Twitter Threats to Riot – Campaign Directed? – Twitter Members Post To Start a Riot if Romney Wins Election – Real or Desperate Campaign Tactics?

The above screenshot from Infowars.com, consistent in the language and message

Yesterday, the website info war, ran an article entitled “New Threats to Riot if Obama Loses Election”, the gist: twitter has recently seen a spike in both death threats to Candidate Mitt Romney as well as promises to riot in the event that President Obama loses the election. (Worth the read and available at www.infowars.com). That said, taking nothing for granted, when one searches Twitter for “Romney-Riot” there are hundreds of tweets suggesting a riot should take place if the incumbent is not reelected. The Twitters appear to be from a broad background, more anarchist than racial in tone – and the messaging is all so very similar. It is the similarity that is what is at question. Would thousands of individuals come up with the same idea and words to suggest a riot as a result of the outcome of a Presidential race?

Although one might point to the rhetoric of Luis Farrakhan, suggesting that race is the motivating factor to elect, Mitt Romney President. The aging “Nation of Islam” leader is backing the President as he did in 2008, using race as a factor. (McClatchy). That said, the “tweets” following the theme of alleged anarchy, possibly in the hopes of national media attention, rather than someone expressing what might be an actual sentiment (a la Susan Sarandon’s threat to leave the country if Bush was elected – she stayed), or as most individuals express either disappointment or outright depression if their chosen candidate does not win. It’s worked a bit, and made the Drudge Report Headlines, linking to the InfoWar site.

When one looks at who’s “tweeting” about a Romney win riot – it appears there are approximately thirty or so that pop up, but the repetition and the colloquial don’t “jive” – given the popular “hip hop” slant on some of the messages, while the others are somewhat “suburban housewife”. One might almost think that the “tweets” are part of a last ditch campaign strategy, a team with an alleged lock on only ten states, less than a month before the election, has to know that there is no way to crawl back into “first”. There’s something about the final waning moments of a Presidential campaign, where that point starts is now, in mid-October. That is the time when those die-hard partisan’s and supporters, no matter how much they wish things were different realize the game is over. Not unlike football, there is the final two minute warning, the quarterback has been sacked too often to be useful, the defense is falling apart, and when the special team is called in to stop the bleeding, they implode into giggles and grins. The opposition has the ball, they know how to run out the clock and there is nothing one can do but sit there and watch the final field goal (or touchdown in this case). Sometimes the losing team will try to Psyche out the opposition or its’ supporters, and with the David Axelrod at the helm of the campaign, looking for frazzled by the day, stammering in news conferences, and frustrated, one can imagine a last ditch of “threaten a race riot, and they either won’t vote, or they’ll not want to be labeled a racist” tactic. After all, race and division have been the one contestant them of this administration since day one, therefore that lends to the obvious question: how many were paid to tweet, and how many are jumping on the bandwagon as an actual excuse to riot – that might be difficult to tell.

One might take this with a grain of salt, or as an incentive to vote for Romney, especially if one is an independent and sick of the division.

The riot as part of election strategy might be a bit of a stretch – however, one would expect that the “angry” twitters are not down and out to the point where they have no iphone, or ipad, or similar device to post these tweets. Therefore, one might be tempted to think: these are either party operatives, or students, or sympathizers who are so vested in a candidate that they are expressing their feeling about rioting, simply because they are not Susan Sarandon and have no passport to take them elsewhere, or that might be “passé”. Understanding from Infowars that some were concerned about losing their government assistance – would not someone how knows how to work the system for government assistance be aware that partaking in a riot, as a criminal offence, would facilitate that loss? Or again, it goes back to the “campaign” – example from the Infowars article: Tweeter Pat 47% Entitled, suggests: “if every action IS met with an equal and opposite reaction .what should workers do to employers if Romney's elected? #Riot in the streets!!” That is not a racist sentiment, that is a union sentiment. Going back to the losing team for a moment – If one is reading internal polls that tell them even Massachusetts is in play, then one has nothing left but to start a division. However, one can bet the house, that if Romney is elected, the general public, just as when Reagan and Bush were elected, suffer no consequences, and the riots? They will be nothing more than a tweet, as the community organizers and union members get back to the business of organizing for the next election. Of course, the above is strictly hypothesis; however, given the pattern of not quite up to Machiavellian standards used in the past by this campaign, it might not be out of the question.

Of Big Bird, Desperation and Romney Touch of Humor – Democrats early Signs of MDS (Mitt Derangement Syndrome)

Chris Matthews, Obama Supporting MSNBC Host, lampooned on Jay Leno - or art imitates life - image the examiner.com


The Obama Campaign was told to cease and desist using the Bid Bird character from Sesame Street in its advertising yesterday. (ABC News) The ad was in response to Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney’s suggestion that savings to the Federal Government could be made by cutting program such as aid to the PBS during the first of three Presidential debates. Romney’s suggestion apparently was the one thing in the entire debate that the Obama team thought might be worth taking a “shot at”. However, they may have wanted to pick a program where the programming does not make millions of dollars from sales of merchandise, with management salaries up in the 6 figure range(Pathoes.com), which may be why Romney feels that the network could be commercially viable without tax-payers dollars. For the past week the Obama campaign has been using the “taking Big Bird away by cutting funding” approach to bolster the President after his horrifically poor performance at the same debate. Romney for his part, speaking at a campaign event suggested: “"You have to scratch your head when the president spends the last week talking about saving Big Bird," he said. "I actually think we need to have a president who talks about saving the American people and saving good jobs." (Politico) Point, counter-point.

Elsewhere, in Virginia Democrats who are so heavily vested in “saving” the Obama campaign, have taken to using box cutters to take down Romney signs on Private Property, used human excrement to throw at Romney sings in private yards, stolen signs from businesses in broad daylight, and screamed at people who were holding a political rally (Video-Washington Times). Of course, yelling to support one’s “team” so to speak is not out of the norm, however, yelling, ripping up signs while doing so, and walking back and forth in what appears to be utter frustration may be a sign of trouble to come.

Trouble – after George W. Bush was elected to a second term, there was an acute case of what became known as Bush Derangement Syndrome(Desert News) and although it was noted in jest, there were those that took to bed for three weeks after the election, refused to speak to friends and family suspected of voting for George W. Bush, and otherwise display erratic behavior.

Granted, this blogger is in no wise, a Therapist, or mental health professional of any sort, however, the MDS symptoms have begun to appear early (see Washington Times article in Paragraph II), and even in Massachusetts family friends have been chased down the street by avid supporters of the President and Elizabeth Warren (the lefts perceived next Obama and Senate Candidate in MA), and nearly assaulted, by screaming campaign volunteers who cannot comprehend why anyone would support either Mitt Romney or Scott Brown as a candidate. When one goes to those extremes in Boston, image the statewide shock if a)Mitt Romney takes Massachusetts contrary to polling data which oversamples the left side of the Commonwealth by a 50% margin, and Warren looses despite the usual dead voting, ballot stuffing, miraculously finding 30,000 extra votes tactics which are normal for the Commonwealth. Additionally, if it can happen in Massachusetts and Virginia, this early in the game, imagine what might take place after there is a President Romney? There is the alleged potential for rioting according to the Examiner article “Obama supporters on Twitter threaten to riot if Romney wins election”. All semi-jesting aside, be kind to your friends, families and neighbors who are so heavily vested in a candidate that they display any of the associated syndrome, and get them professional help as soon as possible, especially those so heavily vested in a candidate it appears they may participate in a “riot”.

2012 Update: Gallup Sees No Front Runner, Boston Globe on Romney in New Hampshire

Gallup Dismayed - GOP Field is Tied! Huckabee, Palin Romney - photo credit: freedomslighthouse.net

Gallup, in a study of GOP Frontrunners from 1952 forward, finds that the 2012 “potential candidates” offer no clear frontrunner, in what Gallup terms as an “anomaly” this late in the game. However, in 2008, McCain was paired with Rudy Giuliani, who bested McCain at this stage of the “campaign”, with McCain emerging after Giuliani dropped out of the race, and the New Hampshire and Iowa contests were past. It was the South Carolina primary that gave McCain the green light he needed in order to emerge as a front-runner in the eventual field that included both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

As of the last Gallup Survey taken in February, Huckabee led both Romney and Palin by 2 points, in other words, a statistical tie. Herein lies the conundrum faced by pollsters, there are three strong contenders for the 2012 GOP nomination, none of which have formally announced. Palin has hinted at running, and has made a staff change to her PAC that indicates she may most likely run. Huckabee, with the release of a book and subsequent book tour across early caucus states, as well as the South Carolina battleground, will decide late (in terms of an actual announcement), in June or July of 2011. Romney is declared in all but making the statement official, the former MA Govenor came out this past week with the declaration that he was the most qualified GOP candidate. Although some politico’s may find this to be a negative for the GOP, the fact of the matter is, that overall, a healthy field of strong candidates (and that does not take into account those who have not yet emerged and maybe just as strong as the current well-known three), offers Conservative and Conservative leaning voters the more options than in previous contests, and delaying a formal announcement while laying groundwork for a campaign, is akin to having money in the bank. What will break or make the eventual nominee (which said person will not necessarily emerge until after the South Carolina primary or later for that matter) will be a cohesive effort on the part of all conservative wings of the GOP party to coalesce behind that person – something that may or may not happen, similar in scope to the 2008, doomed from the get-go, GOP nominee.

In 2008, with the taint of the Republican Brand, it was unlikely that whoever ran on the ticket would win the election. However, since the tide has turned, and it is the Democrat brand that is in that position, there will be little difference in who eventually takes the nominee, even if the matter is not settled until the GOP convention.

Strategically, it makes sense that the nominee be delayed over time, giving President Obama no clear rival until the 11th hour – in this scenario, Obama would have to contrast his policy against three or four (unnamed GOP), which would further waste resources. Additionally, if the President’s approval ratings for 2011 do not improve over 2012, it will not matter which front-runner emerges, that individual will most probably be the next U.S. President. Although, it will be a battle, the Gallup favorability ratings for 2010, show few states that will not fall to the GOP, should those numbers hold (currently 10). Gallup, it should be noted is a conservative polling firm, and by conservative, one is not referring to political ideology rather methodology – taking pains to go neither to the right nor the left.

The Boston Globe’s article on Mitt Romney in New Hampshire declares Govenor Romney a “novice no more”, by virtue of his previous run, and offers that he is in a better position to define himself more so than in 2008, as the issues then were less to his abilities (war in Iraq) than now, where the issue is the economy. That said, the article goes on to describe him as more comfortable, rather than “stiff”, as in 2008, but rightly suggests that his greatest hurdle will be his institution of mandated health care (Commonwealth Care) that was morphed into Obama Care on the national level.

There are, of course, differences, however, should Romney emerge as the nominee, it would take the debate over Mandated Health Care off the table, so to speak. Lastly, the subject of Romney’s religion comes into play – the Globe sees his Mormon faith as a deterrent in early states such as Iowa and South Carolina – that said, a quick review of recent (less than 50 years), proves that when the opposition is viewed as not desirable for the nation, and the frontrunner is a Mormon, that faith has little or nothing to do with electability. In 1972, one Richard Nixon, Mormon was elected to the Presidency taking every state with the exception of Massachusetts.

The aforementioned belies the Globes perception that the candidates electability may hinge on religion, whereby, history proves otherwise. In addition, as this nations laws demands a separation of church and state, with freedom of religion the root of the of the formation of the colonies which eventually became these United States, one must understand that, try and the opposition might, regardless of a Presidential Candidates personal choice of religion is concerned, it is that persons perceived ability of governing, that will rule the day. In this opinion, when one has a defined religion, it bodes well for the candidate, rather than detracts, going to personal character and conviction of a named faith. Those that would put labels on Catholics (Kennedy), Mormons (Nixon), and George W. Bush) (Methodist), may have done so but to little avail. ( source adherents.com)

In 2011 (to date), we have Obama (Christian), Romney (Mormon), Huckabee (Baptist), and Palin (Non-Declared Christian – (lack of sources offering a clear definition). In the end run, it will not be a candidate’s religious preference, it will be based on the state of the national electorate and the candidates perceived ability to govern effectively.

2012 General Elections Beginning to Take Shape – Democrats and Republicans Alike Early Eyes On Congress and the White House

2012 - The Games Begin - image media.eyeblast.org

For months news of David Axelrod, Obama’s 2008 Campaign Manager and White House Advisor, move to Chicago in early 2011 to start the President’s 2012 election campaign has made headlines. As 2010 closes, CBS News (via Politico) is reporting that Obama will campaign for reelection from Chicago, rather than D.C. or nearby Virginia as his predecessors had done.

On the GOP side, the AP via Boston Globe is reporting on potential Senate Challenges in 2012. With 33 Senate Seats up for reelection as well as the entire Congress, those that are considering challenging incumbents are beginning to come forward.

Polling on the Presidential contest has been taking place for the past year, with hypothetical match-ups against a variety of well-known Republicans versus Obama, with one of the latest a CNN polls showing 2008 Candidate, former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, leading the pack of “hypothetical’s”. Huckabee, a virtual unknown in 2007, went on to win the Iowa caucus in 2008, eventually bowing out to John McCain after all states had a choice in the primary contests. 2008 saw speculation that high-profile Republicans such as Condoleezza Rice, former Bush administration, Secretary of State would seek the nomination, which she did not.

One thing is certain, after the 2010 mid-term Democrat losses in the Congress based on public distaste for runaway government spending, high unemployment, and the health care reform bill, the issues that will surface as challenging for either party in 2012 are, as of this point, unknown. The fact of the matter is that the economy may remain strained for the next two years, as it undergoes recovery, the new Congress, with a good percentage of the members part of the Tea Party movement will, undoubtedly, be more vocal than the average politician, specifically when it comes to spending, however, they must buck a Senate controlled by Republicans and Democrats alike who are less fiscally conservative. Depending on which side of the economic coin the President stands, along with Democrat members of the House and Senate, will either make or break the nations focus on the economy and who is to "blame".

The last hours of the 111th Congress, and the passage of several bills that appeased the Democrats Progressive wing of the party, has, according to NY Congressman, Charles Rangel staved off a primary challenge to Obama from the left. That does not, however, mean there will be no primary challenge to the President, as hopes of his compromises with Republicans on the Bush Tax Cuts would appease those in the middle, has yet to be determined.

As both major American political parties, as well as the independents and minor party hopefuls, begin to play their cards for 2012, it will be, as always, what makes the United States of American one of the most unique and inspiring nations in world history. The fact that any U.S. citizen, regardless of socio-economic, religious or ethnic origins can rise to the occasion, run for political office, and be elected by a majority of the citizens, continues to engage the world.

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.