Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Posts Tagged ‘Bill Clinton’

The Difference Between 1994 And Today Is Democrats Have Obama

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/11/05

I have been told that the GOP has a larger advantage in the US House than any Party since World War II. That is decidedly untrue. The Democrats have had a larger majority many times since World War II ended. But this is indeed the largest Republican majority since World War II. But let’s examine Baraka Obama’s infamous quote, shall we? And his impact on Democrat elections.

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Democrats have Obama
2009 Democrats 257 Republicans 178
2011 Democrats 193 Republicans 242 Republican gain of 64
2013 Democrats 201 Republicans 234 Democrat gain of 8
2015 Democrats 179 Republicans 243 13 seats currently undecided with 5 Republicans currently leading

That’s a Republican gain of 65 at a minimum, and a possible Republican gain of 70.

The Clinton years
1993 Democrats 258 Republicans 176
1995 Democrats 206 Republicans 228 Republican gain of 52
1997 Democrats 207 Republicans 226 Democrat gain of 1, Republican loss of 2
1999 Democrats 211 Republicans 223 Democrat gain of 4, Republican loss of 3

That’s a Republican gain of 47.

The difference between the Clinton years and the Obama years is Republicans gained a minimum of 18 more House seats under Obama, possibly as many as 23 more seats.

Source: US House of Representatives
Source: Real Clear Politics

US SENATE
The Obama years
2009 Democrats 60* Republicans 40* (see below-noted source)
2011 Democrats 53* Republicans 47 Republican gain of 7
2013 Democrats 55* Republicans 45 Democrat gain of 2
2015 Democrats 45* Republicans 52 Republican gain of 7, with 3 to be decided. Likely Republican gain of 8 or 9.

That’s a Republican gain of 12 to 14 Senate seats.

The Clinton years
1993 Democrats 57 Republicans 43
1995 Democrats 48 Republicans 52 Republican gain of 9
1997 Democrats 45 Republicans 55 Republican gain of 3
1999 Democrats 45 Republicans 55 No gain

That’s a Republican gain of 12 seats.

The difference between Obama and Clinton in the Senate? Obama hopes it’s a wash, but it’s much more likely that Republicans will gain more Senate seats under Obama than under Clinton.

Source: US Senate
Source: Real Clear Politics

Clearly, the difference between the Obama years and the Clinton years is Republicans gained more seats overall under Obama. And the reason is very clear. When Clinton got shellacked in 1994, he learned. He triangulated. He moved toward the center. He stole Republican agenda items for himself, even items Republicans had to force onto him. And he made the Democrats sound less Socialist and anti-American in the process. Furthermore, Clinton was a much better showman, a much better politician, a much better salesman than Obama could ever be.

Obama learned at the feet of a man who dedicated his book to Satan, a man who set off bombs inside the US in order to attempt to get the US government to bend to his will, two Ivy League professors who suggested the total overburdening of the freebie system to collapse the government budget and usher in Socialism. Obama and Clinton both have been shown incapable of telling the truth, but Clinton can actually make people buy his lies.

Clinton blinked, moved away from the Big Government Socialism he came in with, and the Democrats recovered better than Obama’s “I can’t learn anything from these elections” approach.

The difference between the Clinton years and the Obama years? Americans are not, in general, Socialist.

Posted in Character, Culture, Elections, history, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politics, Socialists, society | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »

Obama Wins 2008, In All Likelihood Loses 2012

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/11/01

Below are the 2008 election results from US Election Atlas.org.

Note the Republican states are in blue while the Democrat states are in red. Republicans being red and Democrats being blue wasn’t always the case. Not until those folks at MSNBC switched it around (for propaganda benefits, since red is the color of Leftism and Communism and Socialism). It is my goal that here, at Truth Before Dishonor, the Democrats are once again reverted back to being red and the Republicans are once again reverted back to being blue. Because it is far more in keeping with the Truth about their respective political leanings.

Below is the 270 To Win Battleground States map (with my adjustments for Republican and Democrat. The Battleground states are unchanged.)

Compare the two maps. (singing)Do you see what I see?(/singing) That’s right, folks. Every Republican state in 2008 is Republican in 2012. Every Battleground state was Democrat in 2008. And Indiana, which was Democrat in 2008, with less than 50 percent of the vote (despite Obama having an ACORN-led 105 percent Registered Voter vs Adult Resident advantage in Indianapolis in 2008), is Republican in 2012.

The charts show what everyone in the know has known to be true: Obama is on the defensive, desperately trying to cling to territory he won in 2008 and losing ground. That has been the case since the day he was inaugurated. He has been doing his best to cling to territory won and hoping against hope that he doesn’t lose too much. That’s what happens when you push a lie-filled, anti-American, anti-Christian, Socialist agenda down the throats of American citizens, the majority of whom oppose what you’re doing. (ObamaCare: the majority of the population was against it before it became Law, the majority of the population wanted it repealed immediately after it became Law, the majority of the population wanted it repealed in 2010 when they swept 700 Democrats out of office nationwide, and the majority of the population wants it repealed today.)

How big is this inability to win states Obama won his first time through? Let’s look at previous two-term Presidents.

2000: George W Bush won 271 Electoral College votes.
2004: George W Bush won 286 Electoral College votes.
George W Bush gained 15 Electoral College votes for his second term in office.

1992: Bill Clinton got 370 Electoral College votes.
1996: Bill Clinton got 379 Electoral College votes.
Bill Clinton gained 9 Electoral College votes for his second term in office. (Ross Perot went from just under 19 percent of the overall vote to under 9 percent.)

1980: Ronald Reagan, a true Conservative I could back (but wasn’t Conservative enough on some issues, and I was ineligible to vote regardless), got 489 Electoral College votes.
1984: (The first year I was eligible to vote.) Ronald Reagan got 525 Electoral College votes (losing only Minnesota by 18/100ths of a percent and DC by a huge margin).
Ronald Reagan gained 36 Electoral College votes.

In fact, the last time a sitting President won re-election despite shedding Electoral College votes was the election year of 1944, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt won a fourth term with 432 Electoral College votes, compared to his third term win of 449 Electoral College votes and his second term win of 523 Electoral College votes. But even FDR improved his second term EC votes over his first term EC votes. To find a President who won a second term with fewer EC votes than his first term, you have to go all the way back to the wholly destructive “Progressive” Democrat Woodrow Wilson who won 435 Electoral College votes in 1912, but only gained 277 in 1916, a loss of 158 Electoral College votes for “Progressivism”. He also only garnered 49.24 percent of the popular vote. (Too bad for this country that he couldn’t have lost 170 instead of only 158. Our country would have turned out far better for it.)

The Socialist Barack Obama? He doesn’t have a 168 EC vote cushion to lose. And lose EC votes, he will. Even the pinko Democrat operatives will tell you that. Even the pinko polling firms with their “Democrats will vote in higher proportions than they did in 2008″ polling numbers, will tell you that. Independent voters, who gave Obama an 8 point advantage in 2008, are giving Romney a 15 to 20 point advantage in 2012. And the above “battleground” map shows it. Obama has already lost Indiana. Obama cannot win any state he lost in 2008. The Census has reduced the EC number in states Obama won while increasing the EC number in states Obama lost. And every Battleground State is a state Obama won in 2008.

Will this be the first time in 96 years that a sitting President won re-election to a second term while shedding Electoral College votes? I think not. And since, it’s a foregone conclusion that Obama will shed Electoral College votes, I have declared Obama the loser of the 2012 election.

(Truth Before Dishonor intends to do its version of live-blogging the 2012 Presidential Election this upcoming Tuesday night. Tune in to TBD for the 2012 Presidential Election results as they happen. (hopefully))

Posted in Elections, history, media, Obama, politics, society, Vote Fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Democrat Outlook Worse Than 2010

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/09/26

Democrats are pinning their hopes on making a comeback after their disastrous 2010 election results, and they have selected 60 Republican-held “battleground” districts to try to make that change. Well, they can HOPE for CHANGE in the results all they want. According to a Democrat pollster, things look even worse now than they did in 2010. From National Journal comes the news.

One of the Democratic party’s leading pollsters released a survey of 60 Republican-held battleground districts today painting an ominous picture for Congressional Democrats in 2012. The poll shows Democratic House candidates faring worse than they did in the 2010 midterms, being dragged down by an unpopular president who would lose to both Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Pollster Stan Greenberg released the poll with some sugary spin for Democrats, downplaying the results by arguing that the president’s jobs plan will improve the party’s fortunes.

How’s that working out for you? Yeah, that “jobs” plan is going over like a lead balloon as Senate Democrats are loudly declaring “No, you don’t”. And those lead balloons tend not to bounce all that well.

But the numbers – at least right now — are troubling for Democrats, and echoed some of the takeaways from the GOP special election upset in New York City last week. Instead of an overall anti-incumbent sentiment impacting members of both parties, voters are taking more of their anger out on Democrats. When voters were asked whether they’re supporting the Republican incumbent or a Democratic candidate, 50 percent preferred the Republican and just 41 percent backed the Democrat.

Voters in these districts said they were more supportive of Republicans than they were during the 2010 midterms, when 48 percent said they backed the Republican candidate and 42 percent said they backed the Democrat. (Republicans won 55 percent of the overall vote in these 60 battleground districts, while Democrats took 43 percent.) In 2010, Republicans netted 63 House seats – their best showing since 1948.

So, according to a Democrat pollster, the voters are two percent more likely to vote for a Republican and one percent less likely to vote for a Democrat now than in 2010, the year of the TEA Party-lead Republican tsunami. No, the Democrats will have to forget about trying to win back seats and start to figure out how to save what Democrat seats they have, because 2012 is lining up to be another year of across-the-board Republican gains, led by the TEA Party/Conservative grass-roots wave.

Here’s a blast from the past. January 25, 2010, ABC News.

Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., fears that these midterm elections are going to go the way of the 1994 midterms, when Democrats lost control of the House after a failed health care reform effort.

But, Berry told the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, the White House does not share his concerns.

“They just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”

(What’s with the pink highlighting, ABC?) Yes, that was the difference, alright. The 2010 elections were an even greater landslide than the 1994 elections. And it continues to be the difference. After the 1994 elections, President Clinton commandeered multiple Republican agenda items as his own. After the 2010 elections, President Obama threw a hissy fit and doubled down on his ad hominem and straw-man attacks while maintaining the Leftist agenda. So, the difference between 1996 and 2012 is you Democrats have Obama.

The news coming out of Virginia is definitely bad for Democrats, as Ed Morrissey points out.

In 2008, Barack Obama sailed to victory over John McCain in Virginia by six points in the normally Republican state, promising “hope and change.” According to a new poll from Roanoke College in Virginia, Obama certainly brought change. The incumbent President trails both Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, and can only muster 33% support against a generic Republican — twenty points below his popular-vote percentage in 2008[.]

The really bad news? Roanoke polled adults, not registered or likely voters. Democrats tend to do much better in polls that don’t screen for registration, which means that a more predictive sample would undoubtedly have produced even less pleasant results for Obama.

Chances are very strong that Virginia is lost to Obama, as Virginians will vote the ABO (anyone but Obama) line in 2012. As Ed Morrissey said, expect Democrats to only put in enough money in Virginia to attempt to protect down-ticket incumbent Democrats.

New York City this year put a Republican in a seat held by Democrats since the 1920s as the Republican candidate tied the Democrat candidate directly to Obama. Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District, a “battleground” district Democrats hoped to capture, saw the Republican demolish the Democrat by 20 points as, once again, the Republican tied the Democrat directly to Obama.

Smitty notes that The New Republic’s William Galston is upset that Democrats are losing the independent vote.

As Democrats are looking at 2012 being a much worse outcome than 1996, there is another correlation, and that is between 2012 and 1980. There are many similarities: a bad economy that is not improving, a lot of ugliness going on in the Middle East that the President isn’t fit to handle, a very unpopular President, a Conservative grass-roots distaste for the Establishment Republicans, the Establishment Republicans fighting hard against a Conservative Republican candidate. But there are differences as well. In 1980, Republicans still had the shadow of Watergate hanging over them. In 2012, Democrats have more than just a shadow of Fast and Furious, Solyndra, LightSquared. It has even gotten to the point that many incumbent Democrats do not want to be photographed with Obama, because they cannot afford to be tied to Obama if they want to win reelection.

No, Democrats, the difference between Clinton and Obama is Obama never learned and is still rhetorically mauling the public. And the public doesn’t like being mauled.

Posted in Character, Conservative, economics, Elections, history, Liberal, media, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, TEA Party | Tagged: , , , , , | 5 Comments »

The Oh So Tolerant Leftists

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/07/15

Chicago had a Literature Festival. You know, where they celebrate literature and get to buy books on the street and neat-o stuff like that. And a group set up shop ostensibly to push for book banning. What came of it is very telling.

The vote totals, in percentage format, came at the end. And it was very telling. What did these Chicago Literature Festival attendees want banned?

Sarah Palin 38 percent
Glenn Beck 23 percent
Ann Coulter 22 percent
Adolf Hitler 0.5 percent
Michael Moore 0.3 percent
Bill Clinton 0.2 percent
Barack Obama 0.1 percent

Do you see what I see? The oh so tolerant Chicago Leftists wanted to ban three outspoken members of the political Right while giving a pass to the political Left — even giving a pass to Adolf Hitler! As Dean said over at Beers with Demo, “Hey, Chicago-landers, why just merely ban books… wouldn’t book burnings be so much more fun?

I’m sure there would be those on the Left who would say “but not everyone voted to ban books, so your numbers don’t mean anything.” That sounds like a nice, neat argument but it falls on its face. Because the Leftists are constantly talking about how the Right is intolerant and into book bannings and book burnings, those who would actually vote to ban books would be on the Right, wouldn’t they? But those who actually voted to ban books were almost solely on the Left, as proven by the numbers. As I said, when the argument about “not everyone voted to ban” is examined based on the actual results, the argument does more to harm the Leftist’s cause than to help.

Posted in Conservative, Constitution, education, Liberal, media, Obama, Palin, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Robert Reich Is All Wet

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/05/29

Things Robert Reich does not understand:

The TEA Party movement
Conservatism
Economics
Tax history
Regulatory history
That Big Business in bed with Big Government is Crony Capitalism and not Free Market
That our debt and deficit problems are spending problems and not revenue problems

What Robert Reich pushes:

Class Envy (which is a sin)
TEA Partiers are fake
TEA Partiers are real but they’re evil and insane
Conservatives want to hurt grandma and sick people
Only insane people don’t want to raise taxes and the debt limit

HT Hot Air Headlines

Robert Reich starts out with the same old false premises and Big Government memes as all Leftists and Big Government Republicans have been pushing for decades.

Who’s more influential in the Republican Party – the so-called Tea Party or Wall Street and big business?

There’s the “TEA Party is fake” attack. And there’s the false premise that Wall Street and Big Business is Republican. Let’s see how Republican Big Business is, shall we?

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Character, Conservative, Constitution, economics, Elections, George Bush, history, Liberal, media, Obama, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, Tax, TEA Party, truth, war | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Republican Path To The Presidency

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/05/24

The lamestream media wants to nominate the Republican Presidential candidate for us like it did in 2008 with the help of Democrats voting in the Republican Primary. Then, they propped up the squishiest of candidates until McCain gained the nomination. And KABLOWIE!!! The lamestream media turned on him in an instant, printing unsubstantiated rumors that turned out to be lies, and attacking him with everything they had. But only after he beat out more conservative candidates. McCain didn’t help matters by absolutely refusing to fight Obama and refusing to allow his people to fight Obama. And throwing a hissy fit when other people fought Obama. McCain’s only saving grace was choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate. Suddenly, many people were willing to vote for the Republican Ticket. I, myself, was ready to vote Third Party until he chose Palin. No way was I going to vote McCain, and I didn’t — I voted Palin.

Once again, the lamestream media is trying to nominate the Republican candidate — a candidate they won’t vote for, regardless. And the Big Government Republican machine is acting as the accomplice. You see, the Ruling Class Republicans are more afeared of the Grass Roots than they are of Democrats. And that’s the huge problem.

7 in 10 grass-roots Republicans and a majority of independents deem the Ruling Class Republicans (inside the beltway Republicans) to be out of touch with and to the left of the base.
42 percent Conservative
36 percent Moderate
20 percent Liberal
And the Ruling Class Republicans are Moderate, the whole lot of them. “You cannot win without us” is a two-way street, folks, and don’t you forget it. Lamestream media and the RCR want you to forget that. The RCR cannot win without you and they want to keep you down and ignorant and stupid so you vote for RCR-approved candidates instead of voting your conscience.

Due to my weak research skills, I couldn’t find the famous quote from the famous European writer who described Americans as rubes and country-class folk who eschewed aristocracy and governed themselves. But that’s how Americans were until the 20th Century. And that’s what made America great. The 20th Century rolled around and the Ruling Class gained power, and that has been the downfall of the US. Our 20th Century achievements have been made as a result of inertia and world events (WWI and WWII propelling the US onto the World Stage because nobody else was able to produce). Ruling Class Socialism in the US began prior to World War One and has caused the deterioration of the US since then.

But I did find some very worthwhile quotes.

“The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.” — John F Kennedy (Too bad the Democrats absolutely demand surrender and submission today.)

“I think the most un-American thing you can say is, “You can’t say that”.” — Garrison Keillor (And the Left is very busily working hard to prevent anyone on the Right from being able to say anything. The same goes for the RCRs and the grass-roots.)

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” — Thomas Jefferson (Hello, Democrats and RCRs.)

“We can have no “50-50″ allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all.” — Theodore Roosevelt (Hello, Democrats and Barack Obama)

“America’s abundance was not created by public sacrifices to “the common good”, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes.” — Ayn Rand (Hello, Democrats and Barack Obama and RCRs.)

“The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.” — Henry David Thoreau (Hello, Democrats and Barack Obama and RCRs.)

For most of American History, Americans have rejected the Aristocracy, the Ruling Class mentality of Europe. And for most of American History, we have outclassed the entirety of the world in every measure (except barbarity). But as the 20th Century rolled in, we started giving in to Socialism (which has never, anywhere, succeeded) and European-style Aristocracy. And that has been to our demise. Ronald Reagan changed that picture.

The Democrats absolutely ate him alive. The lamestream media absolutely ate him alive (but I’m repeating myself). The RCRs, including George Herbert Walker Bush, absolutely ate him alive. But he won anyway, despite being called a dunce and considered stupid, ignorant, unwise, a fool by both the Democrats and the RCRs. He won because he appealed to the regular people. He made sense to the regular people, who eschewed Aristocracy and Socialism and held to the original American Values that made this country great.

Reagan was mostly victorious against the Democrats and the RCRs. Reagan absolutely brought about the collapse of the Stalinist Iron Curtain and ushered in a new age of Freedom to Eastern Europeans. Reagan oversaw the crushing of the Carter Malaise/Stagflation and brought about the greatest economic boom since the 1940s.

Then came the RCR Bush 41 and his “read my lips” lie, which brought on the Big Government “think with his prick” Democrat perjurist Clinton and the RCR Bush 43. And the free-fall into Socialist Hell was once again in full swing. But Barack Obama changed all that. The Socialist Democrat Barack Obama put a jet-pack on the free-falling US to send us into total Socialist impoverishment (as all Socialist schemes inevitably lead to impoverishment).

But there is a cure. And it’s pretty much the same cure Ronald Reagan used. Ignore the lamestream media which has sold its soul to the Far Left and focus on the people themselves. But today is very different than 1980. Today, true American Values cannot be found in some regions, so those regions may as well be written off from the get-go (and repaired later in the process).

As such, my view for a Conservative Republican’s path to the Presidency:
1. Forget about California’s Primary.
California will vote majority Democrat, regardless of who runs.
California’s Republicans are majority RCR regardless, and a candidate who wins the RCR vote will not defeat the Democrat who scores higher in the areas the RCRs work in.

2. Forget about most of New England.
Aside from maybe New Hampshire (and possibly Maine), the Democrat will win New England regardless of the Republican candidate.
The majority of New England Republicans are RCR types and the Democrat scores higher on RCR values than RCR candidates.

3. Forget about the lamestream media.
While they will try to pick the Republican nominee like they did in 2008, they will still destroy that nominee and vote for the Democrat, so their opinions are worth less than a possum skin after it was run over by a CSX train.

4. Focus on the grass-roots Conservatives outside California and New England.
The best chance for a Republican victory resides everywhere except the West Coast and New England. As such, those are the Primary and Caucus voters the Republican candidates need to focus on.

5. Don’t be “me, too” to the Democrat or RCR position. Provide a true contrast in agendas.
Too many people see the two Party monstrosities as basically the same thing. Six of one, half a dozen of another. Provide a true difference from the “government owns and rules all” Democrats and RCRs. As Reagan proved, and the TEA Party groups demand, this is the winning hand. A return to what made America great is what the people demand, not a “me, too” Aristocracy and continued government dominance over every aspect of Americans’ lives.

Note to you RCRs out there: Be warned, you are on your way out of grace. This includes Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Karl “Tokyo” Rove, and others.

Posted in Conservative, Constitution, economics, Elections, George Bush, Liberal, media, Obama, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, Tax, TEA Party | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 236 other followers

%d bloggers like this: