09 December 2011
06 December 2011
Obama and the Democratic party will explicitly abandon the white working class voters
The Future of the Obama Coalition
By THOMAS B. EDSALL
For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.
All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.
It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.
The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.
“It’s certainly true that if you compare how things were in the early ’90s to the way they are now, there has been a significant shift in the role of the working class. You see it across all advanced industrial countries,” Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said in an interview.
In the United States, Teixeira noted, “the Republican Party has become the party of the white working class,” while in Europe, many working-class voters who had been the core of Social Democratic parties have moved over to far right parties, especially those with anti-immigration platforms.
Teixeira, writing with John Halpin, argues in “The Path to 270: Demographics versus Economics in the 2012 Presidential Election,” that in order to be re-elected, President Obama must keep his losses among white college graduates to the 4-point margin of 2008 (47-51). Why? Otherwise he will not be able to survive a repetition of 2010, when white working-class voters supported Republican House candidates by a record-setting margin of 63-33.
Obama’s alternative path to victory, according to Teixeira and Halpin, would be to keep his losses among all white voters at the same level John Kerry did in 2004, when he lost them by 17 points, 58-41. This would be a step backwards for Obama, who lost among all whites in 2008 by only 12 points (55-43). Obama can afford to drop to Kerry’s white margins because, between 2008 and 2012, the pro-Democratic minority share of the electorate is expected to grow by two percentage points and the white share to decline by the same amount, reflecting the changing composition of the national electorate.
The following passage from “The Path to 270” illustrates the degree to which whites without college degrees are currently cast as irrevocably lost to the Republican Party. “Heading into 2012,” Teixeira and Halpin write, one of the primary strategic questions will be:
In an interview, Greenberg, speaking of white working class voters, said that in the period from the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, “we battled to get them back. They were sizable in number and central to the base of the Democratic Party.” At the time, he added, “we didn’t know that we would never get them back, that they were alienated and dislodged.”
In his work exploring how to build a viable progressive coalition, Greenberg noted, he has become “much more interested in the affluent suburban voters than the former Reagan Democrats.” At the same time, however, he argues that Republican winning margins among white working-class voters are highly volatile and that Democrats have to push hard to minimize losses, which will not be easy. “Right now,” he cautioned, “I don’t see any signs they are moveable.”
Teixeira’s current analysis stands in sharp contrast to an article that he wrote with Joel Rogers, which appeared in the American Prospect in 1995. In “Who Deserted the Democrats in 1994?,” Teixeira and Rogers warned that between 1992 and 1994 support for Democratic House candidates had fallen by 20 points, from 57 to 37 percent among high-school-educated white men; by 15 points among white men with some college; and by 10 points among white women in both categories. A failure to reverse those numbers, Teixeira warned, would “doom Clinton’s re-election bid” in 1996.
Teixeira was by no means alone in his 1995 assessment; he was in agreement with orthodox Democratic thinking of the time. In a 1995 memo to President Clinton, Greenberg wrote that whites without college degrees were “the principal obstacle” to Clinton’s re-election and that they needed to be brought back into the fold.
In practice, or perhaps out of necessity, the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 chose the upscale white-downscale minority approach that proved highly successful twice, but failed miserably in 2010, and appears to have a 50-50 chance in 2012.
The outline of this strategy for 2012 was captured by Times reporters Jackie Calmes and Mark Landler a few months ago in an article tellingly titled, “Obama Charts a New Route to Re-election.” Calmes and Landler describe how Obama’s re-election campaign plans to deal with the decline in white working class support in Rust Belt states by concentrating on states with high percentages of college educated voters, including Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire.
There are plenty of critics of the tactical idea of dispensing with low-income whites, both among elected officials and party strategists. But Cliff Zukin, a professor of political science at Rutgers, puts the situation plainly. “My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.”
As a practical matter, the Obama campaign and, for the present, the Democratic Party, have laid to rest all consideration of reviving the coalition nurtured and cultivated by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The New Deal Coalition — which included unions, city machines, blue-collar workers, farmers, blacks, people on relief, and generally non-affluent progressive intellectuals — had the advantage of economic coherence. It received support across the board from voters of all races and religions in the bottom half of the income distribution, the very coherence the current Democratic coalition lacks.
A top priority of the less affluent wing of today’s left alliance is the strengthening of the safety net, including health care, food stamps, infant nutrition and unemployment compensation. These voters generally take the brunt of recessions and are most in need of government assistance to survive. According to recent data from the Department of Agriculture, 45.8 million people, nearly 15 percent of the population, depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to meet their needs for food.
The better-off wing, in contrast, puts at the top of its political agenda a cluster of rights related to self-expression, the environment, demilitarization, and, importantly, freedom from repressive norms — governing both sexual behavior and women’s role in society — that are promoted by the conservative movement.
While demographic trends suggest the continued growth of pro-Democratic constituencies and the continued decline of core Republican voters, particularly married white Christians, there is no guarantee that demography is destiny.
The political repercussions of gathering minority strength remain unknown. Calculations based on exit poll and Census data suggest that the Democratic Party will become “majority minority” shortly after 2020.
One outcome could be a stronger party of the left in national and local elections. An alternate outcome could be exacerbated intra-party conflict between whites, blacks and Hispanics — populations frequently marked by diverging material interests. Black versus brown struggles are already emerging in contests over the distribution of political power, especially during a current redistricting of city council, state legislative and congressional seats in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago.
Republican Party operatives are acutely sensitive to such tensions, hoping for opportunities to fracture the Democratic coalition, virtually assuring that neither party can safely rely on a secure path to victory over time.
All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.
It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.
The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.
“It’s certainly true that if you compare how things were in the early ’90s to the way they are now, there has been a significant shift in the role of the working class. You see it across all advanced industrial countries,” Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said in an interview.
In the United States, Teixeira noted, “the Republican Party has become the party of the white working class,” while in Europe, many working-class voters who had been the core of Social Democratic parties have moved over to far right parties, especially those with anti-immigration platforms.
Teixeira, writing with John Halpin, argues in “The Path to 270: Demographics versus Economics in the 2012 Presidential Election,” that in order to be re-elected, President Obama must keep his losses among white college graduates to the 4-point margin of 2008 (47-51). Why? Otherwise he will not be able to survive a repetition of 2010, when white working-class voters supported Republican House candidates by a record-setting margin of 63-33.
Obama’s alternative path to victory, according to Teixeira and Halpin, would be to keep his losses among all white voters at the same level John Kerry did in 2004, when he lost them by 17 points, 58-41. This would be a step backwards for Obama, who lost among all whites in 2008 by only 12 points (55-43). Obama can afford to drop to Kerry’s white margins because, between 2008 and 2012, the pro-Democratic minority share of the electorate is expected to grow by two percentage points and the white share to decline by the same amount, reflecting the changing composition of the national electorate.
The following passage from “The Path to 270” illustrates the degree to which whites without college degrees are currently cast as irrevocably lost to the Republican Party. “Heading into 2012,” Teixeira and Halpin write, one of the primary strategic questions will be:
Will the president hold sufficient support among communities of color, educated whites, Millennials, single women, and seculars and avoid a catastrophic meltdown among white working-class voters?For his part, Greenberg, a Democratic pollster and strategist and a key adviser to Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, wrote a memorandum earlier this month, together with James Carville, that makes no mention of the white working class. “Seizing the New Progressive Common Ground” describes instead a “new progressive coalition” made up of “young people, Hispanics, unmarried women, and affluent suburbanites.”
In an interview, Greenberg, speaking of white working class voters, said that in the period from the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, “we battled to get them back. They were sizable in number and central to the base of the Democratic Party.” At the time, he added, “we didn’t know that we would never get them back, that they were alienated and dislodged.”
In his work exploring how to build a viable progressive coalition, Greenberg noted, he has become “much more interested in the affluent suburban voters than the former Reagan Democrats.” At the same time, however, he argues that Republican winning margins among white working-class voters are highly volatile and that Democrats have to push hard to minimize losses, which will not be easy. “Right now,” he cautioned, “I don’t see any signs they are moveable.”
Teixeira’s current analysis stands in sharp contrast to an article that he wrote with Joel Rogers, which appeared in the American Prospect in 1995. In “Who Deserted the Democrats in 1994?,” Teixeira and Rogers warned that between 1992 and 1994 support for Democratic House candidates had fallen by 20 points, from 57 to 37 percent among high-school-educated white men; by 15 points among white men with some college; and by 10 points among white women in both categories. A failure to reverse those numbers, Teixeira warned, would “doom Clinton’s re-election bid” in 1996.
Teixeira was by no means alone in his 1995 assessment; he was in agreement with orthodox Democratic thinking of the time. In a 1995 memo to President Clinton, Greenberg wrote that whites without college degrees were “the principal obstacle” to Clinton’s re-election and that they needed to be brought back into the fold.
In practice, or perhaps out of necessity, the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 chose the upscale white-downscale minority approach that proved highly successful twice, but failed miserably in 2010, and appears to have a 50-50 chance in 2012.
The outline of this strategy for 2012 was captured by Times reporters Jackie Calmes and Mark Landler a few months ago in an article tellingly titled, “Obama Charts a New Route to Re-election.” Calmes and Landler describe how Obama’s re-election campaign plans to deal with the decline in white working class support in Rust Belt states by concentrating on states with high percentages of college educated voters, including Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire.
There are plenty of critics of the tactical idea of dispensing with low-income whites, both among elected officials and party strategists. But Cliff Zukin, a professor of political science at Rutgers, puts the situation plainly. “My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.”
“My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.”— Cliff Zukin
A top priority of the less affluent wing of today’s left alliance is the strengthening of the safety net, including health care, food stamps, infant nutrition and unemployment compensation. These voters generally take the brunt of recessions and are most in need of government assistance to survive. According to recent data from the Department of Agriculture, 45.8 million people, nearly 15 percent of the population, depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to meet their needs for food.
The better-off wing, in contrast, puts at the top of its political agenda a cluster of rights related to self-expression, the environment, demilitarization, and, importantly, freedom from repressive norms — governing both sexual behavior and women’s role in society — that are promoted by the conservative movement.
While demographic trends suggest the continued growth of pro-Democratic constituencies and the continued decline of core Republican voters, particularly married white Christians, there is no guarantee that demography is destiny.
The political repercussions of gathering minority strength remain unknown. Calculations based on exit poll and Census data suggest that the Democratic Party will become “majority minority” shortly after 2020.
One outcome could be a stronger party of the left in national and local elections. An alternate outcome could be exacerbated intra-party conflict between whites, blacks and Hispanics — populations frequently marked by diverging material interests. Black versus brown struggles are already emerging in contests over the distribution of political power, especially during a current redistricting of city council, state legislative and congressional seats in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago.
Republican Party operatives are acutely sensitive to such tensions, hoping for opportunities to fracture the Democratic coalition, virtually assuring that neither party can safely rely on a secure path to victory over time.
Obama Admin Seals Records of Murdered Border Patrol Agent Implicated in Fast and Furious
The Obama Administration has abruptly sealed court records containing alarming details of how Mexican drug smugglers murdered a U.S. Border patrol agent with a gun connected to a failed federal experiment that allowed firearms to be smuggled into Mexico.
This means information will now be kept from the public as well as the media. Could this be a cover-up on the part of the “most transparent” administration in history? After all, the rifle used to kill the federal agent (Brian Terry) last December in Arizona’s Peck Canyon was part of the now infamous Operation Fast and Furious. Conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the disastrous scheme allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels.
Link via Judicial Watch. The murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent is related to the Justice Department willingly turning over thousands of guns to Mexican criminal gangs, and Obama administration is hiding information about his death from the public. Amazing.
Payroll tax holiday question to ask Comrade Obama
Every time you hear Obama ask why are the Republicans not willing to give the middle class a tax cut in the form of a payroll tax holiday?
Ask Obama why is he raiding the Social Security trust fund to pay for a payroll tax holiday?
Obama 2012 robbing Peter to pay Paul since 2008.
Give a man a fish he eats for a day (Obama and the Democrats) teach a man how to fish he eats for a life time (Republicans).
It’s that simple
Saturday's (12-3-2011) Mike Huckabee Republican Presidential "Forum" // Analysis // I'll watch so you don’t have to
Saturday's Mike Huckabee Republican Presidential "Forum".
The Forum topic was State vs. Federal power, and what is the role between the two.
Great topic given the issue’s this country faces today.
I liked the setting for this debate. Each candidate sat alone in front of a panel of 3 Attorney Generals from 3 republican states, Oklahoma, Florida & Virginia.
Each candidate had an equal time of 11 minutes to answer the panel questions and 1 minute rap up at the end of the event. Some did well in this format others in my opinion did not.
This forum also pointed out the vast differences between candidates who were Governors and candidates from congress.
So lets’ get right to it.
Michelle Bachmann
It’s very interesting to see that happens when she has to work past her talking points. As an example, most candidates are like Michelle Bachmann when they call for the getting rid of the EPA. However, when pressed about how she would handle this she fell short. This is a very important issue that all the cut government candidates need to address. They need to know the practical of how to get this done AND they need to know how to handle this 2-4+ years out from there. Bachmann stumbled because coming from congress she has no practical experience how to get this done. If they don’t have a solid answer how to do this then it’s just talk in my opinion. However, she’s not the only one with this problem.
Herman Cain
He’s out of the race, officially listed as “Campaign Suspended”
Newt Gingrich
As predicted Newt was hit hard of his let them stay immigration policy. This is important because the questions coming from the Attorney Generals were tactical in nature. How are you going to get this done? This came up a lot during the night. Newt is a idea guy that much is clear. And he does have tangible experience of getting policy moved through congress which is a plus. Moreover, he has studied his history and clearly understands state rights issues. In addition, he knows the Constitution. But will this be enough? Newt did have a good closer when he asked the American people to work with him. In other words don’t just elect him president then sit back in your chair and say good luck with that. Newt is asking we Americans to stay involved and keep the pressure on the Government.
He also correctly pointed out that 8 years of Obama as President would be a disaster. We shall see how Newt does standing fully in the spotlight now that Cain is out.
Jon Huntsman Jr
Did not participate in the forum. To my understanding he was off filming the new season of MadMen. Okay I stole this from Comedy Central but he does look like he is an actor of MadMen.
I’ll come back to why I referenced Comedy Central later.
Ron Paul
Well this was Paul’s comfort zone. State rights, the 10th amendment, Constitutional issues. And if you never listened to Ron Paul you might just join the Ron Paul cult. He is calling for the states to invoke nullification of laws the states do not agree with. Paul knows what separation of powers mean, and he respects private property rights to the fullest. However, I want you all to fully understand Ron Paul truly believes that most if not all terrorist attacks against America are caused by America. It’s our fault we are attacked because we have bases in lands where terrorist don’t us to. So he’s thinks that if we pulled out of every country we would NEVER be attacked again. He feels it’s not the freedoms that America represents that the terrorist hate, it’s our policy. He strongly feels that terrorist acts are criminal in nature. This belief showed itself when pressed with questions regarding the 9-11 attacks. You could tell he was really trying hard not to call these a criminal act.
You can almost see him saying to himself on 9-11..see I told you so. I really cannot picture him as President. If you think Obama rambles just imagine a Ron Paul press conference. OH MY GOD that would be painful.
Rick Perry
This was by far his best debate/forum for Perry. As a governor he has 10 years of practical knowledge of how to work with and deal with the federal Government. As the Governor of Texas Perry has been successful in implementing, fighting, working around and dealing with mandates, laws, regulations and the craziness that is the federal government. He clearly understand states rights and the role of the states within the federal government. I liked the fact he carries a copy of the Constitution in his pocket. I bet Obama doesn’t even have a copy of the Constitution anywhere near him. Perry looked comfortable and confident in his answers. I am also confident that Perry would know how to get the states behind him in order to move his policy forward. Whereas 1 minute answers work well for Mitt and others. This longer format suited Perry well. Look for him to have a stronger showing in the upcoming debates.
Mitt Romney
Mitt like Perry has experience as a Governor, so he knows how to deal with and work with Washington. He argues like most of the candidates that most of the federal programs should go back to the states. Mitt played it safe in this forum, he sat crossed legged and comfortable. Not much new from him
Rick Santorum
Rick is running as a family values candidate. But with Santorum, Paul & Bachmann the differences between a candidate from Congress and Candidate Governor becomes very clear. All they can do is say I voted for this or I was the first to vote for that. Or I helped write this legislation or I helped sponsored this bill. But that is the extent of the experience, it stops there. It’s the Governors down at the practical level who have to deal with these issues and try to make them work for the state. However, I fully understand that Carter was a Governor, and at this point only second to Obama as history’s worst President. Rick’s a good guy but without a strong showing in any of the upcoming primaries Rick will remain second to third tier.
In SUM
The Dept of Education does not educate children that is handled to the local level. The Dept of Energy does not produce energy it restricts it. The Dept of Agriculture does not grow anything it, restricts it. Most if not all of these departments can and should be either eliminated or handled at the state level and all of the Republican candidates know this and they will actively work to achieve this goal. Further, the Republicans and in my opinion most of the country understand that the federal government is completely out of control with spending & borrowing more so they can spend more.
Obama and the democrats fully embrace spending and growing of the Government. Moreover Obama does not want to cut or reduce ANYTHING! Never forget that.
Now to discredit the whole process Trump is hosting future debate. WTF? Watch for Comedy Central via Jon Steward to try to host a debate as a counter to Trumps stupidity.
Only in America.
More next time
America Prevails
A.B.O
Information Minister
Loyal Opposition
JohnGlat1984
What if Obama wins?
I’ve been thinking about this for some time now.
This is without a doubt the most important election of our life time.
This next election will chart America’s course for the next decade.
You think I’m kidding…well I’m not! This is about as serious as it gets.
There has been a lot of talk about the republican candidates lately but not for the right reasons.
This one’s religion is a issue. That one has divorced several time over. This one can’t get their history straight. That one has a memory problem.
Put that all aside and forget it and let me refocus you back to the issue at hand.
The only thing you need to know is, can this person govern?
If you dropped this republican into office right now could they lead the country.
Because whomever takes over for Obama will have one of the biggest shit sandwich’s America ever had to eat.
And we need to know the person we elect can handle the job.
We know Obama is incapable of this kind of leadership. We know that Obama’s so called leadership fell apart as soon as he lost the majority in Congress?
Leadership means you can still get things done even when the people around you do not agree with you. Obama has shown that he has no clue how to do this. Lincoln knew how to do this, Reagan knew how to do this…hell even Bush was capable enough to get things passed without a full majority. And the smartest man ever to hold the office of President, Mr. Obama? Answer NO!
Did he pen his health care bill…NO
Did he write his stimulus bill….NO
The only thing Obama did write was his proposed budget that was so terrible that the entire Senate, Republicans and Democrats voted against it.
Obama calls a debt commission to get answers on the massive debt he helped create, then blows off the findings. He agree to a super committee then goes on vacation and a tour of Asia so he can call Americans lazy.
Comes back and tells everyone that Congress doesn’t know how to do its job and they can get nothing done without him.
To quote Chris Christie “What the hell are we paying you for?” That’s a very good question?
Remove your feelings from the cult of personality that is Obama, and look around at the facts. Every policy and law that Obama put into place has FAILED. We don’t have to guess anymore “I wonder what would happen if we elected Obama?” This is NOT a theoretical exercise anymore. This is a practical example of a liberal spend and tax version of America.
And quite frankly Obama’s version of America sucks.
So what would happen if Obama wins in 2012?
Well I know the Sun would still rise in the east and set in the west.
America will still be a country….but in name only.
The America we grew up with will get that much closer to being a memory.
Electing Obama in 2012 will solidify Obama care for all time.
If for no other reason you vote against Obama it would be to stop Obama care.
But there is hope, not the intangible mist of hope that Obama was pushing.
I’m talking real hope for the future that true action brings about. The hope that millions of Americans gave us in the 2010 elections that removed Nancy Pelosi from power and pushed Harry Reid back on his heels.
Yes a storm is coming my friends. The American people are now wide awake and Obama and the Democrats and know this.
I myself cannot wait to Vote in 2012. I want to be the first person in the voting booth to start the pebble that turns into the avalanche that sweeps Obama out of office.
America Prevails
A.B.O
Information Minister
Loyal Opposition
JohnGalt1984
23 November 2011
Steve Jobs' Heirs Could Be Forced to Sell Apple Shares / Tech moguls estate faces $867 million tax bill
And If Obama has his way he’ll take an additional 50%plus of his total wealth in inheritance tax or Estate Tax just because he has it! Yeah Screw the Rich...Oh wait the rich guy is dead...OK Screw the Rich guys family!!! It's their fault they live in a rich family. Occupy Apple
Tech moguls estate faces $867 million tax bill.
Steve Jobs' Heirs Could Be Forced to Sell Apple Shares | NBC Bay Area
Tuesday's 11-22-2011 Republican Debate on National Security // Analysis // I'll watch so you don’t have too
Tuesday’s Republican Debate Analysis, I’ll watch so you don’t have too.
The Debate topic was National Security
Let me start by saying all of these candidates save Ron Paul are more informed and better prepared to defend the country than Obama.
However, I would very much like to see less people on the stage. Another thing I would like to see is a random drawing for where the candidates stand on the stage. Why is Mitt always in the middle? It’s disingenuous at this point to put Mitt as the front runner. Each debate up to now has Mitt anchored in the center and the also ran’s are shuffling around him. Time to change it up to keep it interesting.
Michelle Bachmann
She a good night. She sounded confidant in her responses and had one of the best lines of the night. She rightly stated that Obama has a cross your fingers and hope for the best foreign policy.
Which is true. However, she missed on trying to hit Newt with supporting amnesty. More on Newt and his new policy idea later . Will it change her in the polls…not likely but she has stayed consistent throughout all the debates.
Herman Cain
He did so-so in my opinion. Months ago he started off strong but his weakness in foreign policy and lack of substance on national security is starting to become more and more evident.
He fell victim to Wolf Blitzer’s leading questions of would you support this or would you support that? Wolf was trying very hard to channel Obama when Obama divides up the country with his, “Are you for the billionaires or are you for the working class”. Many of Wolf’s questions were of that nature and all save Cain didn’t take the bait. Durability counts in a long term campaign and Cain may not have it.
Newt Gingrich
Newt did as well as expected last night. The guy knows what he is talking about there is no doubt about that. However, Newt may be his own worst enemy. His going to have to balance his depth of knowledge without sound condescending. This may be a big problem for Newt but only time will tell on that one. Newt explained in detail the difference between a terrorist and criminal. It’s a big difference that needs to be explained. The big bomb shell was Newt’s stance on long term illegal aliens. People who have been here for 25+years. Newt’s Idea is that they are afforded legal status without being classified a citizen. How’s is that going to work? He stated that long term illegal’s who pay taxes and are contributing members of the society should not be thrown out of the country. There are many problems with this idea, like everybody who is illegal trying to fake that they have been here for 30 years or more the just to receive the benefit of legal status. Mitt and Bachmann already jumped in the calling it amnesty. Newt is going to have to spend a great amount of time explaining himself in order to maintain his lead in the polls. But I think it was important to at least start the conversation. Most republicans hold firm on the bus them all out policy so I give Newt credit on taking a different position. It will also take away a Democratic talking point that the Republicans are anti Latinos should he become the Republican nominee. Newt may pay the price with the “base”, but he may be thinking long term. I’m trying to picture which candidate I would like to see debate Obama and Newt is currently on the top of the list
Jon Huntsman Jr
Give it up Jon, It’s time to go home.
Ron Paul
I’ll sum up Ron Paul’s foreign policy and nation security stance. Maybe if we mind our own business terrorist will not want to attack America. He really said we should mind our own business so the Taliban will leave us alone. Oh and it’s our fault that we were attacked because America has a presence around the world. This man has no business being the President of the United States. I hope he drops very soon, but I don’t see that happening. My only fear is that he’ll go independent and mess things up enough to give Obama a second term. I hope I’m wrong.
Rick Perry
Perry is getting his legs underneath him and is starting to get comfortable in the national debate stage. He has a strong America first policy that is refreshing to see. Given Obama’s current policy of the world only likes America because I’m the President. Perry will be tough on national security and I like the fact the he’ll make the world earn our support before we just give billions away just because it’s the way it is. If he can keep his head he may be able to hold his own against Obama.
Mitt Romney
Mitt is very good at redirecting the argument back to Obama failures. He is articulate and very comfortable on stage. He had a very strong showing and Mitt has a clear understanding of the threats to America. However, I am starting to wonder how this will play against Obama. If Mitt can keep the pressure up and stay focused and hit (figuratively) Obama on his record he may stand a chance in beating Obama in the general. But will last night performance give him a jump in the polls?? Not in my opinion. Just the fact the Mitt has not jumped in the polls shows that conservatives are still out there looking for a candidate. It also shows that we are not letting the media pick our candidate this election like we did with McCain. Which is why the primary process is so important.
Rick Santorum
I must admit I was impressed with Santorum. National security is strong a suit but It may be too little too late for Rick. He’s only going to amount to be Ron Paul’s sparring partner for the rest of the primary and not much else. Sorry Rick.
More next time
America Prevails
A.B.O
Information Minister
Loyal Opposition
JohnGlat1984
The Hillary Moment, President Obama can't win by running a constructive campaign, and he won't be able to govern if he does win a second term..
A very interesting opinion piece on the WSJ.
By PATRICK H. CADDELL
AND DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN
When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.
He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president's administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.
Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president's political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.
Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General Election Average (43.8%-43.%). Meanwhile, voters disapprove of the president's performance 49%-41% in the most recent Gallup survey, and 63% of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, according to the most recent CNN/ORC poll.
Consequently, he has to make the case that the Republicans, who have garnered even lower ratings in the polls for their unwillingness to compromise and settle for gridlock, represent a more risky and dangerous choice than the current administration—an argument he's clearly begun to articulate.
One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be "guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it." The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline.
If President Obama were to withdraw, he would put great pressure on the Republicans to come to the table and negotiate—especially if the president singularly focused in the way we have suggested on the economy, job creation, and debt and deficit reduction. By taking himself out of the campaign, he would change the dynamic from who is more to blame—George W. Bush or Barack Obama?—to a more constructive dialogue about our nation's future.
Even though Mrs. Clinton has expressed no interest in running, and we have no information to suggest that she is running any sort of stealth campaign, it is clear that she commands majority support throughout the country. A CNN/ORC poll released in late September had Mrs. Clinton's approval rating at an all-time high of 69%—even better than when she was the nation's first lady. Meanwhile, a Time Magazine poll shows that Mrs. Clinton is favored over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 17 points (55%-38%), and Texas Gov. Rick Perry by 26 points (58%-32%).
But this is about more than electoral politics. Not only is Mrs. Clinton better positioned to win in 2012 than Mr. Obama, but she is better positioned to govern if she does. Given her strong public support, she has the ability to step above partisan politics, reach out to Republicans, change the dialogue, and break the gridlock in Washington.
President Bill Clinton reached a historic agreement with the Republicans in 1997 that led to a balanced budget. Were Mrs. Clinton to become the Democratic nominee, her argument would almost certainly have to be about reconciliation and about an overarching deal to rein in the federal deficit. She will understand implicitly the need to draw up a bipartisan plan with elements similar to her husband's in the mid-to-late '90s—entitlement reform, reform of the Defense Department, reining in spending, all the while working to preserve the country's social safety net.
Having unique experience in government as first lady, senator and now as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton is more qualified than any presidential candidate in recent memory, including her husband. Her election would arguably be as historic an event as the election of President Obama in 2008.
By going down the re-election road and into partisan mode, the president has effectively guaranteed that the remainder of his term will be marred by the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity, common purpose, and most of all, our economic strength. If he continues on this course it is certain that the 2012 campaign will exacerbate the divisions in our country and weaken our national identity to such a degree that the scorched-earth campaign that President George W. Bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election will pale in comparison.
We write as patriots and Democrats—concerned about the fate of our party and, most of all, our country. We do not write as people who have been in contact with Mrs. Clinton or her political operation. Nor would we expect to be directly involved in any Clinton campaign.
If President Obama is not willing to seize the moral high ground and step aside, then the two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, must urge the president not to seek re-election—for the good of the party and most of all for the good of the country. And they must present the only clear alternative—Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Caddell served as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is author of "Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What It Means for 2012 and Beyond," forthcoming from Rowman and Littlefield.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)