vote. The measure will raise the state minimum wage to $11 per hour by 2021, starting with a raise to $9.25 on Jan 1, 2019.
Missouri passed Missouri Proposition B, the $12 minimum wage initiative with nearly 62% of the vote. According to the proposition, the state minimum wage will increase every year until it reaches $12 per hour by 2023, and then it will increase or decrease based on changes in the Consumer Price Index. The first increase will be to $8.60 in 2019.
Marijuana legalization: Winners
Michigan passed the Marijuana Legalization Initiative, which allows for the legalization of recreational use and possession of marijuana for people age 21 and over. Employers in the state may need to examine their drug policies accordingly, though the substance remains illegal on the federal level. Ballotpedia predicts the measure will go into effect in December when the election results are certified, but the Detroit Free Press reported it's unlikely marijuana will be available for sale until 2020.
Missouri passed Missouri Amendment 2, which supported a constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. Medical marijuana can create some headaches for employers, though experts previously told HR Dive that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not necessarily protect its use.
As of publication, Utah's vote on Utah Proposition 2, the Medical Marijuana Initiative, was not fully reported but numbers are in favor of its ultimate passage.
Marijuana legalization: Losers
North Dakota rejected North Dakota Measure 3, the Marijuana Legalization and Automatic Expungement Initiative, which would have legalized recreational marijuana for people over the age of 21 and created an automatic expungement process for those with marijuana-related convictions.
Election day: Voters consider minimum wage, marijuana ballot questions By Katie Clarey • Nov. 6, 2018
Compliance Challenge of the Year: State and local laws By Kate Tornone • Dec. 4, 2017
Follow Kathryn Moody on Twitter
Filed Under: Compliance, HR Management
Valeriy_G via Getty Images
How HR can reach benefits decision-makers who are not employees
Zoom calls, logins for internal platforms and tried-and-true home mailers have all been used to reach spouses, partners and other loved ones involved in benefits decisions.
By Ryan Golden • Dec. 16, 2021
Latest in Compliance
DOL: 80% of cotton gin employers violated labor law between 2019 and 2021
By Katie Clarey
SCOTUS upholds stay on OSHA's vaccine mandate
By Ryan Golden
Honda dealer settles EEOC claims that it ordered worker to stop ADHD meds
Mechanic paid worker's final wages in 'oil-covered pennies,' DOL claims


text:
On Chobits: From Technophobes to Technophiles
Posted on April 2, 2018 December 10, 2018 -by Alana
This post is part of the 30 Day Manga Challenge series. Day 2: A Manga You Didn't Like At First But Came To Enjoy Later
At first blush, Chobits seems like your run-of-the-mill ecchi manga. But beyond the provocative illustrations and suggestive dialog lies a poignant story that taps into a classic sci-fi conundrum: can man love machine?
Created by superstar manga group CLAMP, Chobits follows the story of Hideki Motosuwa, a broke ronin student, and Chii, his adorable android, or "persocom." The series originally ran from 2000 to 2002 in Weekly Young Magazine (Prison School, Initial D), marking CLAMP's seinen manga debut. Chobits has been translated into English and is currently licensed by Dark Horse Manga.
Introducing the Persocom
One night, Hideki discovers an unconscious—and partially nude—girl lying in the trash near his apartment. Upon closer inspection, he realizes she's not a girl at all, but a persocom, a high-tech and extremely expensive computer system. Figuring she's been abandoned, Hideki takes her home.
Hideki, being totally computer illiterate, looks everywhere for a power switch, finding none until he checks a certain… intimate spot. He does some mental gymnastics, telling himself it's okay, that she's not really a person, just a machine. And with a simple click, the persocom whirrs to life.
But it seems there was a reason why the persocom was in the trash: her memory's been wiped, leaving her unable to do anything besides utter one syllable: Chii. So begins the pair's unconventional relationship, setting the stage for further plot points as Hideki learns more about Chii's origins.
I probably shouldn't have read Chobits when I did. Some time in 2007, my middle school friends and I were on a CLAMP kick, having breezed through Cardcaptor Sakura and Magic Knight Rayearth in record time. So when one of us got Chobits from the local library, we were pumped.
From the first chapter though, we knew we were in trouble. See, we went to private school. Catholic school, to be exact. And none of us really wanted to get caught with a book like Chobits, especially with the kind of shenanigans playing out in Volume 1. So after the first book, we collectively decided Chobits wasn't for us and shelved it indefinitely.
It wasn't until college that I'd decide to give it another go, and man, was the timing right. As a communications major focusing on modern media environments, I learned firsthand how we've come to rely on technology for consumption, socialization, and even companionship.
And really, that's the core message behind Chobits: how far are we willing to go? How will humans' relationship with technology evolve, especially as artificial intelligence grows each day? How long will it take for products like Alexa and Siri to adopt physical forms beyond plastic canisters and tablets?
If Chobits is any indication, then perhaps crossing that line won't be so bad after all.
This post will be updated! Stay tuned!


Sophos Mobile Security can now be uninstalled by dragging the app, from the app drawer to the uninstall section at hidden iphone tracking apps top of the home screen. Download the Mobile Spy Software to Phone Register your account to create your trial username and password.
by just logging into the online account Easy it install on the target cell phone and works in stealth mode. Veteran DIA counterintelligence analyst Chris Simmons had been approached by a female intelligence officer. It allows the hacker to read and access sensitive data from the phone. I have never really experienced the Devil on one shoulder, and the Angel on the other, but here it was.
How to uninstall mobile spy on iphone. If you head over to the official site you can see and feel how the reporting works. They could get lost. Worried about someone's safety. There are many temptations that can convince a young person to get on hidden iphone tracking apps wrong track.
Scan Results We were able to clear out test PC of a number of different spyware cookies and programs that our Norton Antivirus had not detected nor tried to remove. SniperSpy normally costs $59 for 6 months but when you purchase MobileSpy you get SniperSpy 100% free for one year! Stealth Camera Stealth Camera feature of MobileSpy allows you to take a snapshot from their cell phone with a simple command from within your MobileSpy control panel.
Few hidden iphone tracking apps enable user to pass on commands remotely to control various functionalities. Call spy hidden iphone tracking apps phone cell for 4s site? I never knew you could simply hidden iphone tracking apps the Menu key on an LG phone and press 0 six times and then you8217re into the service programming mode.
even the messages were erased. Thankfully, by the grace of God, I found out before it went further. You can listen to voice calls with mSpy call recorder, keep track of text messages, emails, call logs, address book entries, photos and videos taken, memos, tasks, events, browsing histories and bookmarks, programs or applications used, etc.
The hidden iphone tracking apps is easy to access and all information that you find is completely accurate. Only you need to ensure internet connectivity. You will also be encouraged to learn that the software installation procedure is extremely easy. So, we rolled up our sleeves, downloaded the Android SDK, and got to work.
but if you love him and trust him, then maybe it's worth another chance. If there's ever a need to find out what someone is doing and who they are chatting with, this gives you a way to do it without them ever knowing. Husband Frederick Y Scherer , natal place Overland Park, DOB: 13 November 1950, work Gaming Managers.
Malware scanning on Android is the least a security app can do, and the Free Version of McAfee doesn't even do that. App to monitor text messages Sms monitor n85 Sms spy software lg October 24, 2013 – 07:30 am sms spy samsung a637 free download phone spy free download software cell phone tracking history free app to monitor text messages their assistance confidentially, that theres no. Boyfriend Alejandro Graeme Lungren , place of birth Atlanta, date of birth: 9 May 2012, job Survey Researchers.
We have 3 children together, 6,4, and 8 months. This mobile SMS spy runs on almost every popular cell phone. With state of the art technical facilities, we provide our team of professional detectives with detection devices that help them in accomplishing each assignment precisely. Husband Ernesto R Enberg , place of birth Fort Wayne, DOB: 24 January 2014, job First-Line Supervisors and Manager-Supervisors - Landscaping Workers.
You must have iTunes installed with an active iTunes account in order to download and install the software. Track smart phone No matter, onwards to track smart phone the monitored phone. Husband Darell Degroff , bpl Beaumont, DOB: 29 February 1905, work Engineers, All Other.


text:
Opioid Use Disorders:
HHS Needs Measures to Assess the Effectiveness of Efforts to Expand Access to Medication-Assisted Treatment
GAO-18-44: Published: Oct 31, 2017. Publicly Released: Oct 31, 2017.
(PDF, 2 pages)
Elizabeth H. Curda
curdae@gao.gov
Over 52,000 people died of drug overdoses in 2015—and 63% of these involved opioids. For those who are addicted to or misuse opioids, medication-assisted treatment (MAT)—behavioral therapy combined with medication (such as buprenorphine)—can help. However, many people who need it don't have access to it.
The Department of Health and Human Services implemented a number of efforts to improve access to MAT for opioids, such as grant programs for rural primary care settings and allowing additional providers to prescribe buprenorphine. We recommended that HHS 1) set targets to measure improvements in access and 2) establish evaluation timeframes.
Picture of a doctor giving a patient medication.
In an effort to reduce the prevalence of opioid misuse and the fatalities associated with it, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) established a goal to expand access to medication-assisted treatment (MAT). MAT is an approach that combines behavioral therapy and the use of certain medications, such as methadone and buprenorphine. HHS has implemented five key efforts since 2015 that focus on expanding access to MAT for opioid use disorders—four grant programs that focus on expanding access to MAT in various settings (including rural primary care practices and health centers) and regulatory changes that expand treatment capacity by increasing patient limits for buprenorphine prescribers and allowing nurse practitioners and physician assistants to prescribe buprenorphine.
Some of the grant awards were made in 2015, while others were made as recently as May 2017. (See figure.) As of August 2017, efforts under all the grant programs were ongoing. Grant recipients can use funding to undertake a range of activities, such as hiring and training providers and supporting treatments involving MAT. In addition, certain providers and grant recipients are required to develop plans for preventing MAT medications from being diverted for nonmedical purposes.
Figure: Implementation Timeframes of HHS Grants for Expanding Access to Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders, 2015 through 2019a
aThese grants were awarded between August 2015 and May 2017.
bThere are two sets of these grants. The first cohort of 11 grants is for 2015 through 2018 and the second cohort of 11 grants is for 2016 through 2019.
HHS officials told GAO that as of August 2017, the department was in the process of finalizing its plans to evaluate its efforts to address the opioid epidemic. In September 2016, HHS awarded a contract to conduct the evaluation. HHS officials told GAO that they are still working with the contractor to finalize the evaluation approach and that it will focus on whether HHS's efforts to address the opioid epidemic have been implemented as intended. HHS officials said that in the future, HHS may also evaluate whether, or to what extent, its efforts have been effective in expanding access to MAT, in addition to evaluating implementation.
While HHS has some of the information that could be used in a future evaluation of the effectiveness of its efforts to expand access to MAT, it has not adopted specific performance measures with targets specifying the magnitude of the increases HHS hopes to achieve through its efforts to expand access to MAT, and by when. For example, HHS has not established a long-term target specifying the percentage increase in the number of prescriptions for buprenorphine HHS would like to achieve, which would help to show whether efforts by HHS and others are resulting in a sufficient number of prescriptions for MAT medications. HHS has also not chosen a specific method of measuring treatment capacity or established targets associated with it, which would help determine whether a sufficient number of providers are becoming available to evaluate and treat patients who may benefit from MAT.
Without specifying these performance measures and associated targets, HHS will not have an effective means to determine whether its efforts are helping to expand access to MAT or whether new approaches are needed. Gauging this progress is particularly important given the large gap identified nationwide between the total number of individuals who could benefit from MAT and the limited number who can currently access it based on provider availability.
In addition, GAO also found that as of August 2017, HHS had not finalized its approach for its planned evaluation activities, including timeframes. Without timeframes for the evaluation's activities, HHS increases the risk that the evaluation will not be completed as expeditiously as possible.
In addition to HHS efforts to expand access to MAT, officials from selected states, private health insurers, and national associations reported using several efforts to expand patients' access to MAT for opioid use disorders. For example, several stakeholders provided GAO with the following examples of their efforts:
States. State health officials from all five selected states have implemented or are planning approaches that focus on integrating the use of MAT into primary care, such as by providing services for centralized intake and initial management of patients or through telehealth that connects patients in rural areas with addiction specialists in a different location.
Private health insurers. Three private health insurers reported removing prior authorization requirements for MAT medications so patients can avoid a waiting period before receiving the medications.
National associations. Officials told GAO that they are conducting outreach and training for their members and developing tools and resource guides. For example, one association developed a road map with strategies that state policymakers can use to address the opioid epidemic, including strategies for reducing the stigma associated with MAT through educating the public and potential providers.
The misuse of prescription opioid pain relievers and illicit opioids, such as heroin, has contributed to increases in overdose deaths. According to the most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, in 2015 over 52,000 people died of drug overdose deaths, and about 63 percent of them involved an opioid. For those who are addicted to or misuse opioids, MAT has been shown to be an effective treatment.
GAO was asked to review HHS and other efforts related to MAT for opioid use disorders. This report (1) describes HHS's key efforts to expand access to MAT, (2) examines HHS's evaluation, if any, of its efforts to expand access to MAT, and (3) describes efforts by selected stakeholders (states, private health insurers, and national associations) to expand access to MAT. GAO gathered information from HHS officials as well as a non-generalizable selection of 15 stakeholders selected based on their MAT expansion activities, among other factors. GAO also assessed HHS's evaluation plans using internal control standards for defining objectives and evaluating results.
GAO recommends that HHS take two actions: (1) establish performance measures with targets related to expanding access to MAT, and (2) establish timeframes for its evaluation of its efforts to expand access to MAT. HHS concurred with both recommendations.
For more information, contact Elizabeth H. Curda at (202) 512-7114 or curdae@gao.gov.
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. HHS stated that developing such measures is appropriate and that the department will continue to work to develop robust performance measures, including measures related to MAT, as part of its overall Opioid Strategy. However, while HHS has established a goal to expand access to MAT, as of March 2019 it has yet to establish performance measures to track the treatment capacity of medical practitioners who provide MAT. To fully implement this recommendation, HHS should establish these measures.
Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation should establish performance measures with targets related to expanding access to MAT for opioid use disorders. (Recommendation 1)
Agency Affected: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Closed - Implemented
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. As of March 2019, HHS's qualitative evaluation of its Opioid Initiative is complete.
Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation should establish timeframes in its evaluation approach that specify when its evaluation of efforts to expand access to MAT will be implemented and completed. (Recommendation 2)
Find Recent Work on Health Care »
Artificial Intelligence in Health Care:
Benefits and Challenges of Machine Learning in Drug Development
GAO-20-215SP: Published: Dec 20, 2019. Publicly Released: Jan 21, 2020.
340B Drug Discount Program:
Increased Oversight Needed to Ensure Nongovernmental Hospitals Meet Eligibility Requirements
GAO-20-108: Published: Dec 11, 2019. Publicly Released: Jan 10, 2020.
Health Care Workforce:
Views on Expanding Medicare Graduate Medical Education Funding to Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants
Mental Health and Substance Use:
State and Federal Oversight of Compliance with Parity Requirements Varies
Drug Safety:
Preliminary Findings Indicate Persistent Challenges with FDA Foreign Inspections
GAO-20-262T: Published: Dec 10, 2019. Publicly Released: Dec 10, 2019.
Opportunities to Improve Future TRICARE Managed Care Support Contract Transitions
Tribal Programs:
Resource Constraints and Management Weaknesses Can Limit Federal Program Delivery to Tribes
GAO-20-270T: Published: Nov 19, 2019. Publicly Released: Nov 19, 2019.
Tobacco User Fees:
Further Action Needed to Ensure Calculations Are Based on Complete and Accurate Data
GAO-20-34: Published: Oct 17, 2019. Publicly Released: Nov 18, 2019.
Nursing Homes:
Better Oversight Needed to Protect Residents from Abuse
Medicare Hospice Care:
Opportunities Exist to Strengthen CMS Oversight of Hospice Providers
Explore our Key Issues on Health Care
Federal Efforts to Prevent Drug Misuse
Improving Federal Programs that Serve Tribes and Their Members - High Risk Issue
Managing Risks and Improving VA Health Care
Medicaid - High Risk Issue
Medical Product Oversight - High Risk Issue
Medicare - High Risk Issue
Prescription Drug Spending
Reducing Government-wide Improper Payments
Toxic Chemicals - High Risk Issue
VA and DOD Health Care Management
VA and DOD Patient Care


text:
Q: Trying to remove duplicate observations by a particular variable in R Have a large data frame of test results for patients , which also has their ID as a variable. There are many patients who have tested several times so have multiple test results (negative or positive) in the dataset, listed under the variable 'result'. I've gotten the duplicate count with
which(duplicated(dataset$ID))
...where dataset is my dataset, and ID is the patient ID variable. Simple enough.
What I want to see now is, from the duplicate records, how many have a positive result. If a patient tests negative all times, its counted as a negative. If a patient tests positive even once (out of however many times tested), it counts as a positive. So I need to see how many unique positive results there are in my dataset. I'm completely stumped. Its a brain tickler for sure...

A: We can use dplyr without any grouping
library(dplyr)
dataset %>%
  filter(result == 'POS') %>%
  distinct(ID) %>%
  nrow
#[1] 4854

Or another option is data.table
library(data.table)
nrow(unique(setDT(dataset)[result == 'POS'], by = 'ID'))
#[1] 4854

Or using base R
nrow(unique(subset(dataset, result == 'POS', select = ID)))
#[1] 4854

A: There are total 28206 people in the dataset.
library(dplyr)

n_distinct(dataset$ID)
#[1] 28206

To count how many of them were tested positive atleast once we can do :
dataset %>%
  group_by(ID) %>%
  summarise(result = any(result == 'POS', na.rm = TRUE)) %>%
  count(result)

# A tibble: 2 x 2
#  result     n
#  <lgl>  <int>
#1 FALSE  23352
#2 TRUE    4854

So from this, we can say that 4854 people were tested positive whereas 23352 were never tested positive. 23352 + 4854 gives 28206.

In base R, we can do this using aggregate and table which gives the same result.
table(aggregate(result~ID, dataset, function(x)
       any(x == 'POS', na.rm = TRUE), na.action = NULL)$result)

#FALSE  TRUE
#23352  4854

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Pomegranates are often called a superfood but what make them so special? Find out!
Pomegranates are a rich source of antioxidants. Seeds are full of B vitamins, potassium, and folic acid.
A study completed in 2006 revealed that pomegranate's anti-inflammatory properties may help prevent cancer. Pomegranate juice may help the body's attack cancer cells in human breast, prostate and colon cancer. How amazing is that?
Studies have also found that pomegranate helps prevent and might even help fight cardiovascular disease.
There are five grams of fiber in a half cup of pomegranate seeds.
"Pomegranate juice is high in three different types of polyphenols, a potent form of antioxidants. The three types – tannins, anthocyanins, and ellagic acid – are present in many fruits, but fresh pomegranate juice contains particularly high amounts of all three." From the Pom Council Website.
I love pomegranates! They are fantastic on yogurt, oatmeal, cereal, salads, and on their own. Check out this Antioxidant and Protein Parfait.
Want more health food information? Sign up for my RSS Feed or subscribe to the Lindsay Ann Loft Newsletter.
Thanks for the tip Cindy, I've will have to try it!


text:
SARAH REIDELL
Rare Book and Paper Conservator.
Cellulose Ethers
Pre-Coated Repair Materials
Pre-Coated Repair Materials Gallery
Pre-Coated Repair Materials Bibliography
Textured Fills
Textured Fills Bibliography
Textured Fills Gallery
Conservator of rare books, paper, and parchment with an interest in methods and materials; the life cycle of cultural objects; and how conservation can enhance and engage fellowship among allied professionals, scholars, researchers, and artists. Fellow of the American Institute for Conservation (AIC).
Margy E. Meyerson Head of Conservation (2016-present). Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts. University of Pennsylvania Libraries. Philadelphia, PA
Associate Conservator for Rare Books and Paper (2006-16). The New York Public Library. New York, NY
Conservator for Special Collections in the Harvard University Library (2003-06). Weissman Preservation Center. Harvard University. Cambridge, MA
Andrew W. Mellon Advanced Fellow (2002-03). Conservation Center for Art and Historic Artifacts. Philadelphia, PA
Special Collections Conservation Intern (2002). Weissman Preservation Center. Harvard University. Cambridge, MA
Master's of Library and Information Science and Certificate of Advanced Studies in Conservation & Preservation of Library & Archival Materials (2002), University of Texas at Austin
Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology (1999), Bryn Mawr College
American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC)
Fellow (2016)
Specialization: Book and Paper Group & Electronic Media Group
International Council of Museums (ICOM)
International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (IIC)
International Association of Book and Paper Conservators (IADA)
AIC Publications Committee, Chair (appointed), 2015-present
BPG Publications Committee, Chair (appointed), 2014-17
BPG Program Chair (elected), 2012-13
BPG Assistant Program Chair (elected), 2011-12
Grant Reviewer, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 2008-13
Library Collections Conservation Discussion Group, Co-chair (appointed), 2007-08
Follow me on Twitter @sarahreidell
View sarahreidell's profile on Twitter
View sarahreidell's profile on Instagram
View sarahreidell's profile on LinkedIn


text:
Maine Bill Would (Re-)Establish Presidential Primary, Bind to New Hampshire Under Certain Conditions
Earlier this year, FHQ mentioned that the Maine legislative committee charged last year with considering the prudence of a presidential primary -- as opposed to caucuses -- had passed on the idea, citing no desire among members or constituents for the switch. That conclusion did not preclude future legislative action on transitioning from caucuses to a primary as the means of allocating national convention delegates. That is particularly true, perhaps, in light of the fact that the 2012 elections saw control of both chambers of the Maine legislature swing from the Republican Party to Maine Democrats.
That seems to have been the case as Representative Deane Rykerson (D-92nd, Kittery) has introduced legislation (LD 1422) to reestablish a presidential primary in the Pine Tree state that has eight Democratic representatives and two additional independent (one representative and one senator) co-sponsors. The details of the proposed primary system are interesting:
PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTIONS
Determination and date of primary; voter eligibility
1 Determination of primary. Whenever the state committee of a party certifies that there is a contest among candidates for nomination as the presidential candidate of the party and that the committee has voted to conduct a presidential primary election, the State shall hold a presidential primary election.
2 Date of primary. A presidential primary election held pursuant to subsection 1 may not be held earlier than January 1st of the year in which the presidential election is held. The date of the presidential primary election must be chosen in the following manner.
A If certification is made pursuant to subsection 1 for only one party and that party chooses a date for the presidential primary election, the State shall hold the election on that date. The party shall deliver to the Secretary of State notification of the chosen date by December 1st of the year prior to the presidential election year.
B If certification is made pursuant to subsection 1 for more than one party and those parties agree by November 1st of the year prior to the presidential election year to one date, the State shall hold the presidential primary election on that agreed-upon date.
C If a party does not choose a date pursuant to paragraph A or there is no agreement on a date pursuant to paragraph B, the State shall hold the presidential primary election on the first Tuesday after the presidential primary election in New Hampshire, unless that primary occurs in the preceding calendar year, in which case the election must be held on the first Tuesday in March.
If this bill is passed (and signed into law), then, the immediate impact is pretty minimal. State parties would still have the ability to hold caucuses as the means of allocating delegates, but would have a state funded primary option at their disposal. That is true even if just one party opts into the primary system.
Where things get interesting is in the area of scheduling the contest. Let's say Maine Democrats opt in to a hypothetical presidential primary and Pine Tree state Republicans maintain a caucus system. Maine Republicans would retain the ability to schedule their caucuses at any point on the calendar within the guidelines of the RNC rules (to the extent the party wants to abide by those rules). Democrats in Maine would face potential conflicts with national party rules as well, but would have the freedom to schedule a state funded primary as early as January 1 of a presidential election year. If the 2016 Democratic Party delegate selection rules are consistent with the rule that governed the 2012 process, the earliest date on which contests other than those in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina could be scheduled is the first Tuesday in March.
If both parties opt into a hypothetical state funded primary system, then they have to agree on a primary date that can be no earlier than January 1. If neither party selects a date or if the parties cannot agree on a date for the primary, then the presidential primary would be held on the Tuesday following the New Hampshire primary. First of all, that would not conflict with New Hampshire law because it would be seven days after the New Hampshire contest. That is the requisite buffer required by law in the neighboring Granite state. Secondly, however, this would only hold true if the New Hampshire primary is scheduled in the same calendar year as the presidential election. Should the New Hampshire primary be forced into, say, 2015 and no date be agreed to by the two major parties in Main, then the Maine primary would be held on the national party rules-compliant first Tuesday in March.
It should be noted, however, that the Maine state parties would have the ability to schedule the primary in the window of time reserved for the carve-out states. Maine could serve as a challenge to the rules and not really face much of a sanction on the Republican side. The jury is still out on what the DNC may do with its own 2016 penalties.
This bill is worth tracking. It is sponsored by Democrats in a Democratic-controlled legislature, but Maine does have a Republican governor currently.
2016 RNC Rules: A Loophole and Another Layer for Would-Be Rogue States to Consider
A Closer Look at the RNC Super Penalty for 2016
Thoughts on Where the 2016 Presidential Primary Rules Stand, Part Three
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Labels: 2013 state legislative session, 2016 presidential election, Maine, presidential primaries
Last week, FHQ examined more closely the so-called super penalty that is now a part of the Republican National Committee presidential delegate selection rules for 2016. That sanction is specific to states that violate the timing rules -- when a state can hold its delegate selection event -- and would reduce the delegation size of any state holding a primary or caucus before the final Tuesday in February to twelve delegates. The point of the exercise was to show the degree to which the new restriction seemingly tamps down on would-be rogue states. It turns the knob up on the penalty on large and/or willing (and able) states and significantly whittles down the list of small states that may also want to crash the early calendar party.
Of course, the RNC rules assume that states willing and able to move up at all costs will remain mostly stationary and will not be proactive as 2016 approaches. In particular, the rules assume that 1) Republicans in especially Arizona, Florida and Michigan will find the super penalty a significant barrier to primary dates earlier than February 23, 2016 and 2) each of those states will maintain their traditional (or if not that, current) methods of delegate allocation. With regard to the former, that may be. For those states, a penalty-induced reduction to twelve delegates is going to translate to a greater than 75% penalty. Still, it will be up to actors in each state to determine whether that penalty hurts their respective states more than an earlier-than-February-23 primary would help. The RNC is betting that that will be a sufficient penalty. [FHQ tends to agree, but it is an open question from our vantage point here in 2013.]
Yet, there is some recourse for all three usual suspects (and others, if it comes to that). As FHQ has mentioned previously, the timing rules are but one area in which the RNC levies penalties. The other is in the area of delegate allocation. As the rules stand now, there is no proportionality requirement for contests held prior to April 1 as was the case in 2012. The "may/shall" question may or may not be addressed at future meetings of the RNC.1 The calculus would be different for both the RNC and states, but if "may" is reverted to "shall" at some point, and the proportionality requirement is reaffirmed, then the door is still left open to states to skirt, or perhaps more appropriately, game the rules.
Obviously, if the there is no proportionality requirement, then the process reverts to what it was in 2008: states determine how they want to allocate their apportioned delegates regardless of the what-would-then-be meaningless penalties discussed in Rule 17.
But if there is a proportionality requirement, that 50% penalty for using non-compliant methods of allocating delegates is back on the table. The assumption within the RNC is that Arizona and Michigan could stay on February 23 -- where both states' primaries are currently scheduled according to their respective state laws -- but if they maintain their current methods of delegate allocation would be docked 50% of their delegation. That serves as a pseudo-penalty for holding a delegate selection event prior to March 1 (the first Tuesday in March in 2016). In other words, if Arizona, Michigan and also Florida want an early primary date and do not also mind a 50% penalty -- a penalty that has not proven to be a deterrent to any of those states over the course of the last two presidential election cycles -- then each state has a landing place somewhere in the week prior to March 1, 2016.2
But that 50% penalty would only be in place if those three states with a history of violations maintained non-compliant, winner-take-all methods of delegate allocation; not because they were "too early". And if you have not noticed the flaw above, let FHQ point out that under the proportionality guidance that the RNC provided in 2011 and would/will likely extend to 2016 if the proportionality requirement is reinstituted, Michigan would be rules-compliant. Well, Michigan would be rules-compliant if it utilizes the original delegate selection plan it put in place for the allocation of a full, unpenalized delegation. That is, Great Lakes state Republicans would allocate congressional district delegates in a winner-take-all fashion dependent upon who won each congressional district and the remaining at-large delegates would be proportionally allocated based on the statewide results (to candidates who surpass a 15% of the statewide vote threshold).
If that is the plan Michigan Republicans use in 2016 and the primary remains on February 23, then Michigan would face no delegate reduction. Technically, Michigan would violate Rule 16 (no contest prior to March 1), but not "qualify" for the sanction in Rule 17 (timing penalty assessed to states with contests before the last Tuesday in February).
What's interesting is that Arizona, Florida and other states could follow suit. But, focusing on Arizona and Florida, a change could be made to the method of delegate allocation, and the two states could still come out in better positions relative to their respective 2012 allocations. What FHQ is driving at here is that Arizona and Florida could make a change from a true winner-take-all method to one of the several proportional options the RNC allows and potentially still not lose any influence.
Well, a transition from a true winner-take-all allocation to a true proportional allocation is likely giving away too much; leaving too much to chance. If there is a runaway frontrunner, then it is not likely to make much difference. However, if a race is hypothetically more competitive, then a switch from winner-take-all to proportional is unnecessarily injurious in terms of the delegate advantage the state may provide the ultimate winner.
The question, then, given the combination of rules above, is whether a state such as Arizona or Florida could make a switch from a true winner-take-all system to proportional and still come out ahead.
To best highlight this we can reallocate the 2012 delegates -- unsanctioned -- and look at the difference in the delegate margins between candidates/across methods if any. This simulates a situation where either or both of the states in question could modify their delegate allocation method to avoid any sanction from the national party, even with a pre-March 1 date. To reiterate a point FHQ made ad nauseum during 2011-2012, the lowest threshold for achieving proportionality in the eyes of the RNC is the method described above: winner-take-all by congressional district and (conditionally) proportional statewide.3
Recall that Mitt Romney won both Arizona and Florida in 2012 and claimed all 29 and 50 delegates from them, respectively. In other words, the former Massachusetts governor and eventual Republican nominee left those states with either a +29 or +50 delegate margin. Those are our baselines for comparison. If Florida and Arizona were winner-take-all by congressional district, but proportional in terms of the statewide delegates (and assuming 2016 rules), both states would have potentially doubled their delegation sizes, and/but have put more delegates on the table for candidates other than the winner.
In Arizona, 58 total delegates would have been at stake. That is 27 congressional district delegates, 28 at-large delegates and 3 automatic (party) delegates. Romney won all eight congressional districts.4 Additionally, he carried over 52% of the vote among the three candidates who cleared the 15% threshold. [The others over 15% were Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.] That would have meant 24 congressional district delegates and 15 proportionally-allocated at-large delegates for Romney. Santorum would have netted 8 at-large delegates and Gingrich would have pulled in 5.5 With 39 total delegates, Romney would have been 31 delegates clear of his next closest rival; an advantage of two delegates more than he left the state with under the sanctioned, winner-take-all rules in 2012.
And in Florida?
Instead of a penalized total of delegates set at 50 under the winner-take-all rules, Florida would have had a total of 99 delegates at stake if Sunshine state Republicans had been compliant with the RNC rules on "proportional" delegate allocation. Encompassed in that total would have been 81 congressional district delegates, 15 at-large delegates and 3 automatic (party) delegates. In this scenario, Romney won 22 of 25 congressional districts and 59% of the statewide vote (among the two candidates who cleared 15%).6 The former governor, then, would have ended up with 66 congressional district delegates and 9 at-large delegates (75 total delegates). Newt Gingrich's second place finish in the January 31 primary would have meant 6 at-large delegates, and by virtue of having won three congressional districts, 9 additional congressional district delegates (15 total delegates). That leaves Romney +60 over his nearest competitor; a gain of ten delegates over the cushion he had coming out of the state under straight winner-take-all rules in 2012.7
In both instances -- Arizona and Florida -- the winner came out better under revised and compliant rules than under a non-compliant and penalized delegate allocation method.
Now, caveats abound in this simulation. Sure, neither state lost any influence (as measured by the delegate margin it provided the winner under the assumptions of the simulation) and in the process did not also lose any delegates. However, if the rules had been different, candidate strategy surely would have been adapted accordingly. Santorum may have opted to spend some time and resources in Arizona as opposed to focusing everything on the Michigan primary the same date (after non-binding victories elsewhere earlier in the month). Also, Gingrich could have pulled some resources from Florida and redistributed them both outside the state in preparation for subsequent contests and/or on a handful of additional Florida congressional districts where he may have been more competitive and/or could have won.
On the states' side of the equation -- or their attempts to maximize their influence in the context of the nomination process -- this does add an additional layer to the 2016 calculus. There is a new tradeoff that would-be rogue (but not so rogue in the eye of the RNC penalties) would have to or could consider. On the one hand, why lose delegates when you don't have to? Any of these three states could go earlier than March 1 and modify their delegate allocation rules to maintain compliance and not lose any delegates (as long as the contests were not scheduled before the final Tuesday in February). That is weighed, of course, against putting all of the delegates on the table in a potentially more competitive environment that may end up diluting the influence of the state in the grand scheme of winnowing the presidential field and/or proving kingmaker for the nominee, thus effectively wrapping up the nomination.
As is the case with a great many of these sorts of tradeoffs (i.e.: When is the best time to hold a primary or caucus?), it can be difficult to definitively answer the question in advance. There is too much uncertainty. Uncertainty about the identity of the candidates who may run. About how they perform in earlier states. About which candidates would still be viable at the point in the calendar when your state is scheduled. About which other states are also considering similar moves. About the usual issues of the timing of these decisions also. The decisions are often made well in advance of when a great many of those questions above can be answered so as to allow the delegate selection plan to be implemented (i.e.: to administer to the election process). The national parties do both have deadlines for when states should have in a place a plan for the upcoming delegate selection process (usually in the late summer or early fall of the year preceding a presidential election).
But states like Florida and Michigan and Arizona have shown in the past that they want to have their cake and eat it too. Threading this particular needle -- though it may be considered and ultimately acted on -- is a tough one to do in advance. If the invisible primary has seemingly produced a clear frontrunner, the gamble is easier; not so much of a gamble. The rationale among state-level actors would be, "Hey, we know the likely outcome, let's alter the delegate allocation rules so as not to lose any delegates through penalty." The closer/more competitive it looks like the race will be, though, the harder it becomes for states to pull the trigger on a plan that may or may not reduce the state's influence.
After all, a win may be a win no matter what the delegate advantage is coming out of any given state (see Santorum's early February victories in non-binding contests in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri in 2012).
This bears watching not only in Arizona, Florida and Michigan but in other states that may opt to alter their rules to maximize their influence. Of course, none of this is likely to be taken up until state parties hold off-year conventions or executive committee meetings to make these determinations in 2015.
1 The 2012 rules held that states "shall" allocate delegates in a proportionate manner if they hold contests prior to April 1 (Rule 15.b.2). The current Rule 16.c.2, however, states that states "may" hold proportional contests before that same point on the calendar. There is, then, little to no force behind the rule. It is a suggestion for 2016 instead of the mandate the rule was in 2012.
2 That March 1 threshold is assumed and has proven to be a point on the calendar over which most states are unwilling to cross due to the penalties both parties have put in place.
3 Some states used this method but took advantage of a provision in the RNC definition of proportional that allowed a conditional allocation of the at-large/statewide delegates based on the results of the primary. If a candidate received a majority of the vote statewide either all of the state's delegates (congressional district delegates included) or all of the at-large delegates could be allocated to the winner. Otherwise, the allocation of the at-large would be proportional.
4 The strange thing about this is that neither Arizona nor Florida had newly drawn congressional districts at the times at which their primaries were held. New lines had been drawn to account for the new district in Arizona and the two new districts in Florida, but neither plan had been precleared as part of both states' coverage under the Section 5 provisions of the Voting Rights Act (as, for instance, South Carolina had in late 2011 ahead of the January presidential primary in the Palmetto state). There was still activity between the Department of Justice and both Arizona and Florida as late as April. To FHQ's knowledge, neither state overtly lobbied the RNC with the argument that lack of Section 5 preclearance effectively infringed on the states' rights to determine their own method of delegate allocation and subsequent abilities to comply with the rules. Without clearly defined and approved congressional district lines, neither Arizona nor Florida had the ability to choose any of the "proportional" methods of allocation by congressional district. Their options were either a true winner-take-all allocation or a true proportional allocation. Both obviously opted for the former; methods both states had traditionally used in the pre-proportionality requirement days (before 2012, then). This is not to suggest that those sorts of pleas would have been successful, but the argument could have been made that certain options that were available to some states were not available to Arizona or Florida. New York, for instance also had redistricting issues as well (but those were not Section 5 related) and had to have contingencies in place for the method of allocation under a 27 and 29 congressional district alignment. Those contingencies were not in place in either Arizona or Florida; some evidence that there had been no Section 5-related argument put forth by either state party before the RNC.
5 Due to the issue cited in footnote 4, those three congressional district delegates from the ninth district are unaccounted for in this exercise and the three automatic delegates are treated as unbound.
6 See footnote 4.
7 Due to the issue cited in footnote 4, those six congressional district delegates from the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh districts are unaccounted for in this exercise and the three automatic delegates are treated as unbound.
Thoughts on Where the 2016 Presidential Primary Rules Stand, Part Two
Labels: 2016 presidential election, Arizona, delegate selection rules, Florida, Michigan, Republican Rules Committee, RNC
The RNC spring meeting in Los Angeles last week briefly shone the light back on the party's 2016 presidential delegate selection rules. There are a couple of matters that FHQ will deal with later this week in reaction to that meeting, but there are also some leftovers from the three part series of posts (which wrapped up last week) on the current state of the rules that we would like to circle back to.
To start with, FHQ will focus on the so-called super penalty the RNC has put in place to deal with states that may be willing and able to break the timing rules laid forth in Rule 16(c). The new penalty is described in Rule 17(a):
If any state or state Republican Party violates Rule No. 16(c)(1) of The Rules of the Republican Party with regard to a primary, caucus, convention or other process to elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates and alternate delegates to the national convention by conducting its process prior to the last Tuesday in February, the number of delegates to the national convention shall be reduced to nine (9) plus the members of the Republican National Committee from that state, and the corresponding alternate delegates shall also be reduced to nine (9).
All states, then, that hold a delegate selection event prior to the last Tuesday in February -- in 2016, that is February 23 -- would have their delegation to the convention reduced to 12 delegates. If this penalty had been in place in 2012, Florida's January 31 primary, for example, would have seen the state's delegation shrink from 99 delegates to 12; instead of the 50% penalty that knocked the Sunshine state down to 50 delegates.
The innovative aspect of all of this is that the new Rule 17 puts in place a sliding scale of penalties -- variable by state size -- that ends up buttressing the so-called "on ramp" that the Growth and Opportunity Project report indicated the party values. In other words, big states with large delegations would be taking more of a gamble in breaking the timing rules than small states. Taking the original, pre-penalty 2012 delegate numbers, we can assess just how large the super penalty would have been had any state held a binding primary or caucus prior to the last Tuesday in February:
The result is that the knob is turned up on a seemingly ineffective 50% penalty for over three-quarters of the states and territories.1 California's delegation would be docked 93% of its delegates while Vermont would face a much smaller 29% penalty. This has the practical effect of amping up the penalty on those states that have proven to be the most willing to jump the queue. Florida would face an 88% penalty to its delegation. Michigan and Arizona, though both are currently compliant with February 23, 2016 primary dates, would face 80% and 79% penalties, respectively, for moving up into the window of time on the calendar reserved for the carve-out states.
The question is whether this incentivizes smaller states moving up, gambling that their delegation is already small and calendar position is more important. Does the penalty change tip the balance in that direction? Well, eyeballing it, probably not. Look at the 13 states and territories with a penalty of 50% or less. New Hampshire already has protected status. New Mexico, DC, Rhode Island, Delaware and Vermont are all primary states controlled by Democrats. That leaves the territories -- most of which could not incur any penalty because the size of their delegation is already below 122 -- Maine and Hawaii as potential rogue states with an incentive to shift to an earlier and non-compliant date. Hawaii is a tough sell during primary season. Getting candidates out there and/or spending money is not something the system has seen much of in the post-reform era.
That leaves us with Maine. And Pine Tree state Republicans have held early February caucuses for the last couple of cycles. But are they willing to flaunt the rules and take an approximately 50% penalty to remain there in 2016? That is the question.
All in all, unless one of the big states opts to go nuclear -- by blowing up their delegation -- this is theoretically a potentially effect penalty. It is variable in its treatment of states; giving larger states a poison pill and reducing the list of possible/rational violators to smaller states -- those where the on ramp of retail politics would be enhanced instead of hinder (as would be the case with larger states).
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out in 2015.
1 Calling the 50% penalty ineffective is somewhat misleading. That penalty was more than sufficient in forcing compliance in the vast majority of states in 2012 and before. Where is was less than effective was under the circumstances where a limited number of states were willing to incur the penalty in exchange for what actors in states like Florida in 2008 and 2012 perceived as a more influential position on the calendar.
2 Puerto Rico has a larger delegation and may actually prove interesting in this context should Republicans on the island opt into the primary again in 2016.
Iowa/New Hampshire, Part ∞
Labels: 2016 presidential election, delegate selection rules, Republican Rules Committee, RNC
Future Changes to the Rules
Having set the baseline of 2016 delegate selection rules for both parties and having examined the pressing divides between those -- Democratic and Republican -- baselines, FHQ will now turn its sights in part three of this series on the possibility of change and what shape those changes may take.
[NOTE: Some of what follows relies on the reader being familiar with the discussions in the first two parts to this series of posts.]
The question of change to the national party rules guiding the 2016 delegate selection process in two competitive presidential nomination races is first dependent on a couple of things. The first is rules-based: Do each of the parties have the ability to alter their respective rules? The second is one of timing: When can rules changes be made?
As we have already described in some detail the rules that came out of the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, FHQ will start there. Obviously, no major changes came out of the RNC winter meetings in Charlotte in January. But FHQ does not know that there was any widespread expectation of altering the rules at that meeting anyway. Rule 12 of the 2012 Rules of the Republican Party -- the rules that will govern the 2016 process -- give the RNC the latitude to make amendments to the rules between conventions; something that did not happen before the 2012 cycle. Again, as FHQ highlighted in the previous post, the bar is pretty high for changing the rules (a majority vote on the Rules Committee and a three-quarters vote among the full RNC membership). Whether the rules change or not, we can say that it takes the full RNC to make any changes which means that said changes will only occur at the regular meetings of the RNC. The group meets at least three times a year in accordance with Rule 8 and we furthermore know that the deadline for making changes is September 30, 2014. We can surmise for that that there are approximately four or five more RNC meetings before that time.
The DNC set up is similar, though there is less guidance in the party's bylaws about what constitutes a winning coalition on any amendment before either the Rules and Bylaws Committee or the full Democratic National Committee. [One would assume a simple majority is sufficient.] The DNC does meet at least two times a year according to Article II, Section 7 of the party bylaws.
Opportunities for change aside, the groundwork was laid in Charlotte to potentially make changes to the Republican rules at the spring meetings this week in Los Angeles. What that entails is a more difficult question to answer. Here also there are two matters to consider.
First, the Growth and Opportunity Project report has been released in the time since the RNC winter meeting. Now, as FHQ mentioned in reaction to the report, the provisions on the presidential nomination process contained deep in the document amounted to some rather sweeping changes to the delegate selection process. These are long-term and potentially controversial/divisive changes. And while there may be some discussion of the G.O.P. report during a lengthy Rules Committee meeting on the agenda for this afternoon, the debate and actual changes -- should any emerge from this gathering -- are likely to center on other matters.1
What other matters? Well...
The second consideration, and one that was deeply embedded in the groundwork laid for the LA meeting in January in Charlotte was about the rules handed down from the Tampa convention. FHQ does not think it will come as any surprise to those who either closely followed the 2012 Republican presidential primary process or the convention in Tampa (or both) that there were factions within the party did not like how the process had been conducted in the primaries (and caucuses) or how the future rules were crafted at the convention itself. The Paul faction -- part of which has gained some institutional footing within the RNC -- remains rather agitated over both.
But that faction remains just that: a faction. And it is not a majority faction within the Rules Committee or the RNC as a whole. Yet, the discontent over the rules that emerged from Tampa was something that stretched beyond just the Paul-aligned faction of delegates (and now RNC members). What that group seeks is a sort of retrogression to the rules package that was agreed to by the Rules Committee in meetings the week prior to the Tampa convention but ultimately altered by folks aligned with the Romney campaign. The face of those changes -- changes that were perceived as having centralized power over the nomination rules in the establishment wing of the party2 -- was Romney lawyer and DC national committeeman, Ben Ginsberg. And the ongoing effort to revert the rules to what they were prior to Tampa, as best voiced by Virginia national committeeman Morton Blackwell, has been called an effort to "de-Ginsberg" the rules.
Factoring in both of the above considerations creates a push and pull effect on the rules in their current form. The Growth and Opportunity Project report pushes for broader changes to the rules, well beyond where they stand now, while the de-Ginsberging effort would pull the rules back to basically what they were during the 2012 cycle. Now, FHQ should note that the latter is more of a micro-, inside baseball sort of battle (The fight is not necessarily small nor does it lack controversy or philosophical scope.3) while the former is more macro; a sweeping and potentially new philosophical approach to the nomination process that would entail and almost fundamental rewriting of the rules.
This push and pull does have an impact on the ways in and pace with which change is likely to occur at future RNC meetings. In the context of the meeting in LA this week, it means that the changes are likely to occur along the de-Ginsberg axis rather than on the Growth and Opportunity Project report axis. However, that movement (likelihood of change) is somewhat limited. Rule 12 allows amendments to rules 1-11 and 13-25, but none of the mostly convention-specific rules that are higher in number than 25. That means that the changes to Rule 40 would/could not be included in any amendments.4 But it also means that the delegate allocation and binding rules (and penalties) are on the table. Two things viewed negatively there are the Rule 16.A change that forces delegates to observe their binding during the nomination roll call or be forced to resign their position and the may/shall discrepancy (see part one) in Rule 16.B.2 that seemingly eliminated the proportionality requirement established for the 2012 cycle.5
Those are not inconsequential changes, but they are the items that are likely to change (if any change is to occur) coming out of the ongoing RNC spring meeting.6
Thus far, FHQ has focused almost entirely on the Republican side of the equation. As has been mentioned previously, that is a function of the RNC actually having made some efforts in the area of 2016 rules. The Democrats have yet to begin their process and will not until later in the summer (2013) when the Rules and Bylaws Committee convenes. As such, the DNC is in a kind of "wait and see" mode. They are waiting to see what comes of the RNC process -- in the way of incremental or sweeping changes -- before making any definitive moves about the rules of their own 2016 process. FHQ mentioned in part two that there were no pressing issues -- no overt desire for any fundamental reform to the 2012 process -- that emerged from the RBC meeting following President Obama's inauguration. The expectation for future change to the Democratic Party delegate selection rules is almost entirely dependent upon what happens with the Republican process of reform. The DNC is currently in the position of reacting or adapting to any changes that come from the RNC.
While the Growth and Opportunity Project report recommends a series of rather big changes, many of them, as FHQ has pointed out, are not possible without Democratic Party buy-in. In other words, there cannot or will not be unilateral and significant change to the process without both parties on if not the same page, then at least in the same chapter. And even then it is difficult because of state party and state governmental interests in the process out of the national parties' control. Incremental change like those called for in Blackwell's de-Ginsberged rules and reaction/adaptation is more likely than G.O.P. report-type alterations to the rules.
1 FHQ would link to it, but it seems to have disappeared from the RNC website. When it was still up, the draft agenda showed a 1-5 or 6pm (Pacific) meeting of the Rules Committee.
2 See particularly the changes to Rule 40 (discussion in footnote here) but also the addition of Rule 12 (allows changes to be made outside of the convention) and Rule 16 (concerning delegate binding and allocation).
3 To say that the de-Ginsberging effort is not based on philosophical concerns is to suggest that a mobilized, grassroots part of the Republican Party is not seemingly against a more establishment part of the party. These are bottom-up versus top-down approaches, respectively.
4 The Rule 40 change in Tampa raised the bar for candidates to be placed into nomination at the convention from controlling five state delegations to eight delegations.
5 For a better idea of what is at stake in these de-Ginsberg proposals, here is a marked up/edited version of the current rules with de-Ginsberged substitutes. In addition to the Rule 16 changes, this motion also includes the removal of the Rule 17 loophole discussed in part two that would potentially invite some states to move into a last Tuesday in February primary or caucus (something that would conflict with Democratic Party rules regarding the calendar).
6 The other noteworthy discussion will be over Rule 12 itself. There is an open question as to how Rule 12 should be interpreted. At question is the amendment process. FHQ has discussed the thresholds for passing measures through the Rules Committee and then the full RNC, but there is some question as to whether amendments raised at one point could be amended at another. In particular, there is no guidance in the rules about whether an amendment that has passed the Rules Committee can be amended at the RNC stage of its consideration. See Matthew Hurtt's diary at RedState containing excerpts from an email correspondence from Morton Blackwell to RNC Chairman Reince Priebus for more.
Thoughts on the Growth and Opportunity Project Recommendations
Labels: 2016 presidential election, delegate selection rules, Democratic Party, Republican Rules Committee, RNC, Rules and Bylaws Committee
With members of the Republican National Committee descending upon Los Angeles this week for the party's spring meeting, the opportunity presents itself to revisit the current state of the rules that will ultimately govern the 2016 presidential nomination process.
Having established a baseline set of Republican delegate selection rules for the 2016 presidential election cycle in part one, FHQ will layer in the Democratic Party process and save our prospective look at the potential for future rules changes for a subsequent follow up post. It may also be helpful to look into the collective implications of the rules on both sides as they stand now. FHQ has spoken with some of the principals in both parties over the course of 2013, so the intent here is to be as concrete as possible without giving into the temptation of speculating. That said, FHQ would be remiss if it did not add the caveat that the rules are not set in stone on either side and will not be until the summer of 2014. In other words, there is going to be both intra- and interparty work on the rules and with that some give and take (read: rules changes) between now and then.
This post will focus more on the interparty dynamics and save the intra-party discussion for later.1
If one were to take the baseline set of Republican rules detailed in part one of this series and compare it to the only set of rules available on the Democratic side -- the rules utilized during the 2012 process2 -- there are some notable and consequential discrepancies that may affect not only the progression of the primary process in 2016, but the rules-making process as well.
Delegate Allocation:
As was pointed out in part one of this series of posts, there is currently a change embedded in the RNC rules for 2016 relative to 2012 in regard to the allocation of delegates. There is now a suggestion instead of a requirement that states (in some way) proportionally allocate delegates if they hold contests prior to April 1. This is a language issue within Rule 16 that the RNC is very likely to alter. However, this is largely an RNC issue. The Democrats have discussed allowing late states to hold winner-take-all contests as a means of speeding up an already-decided nomination, but the proportionality requirement for all states has held to this point. If the Democratic process is all proportional and the RNC allows some winner-take-all contests, then as many have discussed in the past, the Republican process could wrap up earlier if calendar and candidate/campaign dynamics are the same across the two parties' contests. That, though, is a large assumption. All of those factors -- delegate allocation requirements, the calendar and candidate/campaign dynamics -- interactively affect how any given nomination race progresses.
The bottom line is that this is not and would represent any new divergence between the two national parties' sets of delegate selection rules regardless of the RNC reinstating the proportionality requirement used in 2012.
Though both parties informally coordinated the basic structure of a primary calendar for the 2012 cycle, there is some break in that at this point in the 2016 cycle. That is not to suggest that there has been some sort of a divorce between the bipartisan group of rules-making principals who kept the lines of communication open with respect to the creation of the 2012 rules. However, there was a rules change coming out of Tampa that is somewhat consequential in a comparative light across the two parties' sets of rules.
FHQ will circle back to a broader discussion of the penalties in a moment, but the interparty divergence on the calendar is based on an intra-party discrepancy between the Republican guidelines in Rule 16 and penalties in Rule 17. In short, Rule 16 allows only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to hold contests prior to March 1 (or one month before the next earliest contest). Yet Rule 17 does not penalize a state for holding a contest -- so long as it provides a proportional element in its method of delegate allocation -- on or after the final Tuesday in February.
As was mentioned in part one, this would provide states like Arizona and Michigan -- already scheduled for the last Tuesday in February according to state law -- with some cover. It provides a landing place for states that would like to hold early contests but potentially penalizes them based on the proportionality requirement penalty. [Yes there is a discrepancy between the "requirement" in Rule 16 and the penalty in Rule 17 here as well.] The states that have been willing to take the 50% delegation penalty for violating the rules on timing in the past -- Arizona, Florida and Michigan -- have also utilized a winner-take-all method of allocation. Under the current rules and penalties, all three could hold contests as early as February 23, 2016 and only lose 50% of their delegation, assuming no changes are made to the delegate allocation rules at the state level. That is a price each was willing to pay in 2012.
This does create a potential problem for the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee. As the rules stood during 2012, no state other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina could hold a contest prior to the first Tuesday in March. If Arizona, Florida and Michigan all decide to move into that moderate, 50% penalty area of the calendar -- avoiding the superpenalty associate with going before the last Tuesday in February -- that means that those states would be subject to penalties on the Democratic side as well. The complicating factor and the saving grace here from the states' (Democratic) perspective is that Republicans control the decision on where the primaries in all three states end up. The complication is that Republicans could shift the contests in those states with no real recourse from state-level Democrats (either in the state parties or state governments). However, the Democrats in those states could petition the Rules and Bylaws Committee for a waiver for this very reason as long as some effort had been made by Democrats in the state to create changes that would bring the state into compliance with the Democratic Party rules (see the recently introduced bill in the Florida legislature).
Waivers aside, the question remains: Would the DNC really want a calendar that protected the carve-out states but has three medium-to-large states on their heels? A better question may be whether the DNC could do something about that anyway. One answer to the latter issue is to move up by one week (to the final Tuesday in February) the earliest date that non-carve-outs could hold contests. Of course, that has the potential of inadvertently inviting Democratic-controlled states to move up to that point on the calendar. In turn, that could put Republicans in the same position the Democrats now face: having to deal with states petitioning the party for a waiver. Additionally, if Arizona, Florida and Michigan are already positioned at that point on the calendar, the RNC would have two classes of states: the three aforementioned states penalized because they continue a history or winner-take-all allocation and a possible unpenalized group of states which have gained waivers.
This seemingly small change really does highlight the importance of some form or fashion of coordination between the two parties on their calendar rules and penalties. That one week window creates the potential for a messy situation between the national parties themselves, but the national parties and proactive states as well. This is an area where something is likely to give before both sets of delegate selection rules are finalized.
Penalties:
The mindsets of the two parties where penalties for rules violations are concerned are completely different. The RNC has arrived at a point where they as a party want penalties with teeth. Compliance has proven difficult in the absence of meaningful penalties. That is why there is now a 50% penalty for violating the proportionality requirement (assuming it is reinstated) and a superpenalty, knocking states delegations down to 12 delegates, for states that would violate the last Tuesday in February threshold. There is nothing similar on the Democratic side. There, there is a 50% penalty for violating the rules on timing and an additional penalty on candidates' delegates (should they campaign in a rogue state), but nothing more. That did not prove effective in deterring either Florida or Michigan in 2008 (though one could argue we have not seen the subsequent move from Florida and Michigan on the Democratic side).
Regardless, the Democratic Party approach is different. The teeth -- actually carrying through with the penalties at the convention as the RNC does -- is not something with which the DNC concerns itself. In the eyes of those on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, the penalty is effective in that it affects the candidate accrual of delegates during the process. By extension, by the time the nomination process reaches the convention, the decision has already been made and there is no need to penalize states and/or individual delegates. The obvious counter to this is what was witnessed in early February in 2012. Non-binding caucuses (Colorado, Maine and Minnesota) and primaries (Missouri) all received attention from the candidates and media despite there being no delegates at stake.
These two sets of rules do not and will not be carbon copies of each other, but there is the potential need for some coordinating action between the two parties on the rules, particularly those dealing with the calendar and to a lesser extent the penalties for violations. That action -- potential changes to the baseline rules -- is where FHQ will next turn its focus.
1 The one intra-party note to add in this context is that the Democratic National Committee rules-making process will look different in 2016 than it has during any other cycle in the post-reform era. The one seemingly consequential decision -- and it is more a functional change than a substantive one -- that was made when the DNC convened in Washington the same week as President Obama's second inauguration was that the Rules and Bylaws Committee would handle the recommendation phase of the rules-making process in-house. Traditionally, a commission has been created to examine the rules in the context of the previous cycle(s) and compile a list of recommendations for rules changes. For the 2016 cycle there will be no commission like the Democratic Change Commission following the 2008 cycle.
From FHQ's perspective, this signals a couple of things:
1) On some level, the decision on the part of the Rules and Bylaws Committee to forego the commission step of the process is indicative of some consensus behind the existing rules. But...
2) It is also a nod to the reality of the overall process across both national parties. Removing the commission in some ways centralizes the power to craft the rules in the RBC. FHQ says "in some ways" because the RBC has never been in a position of obligation relative to any of the commissions that have existed over the years. The RBC never had/has to act on the recommendations made. But by removing the commission and considering changes in-house, the RBC is theoretically better able to adapt to any changes the RNC makes to its process. The other positive is that this saves the DNC from the needless creation of a body that would examine, compare and make recommendations for rules changes based on a potential moving target on the Republican side. Recommendations are worthless if they are based on in some way an outdated reality in the Republican rules.
2 This is an obviously flawed comparison. The 2012 Democratic Party rules being carried over to 2016 is entirely dependent upon 1) there being a desire among the members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee to alter the rules and 2) what exactly the RNC changes about its current rules. Barring wholesale changes to the RNC rules (i.e.: unilaterally instituting a regional primary system), the expectation based on past precedent is that there would be only minor changes to the rules from the previous cycle.
Montana Bill to Consolidate Presidential Primary & School Elections Probably Dead
Maine Bill Would (Re-)Establish Presidential Prima...
2016 RNC Rules: A Loophole and Another Layer for W...
Thoughts on Where the 2016 Presidential Primary Ru...


text:
The A to Z of the Jacksonian Era and Manifest Destiny
Terry Corps
The brief period from 1829 to 1849 was one of the most important in American history. During just two decades, the American government was strengthened, the political system consolidated, and the economy diversified. All the while literature and the arts, the press and philanthropy, urbanization, and religious revivalism sparked other changes. The belief in Manifest Destiny simultaneously caused expansion across the continent and the wretched treatment of the Native Americans, while arguments over slavery slowly tore a rift in the country as sectional divisions grew and a national crisis became almost inevitable.
Scarecrow Press
The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
More Books by Terry Corps
Historical Dictionary of the Jacksonian Era and Manifest Destiny
The A to Z of Mesopotamia
The A to Z of the Wars of the French Revolution
The A to Z of the Chinese Civil War
The A to Z of Ancient Egyptian Warfare
The A to Z of the Zulu Wars
The A to Z of Malaysia


text:
It seems that you're in USA. We have a dedicated site for USA
Medicine Surgery
An Atlas of Congenital Malformations
Editors: Carachi, Robert, Doss, Sameh Helmi Edward (Eds.)
Combines information on embryological development with detailed presentation of congenital malformations
Explains how congenital malformations develop
Includes a wealth of illustrations, most of them in color
eBook n/a
Hardcover n/a
This comprehensive atlas is unique in combining information on the embryological development of the human with detailed presentation of the congenital malformations encountered in clinical practice. As a consequence it will not only assist practitioners and trainees in recognizing and evaluating malformations, but also enable them to understand how a malformation has developed and to explain the mystery of congenital malformations to relatives and patients. The book is organized according to anatomic region, with additional chapters on hernias, tumors, lymphogenesis and lymphatic malformations. According to WHO statistics, each year congenital anomalies result in approximately 3.2 million birth defect-related disabilities worldwide. All too often, however, training in embryology is now a neglected area, and medical graduates frequently lack confidence in their knowledge of the field. Clinical Embryology: An Atlas of Congenital Malformations will help to rectify this deficit and to ensure that malformations are comprehended and managed appropriately. It will be of value for postgraduate trainees in pediatric surgery, pediatrics, and neonatology, undergraduate medical students, and general practitioners/family physicians.
Robert Carachi, MD, PhD, FRCS (Glas), FRCS (Eng), FEBPS, has been an Honorary Consultant Paediatric and Neonatal Surgeon at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children NHS Trust, Glasgow, UK since 1987. He was appointed Head of Surgical Paediatrics in 1999 and became Professor of Surgical Paediatrics at the University of Glasgow in 2004. Dr. Carachi is Chairman of the Examination Board of the European Board of Paediatric Surgery, UEMS; Editor in Chief of the Scottish Medical Journal; and Director of the Scottish Spina Bifida Association. He has been on the editorial board of the European Journal of Paediatric Surgery since 1996 (with responsibility for the UK) and is an Editorial Consultant to the Journal of Pediatric Surgery. Dr. Carachi has extensive clinical, teaching, and research experience. He has co-edited a number of previous books, including the Springer books Operative Techniques in Paediatric Surgery and The Surgery of Childhood Tumours, and is the author of 157 other publications. Sameh Helmi Edward Doss, MB,CH, MSc, PhD, is Professor of Anatomy and Embryology in the Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt and also Professor of Anatomy and Embryology at the British University in Egypt (BUE). Dr. Doss graduated from the Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, in 1976 and went on to gain his doctorate from the university in 1987 for a thesis on the anatomical and histological study of the pericardium in normal and pathological conditions. He was appointed to his present position in 2000. Dr. Doss is a member of the Egyptian Scientific Committee for Promotion of Professors and Assistant Professors of Anatomy and Embryology. He is the author of original articles in national and international journals and a series of books.
Robert Carachi
Sameh Helmi Edward Doss
Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
XIII, 497
213 b/w illustrations, 295 illustrations in colour


text:
Buckeyes Collect In-State Verbal from Versatile Ian Van Gorp of Mason Manta Rays
Photo Courtesy: Ian Van Gorp
Agon is the proud sponsor of all high school coverage (recruiting, results, state championships, etc.) on SwimmingWorld.com. For more information about Agon, visit their website AgonSwim.com.
To report a college commitment, email HS@swimmingworld.com.
by Chandler Brandes
NEW COMMIT: Mason, Ohio native and versatile swimmer Ian Van Gorp has verbally committed to The Ohio State University and will join the Buckeyes as a member of the class of 2024.
Van Gorp, who owns the Winter Juniors standard in the 400 IM, does his club swimming with Mason Manta Rays and earned a trio of best times at the Southern Premier Invitational in March. He raced four events at Juniors East in December and set a lifetime best in the 200m fly at NCSAs last summer.
Also competing for Saint Xavier High School, Van Gorp is a six-time Ohio State Championship finalist and recently helped his team secure their 11th-straight title. He placed fifth in the 200 free and 10th in the 100 fly as a junior after taking 14th in the latter and sixth in the 200 IM during his sophomore season.
He told Swimming World:
"I'm proud to announce my verbal commitment to swim for The Ohio State University! Thank you to the family, friends and coaches that have helped me get this far. GO BUCKS!!"
His best times include:
200 IM – 1:51.87
100 fly – 50.53
200 breast – 2:07.67
500 free – 4:36.37
Van Gorp's versatility will be extremely valuable for Ohio State and he could find himself in a number of different events throughout his career. Although he's just shy of scoring range at the Big Ten Championships, Van Gorp has continuously made improvements each season with over a year to go before suiting up for the Buckeyes.
If you have a commitment to share, please send a photo and quote via email to hs@swimmingworld.com.
Dany Sizar
Watch European Junior Swimming Championships 2019 Live Stream HD
Live Link ==> https://bit.ly/2XRstxO
ফয়েজ আহম্মদ ফয়েজ আহম্মদ
Watch European Junior Swimming Championships 2019 Live Stream Online
Live Hare==>> https://bit.ly/2xqjUeG
Kerry Fagan Butkovich
Congrats to Ian!!!
Agon College Recruits Page - Meet Coverage
READ ABOUT OTHER TOP COLLEGE RECRUITS
RECRUITS - GET ON THE SWIMMING WORLD WATCH LIST
RECRUITS ON TWITTER
RECRUITS ON INSTAGRAM
RECRUITS ON FACEBOOK


text:
Saltella bezzii är en tvåvingeart som först beskrevs av Oswald Duda 1926.  Saltella bezzii ingår i släktet Saltella och familjen svängflugor. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Svängflugor
bezzii

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Peru to pay $26 million for first shipment of Sinopharm vaccine: minister
FILE PHOTO: The 2020 China International Fair for Trade in Services (CIFTIS) in Beijing
LIMA (Reuters) – Peru will pay $26 million for an initial batch of one million doses of Sinopharm's COVID-19 vaccine, the first part of a broader agreement with the Chinese company to supply 38 million doses, economy minister Waldo Mendoza said on Tuesday.
Peruvian president Francisco Sagasti last week said his interim administration had negotiated vaccine supply deals with Sinopharm Group and AstraZeneca Plc, jumpstarting a vaccine program that has been slow to take root in the country. Mendoza called the payment a "concrete and objective step the government is taking so that the vaccines arrive as soon as possible."
Sagasti originally said the first batch of the Sinopharm vaccine would arrive in January, but foreign minister Elizabeth Astete later said the delivery could be delayed until early February.
L'amour de la vie! Love of Life with Joan Lunden Former Host of Good Morning America, Author, Journalist and Health & Wellness Advocate
Power Women with Victoria Schneps
https://podcasts.schnepsmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Vicki-PowerWomen-JoanLunden-final.mp3
Peru has reported more than one million cases of coronavirus since the pandemic struck in March. COVID-19 cases have crept up recently following the end-of-year holidays, prompting a shortage of beds in critical care wards in Lima and across the country.
Economy minister Mendoza said Peru was currently in talks with 10 pharmaceutical companies to buy vaccines. He said the government has budgeted up to $2.7 billion for the supply and distribution of vaccines and related expenses.
"This figure may vary according to the needs of the country and the development of the pandemic," Mendoza said.
Peru has lagged behind some of its wealthier neighbors in efforts to secure vaccines for its citizens amid a political crisis in 2020 where one president was ousted and another resigned.
(Reporting by Marco Aquino, writing by Dave Sherwood. Editing by Jane Merriman)
Local authors' novel focuses on mental health in medicine
U.N. envoy says Central African Republic needs more peacekeepers
Exclusive: Georgetown University academic Chris Brummer in lead for CFTC chair – sources
Witness implicates Mexican soldiers in mass student kidnap, president says
Runaway cost of oxygen tanks adds extra agony to pandemic in Mexico


At Adanac Poodles we like our poodles to live in an enviroment where they are family pets and in their forever home at an early age so from time to time we have miniatures that most have obtained their Canadian Championships come available to move onto their forever home. We would love to keep them all but that's impossible and not fair to them. We also have puppies occasionally that go into their foster homes at 8-10 weeks of age if your interested in a younger dog.
These dogs have been raised in my home and are already house trained and crate trained. They would be of no cost to the foster family but our only request is that you allow them to remain a part of our breeding program for a set period of time that will be decided upon. Once they retire from my breeding program they will remain with you as your faithful companion.


text:
Mercedes stays cautious as F1 heads to Russia
F1 / 27 September 2018, 5:58pm / Martin Moravec
There will be no let-up in the pressure on the Mercedes pit crew in Sochi at this weekend's Russian Grand Prix, despite Lewis Hamilton's 40 point lead in the championship standings. File photo: Andy Wong / AP
Sochi, Russia - Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff isn't taking anything for granted despite Lewis Hamilton leading the Formula One standings by 40 points with just six races left. The Russian Grand Prix has been won every year by the Silver Arrows, but a change of date could cause problems.
Mercedes has won at Sochi on each of the four occasions the Russian Grand Prix has taken place but team chief Toto Wolff says it cannot rest on its laurels as Lewis Hamilton closes in on a fifth Formula One title. Victory for Hamilton last time out in Singapore, after a stunning pole lap which came out of nowhere, put him 40 points ahead of Ferrari's Sebastian Vettel with six races remaining this season.
Hamilton won in 2014 and 2015 in the Russian Black Sea resort when the race took place in October. It was moved to May and April in the past two years, when team-mates Nico Rosberg and Valtteri Bottas prevailed. Wolff is a little concerned by the switch in date.
"With the race being held in late September, we're going back to weather conditions that will be similar to those of 2014 and 2015, when the Russian Grand Prix took place in early October," he said. "We don't have any data from the current regulation cars in those conditions in Sochi, so this adds another challenge to the race.
"We have a good track record in Sochi but we know that Ferrari and Red Bull will give it everything to break our winning streak, so we must fight as hard as ever to make sure we bring home as many points as possible."
Questionable tactics
Vettel could only finish third in Singapore after questionable Ferrari tactics but has not given up hope of somehow overhauling Hamilton and snatching his own fifth world title, having won four at Red Bull.
"I think Russia has improved in recent years for us, so it should suit our car," he said, having taken two second places in Sochi, in 2015 and 2017.
"I don't think we have to worry about races that are yet to come. I think our car works pretty well everywhere. That's one of the strengths of our car, so there's no reason to be afraid of what's coming," Vettel added.
On-form Bottas
Counting against Vettel is the form Bottas has previously shown in Sochi. As well as winning in 2017, he made the podium in 2014 with Williams and was fourth in 2016. He would have been third in 2015 but for a Kimi Raikkonen calamity on the final lap.
If Bottas produces another good showing, then the chances of more Hamilton success is increased given Bottas is a good team player and will try to help his fellow Mercedes driver in the title race.
Red Bull duo Max Verstappen and Daniel Ricciardo look out of the running as they are expected to incur grid penalties for switching power units, but the long straights at Sochi mean the circuit does not especially help Red Bull anyway.
"Sochi is going to be a tough weekend for us," said Red Bull team boss Christian Horner. As for pit stops, a one-stop strategy looks the only way to go with no one having finished in the top four following multiple stops.


Cloud-based phone systems are systems which are also known as hosted PBX systems or cloud-based solutions. Hosted services offer you the flexibility and reliability of a phone system without the maintenance and support costs associated with maintaining servers and phone equipment on your business premises. Which type of phone system will work best for your business might come down to your preference, since there is an ongoing debate about which system is best for business.
Cloud-based phone systems are deployed by a hosted provider in an off-site data center; hence the term "hosted system" which you'll often hear when discussing this method. Your business is required to pay a monthly fee to use the cloud-based phone system, which will be connected to your office via a public or private internet connection. Using cloud IP systems requires the purchase of desk phones for your business, but this should be the only equipment you will have to buy. You will have limited control over moves, additions, and changes, with the host provider handling any updates you make and taking care of system maintenance.
Yealink provides one-stop communication solutions with the integration of voice, data, and video communications for both internal and external partners to help employees gain communication efficiency while reducing cost at the same time. Yealink phone system solutions are based on open standards, providing excellent compatibility and interoperability with worldwide leading Unified Communications.
With a PBX system, you would be required to purchase everything up front and own and maintain the physical equipment, while cloud-based phone systems are usually paid for as a monthly expense. This offers tax advantages for your business and frees up cash for other revenue-generating activities. Your monthly phone system expense can often be negotiated downward with extended contract terms.
Hosted cloud IP phone systems not only relieve you of the purchase and installation of an on-premise phone system, but also relieves your business of the expense involved in phone system maintenance and repair, which can be a big-time money saver if your business is small or your IT department resources are limited.
Another consideration when looking at a hosted system is the size of your business. Do you have a single location, or does your system need to handle remote offices, locations, or employees? While an on-premise PBX system is capable of handling remote users and multiple offices, it is more expensive and more complicated, often requiring additional equipment to connect offices or users together that isn't necessary when using cloud-based phone systems. If you have multiple offices, job sites, or remote employees, a cloud IP system will save you time, money, and installation complications. If you anticipate a significant change in staffing, consider looking at cloud-based phone systems, as any modification to your system can be made immediately, and you will only pay for what you use.
If you have questions about cloud IP systems and whether your organization would be best served by an on-premise PBX or remote, cloud-based phone system, contact us today to speak with a specialist and receive a free quote for a phone system without any obligation or sales pitch.