Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Posts Tagged ‘2012 elections’

Obama A Drag On WV Gov Race

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/10/04

Another day, another special election where the Republican ties Obama to the Democrat, dragging the Democrat down. This time it is in West Virginia, where the Republican is tying the Democrat to ObamaCare. And it has caused the undecided voters to swing heavily for the Republican. Both sides of the race have stated the Republican Governors Association ads tying the Democrat to implementation of ObamaCare have tightened up the race.

What should’ve been a standard issue Democrat win, with Acting Governor Earl Ray Tomblin (D) filling the unexpired term of former Governor Manchin (D), who the Mountain State sent to Washington, DC to fill the unexpired term of the late Senator Byrd (D) has now become a close race, all due to the Obama Factor. As Aaron Blake at the Washington Post notes, should Republican Bill Maloney win today, it will be an upset.

Democrats now expect the race to be decided by a margin in the low single-digits, while Republicans hold out hope that they can pull off what would be a pretty significant upset but say that have nothing to lose, given the state’s heavily Democratic — if conservative — tilt.

It would indeed be a significant upset because, even as Republicans made big gains elsewhere in 2010, West Virginia stuck by its Democratic roots and returned large Democratic majorities to its state legislature, along with sending Manchin to Washington, despite national Republicans’s best efforts to beat him. And gubernatorial races, which are often decided on state issues rather than national ones, are more insulated from the national winds.

What Republicans have done, though, is transformed the national issue that is Obama’s health care bill into a state one. And given Obama’s approval rating in the state — which has stood in the low-30s for some time — that could be a winning strategy.

Julie Sobel and Sean Sullivan at National Journal add:

Hot-button federal issues aren’t typically at the center of governor’s races. But in West Virginia, businessman Bill Maloney and national Republicans are tying acting Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin to President Obama late in the race on the president’s signature health care plan. And the issue is likely to surface again in 2012’s most competitive governors’ races. In some places, it already has.

Unlike other issues that have roiled special elections this year — Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan, the debate over raising the federal debt ceiling — the states have a role to play in the ongoing battle over the health care law. Twenty-six have joined a legal challenge to the law, and the Republican Governors Association’s final ad in West Virginia focuses on Tomblin’s refusal to join the protest.

Maloney is spending the final stretch arguing that Tomblin’s inaction against Obama’s health care plan is a major reason voters should take a stand against him. “He said early on he didn’t like Obamacare, but now he seems to be okay with it,” Maloney said of Tomblin in an interview with National Journal after a Lincoln Day Dinner appearance in Harrisville. “I’m going to sue, and we’re going to be the 27th state to sue and try to get rid of Obamacare. He’s not going to do that. So that’s a stark difference right there.”

They go on to recite a list of other states where Democrat Governors are being tied to ObamaCare with good results — for the Republicans. It will definitely be an issue in the 2012 Governor, Senate, House, Presidential races, and it will definitely be a drag on all Democrats that are tied to it. Obama and ObamaCare will most certainly cost many Democrats elections.

Pass the popcorn.

Posted in Conservative, Elections, Health Care, Liberal, Obama, Over-regulation, Philosophy, politics, society | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Could 2012 Be Another TEAnami?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/09/19

Things are definitely starting to look that way. The special elections in NY-9 and NV-2 suggest that is the case. NY-9, which has been in Democrat hands since the early 1920s, was won by a Republican who had never held elective office before and ran his campaign as a referendum on Barack Obama. NV-2, which Obama lost to McCain in the 2008 Presidential election by a skin-tight 49-49 photo-finish and had been deemed winnable by Democrats, went to the Republican — who held his Democrat opponent up as a defender of ObamaCare — by a 20-point margin.

Josh Kraushaar at National Journal has some information that should leave Democrats quaking in their mukluks.

Tuesday’s special elections for two House seats, one in New York and one in Nevada, are starting to put the picture in clearer focus—and it’s not good for Democrats. Democrats lost a deeply-Democratic New York City district that had been in party hands for nearly a century, and they lost by over 20 points in a congressional race in the battleground state of Nevada, a contest that once promised to be a bellwether because of the GOP’s positioning on Medicare.

Put simply, Obama and Republicans in Congress are both unpopular—and voters are taking out their anger on Democrats—even in a reliably Democratic district. The president’s base of supporters isn’t showing up, while his opponents are as mobilized as ever. Obama’s approval ratings are lower than they were in 2010, when Republicans picked up a historic number of House seats.

Look at the congressional generic ballot, where Democrats traditionally hold an advantage even in lean years. The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows Republicans holding a 47 percent to 41 percent edge, the largest margin for Republicans since 1996, when the question was first asked. When Republicans picked up 63 House seats in 2010, Democrats actually held a 46 percent to 44 percent advantage on the poll’s generic ballot.

The Nevada special election, held in a rural, Republican-leaning district that Obama nearly carried in 2008, looked several months ago like a real opportunity for Democrats. …

Instead, Republicans and allied groups also went on the attack, spending nearly $1 million on ads to portray Marshall as a supporter of Obama’s health care plan, which proved to be even more unpopular with voters than entitlement cuts. Internal GOP polling showed Marshall with a clear edge on Medicare at the campaign’s outset, but she trailed badly on the issue by the end. In Washoe County (Reno), a key bellwether, Marshall lost by 10 points.

… The 20-point gap is far greater than the eight-point registration advantage Republicans hold in the district. [bold mine]

“When Republicans picked up 63 House seats in 2010, Democrats actually held a 46 percent to 44 percent advantage on the poll’s generic ballot.” Compare that to now, where Republicans hold a 47 to 41 percent advantage, a swing of 8 points in the Republicans’ favor less than a year later. I believe it was Larry Sabato (but I can not find the link) who said if the electorate were to vote in 2012 exactly as they voted in 2010, Republicans would gain another 20 seats in the House solely due to the decennial redistricting. While it is true that off-year elections have fewer numbers than Presidential year elections, due to more “I don’t get into politics” politically ignorant people casting their once-every-four-years votes without any real knowledge, thus voting more heavily for Democrats, it is also true that there is a stronger favor for Republicans now than there was in 2010. And Barack Obama is most definitely dragging the Democrats down with him. Make no mistake about it, the 2012 election will most definitely be about Barack Obama and his record and agenda.

Ed Morrissey reports on the Chicago Tribune’s suggestion that Barack Obama choose not to run for reelection.

Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board writes in today’s paper that it’s time for the battered champ to hang ‘em up:

I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he’s willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.

That might be the sensible thing to do. It’s hard for a president to win a second term when unemployment is painfully high. If the economy were in full rebound mode, Obama might win anyway. But it isn’t, and it may fall into a second recession — in which case voters will decide his middle name is Hoover, not Hussein. Why not leave of his own volition instead of waiting to get the ax?

That’s the Chicago Tribune, no Conservative newspaper by any stretch of the imagination, and the hometown newspaper of Barack Obama, suggesting it would be better for Obama to sit out the next election instead of running again. But I believe such an option is truly a Hobson’s Choice situation, as Mr Morrissey explains.

Even if Obama appeared to retire on his own a la LBJ, there would be a significant number of Democrats who would believe he’d been pushed — and pushed out by the Clintons and their clique. It’s no secret that Obama wanted to keep the Clintons at as much arms-length as he possibly could. He has not included Bill Clinton very often in official efforts even though Obama could clearly benefit from Clinton’s skills, and on the one memorable occasion where Obama called on the former President, Clinton ended up taking over the stage. Hillary would appeal to the voters Obama is losing — suburban families in the Rust Belt and Midwest — but a palace coup in the Democratic Party could split the hard-Left progressives and would certainly poison the relationship between the Democratic Party and black voters.

And if Obama won’t go on his own, then there is no play for Hillary. If she tried running a last-minute primary challenge now, all of the above comes into play — and she doesn’t have the time to build an organization that can compete with Obama’s in the field now.

No, if Obama runs for reelection, he drags the Democrat Party down with him. And if he bows out, the Democrat Party goes into civil war, and a lot of Democrat voters pack it in and sit on the sidelines. Either way, Democrats lose. But all of that is moot anyway. Barack Obama is too narcissistic and too filled with delusions of grandeur and too isolated from the rest of the country to see what he is doing is completely rejected by a majority of voters. If he keeps going as he has been going, he’ll guarantee enough Conservative TEA Party Republicans are voted in to completely undo all the damage he’s put into Law during his tenure, but he is too blinded by his own puffed up self-image to see any of it.

So no, Obama will not go gracefully. And no, Obama will not change course to improve the situation for himself, Democrats, or the country as a whole. While there may still be a Democrat Primary challenger, that won’t be successful. And Conservatives stand to continue the “wave of 2010” straight on through to November, 2012.

And for you Liberals out in la-la land who want to throw the raaaaacist card around, beware of the “glass house” effect. As I reported previously, your raaaaacist demagoguery of Voter ID is not playing well with the Hispanic community as they overwhelmingly favor Voter ID.

And when you Liberals start pushing this “Small Government Conservatives are stoopid” meme, you have your facts reversed.

Looking back over eighteen General Social Surveys since 1975, in every one those who wanted smaller government had significantly more education than the rest of the public, measured both by mean years of education (Figure 1) and by mean highest final educational degree.

And when you start shouting “Small Government Conservatives is raaaaacists!” you are really out to lunch.

Social scientists usually measure traditional racism against African Americans by looking at the survey responses of white Americans only. Among whites in the latest General Social Survey (2008), only 4.5% of small-government advocates express the view that “most Blacks/African-Americans have less in-born ability to learn,” compared to 12.3% of those who favor bigger government or take a middle position expressing this racist view.

Figure 3 shows that, among whites, Republican advocates of smaller government are even less racist (1.3% believing that blacks have less in-born ability) than the rest of the general public (11.3% expressing racist views).

And the beat goes on. The same article examines white Conservatives regardless of whether they support Small Government or not and found 5.4 percent of them expressed racist views compared to 10.3 percent of the rest of the white population. And you Liberals are really going to hate this next datapoint. Comparing Republicans and Democrats, the numbers get really ugly — for the Democrats.

As Figure 4 shows, this same pattern holds for white Democrats compared to white Republicans: in 2008 12.3% of white Democrats in the U.S. believed that African Americans were born with less ability, compared to only 6.6% of white Republicans.

And 2008 wasn’t an aberration. In sixteen surveys from 1977 through 2008 (Figure 4), overall white Republicans were significantly less racist on the in-born ability question than white Democrats (13.3% to 17.3%), and white conservative Republicans were significantly less racist than other white Americans (11.7% to 14.7%)…

So you Liberals can throw around your raaaaacist card all you want and you can throw your stoopid card around all you want. The facts show the more Conservative a person is, the less racist he is, and Republicans are significantly less racist than Democrats. Also, Small Government Conservatives are as a group more educated than the general public.

So, in summation:
Barack Obama drags the Democrats down.
Suggesting Barack Obama bow out is a Hobson’s Choice that Obama won’t take anyway due to his pathological problems.
2012 is likely to be very ugly for Democrats.
And the Democrats’ raaaaacist and stoopid cards won’t work as they apply more to Democrats than to Republicans and apply even less to the Small Government TEA Party Republicans.

I think come November, 2012, it will indeed finally be time to party like it’s 1773.

Posted in Conservative, Elections, Health Care, Liberal, media, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, race, society, stereotype, TEA Party | Tagged: , , , , , | 4 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: