New Obama Campaign Tactic – Compare Romney to Bush – Negative Campaign Continues - Amnesia: "Miss Me Yet?" New Scientific Polling - Analysis

The Obama2012 Campaign is running a new ad in Colorado - which compares 2012 GOP Candidate, former MA Governor, Mitt Romney to former President George W. Bush(Politico) The video is available here on the Obama Campaign’s YouTube Channel. It may be tactic that works with the base, however, the target should be the Independent – especially if the polls (and internal polls) suggest a close race – and one has to wonder if this tactic will work as well as intended. The fact that, on several occasion, former President Bill Clinton has endorsed and/or stood by President Barack Obama, hardly suggests a comparison between the two men. In fact, President Clinton, the most popular American President in recent history – has made very flattering comments regarding President Obama’s opponent – the most recent in June, ”praising Romney’s sterling business career” (ABC News, June 1, 2012) Therefore, when one is in the same political party, one generally is endorsed, heartily or half-heartedly by the political party leaders, both past and present. Additionally, Romney’s governance of Massachusetts (which, indeed, he does have a governing record going into the campaign, rather than a legislative record), could in no wise be compared to Bush’s style, on both fiscal and social issue levels, no more than President Obama can compare his style of governing the nation to President William Jefferson Clinton’s.

Furthermore, as much as former President, George W. Bush, is still loathed by the left, there are those darned ” Miss Me Yet” billboards and the popularity of the “Miss Me Yet” t-shirts”that come into play.

If, the polls are correct and every vote counts, the constant negative drumbeat, coming from the Obama Campaign and the press, specifically regarding Mitt Romney, (pick a topic) can’t help. This was true of the attacks on Romney and his association with Bain Capital which, according to a USA Today Poll, had no affect on the preference of potential voters, who 2 to1 chose Mitt Romney on the economy.

Further, fundraising has been on the slow side, with the exception of Hollywood – as Politico stunningly reports that the President is donating to his own campaign, a commonplace event amongst Politicians’, however, one might not want to announce that to one’s potential donors – even as a “scare tactic”. A smart campaign has PAC’s running negative ads, allowing the campaign to either run positive messages or compare and contrast ads. A compare and contrast ad is one which compares a specific vision or issue or record of one candidate to another – with a bit of detail. The ad running in Colorado compares Romney’s vision to George Bush’s (perhaps not completely accurately), to President Obama’s vision - one which notes a $250,000 as the tax-cut (Bush era tax cuts and the $250,000 threshold) – as “wealthy” (not by small business standards), and reiterates the “rich can afford to pay more” message that generates class warfare.

Perhaps President Obama’s Campaign plans on running to the center after the election, but then they would be counting on the very short-term memory of the electorate and a massive economic turn-around. Negative messaging worked successfully for the Romney Campaign during the brutal 2012 GOP primary, but, and the big but, then Candidate Romney could point to a PAC rather than his campaign as the culprit. The latest Romney Campaign ad “Believe in Our Future” (watch here on the Romney Campaign You Tube Channel) speaks to Governor Romney’s experience in business and governing, and how he will apply those experiences to the Office of the Presidency.
The difference at this point is that Romney has run to the center, the way he governed in Massachusetts – which, can at times annoy the hard right – but at the same time, attract the moderate, the independent and yes, the Democrat. (Note: The Romney Campaign uses President Bill Clinton’s quote in the ad referenced above.). The negative advertising coming directly from a campaign makes one wonder what the internal polling shows – perhaps a race that is not quite as close as the polls currently suggest.

Note on polling: There is an interesting article from Reuter’s India entitled “Analysis: Scientists go beyond the polls to forecast U.S. election” in which analytics are applied to forecast the outcome of elections – not unlike actual polls, where samples can and do vary, the polls by U.S. academics, suggest a close election, including a quantifier that uses “racial bias” in the equation.

Three years after emerging from a deep recession, the economy has not recovered. The unemployment rate has been stuck above 8 percent for 41 months -- nearly Obama's entire time in office.
For his model, University of Iowa professor Michael Lewis-Beck looks at decades of data on job creation and presidential approval. His preliminary forecast, made with Charles Tien of the City University of New York, gives Obama 46.9 percent of the vote and Romney 53.1 percent.

(in.Reuters.com - reference link in above para)

The balance with modifications, have the two candidates within points of each other – (based on popularity and trends), - they have been as accurate as other posters – on the popular vote, which, in races that are within hair-breaths – the Electoral College trumps all models.

Yet, one has to ask which forecasters model is correct – the one that uses economic data with trends (shown above) or the models that are consistent with current polling – one might look to the negative ads and the increased vitriol against one candidate over another by the press to make an educated guess.

George W. Bush Weighs in on 2012 – As Expected Endorses Romney – AP Bush Polarizing? Compared to Whom? Opinion and Analysis

Former Presidents and Popularity - Pictured: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush - image Op-ed News



The Headline: AP Via ”The Chippewa Herald: “Role unlikely for George W. Bush in Romney bid”, speaks to the “endorsement of Mitt Romney by former President George W. Bush, and the fact that Bush might still be problematic for Republicans:

"Romney's campaign doesn't foresee the 43rd president playing a substantive role in the race. Aides are carefully weighing how much the former president should be involved in the GOP convention _ and for good reason. The Bush fatigue that was a drag on GOP nominee John McCain four years ago, and on the country, still lingers, including among Republicans."

"While Bush's standing has improved since he left office in January 2009, he remains a polarizing political figure."

One must note that Republicans (the Body Party Politics) are generally careful and pragmatic regarding appearances, specifically erring on the side of caution, being at times too timid and living in what amounts to a glass bowl. In addition, the role of former Presidents should not weigh a great deal in the campaigns of those who would be President. It is not the comparative that is at issue, it is the ability for the Romney Campaign to define Mitt Romney as an individual. One does not see Obama on stage with any former Democrat Presidents – unless one counts Jimmy Carter. It is highly doubtful the most popular Democrat former President Bill Clinton will be seen embracing Obama on the stump – he may support the Party, but it is not with enthusiasm.

Bush on the other hand has seen a bit of notoriety during the Obama Administration. First, the “Miss Me Yet” Billboards, then the “Miss Me Yet” T-Shirts, that continue to be “best Sellers” despite the fact that Obama is rounding the corner of the last year of his administration. They continue to sell on outlets such as Amazon, Café Press, and any one of thousands of internet based t-shirt outlets – In the case of Martha’s Vineyard (a favorite Obama vacation destination) Miss Me Yet t-shirts, outsell “I vacationed with Obama” on the resort island.

That does not speak to Romney, but it does speak to the Obama Presidency – especially in popular culture.

The idea that G.W. Bush would be the divisive President is perhaps ancient history – the most divisive President award will, in all likelihood, go to the current President – and although the economy may be his undoing, it is also quite possible that, it would be his ability to divide and divide and divide. It can only be someone else’s fault (Bush, the Congress, the Pollster (depending on the poll), for so long before the every voter except the base starts to notice one thing. The Man has yet to own the office, preferring the campaign trail to managing the nation.

Comparatively one has the impression that Mitt Romney has a plan to fix the economy, but that he would “own” the position of Chief Executive, and having played the role successfully in the private sector, may make hiring choices that are based less on cronyism and more on ability to do the job. That remains to be seen, as he has entered the body politic, but it is more likely than not, given his experience.

Therein lays the key word - divisive - as polls continue to show Romney besting the President, with Women, (CBS/NYTimes), and Independents (CBS/NYTimes) by varying margins of 3 to 7 points (the later Rasmussen).

Therefore, if Bush, who enjoys his low profile, endorses Romney (which one would expect), then the need for the Press to paint Bush as divisive, and suggest that the Obama administration might use that tactic in the campaign (which they will any wise), it would serve to strengthen the image that Obama is continuing give credit to a previous administration, long past the time where one would find these accusations credible.

There is public perception, the more that one hears Romney is in the lead nationally, or in key states, on the evening news, then when gas prices fall, or any improvement occurs, the danger for the Obama campaign is that Romney is the reason – logic? – If the nation is improving, it is because business believes that Romney is going to win – giving Romney an early boost or leg-up if one will. At this point, there appears little that Obama can do to salvage a win in 2012, given the consonant poll data from Gallup and the trend in polls for the general election.


Carter Obama, the comparisons continue - image: libertad.org

Of note: Edward Klein’s “The Amateur” is now available – and suggested reading. Having read “The Truth About Hillary, against the warnings of the likes of Bill O’Reilly on the right, and choose anyone on the “left” that has a public voice, the book allowed those that tended to dehumanize Hillary Clinton, with a vengeance, actually like her – more to the point, look at her record and then support her candidacy in 2008.

Axelrod “Endorses” Mitt Romney, Romney Leads Obama in Latest Polling, Romney on Welfare Reform versus Obama

William Weld, father of Welfare Reform (pre-Clinton/Gingrich Bill), with Mitt Romney - circa 1990 - image sunshine state news dot com


From Red State”Breaking David Axelrod Endorses Mitt Romney for President” - although satirical, one has to be confused as to whom the President’s Campaign Manger is referring. In the video clip below, Axelrod, on a Sunday morning news show, noted that the middle class needs are not being met, and that “we” as a people, can either change that – or “keep going on the same path”. If anyone watching this gave it a moment’s though, to travel on the same road we’re on, would be to re-elect the man for whom Axelrod shills, and to help the middle class, (and since when do we have a “class system in our country” – that defies the principles of our founding fathers), one would think that would be someone who was in a position or had knowledge of how to produce actual private sector jobs, rather than stimulus programs, extended unemployment benefits – jobs programs to date, have “saved” public sector jobs, such as teachers, which, without a taxpayer behind the scenes, these jobs would not exists in the public sector.

Video, comments shown twice

What might be most amazing is that to run on the administration’s record, one would have to change “history” to reflect a great record – since Academics are capable of changing history, by virtue of a rewrite, perhaps that’s what Axelrod is attempting in his latest “salvo” against Mitt Romney.

Desperation can produce many a faux pax. In the latest Rasmussen polling the Daily Presidential Tracking shows Obama down, and in a matchup with Romney, losing 48 to 44% (that would appear to be somewhere at or near the margin of error). However, with the last Gallup state by state polling released, the President had approval ratings in only 10 states that was above 50% - Obama’s Ten States show above 50% approval are: California (at 50.1%) Illinois (50.4%), New York, (54.7%), Massachusetts (55.1%), Vermont (51.3%), Connecticut (55%), New Jersey (50.8%), Delaware (50.9), Maryland (55.5%) and Hawaii (56.1%). The bigger story is that these ratings have declined, since the state by state survey in 2010.

One keeps hearing about how close this race is going to be, however, if this trend continues, state by state, an incumbent pulling 50% and some change in approval in only 10 states, does not bode well for the general election – consider the population in these 10 state: California and New York are large population centers, however, the balance are not.

So the battle has begun between Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, with the conservative wing of the Party still looking at Romney as if he had grown three horns, and many vowing to hold their noses and vote – against Obama – on the other hand, Romney appeals to the moderate – of which in this country that appears to be a growing and large segment of the population.

What does the Obama Campaign have on Mitt Romney – not much when the truth be told – it is a phenomena called “sort-term-memory loss” – when it comes to politicians, especially incumbents – Obama continues to blame Bush, blame the Republican’s, blame the Congress, but, as Harry Truman noted: “The Buck Stops Here” and those who are voting, only know that Obama has been President for four years, and in four years, nothing has improved. Therefore, you will find complains surfacing in papers such as the Boston Globe, about Mitt Romney.

The most recent example is an article from Boston.com’s Political Intelligence section - Mitt Romney Says All Moms Are Working Mom’s, but Mothers on Welfare Need to Work - the headline leads one to believe, Romney put those two concepts tougher in the same sentence – not so. In one instance, Romney was defending remarks made by a CNN Political Pundit, and Democrat Operative, regarding his wife, Ann’s inability to understand the economy because she was nothing more than “a stay at home mom” – This took place last week. However, in the Romney says mothers on welfare need to work; he was in New Hampshire on the campaign trail in January.

Romney was, of course, speaking about Welfare Reform, a product of former Massachusetts peer and Governor, William Weld, which was nationalized under the Republican Congress and President Bill Clinton. The premise: a timeline was set for welfare recipients to get off the “dole”, they would go to college or get a job, (college was a two year program), and much was provided, including daycare – it was a resounding success, cutting the welfare roles and putting people to work refer to discussions on the success of the MA model up to and through 2001(Urban.org) Therefore, Romney is speaking about “Welfare Reform, getting individuals off the government dole and in the workforce, by incentives, and thereby reducing the welfare roles and increasing the taxpayer base. FDR has workfare, as the most often referred to Social Revolutionary (one thinks he might roll in his grave) President by Progressives, the institution of his workfare program and other benefit programs were clearly, intended to be short term – a point those who laud the programs apparently miss.

What of the incumbents views of Welfare Reform? They don’t exist: In fact, replacing Welfare Reform was primary in the Obama administration to the point where states were incentivized to increase the welfare roles – see: Presdient Obama Ends Welfare Reform.

Welfare Reform, instead replacing it with a program that increased aid to states who increased the welfare roles. By replacing Aid under Clinton’s Welfare Reform Plan, with the new TANF

Under the new system, states will once again be paid more if their Welfare roles increase. States will actually be paid even more than under the system that was in effect prior to 1996. The government has added $4 billion per year to help states increase their welfare roles.

Of course, all is well and good, if welfare is used as a transition, and enables the individual to find skills, gainful employment, and become a part of the society – In the interim; they receive benefits that are not always designed to be the most generous. Therefore, when inflation hits, for example with food and fuel, that not only hurts those in the “middle class”, but those in the “welfare class” as well.
That is evidenced by a trip to the grocery store, and finding those with EBT cards making hard choices about food – just like those in the middle class.

Clearly the administration cannot run on its record, even if there were some sleight of hand or outright miracle and the price of a gallon of gas drops to $2.25 and the unemployment rate drops to Bush Era levels (4 to 5%) between now and November, it is the sales pitch that will fall hallow. The cumulative facts must have been on Axelrod’s mind as he rambled out that statement.

Bloggers Note: As a stay at home mom for the first four years of my daughter’s life, it was not only hard work, demeaning in terms of how stay at home mothers are viewed by former peers, and the family who decides to go that route, ends up losing income and making do. However, nurturing the child is worth every sacrifice. With women, especially, it should not be an us vs. them (stay-at-home moms versus those mom’s in the workforce , especially those who are financially capable of making the choice to either stay home or work – should be supportive of one another. To do otherwise, is to take one of the most important and powerful roles a woman owns, that of bearing and rearing her children. It is politics that divides - the us versus them of the Democrats who feel they own women, and the Republican’s /Moderate Democrats such as a Bill Clinton, who feel that women have a right to be – equal – no matter which choices they make when it comes to their children. Which would you choose? Servitude or Freedom from being a political football?

Gingrich a Look Back – The Bush Take-down and Rise of the Republican Congress – Reviled and Respected by Both Parties – The Negotiator and Deal Maker

Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton talking Budgets - image Washington Post

From the Washington Post: a column by Bob Woodward, offers insight into the rise and fall of Newt Gingrich within the Republican Party and those in the establishment who still harbor resentment for actions taken by the powerful Speaker of the House. In brief, Gingrich is blamed by President H.W. Bush for his eventual loss of the Presidency, not for the fact that he actually was drummed out of office on the pledge that he would not raise taxes, then did so in a deal with Democrats, but because in this article, Gig rich clearly would not sign onto a deal that he felt was not in the best interest of the American People, and was not well negotiated, it was a bad deal.

This is of course, paraphrased, in an article that covers the history of Gingrich and the House by Woodward, and it is suggested that he entire article be read to fully understand how an outsider, one who does not go with the Republican Party, is treated by the Establishment, as well as how a Powerful Speaker who is also a Republican, and who works closely with a Democrat President to get things done (President Bill Clinton), is anathema to both parties who would prefer to sit back and draw partisan lines in the sand and call it a day.

Key words that stuck out like a sore thumb, better negotiation and deals – if that does not make Gingrich sound like the Donald Trump candidate, no one does. Which brings up a point – Trump has stated on numerous occasions that if the Republicans’ fail to nominate the right candidate, then he would run as an independent. Understanding that he may not be referring to Gingrich at all, but speculating that he may given the verbiage used and the former Speakers ideology about negotiating from a point of strength, in addition to the latest move of the Establishment GOP to oust Gingrich off the Virginia Primary ballot by disqualifying over 1000 signatures, insisting that each one must have a voter ID, whereas that was not a previous requirement, smacks of a set-up to knock Gingrich out of the race. (See the point that Romney may not make it past Super Tuesday and the possibility that Ron Paul may take Virginia) – Should Donald Trump carry through on his promise to run given the circumstances of the Republican nomination and not knowing which candidate he feels would be the best to broker deals and be the best negotiator, one can only understand that Trump will take votes from both Democrats and Republicans, in numbers sufficient to throw the race back to Barack Obama. It is the Democrats Dream.

The scenario of a third party candidate was the exact circumstance that led to the reelection of Deval Patrick in Massachusetts by one point – an election, David Axelrod, Obama advisor and campaign guru, watched closely and hoped to put into play for the 2012 general.

The Newt Gingrich as anti-Republican, and in plain language egotistical, is seen in the latest article from Politico, that headlines: Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton battle over 1990s legacy one finds that there is no quote from Bill Clinton, rather those “Democrat Strategist” pulled for the beltway to remark on events in which they were clearly not involved. This completely contradicts Clinton’s own words, in an interview with Newsmax (Article Here: in which he Praises his “Old Foe, Gingrich)

Suffice it to say, that not one of the pundits have a crystal ball, nor the blogger or the hundreds of pollsters how have come out of the woodwork lately, to give an indication of how the vote will go in the GOP primary – but the constant media drumbeat is as follows: Mitt Romney will be the nominee, Newt Gingrich will continue to decline in the “polls”, and Ron Paul is not a serious candidate. One might recall the constant drumbeat for Romney in 2008 and McCain in 2008, two individuals who are keen moderates in the vein of an Olympia Snow of Maine, and who the Republican Party believes will be able to “play ball” and keep the status quo. It is the conservative candidates that who might cross party lines to get the job done, without caving in completely (See current Speaker Boehner), that are poison to both he GOP and the DNC.

It may well be that Romney is the nominee, and in that case, everyone from the Obama campaign (who has the opposition research to launch a very aggressive campaign against Romney) to the establishment Republican’s who have another Bob Dole or John McCain, will be thrilled, while millions of independents and Republican’s (not the political class) will find themselves either staying home, or going to the polls knowing that the vote they cast may have one of two results. Romney would lose, similar to those who have gone before with the same ideology and marketing, and /or Romney will win, and that means we have a former Governor of Massachusetts in the White House, and from this perspective, it will mean little change from one administration to the other – there will be no bold moves, and lots of compromises in order to maintain the status quo.

Of course, a lot will depend on Donald Trump and Ron Paul, who one can gather will have an impact on the outcome of the 2012 election. It appears that the GOP has grossly underestimated Ron Paul’s constituency, and his national appeal to those who would cross party lines – to vote for a man who has a foreign policy ideology that is slightly more progressive in practice than President Obama!

To achieve the above scenario, one must also takes into consideration that the media does not hold the sway they did in 2006 to 2008, and that the negative ads that Romney and Paul have unleashed on Gingrich will then be turned upon one-another. It will be a Phoenix that rises out of the ashes of that fiasco that will eventually gain the nomination. One thing may be stated without one prediction being made; the race may indeed be decided by March. The outcome of which, is anyone’s guess, but looking at current polling and should the GOP keep its hands off the state’s primary process, then that candidate may well be Newt Gingrich. Suggest watching Clinton Interview with Newsmax.

2012 GOP Update – Herman Cain – Guilty Until Proven Innocent? Chicago CBS 2 Anchor, Bill Kurtis, Debunks Cain Accuser Bialek – Audio from WLS-AM

From the windy city: a local anchor, who has more credentials than most of today’s journalist, one Bill Kurtis (biography here at Chicago.cbslocal.com/personality/bill-kurtis), was a recent guest on Chicago’s WLS-AM’s “The Roe Conn Show”, and has plenty to say about Bialek (who worked for a short time at CBS), along with Cain’s ability to ride out what he appears to note as a manufactured scandal, apparently more to the story on several levels. There is a brief note below from Media Bistro:

Citing what he heard “in the elevator at work,” legendary WBBM anchor Bill Kurtis discredited Herman Cain accuser Sharon Bialek in a conversation last week on WLS-AM.
Speaking as a guest on WLS’s “The Roe Conn Show,” Kurtis said that Bialek, who worked for CBS in Chicago from 2006-2007, “has a history.”
“There’s a lot more to this story,” Kurtis said of Bialek’s account of sexual harrassment. “I ride in the elevator at work and I hear very quickly a different kind of story.”
“Let’s put Herman and Sharon in the car at the same time,” Kurtis said, “and the roles may even have been reversed, given [her] track record here.” Here’s the audio…

Video appears below (audio)



What is most interesting is the amount of conjecture on the subject, given the fact that guilty until proven innocent has been tossed out the window – however, here’s several scenario’s in which this blog has been given over the past few days, most of which, although “hearsay”, may make more sense in the long-run given the team of Bialek and Allred’s lack of credibility.

In an attempt to push Cain out of the way, as his climb to the top was gaining momentum and he represented a threat to other candidates in the GOP (some of whom have been known to play a dirty trick or two in Presidential Primary politics), but more so to the Obama campaign, given the fact that Cain’s message might resound with both Democrats as well as Independents – the best way to get rid of a Republican is to throw a scandal against the wall and hope it sticks (similar to cooking pasta), and, logic follows, that candidate would immediately withdraw from the race, or resign from Congress, or the Senate, or the local post as dog-catcher. Apparently, what they did not count on, should this be the case, is the fact that Cain is not a politician, as and such, when accused did not act like a politician, rather like a novice, which, instead of being the kiss of death, lent more credence to Cain’s innocence.

With fewer Conservatives and moderates for that matter, not trusting news sources to be as “truthful “as say a blog, or alternative source of news, Cain’s poll numbers, although in a slight decline (due more to one debate performance than any scandal), the majority of Republican Voters in (pick any poll) would prefer that Cain stay in the race (a little poll fact that is often left out of those news stories, noting the has dropped in the polls (by a few points mind you ), because of the allegations of sexual harassment (based on conjecture not fact). Those in the media, and the Obama campaign, appear to have run up against a dead horse.

Should Cain survive (and this appears to be the case at the moment) and go on to win the nomination (or be on the ticket at all), the fact that he has had allegations against him, has been made moot by the same party who has, for decades, lived by scandal and the fact that a sexual scandal is no reason for a candidate or sitting Congressman or sitting President, to leave office (See: Barney Frank and Bill Clinton, and an entire cast of characters). Therefore, they have created a scenario by which, in protecting their own (the DNC and Democrat Political Operatives); they have made it the “norm” for their constituents to look upon this type of scandal as “no big deal”. Fast forward to March (after super Tuesday), and should Cain be in the lead, or say Gingrich, and one or the other look to be heading hand in hand towards a solidified ticket, then Cain would appeal to Democrats across the board who may have had trouble voting for a “typical white man” (sorry Newt), but not for the affable, African-American, Cain.

This particular ticket, (which could, again, go either way), would solidify the
Conservatives, and surprising Democrats desperately seeking an alternative to Obama.
Also of note, the Republican Establishment and their pundits, continue to push Mitt Romney as the front runner, and, with no offense meant to the former Govenor of Massachustts, nothing short of a miracle will get that man past Super Tuesday with enough primary points to seriously continue the campaign.

This means that the Republican Party has more than one front runner, who is totally unacceptable to the Beltway, and totally acceptable to those Conservatives in the party, as well as those outside the Party.

This is not to say it would be a landslide, and that the fight would not get even dirtier (surely David Axelrod’s building must be full of Sharon Bielaks’ or someone else just as horrifying to voters that could be attached to either Newt or Cain.), but most likely to win this general, there will have to be a third party candidate, one that can peal enough votes away from the Republican, and allow the current occupant to win by even 1 point (See Massachusetts, David Axelrod’s testing grounds and the last Governors race). Therefore, a 5 point lead over an incumbent with a third party candidate in play will hardly be enough – that said, a healthy 10 point lead in polls like, for example a Gallup, would indicate that, although a tight race, more than winnable for team GOP. Of course, that all depends on how the candidate’s fortunes turn out – at the moment, in Iowa, the latest poll shows: Cain, Paul, Romney and Gingrich in a virtual tie for 1st.
The interview is worth a listen in its entirety.

CNN-Opinion Research Polling Obama Believed Unlikely to Win Second Term – Compares Obama to Clinton in Polling Data Release - Analysis

Trouble in River City – No matter how one slices it, 51% of American’s polled in a CNN-Opinion Research Poll believe that Obama will be replaced in 2012. The poll (PDF here) taken the last week of January 2011, compares 1995 Gallup Trends polling on Bill Clinton’s presidency to the results of their poll on Obama in order to draw the conclusion that Clinton was polling in similar numbers to Obama now, and went on to win re-election.

In looking at potential two-term Presidents and polling, in January of 2003, George W. Bush was polling at approximately the same numbers as both Clinton and Obama, however, he was expected to win, not lose the Presidency. What one has to consider when viewing polls on individual Presidents, is the key word “individual”. Each President had an individual approach to leadership, which either appealed or, in some cases did not appeal to American voters a year before the general election campaigns began. In comparing the results of Bill Clintons poll numbers to Obama’s poll numbers is akin to comparing apples to oranges. Clinton was viewed as a moderate, the polling was taken in January of 1993, following the news of personal scandals involving President Clinton – it was, in a word, an approval or disapproval of a personal nature, not based on the man’s ability to govern. The Republican’s nomination of Bob Dole in 1995, a weak candidate, gave Clinton the help needed to gain a second term. In addition, Clinton transitioned as a moderate, and with apparent sincerity. Consider Welfare Reform, for instance, and a solid economy, an appearance of working closely with both sides of the aisle, since he took the office in his first term lent to his reelection in 1996.

There are several reasons that Barak Obama may not realize a second term, regardless of an apparent move to the center, and his recent epiphany regarding Ronald Reagan’s policies, the chief among them, his polarizing effect on the electorate, his administrations performance on the Health Care Reform and the Economy will also continue to play a factor. At this stage in the game, regardless of the fact that there are, according to CNN, no clear frontrunners in the GOP field (as no one has clearly announced an intent to run), Obama’s job approval continues to remain stagnant, and sinking on his handling of the economy (latest Gallup).

Although not one of us has a crystal ball to predict a future, it is, based on historical trends and reactions in comparing Obama to a similarly ideological U.S. President, Jimmy Carter, where one finds a basis to realistically anticipate the probability is high that Obama will not gain a second term. Carter not only faced dismal poll numbers, and a challenger from within his own party, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy. Carter did go on to win the nomination, but lost the Presidency to Ronald Reagan in what can only be termed as a total repudiation of Carters’ policies.

When one reviews, the economies under both presidencies (Carter/Obama), their handling of the respective situations in a similar manner, and subsequent failure, the advancement of the government roll and entitlement programs under both administrations, and finally, foreign policy as regards the Middle East, would appear to data worth reviewing. Perhaps CNN should have compared a similar president, ideologically speaking, in their polling on Obama, say Carter, rather than Clinton to draw an accurate conclusion. However, as badly as the media (CNN) wants Obama in a second term, the use of Clinton as an example, does nothing to support the theory that Obama, like Clinton will overcome this deficit.

On the Republican potential nominees, Mike Huckabee receives the highest approval and favorability, with Mitt Romney and Palin both at his heels in the same poll. What was of interest in this particular portion of the poll, the question on the import of a candidates’ views matching one’s own, or the ability of a candidate to best Obama – Republicans and Republican Leaning Independents overwhelming chose the latter. Therefore, one might overlook Romney’s involvement in Massachusetts Care, or Huckabee’s “liberal” ability to govern across the aisle (not to mention his Christian Credentials), or even Sarah Palin’s “polarizing personality” if it was though that individual would beat the current President.


Note: Although by now, readers of this blog understand that Public Policy Polling is a favorite pollster, (based on two facts: 1) accuracy of their polling data) and 2) They are a Democrat Leaning firm which, if one finds Republican’s with gains in a firm that skews Democrat, then one cannot question their integrity, or the integrity of the polling data. This firm has been polling both the GOP field (as it is seen now), along with matchups between those GOP potentials and the President since 2010 – the results are telling: To follow the trends visit http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/surveys.

Clinton Run in 2012 – Speculation Rampant Despite Clinton Nay-Saying - Odd are She will Run (Analysis)

Clinton will she run if Palin announces? image libearlloc blog

Hillary Clinton, when asked about a 2012 bid for the Presidency in 2012 in a recent Fox News appearance indicated she had no interest in pursuing the Office of the Presidency, which reasons dictates, would put to rest any thoughts of a second Clinton run. However, although Secretary of State Clinton has stated, on more than one occasion recently that she has no desire to run for the Presidency, the speculation continues to run rampant – with good reason.

One the one hand, there are the conspiracy theorists and alleged White House leaks that indicate the current President is incapable of continuing running the nation due to medication use and severe depression. (Examiner, New York) While another take along the same lines suggests that Moderate Democrats are contemplating a coup of sorts in order to remove the President. (Examiner National) In the instance of these sorts of rumors, even if they were accurate, one would hope, for the sake of the nation, the President would not be forced to resign (under Article 25), rather would be persuaded to step aside, leaving Joe Biden “in charge”. One must stop and think about the prospects of a Biden Presidency, in order to truly appreciate the gravity of the situation, and the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

In addition to denying any plans (present) for a run at the White House, Clinton has also denied, she would replace Joe Biden in an alleged 2012 Obama-Clinton ticket(CBS News). The Secretary of State who was noticeably absent during the 2010 mid-terms – was doing her job - which requires she be out of the Country. This caused further speculation that she was distancing herself from the “scene of the crime” (otherwise known as historical losses for the Democrat Party). The fact that her husband, President Bill Clinton, was said to be campaigning for those incumbents who only supported Clinton in 2008, added fuel to the fire. (Telegraph).

A very interesting take on why Clinton will run can be found on the blog ”Death by 1000 Papercuts.com in an article entitled “Unconventional Wisdom Barack Obama Can’t Win Won’t Run in 2012”. In this piece, the author offers a scenario where Clinton will run, simply because Obama is already contemplating ending his tenure after one term. Therefore, Clinton would have no choice but to run, as there are no other Democrats who would be able to step in and appeal to the broad spectrum that is the American voting bloc, and, after the decimation of the party by “progressives”, a moderate would be needed in order to at least bring the Party back to the center. Although one would think that Clinton would not, in this wise, be running for the Party that literally stole the election form her via Super Delegates, rather she would be running to help undo damage caused by the aforementioned.

Of course, there’s talk about 2016 being the year she might run, but this assumes that Barack Obama will do the following: move to the center and play well with the Republican’s in Congress who are about to undo everything he and the Progressives have done in the past two years. If this happens, and it is, according to pundits on the right and the left, impossible for Obama to be bi-partisan due to his stringent ideology, then the President may be successful in seeking a second term. However, as the public furor over every one of the administrations boondoggles builds, regardless of what he attempts to do to push himself towards the middle, the blame is in place in the minds of many. Take the TSA disaster for example: although Janet Napolitano (a.k.a. “Big Sis”) is taking the heat, she works for and was hired by Barack Obama who is ultimately being blamed. (Huffington Post)

From the beginning of his Presidency, Barack Obama has followed the Jimmy Carter blueprint for running a government, which to those who point to a Bill Clinton second term as an option for Obama, must clearly not understand that Clinton was nowhere near as left of center as either Carter or Obama. Additionally, Clinton cared (still does) about polls.

Rush Limbaugh has a theory as well regarding a Clinton run in 2012 and , although it appears to be a bit Machiavellian, it does offer one truth that has been consistent with Presidential candidates from the history of the nation – deny, deny and then run.

From the right, the left and the center, all eyes are on Hillary Clinton, and when the time is right (and it is not time, even though political junkies have imaginary lists of Republicans who will be running – resurrecting the those who ran in 2012 as “front-runners”), which will not happen until at the least June or July of this year (give or take a month), she will announce her intentions to run for the Presidency.

A consummate poll watcher, with Sara Palin leading the Republican field in the polls, and Mike Huckabee opining that ”Palin may well run away with the GOP nomination” (Washington Post), then the pie is sweetened, so to speak. In addition certain polls show Democrats standing by Barack Obama versus Clinton at this point in time with a fair margin of 20 plus points, others (commissioned by the right, so not to be taken seriously by the left) show just the opposite - it is simply too early. However, even six months is an eternity in American politics, and should Obama not bend to the will of the people (and specifically the Republican controlled Congress), making him, for all intents and purposes, even more unelectable than he is now, and should Palin throw in her hat into the ring, Clinton would be doing a disservice to herself, the remnants of her Party and the nation if she did not announce. Odds from this perspective are that Clinton will challenge Obama in 2012.

Obama Off Again – Heads To Europe – Will Europe View Him As Carter Light?

Obama Heads To Europe - image Huffington Post

As Obama is set to visit Europe this coming weekReuters is asking if Obama will maintain his appeal in the “Old World”, or will European’s give him the same treatment of disdain that he received in Asia. The analysis opens with sarcasm:
“If President Barack Obama is not yet convinced that his international star power has faded, his next round of transatlantic summitry should clear up any lingering doubts.”


According to Reuters, Europeans will be leery of the U.S. President over economic policy difference and the fact that U.S. allies feel “neglected”. Cited as one of the major issues he must overcome is the perception of weakness over the 2010 mid-term elections. Of course, that is followed by his problematic trip to Asia, where his economic policies, specifically as to world trade, were called into question by the Chinese.

How a U.S. President is perceived around the globe matters – to the President. If a President is seen as being weak, both at home and abroad, political opportunities as to reelection are greatly diminished. Unfortunately, no matter what political ideology and or temperament a sitting U.S. President may have, the Europeans (i.e. global community) appears to find fault. The more a U.S. President is perceived in the States as being more interested in his/her popularity globally, the chances for a second term are greatly diminished.

The Europeans had little love for Ronald Regan, less for George W. Bush and even Bill Clinton had some issues – but it was the perception of how the aforementioned were received in the U.S. and how they viewed the U.S. as being in a position of power, which brought respect. (Note: Clinton was and remains the most popular abroad.)

Obama’s approach is more akin to that of former President Jimmy Carter, who, barely 15 months into his Presidency, was already seen as weak in the eyes of the Europeans . (See Google News and excerpt image below.)


Jimmy Carter Perceived as Weak by Europeans 15 months into Presidency - Google News Archives

Simply put, when a U.S. President appears to care more for how they are perceived outside the U.S., then their stock both in the U.S. and globally appears to decline. It may not be seem fair, to some, to make comparisons between Obama and Carter, however, their approach to world views, economics, and domestic policies are so similar it is as if one is blindly following the path of the other. From bailouts, and increased entitlement programs, to the world’s perception of a weakened U.S. Commander in Chief, the historical significance of the two Progressive Leaders cannot be dismissed. It is the President that views the United States as having a position of strength, and makes no apologies, regardless of the “world view”, who is most successful. No U.S. President will ever be viewed as anything other than an upstart from a country which was once merely a colony of hooligans who rebuked their European “betters”. It is an historical fact that seems to elude the Progressive mindset – those who would prefer the U.S. was, for better or worse, the paradise they see as Europe through their rose colored elitist glasses, fare far less well, when it comes to the ballot box and the court of U.S. public opinion. Therefore, the die may already be cast, and Obama-Carter may come away from Europe, with little gain in popularity abroad, and less at home.

With Ever Dropping Approval Ratings, President Obama Looks to Rally Support – at Universities – Students Recruited to Fill Seats

Bill Clinton on the Stump for the President - drawing crowds of 3,000 to defend Incumbants image huffington post

From Real Clear Politics :the Presidents approval rating, once again, hit a new low. Real Clear Politics, is not a poll per se, rather a combination of all polls taken in a given period. Therefore, there are high and low approval ratings (depending upon the pollster) averaged to come up with an “overall” approval. The combined “score” is now at a 44.5% approval.

With that in mind, knowing that the 2010 midterms are at stake and shortly thereafter, he must begin to campaign for the Oval office in 2012, he is taking to the road - in an “attempt to recapture Democrat Enthusiasm”. (New York Times). His first stop is the University of Wisconsin and the Times is heralding this particular rally as having the draw Obama was used to seeing at rally’s in 2008. The word “Thousands” and used in context with the size of the crowds.

Easier said than done, a recent rally held in Ohio was so poorly attended that Obama rally organizers were desperately trying to recruit students to fill the seats. Perhaps the Obama has a better following in Wisconsin, or buses standing by to insure the seats are filled with thousands, which said, perception is half the battle.

Losing the Battle:

Even the most popular Democrat President in recent history, one Bill Clinton, who is on the stump in “blue New England” for the most endangered species: Incumbent Democrats, managed to draw a “crowd” estimated at approximately 3,000 - the event: A rally for Barney Frank (D-MA) held in Taunton in the 4th District of Massachusetts. According to New England Cable News, Bill Clinton was able to draw 3,000 attendees to a Barney Frank Rally.
The rally was “advertised” well in advance by the local press as well as the Republican Challenger, Sean Bielat, who held a counter-rally. The AP jumped in as well: ”Barney Frank Denies Clinton Visit indicates weakness”. That said Bill Clinton in Massachusetts is akin to a visit by the Pope himself. In the past, the former President was greeted by large enthusiastic crowds (with the exception of his stump for Martha Coakley in January of this year, therefore to draw 3,000 at a rally for Barney Frank is hardly a success.

The aforementioned begs the question: With the man (President Clinton) sent out to rally the troops who feel Obama is poison draw crowds of merely 3,000, will Obama’s huge crowds materialize on their own?

Note: Barney Frank is seen as the architect of the mortgage meltdown (Freddie and Fannie); however, he is also most often aligned in the minds of the electorate with Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the later, being a bigger problem in some voter’s minds. With that in mind, can the ever popular Bill Clinton succeed when “guilt by association” is in play in all districts in New England? Also, if this is taking place in New England, known as “reliably Democrat” across the board, then how much more in states that swing decidedly down the middle?


The 2012 Democrat Candidate for President standing next to Obama? - image our vote

Bill Clinton must, at this point, understand that, although doing his best for the Democrat Party, there is little hope of recovery under the current administration. With that in mind, he must know that the public would have preferred another Democrat be president instead of the current occupant of the White House – one Hillary Clinton. A recent poll puts the former first lady in the number one slot of candidates who would come through a 2012 primary – by 62%. Not for nothing, Bill Clinton is a consummate poll watcher.

Obama and Clinton Differ On the Tea Party – Too Little, Too Late to Salvage 2010 Mid-Terms – Is Clinton Laying Groundwork for 2012?

Bill Cliton On the Stump for Democrats - Image Sun Sentinal

There’s been a dearth of talk show appearances for former President, Bill Clinton this past week, from the Sunday morning news shows to an appearance last night on Fox News with Greta Van Susteren – the main topic – The Tea Party movement. Clinton, according to Politico, is suggesting that politicians listen to the Tea Party, while at the same time, suggesting they are “funded” by right wing extremists. The same theme was reiterated last night in an appearance on Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, with the exception that in this particular interview, Clinton referred to the polls, and incidentally appeared exhausted (see video here). Clinton, who has been on the campaign trail with Democrat candidates (incumbents) as an alternative to President Obama (even in Massachusetts, where he’s been on the stump for for Stephen Lynch (D-MA), during a primary fight with a Progressive Democrat and will be appearing in Tuanton at the High School to support an endangered Barney Frank against Republican challenger, Sean Bielat at 2 pm on March 26th.)looks exhausted as it appears to be an uphill battle.

Bill Clinton, who is generally popular as a moderate Democrat, especially among the all important independent voter, has been looking at the polls – the Tea Party appears to have the support of a majority of voters, and some members are Democrats or independents, that would vote for a Democrat. It’s a fine line to walk, supporting candidates who are the nemesis of the Tea Party movement, such as Rep. Barney Frank, while trying to garner Tea Party support for the Democrats. He is potentially laying groundwork for a 2012 run at the White House by Hillary Clinton, who has been rumored to be considering mounting a challenge against sitting President Barack Obama. Clinton is no dummy; he’s survived impeachment with high approval ratings, and has generally followed polls in order to understand what it is that voters want from an elected official.

It must be taxing to attempt to stump for a Political Party one loves and believes in, while the Party “leader”, in this case President Obama, is doing just the opposite. Clinton is caught in the twilight zone of Progressive dogma and incompetence, with Obama challenging the “Tea Party” to come up with a plan, if they are not happy with the way he and his administration (Congress included) have run the government. (NY Daily News). Obama, either apparently understands that, contrary to many of the press who characterize the Tea Party as a “philosophical movement”, it is a fledgling Political party, one which may marginalize the Democrats, rather than the Republican’s should it continue to gain mainstream prominence - or he’s moronically hitting back at the core electorate he needs – independent voters and women, the majority of which, make up the movement.

At this point in the game however, Democrats are still desperately trying to either marginalize the Tea Party as “fringe” or tie them to the GOP (and considering Tea Party candidates have, in the same way as Progressives candidate to the Democrats, run as Republican’s and have been extremely successful) with both tactics being rather self-defeating.

In reviewing polls at Real Clear Politics.com, the numbers are not good particularly good for the Democrats. The methodology employed by Real Clear Politics in assessing a particular race, is to include all polls taken, regardless of accuracy, which may move the numbers into a “tie” where none exists. In addition, congressional districts across the nation which are competitive are not being polled – the prime example is the MA 4th District where Sean Bielat (R) is challenging Barney Frank (D-MA) who is, for perhaps the first time, actively campaigning in the district. Therefore, there may be more Republican gains than anticipated at Real Clear Politics.

There is a reason why Bill Clinton is going to Taunton to stump for Barney – where the former President will be greeted with respect from what is anticipated to be a well-attended rally the troop’s event, compete with an Anti-Barney Protest that may rival the attendance inside the school. (The rally, announced by the Bielat campaign on Facebook, is working to ensure that protesters are covered by all applicable laws and have the correct permits.) Given that one has to wonder just how many voters vested in the 4th district are planning on attending. That may have added an extra bit of “angst” to the already overburdened Clinton (unless of course, he plans on skipping out on Barney to hand out Hillary Clinton 2010 bumper stickers to those Independents and Democrats who will be at the counter-Barney rally.)

Of the two men, one a sitting President and the other a former two-term President, who managed to work with a Congress in total political opposition, the one to watch in the coming weeks will be Bill Clinton as he attempts to undo what Obama does naturally, offend potential mainstream voters. Should Clinton manage to at least salvage some shred of dignity on a road paved with Congressional misery, it will be a coup. One has to understand that Clinton coming to rally for Frank, instead of Obama is a huge signal that Obama has lost even Massachusetts, and sends clear signals to those who would have rather seen a Clinton in the White House, that it may still be a possibility.

Obama Administration – Desperation Plan – Attack the Tea Party – Bill Clinton Takes a Different Tactic – Hillary, Palin and the Tea Party - Analysis

The New York Timesran an article yesterday here outlining the administration’s plans to air a national television campaign tying the Tea Party movement to the GOP, noting that the source was, as always, anonymous, and that the ad would air only on “cable”. Meanwhile, smart as a fox, and possibly laying the groundwork for his wife’s 2012 run at the White House, former president Bill Clinton believes that the “Tea Party is misplacing the blame” (NY Daily News). In a series of Sunday talk show appearances, Clinton argued that the Tea Party candidates have the right idea in that the public is tired of big government, but that it is “bankrolled” by “people” who would harm the government by concentrating power in the private sector. Seriously, on the one hand, Clinton, one of the few moderates left in the Democrat party, is giving credit to the candidates that either have Tea Party support, or are Tea Party originals, while warning of disaster if the government is reduced.

Both the White House, and a variety of cheerleaders from press, are missing one critical point – the Tea Party “movement” is not about the GOP – it is about the government period and primarily about fiscal conservatism, job creation and individual liberty. The GOP just happens to have some of the qualities Tea Party members are seeking – but it appears to be temporary.

In addition, examine who make up members of the Tea Party, some of them are far right, some of them are also Democrats, most of them are, more to the point, “unenrolleds” or “independent” status voters. Those voters who have never found either party overly appealing, or meeting part or any of their political ideology have finally found a “Party” they like. This is regardless of how many times a member of the Democrat Party or the Press cries “right-wing extremist” (note – Clinton, in his interviews, did not use that particular phrase). Interestingly, the New York Daily used the Clinton interview to segue into a criticism of Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell – who they are desperately tying to Sarah Palin, on the one hand, while leaving out the fact that she upset a Republican Incumbent on the other.

Clinton, one can observe, never went that route, leaving Palin out of it completely, although touching on O’Donnell – as a Tea Party Candidate, having to spell out what had happened as far as several “bombshells” dropped by the press in recent weeks against her, personally.

Bill Maher, a comedian turned “quasi news commentator” on Cable’s HBO network, “outed” O’Donnell recently for “Dabbling in Witchcraft” – in addition, she’s had a slew of financial difficulties and discrepancies in her bio. The dabbling in Witchcraft nonsense is exactly that, as the 41 year old O’Donnell was in high school at the time. In other words, Tea Party candidates who have had financial difficulties, and may have made some dubious choices in high school, are human.

However, Congressmen and women, who have made dubious choices with other people’s money (taxpayers), and happen to be Democrats, get a pass. Gone are the front page articles on Charles Rangel’s (D-NY), with the exception of his recent win in New York’s primary – one in which, on election day voting machines either malfunctioned or did not work (NYTimes). Rangel is up on a host of charges, likewise, Maxine Waters (D-CA) who funneled tarp funds to a failing bank which just happened to have her husband on the Board. Chris Dodd, (D-CT) decided to get out of the kitchen and retire before the financial disaster came home to roots, and Barney Frank (See Maxine) was in the ”middle” of the Water’s bank scam on the Taxpayer. It is the aforementioned that the "Tea Party Members" get.

However, to the majority of the press and the administration, The Tea Party is “extreme” and in aligning with the GOP, one should vote those Democrats back into office or suffer the consequence. Those consequences being the GOP would now include members of a fledgling Third Party (see analysis here Wall Street Journal)that would not bend on issues of taxpayers monies (the crux of the issue) being spent with abandon (a basic GOP tenant, which in that Political Party’s misplaced need to become more “appealing” to Democrats – acted just like them – see out of control spending in Congress held by GOP in the 2nd term under G.W. Bush.)

The problem, overall, is that those that live in Washington D.C. (and pressrooms across the nation) don’t’ get it. One has to wonder however, if the GOP’s Karl Rove did, especially when he went after Christine O’Donnell for besting an incumbent Republican. The GOP had a stalwart tax and spend semi-reliable Republican in Mike Castle and Karl Rove, knew that Castle was not ousted by a fellow Republican, rather a member of a Third Party running on the GOP ticket. One that, had not been “fully vetted’ by the “Tea Party” – you can’t blame Karl, who has to understand that the GOP is being used as a spring board for candidates that would be forced to run as a third party candidate. This is similar to the way that “Socialist Progressives” infiltrated the Democrat Party by running as – Democrats.

Karl need not worry overmuch – The Democrats are in panic mode, Clinton understands this, and also understands the need to be “kind” to those Tea Party Candidates, even though they are running as Republicans’ because, he understands they are not “right wing extremists” at all, rather they are American Citizens from all parties, all races, and all ethnic backgrounds who are taxpayers’ sick of being fleeced.

It’s a win for the Republican’s because, at the moment, they are identifying themselves with the GOP – and it’s a loss for the Democrats because they are not specifically the GOP, and apparently, only the members know that – those members reading the press and having voted for one Barack Obama.

Obama on the other hand if he does recognize the strategy and being a Progressive, is, in all likelihood, a bit perturbed as the independents that propelled him into the White House, have now formed a Party to remove him.

What of Sarah Palin? Palin is being tied by now by more than virtue of endorsement to Christine O’Donnell, which the press is trying to take advantage. The Altlantic article written by one Andrew Sullivan who apparently sees a correlation between the teenage O’Donnell’s “witchcraft” date (Bill Maher), and Palin’s attendance at a church where the pastor used the word “witchcraft” in a service in which Palin participated. Obviously, not familiar with biblical text, nor teenagers, and believing that the rest of the nation is likewise ignorant, he pens a rather ridiculous correlation between the two, with the conclusion that neither woman is fit for office.

The problem those press and politicians – (Obama and like-minded Progressives) (with the exception of one Bill Clinton and one Karl Rove, that actually may “get it”) that demonize both the Tea Party, Palin and of course, O’Donnell is that: One, the Tea Party is a separate movement and - Two, O’Donnell is her own person, regardless of Palin’s endorsement and made mistakes in her youth, mistakes and hard times, being something that happens to every single American at some point in their life.

Finally, Palin is a force to be reckoned with, her endorsements are not straight Tea Party, nor straight GOP, she sees something in these candidates that for, whatever reason, makes them better than the alternative. Palin, who came out of the GOP convention and immediately overshadowed Obama, both in the press (who quickly went to work “fixing that Progressive faux pax”), and in attendance at rally’s nationwide, is seen as one of the GOP’s front runners for 2012.

That is with good reason, as one has to examine the possible GOP 2012 candidates(at the moment – Mitt Romney failed to capture the south and the mid-west, Mike Huckabee, may be able to pull it off, although he will be characterized-wrongly as a “religious nut”, Newt Gingrich, always mentioned, Rick Santorum (former Senator – PA - makes Palin look liberal) – none of the aforementioned, let alone Palin have declared) - Palin may be the only one that can actually carry the states necessary to win the nomination.

One scenario which the press, in its blind ambition for the Progressive movement, sees as a victory for Obama, while, Bill Clinton, on the other hand, looks at Sarah Palin as the woman Hillary Clinton must beat in 2012 in order to win the White House for the Democrats.

Therefore, let the White House air those anti-Tea Party, GOP advertisements and they might as well throw Sarah Palin in the mix – unless it is run only on MSNBC, then the probability that this tactic will indeed have an effect on a base is certain – the problem for the administration is – it will be the wrong “base”.

Progressive Democrats in Denial – Local Press Attempts to Reshape Narrative on Public Angst and GOP in Massachusetts

Dr. Jay Flietman - Running the Ground game Against Richard Neal - MA Hamdpen Second - image Jay Fleitman Blog

An interesting article in the Northampton Gazette , entitled “Shifting Ground: Local Republicans are energized, Democrats feisty as fall elections approach”, speaks about the political outlook in the fall elections, specifically in Massachusetts.

The author begins the article by noting the issues that are on the minds of the public: the building of a mosque at ground zero in New York, Rupert Murdoch’s donation to the Republican Governors Association and finally an aide to President Obama criticizing Progressive Democrats. The economy, including the fact that 500,000 new unemployment claims were filed last week, (with article published Friday, August 20th, news of increased jobs claims available day before), the angst over immigration and health care reform were not mentioned at all.

The use of Rupert Murdoch and Fox News as having made a rather large donation to the Republican Governor’s Association is interesting as it is basically a “call to action” for those on the left who tune in to MSNBC. Other, more informed news consumers, understand that Murdoch gives to both political parties, leaning to the left in the 2008 elections with the with the likes of then Presidential candidate, John Edwards urging Democrats to reject money from Murdoch.

Additionally, no word on the sixth Presidential “get-away” across the state on Martha’s Vineyard where George Bush “Miss Me Yet”, t-shirts are selling like “hot cakes”.

The article does nicely outline the differences in political think within the Democrat Party – with the battle between “conservative” and Progressive Democrats highlighted. The author quotes the President of the 100,000 strong PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) as saying nothing should be taken for granted and furthering the fact that Progressives want to make the national party more progressive.

He goes on to cite the 4th Districts, Barney Frank:

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, of Massachusetts' 4th Congressional District, warns that progressive Democrats upset with the party's conservative members should try to defeat them in primaries - but only in safe Democratic districts, not ones that could be taken by a Republican.
In a recent interview with Congressional Quarterly, Frank added that if progressives have a choice between a conservative Democrat and a Republican in November, they should vote for the Democrat "but stick voodoo pins in him ... that relieves your frustration and helps public policy."

The Massachusetts 2nd District is also highlighted, with Richard Neal (D) being seen as “Safe” – in fact all but one Massachusetts district is seen as safe by political pundits who quote the “Cook Report”, a Washington Based political publication. Although the Cook Report bases its bi-partisan analysis on reports from those in the “know” in political circles in states where they may not have intelligence on the ground, one has to note the absence of any polling, outside of the Governor’s race, by firms other than those hired by candidates for internal polling purposes.

If all was “rosy” so to speak, there would be no need for Bill Clinton to come to Springfield to stump for Neal, nor, for that matter, Barney Frank to open a a campaign office in Newton of all places.. (Only two of many instances taking place across the Bay State.)

The Hamden 2nd, where Neal has run virtually unopposed (the true focus of this article), in decades, now has Republican’s vying for his seat, and they have the ground game on. In fact, newly former Democrats (those must be the “conservative Democrats to which the PDA refers), have “jumped ship” to the Republican side – which began with Scott Brown, and has carried through to district races. Democrat held seats “safe” in Massachusetts? Hardly.

Dr. Jay Flietman, who is running against Richard Neal, is highlighted in the Gazette article. It may be because Fleitman is the “hometown” Republican, a man who sat on the Board of Health in Northampton until relinquishing his seat to campaign against Neal. The fact that Fleitman was able to get to the Board of Health in Northampton (which is similar in political think to Amherst and Cambridge (see additional progressives quoted in the article, with one moderate community college professor thrown in who had voted for McCain) speaks volumes on the ability of “Dr.Jay” to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters, including Democrats. Jay Fleitman will face Tom Wesley is the upcoming primary on September 13th. There are multiple Republican’s running in all but one, one district in Massachusetts.

The question remains, how much clout does the press, or Progressives, for that matter, have in shaping the narrative on this mid-term? One has to factor in media, in general, and where consumers are going to get their news. The highest rated radio talk shows in Massachusetts include Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and locally Howie Carr of WRKO fame, Fox News (although much maligned) takes the top spot in cable wars on a weekly basis (See Cable News Ratings), coming close in viewership to the national network outlets who, at one time dominated evening news broadcasts. A recent New York Times article, noted broadcast was down for all networks, by range of 4 to 6 percent To networks that, in the late 1990’s had 10 million viewers per night, the fall to cable is telling.

Consumers are no longer sitting back and waiting for their national or local news anchor to tell them what is up – they are literally “Googleing” for verification. Blogs, as well as alternative news organizations, including international sources, are now being used in an effort to get the “scoop”.

Therefore, the Progressives of America have their work cut out for them. For that matter, so does Bill Clinton. Although highly popular in Massachusetts, Richard Neal, is rather lackluster, more so this season than any other. Will these races be a walk in the park for those who rise to the top of the ticket after the primary? No - but these candidates are better prepared to fight the Democrats on their own terms – they may not have the SEIU out in force, (who’s members were quoted in the Brown election as having been paid to support Coakley, but were voting for Brown), nor the “star power” of a Bill Clinton, but what they do have is the ability to connect with the voters, regardless of party.

Therefore races will be close, in the vein of Scott Brown close – 2 to 3 points were predicted in his “win” over Coakley, a slightly conservative number.

Pollsters to trust: Public Policy Polling a firm known to lean Democrat, but who, in the past, especially in recent special elections, has been spot on. For a skewed view of how well a favorite candidate (out of Massachusetts) might be doing, Real Clear Politics offers a combination of polls, to come up with an average.

The people have a choice, in the Hampden 2nd – between an entrenched, straight party line, politicians who is obviously influenced by Progressives, as opposed to the majority of Democrats (one Richard Neal), or a knowledgeable and likeable physician from Northampton, Dr. Jay Flietman who seeks to bring a different, fiscally conservative narrative to Washington.

Herein lays the crux, “likeable”, it will boil down to retail politics, on all level, and the more appealing the candidate is to the masses now (progressive think), the better the chance of besting an incumbent.

As of now, one must respectfully agree to disagree on the notion that all seats, with the exception of the 10th District, are “safe”, rather, with Democrats playing defense for the first time in decades, it appears that these districts are up for grabs, and as conditions worsen, along with the rhetoric that all is well with Democrats from the local news, the face of Massachusetts is on the verge of a substantial shift in political think.

Obama plans Two Vacations – First Family to Visit Gulf and Martha’s Vineyard – Media – He Attempts to Move to the Right?

Obama on the Cover of Time - media depiction as FDR, a call to moderates - who prefer Clinton

According to the the AFP President Barak Obama and his familyare planning two more vacations before summers end – one to the Gulf and one to Martha’s Vineyard. The Gulf vacation is family only, according the this Euro news service, and while in Louisiana the President also plans on mixing in a bit of “business” – visiting small businesses who may have been affected by the oil spill. The last summer vacation will be in Martha’s Vineyard.

This, despite, the fact that the nations unemployment rate remains steady at 9.5% with no change anticipated for August”, and appearances, as “they” say, are everything. Apparently, advisers must have suggested a get-away or two – not realizing that this move may not be the best way to endear the suffering populace. On the other hand, with Congress on recess, and embattled Democrats fighting to maintain their seats, it may have been a directive from the DNC to “get out of Dodge” and find something to do away from Washington and any Democrat that is up for reelection – as he is less effective, say than President Bill Clinton, who is the preferred “party star” to aid endangered Democrats (NPR). That said, at every opportunity, the President and Democrats in general, are still blaming President George Bush for every problem that occurs (including the Gulf Oil Spill), a man who was eviscerated by the media for taking vacations at a working ranch (owned by Bush), while a natural disaster was occurring (Katrina).

With a political party in hot water, it is, in all likelihood, a good idea for Obama to maintain a low profile, after all, 2012 campaigning also begins on November 3, 2010 – time for Obama to begin to “move to the middle” in order to maintain his current residence. This strategy is in place, according to Keith Koffer, in an op-ed found in Politico. Mr. Koffer cites the fact that White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, is “picking fights “with the left – on purpose. This purpose would be to apparently distant the President from those who are left of center – or the majority of the Democrat Congressional members. Seriously, the author goes so far as to compare Obama’s “strategy” to that of President Clinton’s in 1994. It is, without a doubt, disingenuous to think that a comparison can be made between the two men in the first place, and in the second, conditions in the country (unemployment, etc.) are simply not comparable.

If one were to compare President Obama to a past Democrat office holder, it would have to be Carter – not Clinton. This is not the first article (or salvo) fired off by the press, op-ed or no, that is claiming a “move to the center” by Obama, and quoting one comment found under the Politico article one can sense the hostility towards the press and the President and that fact that it is a “no-sale” theory:

“Oh please, he already pulled this crap once to get elected and as soon as he was elected he took a HARD left and hasn't been back!
I don't think Oblunder will be fooling anyone this time and he still is and always will be as radical as ever!”

Shades of the Who ”Won’t Get Fooled Again” .

It is not the vacations, necessarily; it is more the constant bailouts, the appearance that the President and his Congress in concert are oblivious to needs and wants of the general electorate, which will make it extremely difficult to imagine a second term. Of course, according to every article remotely critiquing the administration, there lurks a line or two about the “GOP” calling out the same for acting irresponsibly. In other words, still stumping for Obama, even though it is apparent this president’s chances of re-election are growing slimmer by the day.

What of Bill Clinton on the campaign trail? It serves two purposes, neither of which are tied to the current President. One, it puts a popular President out front with Democrats (Senate and Congress) who are most likely to face a loss, but will remember and support the Clintons, and does get the old base enthused. (Referring of course, to the old democrat, as opposed to the “progressives”). In addition, with Hillary Clinton perhaps the party’s only hope of maintaining Pennsylvania Avenue for the Democrats, its political capital in the bank- this despite the appearance of “helping” Obama.

All’s fair in love, war and politics, given that old adage, one cannot see a new majority (in both the Congress and the Senate) working against the opportunity to see a Republican in the White House – or a true moderate Democrat (i.e. Hillary Clinton). In addition, it is difficult to see this particular man, go against his personal progressive convictions, those that have been in place in the earliest moments of his political career(see below) – and may make any move, even remotely to the center, either transparently false, or impossible. ( From the New Party (Socialist Party):

Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for
Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.

)

Therefore, being the “brilliant” man he is, he must be aware of the mood of the populace, and the great lengths he must go through in order to attempt a political “makeover” in time and in concert with a sympathetic media, in a rally for a second term, which, pinning ones political hopes on the short memory of the average “American Idol” voter, may not be the best strategy this time around. The times have changed since Carter’s first and only term.

Poll Stunner - Obama Approval in Massachusetts Drops To 44%

Public Policy Polling Reveals Obama Approval in Mass. at 43%

A poll released yesterday by Public Policy Polling on the U.S. Senate Race in Massachusetts, revealed some interesting statistics on Massachusetts changing views. In reviewing the poll methodology one finds a sample of 744 likely voters using automated phone polling (see Rasmussen using same methodology). The Commonwealth’s voter registration is not in sync with the survey – for example: in indentifying voter affiliation: of those surveyed: 44% of the respondents: Democrat, 17% Republican and 39% independent/other. The makeup of the Bay State, based on the 2008 Election Results by the Massachusetts Secretary of State Democrats show party affiliation as follows: 36.95%, Republicans: 11.62%, Unenrolled (Independent) 50.75% and the balance (Green Party, Libertarian, etc.: .68% (less than 1%). Therefore, the poll by Public Policy was heavily weighted in Coakley’s favor, and in President Obama’s favor, given the same criteria.

The returns from the general election for the Bay State were “typical” Obama received 62% of the popular vote compared to McCain’s 36% Fast forward to the Mass. State Senate Poll: On the question of Approval from Bay State Voters: 44% Approve, 43% disapprove, with 13% “unsure”, on the question of Health Care Reform: 41% approve, 47% oppose, and 12% hold no opinion.

It is the common misconception that Massachusetts is in a virtual bubble when it comes to voting for the Democrat over a Republican or Independent Candidate, however, when one parses the actual electoral makeup one finds a group of voters who have become disenfranchised, increasingly conservative, and the majority reject the current administration and specifically the issue of Health Care Reform.

Yes, in Massachusetts.

Obama’s falling popularity is, in part, reflected in the numbers Brown is receiving, but only in part, as one has to look at Coakley favorabilitys. Also of interest, the DNC is sending former President Bill Clinton to “stump” for Martha Coakley. Clinton will be stopping in Boston to attempt to boost voter enthusiasm for Coakley. Although popular in the Bay State (at one time – no recent data), Clinton has his job cut out for him. The environment is decidedly not in favor of the Party in Power. This is not necessarily about Washington, although it plays a significant roll, it is also about the corruption on Beacon Hill, and a growing unease with the Democrat Party in general. If Obama’s approvals are this dismal in a state that he took by over 30%, what are the odds of Coakley pulling off, what now would be an “upset”?

Obama Attends Rally for Embattled NJ Governor Corzine Draws Crowd of 3,500 - Next Stop Massachusetts – Rally for Deval Patrick.

Obama with Corzine, image Trentonian

President Obama has hit the campaign trail to try and bolster Democrat incumbent governor John Corzine, who is just weeks away from from possible early retirement. An article in Politico, entitled “Corzine milks Obama appearance”, speaks to the fact that the polls have tightened in recent days between Corzine and Republican rival, Chris Christie, but fails to mention the fact that there is a third party candidate who has gained ground, with both Corzine and Christie losing ground with New Jersey Voters. The Rasmussen poll suggests that it is impossible to predict an outcome at this point, therefore, one would think that an Obama appearance would bolster Corzine’s chances, attracting a large crowd in order to “get out the vote”.

The event, held at a Hackensack University, drew an enthusiastic crowd of 3,500, most of who were there to see the President. One has to understand that events where a sitting or former president visits a specific state, especially a blue state, are well documented in the press, weeks beforehand, giving plenty of time to draw significant overflow crowds. Former President Bill Clinton’s visit to support John Kerry’s presidential bid in Massachusetts drew crowds of the City of Worcester with people “lining the streets for miles”.

Perhaps Democrats in Massachusetts are more enthusiastic than those in New Jersey – Obama will be attending a fundraiser for Deval Patrick on the 23rd of October in Boston – Massachusetts, known as “the Bluest State”, (see presidential voting patterns by State; Massachusetts has only voted twice for a Republican (Ronald Reagan), in the past 30 years.) should see crowds “lining the street” to honor Obama’s visit to the Bay State. Although the fundraiser will undoubtedly be closed to the public, it has received significant media attention in the state since the announcement in early October, giving those who would even stand a chance of a glimpse of the President time to get into line. It will be interesting to see how this Bay State visit compares to Obama’s draw in New Jersey, as both sitting Governors have dismal approval ratings.

Alternately, Rasmussen’s latest Presidential Tracking Poll shows that the President is enjoying an unhealthy 27 percent “strongly approve”, giving him an overall approval rating of 47% Rasmussen polling has seen the president’s approval “negative” for the past week. This poll, coupled with the poll numbers of the democrat incumbents in both New Jersey and Massachusetts, may act as a harbinger of political rallies for Democrat incumbents elsewhere in the nation. If that is a case, it is a question of a brand gone band, and this will become evident as 2010 election rally’s begin in earnest. The question then will be, is Obama to the Democrats in 2010 as George Bush was to the Republican’s in 2008?