What’s Not Being Talked About: Reuters 2008 to 2012 - Voter Registration – Democrats Down, Republican’s up by wide margin

With all the talk about the polls and the media’s intent focus on Mitt Romney’s Ronald Reagan like Gaffes, and his campaign falling apart (similar to Reagan’s against Carter in same time period), one might think that the Massachusetts Govenor might as well pack it in –of course, a gaffe is in the eye of the beholder. Take that Romney fundraiser where he was discussing his campaign strategy and which voters he world or old not focuses on to bring them over to his side: he decided not to go after (target, fundraise from, and send camping literature to) 47% who were most likely Obama Supporters. Although 47 percent may not agree with Romney, there’s that 53% that do – If the election were held on that one gaffe, then Romney wins.

Apparently SoundBits and hidden camera moments do not make or break a campaign.

What does make a difference is voter turnout and enthusiasm and who shows up and why the day the votes are cast.

The polls, as has been discussed, are inaccurate at best and misleading at worst, but yet, they (media) continue to pound away on the amazingly tight race.

It defies logic that a poll (an educated guess – granted scientific) would sway an election, but the Obama Campaign is hoping it will.

They are also counting on early voting leads in swing states, however, Reuters suggested that may not be the best plan, as explained in their article: “Groups race against time to get Florida voters registered” In this article the suggestion is that Democrats are far less enthusiastic about early voting or registration for that matter; and Reuter’s cites the city of Jacksonville, FL as an example, and the numbers would suggest trouble for one particular campaign if they had to count on early voting or an uptick in voter registration to win reelection.

The Florida Times Union has said 11,365 people registered as Democratic voters in the 13 months that ended at the end of August, compared with an average of 209,425 for the same periods before the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

Meanwhile, 128,039 Republicans have registered in the state over the past 13 months, up from an average of 103,555 in the same period in 2004 and 2008, the newspaper said.

One might suggest that given the enthusiasm is with the Republican’s given that snapshot. There are other factors at work as well, one has to consider the ground game, and who is most likely to turn out millions of voters on Election Day, and who is going to have to fill buses and get them to the polls.

Here’s a thought on that theory that Mitt Romney, the candidate, is down in the polls so, the race is over mantra from the Media will help re-elect the President, what if, for example, when those who are more concerned with the Presidents policy, as well as the economy, the crisis in the Middle East and holding onto one’s job, hears that Romney might not win? They may just be more inclined to vote for Romney, and get a few neighbors to join them. On the other hand, those Democrats who are feeling the same pinch, and yet, trying to cast blame on George Bush, are somewhat of an anomaly – they are the traditional Democrat vote – and they rarely stray from the “flock”. The rest of the moderate Democrats may or may not vote given they care for neither candidate.

The Debates: Yes the media is already harping on the “do or die” for Romney in the debates. Of course, no matter if the GOP Candidate out debates the President, the media, will give the win to Obama, regardless of the outcome, and report the same, noting that Romney can’t win. See AP Report: Gov. Carter Won First Debate with Reagan.

It’s to be expected.

Yet, after all the polls, and portents of a victory for one or the other, and the tight polls right up to the election – (or conversely, even a lead) – No one will know until the day after the November election – although there are some that believe History is in one of those maddening cycles, whereby more than 15 to 20 events over 4 years that are similar in scope to the past, so much so, it’s almost identical, might make one harbor the bet that not all is lost for Govenor Mitt Romney. It is not that Romney is comparable to Reagan, he is not, and it is the circumstances that gave Reagan the edge that are similar. Both men suffered similar treatment by the media –and the results, well, one is certain, as it has passed, the other, is more certain, given the circumstances and mounting physical evidence.

Polling and the 2012 General Election – Is there a Reliable Poll – most probably not – Fact: Polls Based on Four year old trends Cannot be Accurate

What happens when one adjusts the polling data based on 2008 trends with current voter identification? - 1980. image: screenshot of www.unskewedpolls.com

There’s a feeling of Déjà-Vu about this general election cycle, if one were awake or living in the year 1980 – the economy was in deep trouble, the President a proponent of “Big Government”, entitlements were up, interest rates were through the roof, the price of gas was astronomical, as was food, and to top it all off there was a crisis in the Middle East. The polls throughout the 1980 Presidential election were either tied or had the President in the lead – right up to the night before the election – the prediction: too close to call.

Of course, the news articles, and nightly newscasts referred to the GOP candidate, Ronald Reagan, as a “clown”, and negative articles and broadcasts appeared “stacked” against the Republican challenger to President Carter. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 5, 1980 – via the Washington Post: “Reagan Campaign Battles Slip-ups” - the article goes on to cite growing concerns within the campaign, the gaffes the candidate was making - the perception – the campaign was in disarray.

Sound familiar?

After the dust settled, Gallup explained the Carter loss as a “Dramatic Vote Changes Given Carter in 76, 80”(Youngstown Vindicator, December 21, 1980). Simply put, Carter won the youth vote and the ethnic vote, but lost his edge on the balance – his support among traditional Democrat voters fell from 82% to 69%, and he lost in a landslide.

Therefore, one had, an extremely re-electable President, by all polls, a challenger whose campaign was in trouble in late October, the GOP candidate made gaffes so often by the media standards, he was not electable - and yet – he prevailed.

Fast-forward to 2012 – and one finds Romney’s news coverage, with very limited exception – negative. He’s made a lot of gaffes and the polls are tied up or worse, the President is leading in three key swing states! – Romney’s Campaign is in disarray!

Trust in media has slipped to unknown territory – with these same pollsters offering a tied scenario – which allows broadcast to manufacture an image that the Romney campaign is somehow deficient due to the polls. These polls that are using samples (those surveyed) that are based off election statistics from 2008. Therefore in simple terms, this tests the limits of simple math.

In 2008, the Democrats had a large share of registered or identified voters, there were fewer registered Republicans, and Independents leaned Democrat, they made up a fraction of the vote. These statistics have changed over the course of the past four years, the Democrats have lost their huge lead over voter registration and the Republican’s have increased their share of the electorate, as have the Independents to a greater extent.

Therefore for a polling firm to base 2012 projections on the 2008 model may be a tad misleading.

Which is the reasoning behind the new website www.unskewedpolls.com - a site that is similar in scope to the model used by Real Clear Politics, which blends all polls and uses the average as a result. With the exception, the polls are re-calculated using voter registration/party identification from 2012. When one changes the percentage of the sample, one finds that candidate Romney is leading President Obama by an average of 7 to 13 points, as suggested by the unskewedpolls.com.

Although, one must question the accuracy of changing the original polling data, even basing that data on accurate samples, to project an outcome by using bad statistical data in the first place!

That said, the models used, even though the accuracy might be questions, give candidate Mitt Romney a lead that is identical to the results of the 1980 election. (Refer to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Gallup article in paragraph 2)

Therefore, it would be wise to take any polls, at this point, with a grain of salt, unless, of course, the pollster shares their methodology, showing an accurate sample of the electorate based on the most recent voter patterns and identity. Therefore, the results will be known on the morning after the November election.

If the statistics hold for the electorate as it now stands, and those numbers go to the polls and vote, regardless of whether or not a candidate is “likable”, regardless of how “smart” a candidate is, or “how rich” – then one would suggest that history might just repeat itself. One final thought:

The logic in 1980 was that although Reagan might be “likeable” – Carter would win on intellect (The Modesto Bee, September 28, 1980). The reasoning, people would not vote their wallet. This was a reverse on the angle that President Obama is more “likable” than Romney, and yet, the Obama Campaign is counting on the – economy not counting. Same election, different decade.

2012 Is Massachusetts in Play for the GOP? Just for Giggles – Why Is MA being Polled for Obama? Why is the Warren Campaign Push Polling?

Elizabeth Warren and Barrack Obama - image ljworld

This is something to think about, in the 1980 and 1984 General Elections, Massachusetts, noted the most reliably blue state in the union - went deep red for Ronald Reagan. At that time (September 18, 1980) national polls had Carter and Reagan in a dead heat, in spite of a tanked economy and Carter’s major foreign policy fiasco with Iran (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) and by mid-October Carter had placed Massachusetts in the safe column(Boston Globe).

In 1984, once again the Mondale Campaign consider Massachusetts a “maybe” or “leaning toward Mondale” along with 39 other states based on polling! (Waycross Journal Herald, 10/13/84)

Therefore, it is not without some shock that polling firms are measuring President Obama’s favorability in the Bay State – and neighbors are talking - those programmed calls are reported to go no further if one suggests an unfavorable opinion of the President’s job performance, one is then asked demographic (male-female, age) and summarily thanked and disconnected. Reportedly, if one selects approval (see operation chaos), one is allegedly given the option to enter voters preference. It is odd, is it not, that Massachusetts would be polled at all –

Then again, may be no.

Speaking of polling: reports of the Warren Campaign going negative has hit the bricks -(See Boston Globe – Warren Releases Negative Ad) - and that includes reports of push-polling. Push-polling are phone calls made to voters homes (mostly partisan, Democrats, Independents) and basically lie like crazy about the opposition. Warren is said to be push polling Massachusetts. Apparently not all Democrats and Independent minded folk (the majority) are enamored of Warren and prefer Senator Brown.

The Hill has reported that the Dems are being cautious on Mass Race despite Warren’s Lead”

Of course she has a lead; Martha Coakley had a lead too! Of course, those leads are easy to manufacture if the pollster is selective and samples disproportionate geographic and voter trends.

Of course, there’s always trolling for votes in nursing homes (Personal experience, whereby Democrat operative was aiding my mother, who was in the end stages of Alzheimer, to vote for Al Gore – my mother, an independent, generally voted against my devoutly Democrat father, as a Republican – Needless to say, there were words, and the operative left.) The dead, the dying, and the non-existent are reported to vote in Massachusetts, and yet, Brown won by 5 points in 2009. One has to ask to what lengths the Warren Campaign will go. If they are push-polling, perhaps there aren’t enough dead and missing voters in MA to cover the deficit she actually faces. Perhaps she has internal polls. On the national polling stage, perhaps the Commonwealth that elected him Governor, will side with history and economics and foreign policy and hand the Massachusetts electoral votes to Romney –that’s a big perhaps, considering that Massachusetts never votes for a Republican, and has always been reliability Democrat and all seats, regardless of import, are shown year after year after year as – “safe Democrat”.

On Romney’s 47% remarks on a local scale: Although the media (including the morning and evening local affiliate news) are hammering Romney for the 47% of Obama supporters being dependent on the government, (Romney was speaking of campaign strategy and whom he would focus on during his campaign, which, is not lost on “the masses” – neither is the sentiment that is being portrayed) Apparently, those watching the newscasts are somewhat disgusted with the fact that Romney’s right and their local CBS, NBC affiliates are to use a phrase (So blind they cannot see the forest through the trees). Of course, this is relying on word of mouth, neighbor to neighbor - retirees, the unemployed, the employed but noticing their dollar goes nowhere, regular working class folks in the Bluest corner of the bluest state. The point being the mood has not shifted since 2009, in fact the mood is one that is more urgent in its animosity towards all things that appear to be pushing an “agenda”. Granted this may be a pocket of conservative and conservative leaning Democrats and Independents, but then again, do the 33 to 36% of the Massachusetts electorate that are registered Democrats (the balance are 11-12% Republican, 51% Unenrolleds (i.e. Independent) really win elections 100% of the time in Massachusetts when there is a better choice on the ballot?

Historically Speaking - Polling and Outcomes – Nov. 3, 1980 – Carter-Reagan Polls – Too Close to Call! Result – Reagan takes 49 States in Landslide

Screenshot of Google News Archive, Sarasota Herald Tribune, eve of 1980 Election - Polls too Close to Call

With growing skepticism the public is watching polling data that has depicted the 2012 Presidential Race as too close to call for months. The usual post convention bounce that a candidate receives has not materialized (Obama takes slim post-convention lead over Romney: Reuters/Ipsos poll), and there is much talk about the fact that polling is skewed in favor of one party over another by “over-sampling” Democrats by 8 points (Examiner.com).

The economy remains in tatters with unemployment at remaining at 8.1% heading into September, and a net job creation of 96,000 jobs – nationwide(Associated Press via Yahoo News), which begs the questions, why are poll numbers so close? It may be that polls are skewed; it may be that individuals have not made up their minds (5%) or it may be that polling data, even polling data days before an election, pull random samples that, for whatever reason, are not representative of the general population. Of course, there are those reports of harassment of pollsters who show too large a lead over a challenger (See Daily Caller on Gallup Polling).

History, as “they” say, appears to repeat itself. President Obama as been compared to President Jimmy Carter since the first year of his presidency, based on two principles: his inexperience, and his policies. The almost eerie comparison continued during the 2012 Democrat Convention, with the party platform and call for a second term based on “not enough time to right the economy” the same as the 1980 Democrat Convention and appeal to the nation. The kicker: Polling data in 1980, the day before the general election in November, suggested that the race was “too close to call”, by two major pollsters (Harris and Gallup) Sarasota Herald Tribune: “Final Gallup Harris Poll Shows Reagan with Slim Lead Over Carter”. That’s worth repeating, slim lead, the final Gallup 47-44%, or too close to call.

The results: ”Voters Elect Reagan in Landslide Win” It was billed as too close to call….(Mid-Cities Daily News). In fact, Reagan won 49 of 50 states, the exception being the home state of his running mate Walter Mondale. For years, Carter’s approval ratings from Gallup were below 50%. Comparatively, the past three state by state Gallup Approval ratings show President Obama with a dozen states or less with an approval rating just at 50% or more. The latest gives the President 13: WA, CA, MN, IL, NY(55%), MA (54.7%), CT (53.2%), DE, NJ (53.3), MD (54.5%), DC (82.9%!), and RI(57.8%), HI (high 50’s) , VT (55.5). The states not noted have an approval under 51% (between 50.0 to 50.8). Therefore, all states with the exception of DC, and RI are outside the margin of error. If one were to suggest that there was no connection to the approval rating and the polling data on election match-ups – then one would be – delusional.

Therefore, using this particular model, and giving the 50% plus states to the President, the Electoral College vote count becomes: (CNN Interactive Electoral College Map) –gives the President 185 to Romney’s 353 Electoral College votes. Although still early in the contest, and only projections by pundits both professional and non, one can hardly predict an outcome no matter which data one is using. That said, the comparisons are striking, and, as an Historian, it is not without some interest that this race is shaping up as it has – down to the tiny details.

Romney and the Etch-A-Sketch - The Perception of Flip-Flopping Politicians – The Strategy Santorum Should Adopt Post Haste.

Mitt Romney’s top advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom’s remark on CNN produced a bit of brouhaha – or a joke if one will, regarding the former Massachusetts Governor’s ability to move from position to position in what appears like lightening speed. He’s quickly shrugging it offaccording to CNN, however, in looking at Politician’s, especially from Massachusetts or similar states (Illinois anyone?), one knows there is a pattern that is strictly political, that of taking up one position and quickly changing that position as public opinion, the political climate and geography are considered.

It is a fact of life in a State such as Massachusetts that one can be a conservative on the inside, but in order to get into office, one must swing to the left – or vice versa, this is regardless of political party. Even in Massachusetts, during the aftermath of 9/11 and the rise of George W. Bush’s approval ratings, politician’s doing door-to-door retail politics, (on a local scale) we’re not readily admitting to party affiliation. When asked about party affiliation, one aspiring candidate noted that he was a “conservative”, when pressed as to what that meant, he honestly replied that if he were to say he was a Democrat he might not get the votes he needed (there are pockets of Republican’s even in the Bay State) – that type of honesty got the vote, even in a State where it was assumed a Democrat would win (which he did not), but at the least he was honest. It’s a rarity here, and elsewhere, that a politician stick to a position for very long – and the two most noted for changing position rapidly in Massachusetts are John Kerry (D-MA) and Mitt Romney, referred to as the “Etch-a-Sketch”.

If one sticks to a position, or does not make excuses for their beliefs or background, then it is as if that individual has some sort of flaw – if one stick to the middle, or swings with public opinion then that person appears to win out. The fact that voters have short-term memory can be counted on in every election, in every state of the Union, by these politician’s who one cannot tell if they mean what they say even ten percent of the time.

Case in point is Romney’s gubernatorial campaign against a Democrat rival who was as conservative or more conservative in some area’s than Mitt Romney – Shannon O’Brien and Romney both tried to “out-pro-choice” each other in the final weeks leading up to the election, and O’Brien put her foot in it, watching a 15 point lead evaporate to a deficit by the time votes were cast. The fact that Romney was not clear on his position (pro-choice, pro-life, pro-choice) even had the Massachusetts GOP concerned when acting Governor, Jane Swift, urged Romney to make his stand on abortion clear(Boston Herald). One can imagine that the issue of abortion, especially in Massachusetts is a non-issue, but that is not entirely the case, there are “degrees” of how pro-choice even Catholics can be – using the argument that “I personally would not advise abortion, but who am I to say what someone else can do” – it is Freedom of Choice that is primary in those voters minds, as they go to the voting booth – and depending upon how the argument is framed, the politician either wins or loses – in Romney’s case, he won by standing on both sides of the issues.

Would he have been re-elected? That’s debatable, one can point to a myriad of reasons why not, but the most likely would have been his “Conservative Stance” in Massachusetts on the budget and the cuts that he made to balance the budget, the fees that he raised or instituted that aided in brining in the cash needed to balance the budget – and the Democrat Party in Massachusetts poised to spin or tell the truth, either way – about his “flaws”. Meanwhile, Conservatives in the State were souring on the Governor for his stance on raising fees (taxes), and his Universal Health Care law. One has to understand that there is a streak of independence in Massachusetts whereby even the sane laws are challenged – the seat-belt law, helmet laws - making it difficult for politician’s to appease everyone and keep smiling and in office.

There are exceptions to this rule, however, and one who supports Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, is one of them. Brown does not vote or write legislation to appease the political winds, he does not change his mind in opportune moments, he is who he is, which can confuse the Conservatives and Democrats alike – he is, aside from polls indicating his rival in November, Elizabeth Warren, anywhere close to unpopular – he is a self-described independent, which ends up being a moderate in some people’s minds, a conservative in others. He makes no excuses for who he is, or the positions he takes, and if challenged by his constituents, he explains why – he is the exception to the rule in Massachusetts. Yet, there are those on the right who supported his candidacy, and now feel that he is too far to the left, and there are those on the left who feel he is too far to the right – that make’s Scott Brown the only Senator from Massachusetts who is doing his job - which gives independents, or the majority of voters, exactly what they want.

Rick Santorum is another example, one who does not change his position or make excuses for whom he is, however, he is competing on a national scale, against a chameleon who is practiced at the art of political chicanery and who is counting on voters to have a memory lapse during the general election. There are steps, even at this late date, that Santorum could take to capitalize on the “Etch a Sketch” remark, however, buying the toy, and using it for props (he was not the only one do to so), might have been used as a joke, rather than a serious statement on what everyone who is a political junkie and paying attention at this point, knows – Mitt Romney changes his mind faster than most people change underwear.
Santorum stands steadfast in his religion, as a Catholic, as a Christian (Catholic means Universal), he stands steadfast also in his foreign policy views, his views on the economy – he has some brilliant fixes, and articulates those points in a way that appeals across the broad spectrum of the electorate. He has been, however, dogged by the stigma of “social issues”, and perhaps refuses to take the bait, yet it is costing him. People fear his Religious views, without understanding that he has no intention of pushing his views on others. The problem is he has to ask and answer these questions every time he sets foot in front of a camera. He needs to resolve this issue, similar to what his rival, Mitt Romney did in 2008, when Romney held a press conference on religion, and moved one. Of course, Romney lost that election, but it was not the religions aspect, it was a field that had a GOP pre-conceived nominee in John McCain, and a Mike Huckabee who would quit. Huckabee too was branded “religious”, by virtue of his person, and the fact that he was a Minister. If one is a Christian (Evangelical, Born Again), these types of candidates are like a gift from God, but to the balance of the population, those occasional Catholics, or occasional Christians (pick a denomination), those candidates are frightening. When one hears, via the news, that the candidate is one-sided, and is only interested, in Rick Santorum’s case, in running the country with his Catholic Faith, no matter how false a claim that may be, it instills a fear which translates into a vote for Mr. Etch-a-Sketch. Santorum should, from this point of view, make his case once and for all, and drop the subject, and that includes all social issues – people already know where he stands on those fronts, he is a practicing Catholic in his personal life, he is pro-choice – move on – before it is truly too late. It is not to say Senator Santorum should deny his faith, it is to say that is something the general public, his staff, his potential voters, already know – the media can and should be forced to hear the economic and foreign policy points, the social issues can be left on the sideboard – now and in the general election.

It is going to be a point of fact that the Obama administration has more political intelligence on Mitt Romney than any other candidate, so for the media to marginalize Santorum to this extent, should be sending up alarm bells all the way around – he is the last candidate the Democrats want to see nominated, (because he appeals to their voting bloc when he gets a chance to talk about manufacturing, for instance, and he has a record in the Senate to back up his claims), and the media, might just be happy to see Santorum sunk without ever having to publish or broadcast one bit of his voting record, or policy. Romney on the other hand presents a field day – maybe – he is a corporate/political animal, and a corporate/political understands how to play against similarly positioned opponents. Case in point, the President has changed his mind on several issues, alienating his base at times and making the appearance of being pro-pipeline (for example see his recent trip to Oklahoma), while being over the top devoted to his “Green Jobs’ program (see visit to Green plan that employed 5 people while spending millions of taxpayers’ dollars to do so). Should Romney be the nominee, it will, in essence, give voters a choice between two very similar politicians. It is not the ideology that is in question, because it is difficult to pin down exactly what that ideology is, once the ads start running and September is upon us.

The Etch-A-Sketch remark will undoubtedly make it into an Obama for President advertisement, while, perhaps the hypocrisy of the pipeline visit in Oklahoma will end up in a Romney ad – it will be two candidate who are both trying to out-moderate each other – and whoever tries harder may end up losing as the exaggerations of policy are ramped up in the debate over who is more this, or who is more that. Look to history to see a very close race with no clear differences between two candidates.

Rick Santorum would not have it easy, in running against the President, but the difference is his convictions may be more appealing if he were able to get off the pulpit, both real and perceived. That would result in a clear problem for the incumbent, a coal-miners son, who supported legislation in the Senate that put his own Political Part’s panties in a bunch as it was pro-labor, and who also never over promised nor under delivered. Dragging up dirt on Squeaky Clean will be a challenge; therefore, they are marginalizing the candidate now - on both sides of the aisle – to prevent him from getting the nomination and possibly ousting the incumbent, and the other, as they hold a deep seated belief that no Conservative can win a general election. This is how short-term memory works – the GOP has forgotten that the man it most touts as representative of the party is the one man that they wanted out of the race – Ronald Reagan.

One has to understand that when Mitt Romney is endorsed by Jeb Bush, and of all people, Bob Dole, he is the party’s perfect moderate candidate, however if he were to somehow win, it would defy history, and it would be against the odds.

The Obama “Race Card” From Whoopie to Letterman “Hollywood” Knocks Trump - The Ugly Truth of Unintended Consequences

The latest celebrity to jump on the “Race Card “angle of the 2012 Obama Campaign appears to be late night talk show host David Letterman. In a recent interview with Dr. Phil, Letterman said that Trumps questioning of the President’s birth certificate and college records, “smacks of racism”. It appears to be somewhat recycled: Back in 2008 a piece from Ben Smith, Politico.com suggested that McCain would receive the racist vote (or those would not vote for Obama. The fact that 46 percent of the U.S. Public did not vote for Obama, rather McCain, apparently makes them racists as well. and that’s when the insanity began.

If one Google's “those who voted for Obama racism”, one can find a series of articles written in the 2008 period suggesting that either McCain was a racist or those that voted for the “ticket” were somehow racist. It is, perhaps, the most ludicrous charge ever presented by those who want to grab a piece of the limelight while at the same time, sticking it to “Brand X” Republican running against Obama. The problem with the theory, however, fails to explain the Caucasians who overwhelming did vote for Obama in the 2008 election. The fact that someone does not agrees with a person political affiliation, and/or past voting history, or current actions, apparently makes that persona racist if the target of the non-vote or disagreement on policy happens to be one Barack Obama.

In 2003, when George Bush was running for a second term against John Kerry, the question was ”How did George Bush Get into Yale?” (Journal Sentinel). There was much ado about the grades President Bush may have produced, and it was assumed that John Kerry, the Democrat who ran against Bush in 2004, was a genius whose grades bested Bush by a wide margin. Only problem was that both men has less than stellar grades, once they were released proved them to be “parallel”. Yet the perception persists by liberals and the press: Bush is basically not that smart.

Therefore, the attacks on Bush and his intellect, to the attacks on McCain, and now Trump for being “racists” are nothing more than attacks of conservatism. The later, however, having the unintended consequences of ramping up racism, especially among today’s youth, the whole group that will be voting in 2012. Those who are tired of the, what amounts to BS from the press and people they either never heard of from Hollywood or would not watch, are now leaning anywhere but Obama.

Meanwhile, Trump comes out and questions the President’s birth certificate, which is summarily produced, and asks to immediately move onto more important issues – like unemployment, inflation and jobs, but not before getting in a jab about the authenticity of the document. It is vintage Trump style. Now, those in news and those who are polling assume that Trump rise in the polls is due to the fact that he questioned Obama’s birth certificate and since those must be Republican’s leaning towards trump, they must also be “birthers” (or those who question Obama’s eligibility), and therefore, might even have voted for McCain, therefore – Trump receives the racist vote.

Herein in the reason that Obama got elected: he received support from all races, religions and ethnic groups in a number greater than McCain because a) McCain’s campaign made mistakes and was also tainted with the “Bush” brush and b) Obama over promised on everything from middle class tax cuts to the unemployment numbers to a greater respect for the nation in the world view. In other words, Caucasians, men and women, young and old, voted for Obama because they felt he would make a better President than McCain, not because he was the first African-American candidate. Proving, one would think, that race is a non-issue in Presidential policies, it is policy that Trumps.

In reviewing the policies of the Obama administration and where the nation stands now, a growing percentage of the voting public is just uncomfortable with the decisions the President has made – his approval ranks are down, not because he is African American, but because he is perceived as incompetent (Ties into Trump asking for his college records vis a vis college record asked and answered for one George Bush). The fact that American’s are allowed to question the ability and policies of a President, a Senator, a Congressman, a Mayor, has nothing to do with race and everything to do with competence. Unless of course, you’re the press or members of the entertainment industry who feel they need a boost in ratings, or should at the least, jump on the “Democrat Candidates bandwagon” using every conceivable weapon in an arsenal available for that candidate to get him (or her) elected.

In the case of the current President, they apparently cannot argue on anything other than “Trump is A Racist” and if it were Huckabee in the running, or Plain, or name a Republican, and this includes the ever side-winding, issue moderate, Mitt Romney, they would also be a racist, for running against Obama, and God forbid, potentially asking the tough questions about why the country has gone to hell in a hand basket based on the man’s policies. It is glaringly apparent at this point, that Obama is incapable of running on a record, or on future promises, as the public, for the most part, will not buy a second time. Trump, not unlike Reagan (both called clowns, and buffoons’ upon thinking of entering the race), had to dodge questions about competence based on the fact that they were – somehow not Democrats.

Fortunately for Trump, or Palin or Huckabee or Romney, and/or a possibly unnamed candidate, whoever runs on the 2012 GOP ticket, has a majority of the electorate looking critically at the President, and although they will take time vetting the GOP candidates, it will be on the real issues. The more that the press and their counterparts in entertainment, continue crying “wolf!” (race), the more the public will be turned towards the GOP candidate. It is because those who voted for McCain know they were doing so based on either party loyalty or a preference for policy, rather than a vote against candidate Obama because of race. Alternately, those that did vote for Obama on the basis of his promises and slogan of “Hope and Change”, not on race (as seriously was suggested as “white guilt”: see article ”Will American’s Vote for Obama again due to White Gilt Here in the 2012 election No kidding.

Are there those who voted against Obama because he was an African American – quite possibly true, but to believe that the majority of American’s who did defies reason. The same way that those who voted against McCain because a) he was old (ageism) and b) he had a female running made (sexism), were, again, not in the majority.
Some of the reasons that people are not voting for Obama in 2012 include:
The economy
The lack of jobs
His perceived lack of leadership both at home and abroad
He’s old news and not a big celebrity anymore.

The later from the youth vote: who also could not name the vice president they voted for while voting for Obama in 2008. They will not know the 2012 GOP’ bottom of the ticket either, unless that ticket is Trump and pick a celebrity.

There should, seriously be a test for voters.

How do they feel about being charged a racist? Ask the African-American students who like the Donald – they don’t read the newspapers, they read online blogs, and live on Facebook and Twitter along with their Caucasian, Asian and Hispanic peers. – Ask your 18 year old’s friends, the answer will shock you – they know they aren’t racist, they do know they are afraid for their future; they want a President who looks like he can “run things”.
So do a lot of old white women, white men, middle income men and women, Republican’s, the majority of Independents and a segment of Democrats who are more moderate than “Progressive”?

Expect the charges to intensify, expect the press and Hollywood to get more ridiculous as the time grows closer to the GOP choosing a candidate. It is what it is, policy, and there are major mistakes in policies, those that one’s friends and admirers continue to make regardless of the fact that it is going to have the opposite intended result.

Therefore, should Obama lose the election to “name a Republican”, then the prevailing theory will be that a) 30% of liberals, all of the members of the Press and several entertainer will be moving to Canada, and the majority of the U.S. voting population are racists!

Therapists are going to make millions.

2012 GOP Update – Donald Trump Begins to Take Shape As Contender – Previously Ignored by Pollsters Tops the Charts

The Donald, If the Desk Fits.......image: youngmoney.com

From Fox News “Trump Torches Republic Field Knocks Boehner”, to Politico’s ”Donald Trump to President Obama: Go To Japan” the man who is the quintessential American success story, is making headlines left and right over the past two weeks – the new moniker assigned by news organizations to describe “The Donald”: billionaire developer. The Wall Street Journal sums up the seriousness of the man’s intent to run for President in financial terms: “Trump on 2012: ‘Part of Beauty of Me Is I’m Very Rich”.

The question arises would Trump fare well among the current crop of “GOP Potential Candidates”? To date, in 2011, one pollster has pitted Trump against Obama – and Trump does very well indeed: The poll, conducted by Newsweek and the Daily Beast (via CNN), has Trump within 2 points of Obama and on par with both Romney and Huckabee in a White House Bid. Although not officially announced, Trump has made more statements of intent than any of the current crop of “possible contenders”.

Seriously Trump? How would he fare with hard-line conservatives? Apparently quite well, as the conservative “Town Hall” has been beating the Trump drum since at least December: ”Donald Trump His Time is Now” to Trump Business Advisor Scopes Out Iowa Politics” is evidence that he is being taken seriously by those CPAC conservatives. (Fiscal Conservatives).


Ronald Reagan, TV Personality to Beloved President image: pdxretro.com

Would Donald Trump fit in the GOP field? Absolutely from this perspective, when the Twenty Mule Team Borax Man indicated he would run for President, America pooh-poohed the idea, at first, and then jumped aboard the Reagan Train with gusto. Donald Trump is not Reagan, by any means, but the times call for an individual who would be crazy enough to want the job of rebuilding the economy and have the smarts to do so.



With this in mind, it may be no wonder that Trump has not been included in the recent polls published by Public Policy Polling Institute. The Democrat leaning firm is apparent in their role as cheerleader for the President, while accurately polling, and taking lumps as they fall. The firm, www.publicpolicypolling.com began taking surveys on GOP potential candidates and matchups with those hypothetical contenders as of the 9th of November, 2010 (or immediately following the 2010 Mid-terms). Donald Trump has been saber rattling prior to the Mid-terms, yet, the pollster has not included Trump in any polling to date, rather, their latest release www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP-Release-US-0317513.pdf” Pits Obama against Charlie Sheen and includes the eccentric television actor in the field with Sarah Palin. The entire poll, in fact, has more to do with Fox News Personalities, and one wonders if this poll was in pure jest, rather than a serious attempt to derive answers. Unfortunately, what the poll, serious or not, appears to show, is that Sheen would, indeed, get the votes. But, missing from this respected firms frivolous and serious state and national polls – The Donald.

The Danger of the GOP not taking Trump seriously: Speaking as a Massachusetts Conservative who watched the 2010 Gubernatorial race as closely as David Axelrod, the triumph of Democrat Deval Patrick, (1 point win), over Republican Charlie Baker, was the “straw candidate” Tim Cahill. Cahill, who mysteriously ran as an independent, did siphon enough votes to push the most unpopular Governor in Massachusetts recent history to a second term. What we do know is that Axelrod, Obama’s campaign advisor, watches Massachusetts as the model for national campaigns. In this wise, those in the GOP should be paying attention to this article at the Wall Street Journal:

“In an interview with ABC’s Good Morning America, developer Donald Trump says he is looking seriously at jumping into the GOP primary battle, and may run as an independent in the general election if he fails to win the nomination. “Part of the beauty of me is that I am very rich,” he said, adding that he was prepared to toss in $600 million of his own cash to fund a campaign.”

“and may run as an independent in the general election if he fails to win the nomination”.

Is it no wonder that fiscal conservatives are looking at the Donald with a fresh set of eyes so to speak, also aware of the Machiavellian methods employed by certain Campaign Managers?

Perhaps fears of Trump actually polling well leaves him out of the field of most pollsters, or perhaps more strange, are they leery of including a less than serious made for TV candidate? That would certainly take the proverbial cake given who is now occupying the White House.

Trump: Start to take the man seriously.

The Prediction Limb: Should both Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump enter the primary (and June appears to be the month of choice for announcements, which is leaving the pollsters and the media somewhat unhinged, but unfettered in their potshots on Republicans in general), Huckabee, Trump, Palin, Romney – in that order as the top 4, as the Top three on the road to the White House: (given the makeup of the states) Huckabee and Trump – now that may be the ticket.

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.

Obama’s Trip to Capitol Hill to Push Health Care Postponed Until Saturday - Coincidence?

Obama plans meeting with Pelosi's House on Saturday - image rightpundits

The AP is reporting that the President’s planned trip to Congress on Friday , to push for health care reform, has been postponed until Saturday. The President, according to the White House, had planned a trip to Walter Reed Hospital, on Friday instead. The President has yet to visit Walter Reed, almost a year into his presidency.

Co-incidence or not, on Thursday, thousands of conservatives who would prefer an alternative to the current health care reform proposed by the White House, marched on the Capitol, visiting with members of Congress to let them know exactly how they feel. The rally, which was broadcast on C-SPAN, involved key members of the Republican Congress, including Michelle Bachman of MN, and tech savvy, Rep. John Culberson of Texas. Culberson was one of the leaders of the House Revolt last August when Speaker Pelosi, during the energy debate, shut off the lights, the C-Span cameras and headed on vacation to promote her book, while the price of gas was going through the roof. House Republican’s stayed, in the dark house, getting their message across, using whatever means necessary to stand up for the people in their districts and the country in general.

The majority of the media, along with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, continue to dismiss protestors against health care reform, however, conservatives in general, have taken a page from the liberal playbook of the past, by becoming more vocal when issues matter, a stunning change from what had been the norm for decades. In the case of this dismissal (denial) of the protest yesterday, it is worth noting that the innuendo from the press and the White House, regarding “tea party activist”, and throwing words around such as “conservative”, along with “about 10,000 tea party protestors” marched on the Capitol yesterday, (abridged and in general), are unwittingly speaking to the majority of those who do not support the current proposal.

According to recent polling, 53% of American’s oppose the current plan, and perhaps more telling, 73% who do support the plan identify themselves as liberal. Therefore, one can conclude that 27% of the liberal base no longer is on board the Pelosi express. In addition, when one includes trends in American Political Ideology, Gallop indicates that those who identify themselves as Conservative (this was as of June, 2009), were growing, to pre-2004 levels. As of June, 40% of respondents considered themselves to be conservative, with 35% moderate and a mere 21% identifying themselves as liberal.

With unemployment numbers remaining above 9%, the rate of inflation poised to move, in line with the rising cost of fuel, those numbers may have changed in the past 3 months. Additionally, 2010 will bring a zero cost of living increase to those who rely on social security benefits, as well as any government pensioners. This decision was based upon low oil prices this past summer, which caused a negative rate of inflation (of course, there are three entities that rate inflation, of the three, The BEA, the Federal Reserve and the Depart of Labor, the Dept. of Labor was used in that calculation having the lowest figure). Of note, in 2010, insurance benefits for those very same individuals, is poised to rise by 10 percent. Should pricing on food and oil, continue to rise, and individuals living in high tax states, such as Massachusetts, who’s high insurance premium (Medicare supplement plans included), hike for 2010, lays mainly on the State’s Universal Health Care program, one can see that trend towards conservatism edging higher.

Although the recent Republican (i.e. conservative) wins in two statewide races are being pooh-poohed by the White House, and the Speaker, who are more energized by low margin wins in two special election races in New York and California(Historically, Republicans do not fare well in special elections. Surely, this fact cannot be lost on the President and his Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

That Saturday trip to the Hill, although a coincidence, given the rally, the statistics on trends and specifically the legislation on the table, may do more damage to the Democrats in 2010 than the loss of two state-wide elections. Although the media is now pointing to “southern democrats” (i.e. blue dogs) as being concerned about their jobs, it would behoove all Incumbents to pay attention to the trends. One must remember that even the most liberal state of Massachusetts, when pressed, has elected Republican Governors, and was the state that embraced Conservative Republican Ronald Reagan, not once, but twice. This following the disastrous term of one Jimmy Carter, whose approach to governing is parallel to the current occupant of the White House.

Way to Go Joe – Biden Acknowledges Stimulus Guessing Game

Vice President, Joe Biden - image: Time.com

From Time Magazine: Vice President Joe Biden, in a recent appearance on “Meet the Press”, put forth the notion that everyone involved in the stimulus “guessed wrong” (key quotes from Time follow):

"No one realized how bad the economy was. The projections, in fact, turned out to be worse. But we took the mainstream model as to what we thought -- and everyone else thought -- the unemployment rate would be."
"Everyone guessed wrong at the time the estimate was made about what the state of the economy was at the moment this was passed."
"The bottom line is that jobs are being created that would not have been there before."
"Can I claim credit that all of that's due to the recovery package? No. But it clearly has had an impact."

Therefore, based upon the Vice-Presidents take on the out-of-control government spending, it was a “guessing game”, based on a model of assumptions. Moreover, those who feel that Barack Obama and company are studiously moving the country to the left, may be in error, because, based on what Biden has to say, they are instead, floundering about, taking stabs at what they “think” might work. Herein lays the problem, although it is apparent that the President is to the left of center, with a Vice-President that is somewhat of a “loose cannon”, most view the man as competent, brilliant in fact – surrounded by brilliant people who will make good sound decisions in order to further American interests – so say the media, and those pundits that pontificate on certain cable networks. That said, what appears to be the case, and may more likely be a fact, blinded by a Progressive education that gave former President Jimmy Carter, sainthood status, no one in the administration bothered to research historical data, and therefore, the results of overspending, bailouts and stimulus – and the outcome are predictable.

Had anyone with an ounce of sense, gone back over what had happened in the past 40 years, with clarity of mind and lack of political rhetorical think – the situation America is now facing would have been a shade different – the nation needed deeper tax cuts, allowing banks, and auto-makers to fail, so that in the long-run, the healthier businesses (note: political ties to each and every one of those institutions that were given aid), would have risen – the others would have become “history”, and the nation would have recovered rapidly – specifically the private sector. It is a proven economic model, while the current model is proven as well, to be somewhat disastrous, economically.

Rushing forth in panic, driven by political ideology with no sane historical references, is what has happened to our country – according to Joe Biden. Ironic is it not? Historically, those that rush blindly into situations of an economical nature (See Carter, “inheriting” a fiscal disaster from his predecessor and the response which caused the coinage of a new term “Misery Index”), serve one –term in office. Therefore, those who are caught in the middle of this – the unemployed, those who are sick at heart at what has happened to our nation in such a short period of time – should take heart – in a mere three years the polls will once again be open, and someone, man or woman, will step forth, offering advice of an historical nature, that will of course, sound very good to those masses who are beaten down by high inflation, out of control taxation from federal and state administrations, and the result will be – predictable. Although one cannot look for another “Reagan”, as that would be counter-productive, one can bet the house that a new conservative (notice no mention of Party Politic) one who is fiscally grounded, will lead the nation forward in 2012. For those who feel they should have looked harder at Clinton instead of blindly following the “American Idol” of presidential candidates, keep in mind, packaging is what it is, packaging - the more attractive the package, the harder one must dig to find out what that “package’ actually has accomplished – and then, take a look at the other package – the one that may have some “baggage”, but has a clear record. Simple lock step, slogans, should not shape a campaign, unless of course, there is more than rhetoric to substantiate the slogan. Therefore, the privilege of going to the polls to vote and hire a new administrator for the country (which is what the President’s function is – a CEO so to speak), requires some dedicated research on the part of those who actually wield a vote.

In retrospect, therefore, the blame should not be placed on the shoulders of Barack Obama, as President, he is doing what he can, in order to move the nation forward – the blame should rest with those who put forth a candidate of limited experience, undermined a candidate who had the right experience (Clinton), and packaged this candidate so well, that the nation surely would “purchase the goods” so to speak, and then, the blame also lies with those who voted blindly, on rhetoric or on endorsements. Case in point: a family member who, one would think, given gender and age as a factor, would have naturally supported Hillary Clinton (while this blog clearly supported Mike Huckabee, another moderate – but conservative with a proven governing record), however, true shock and awe were in store, when this dear person said when queried who she would support: “Obama (breathlessly) – Caroline Kennedy endorsed him!”. Now, a short six months later, buyer’s remorse, and the inability to look the family conservative in the eye, has set in. Therefore, a lesson of sorts to conservatives everywhere, regardless of Party (yes there are conservative democrats), be kind to those who were blinded by packaging and endorsements and offer to help make more educated choices in future elections. Additionally, send a note of thanks to Vice President Biden; he is truly the gift that keeps on giving.

Where is The Confidence in Positive Change under Obama Administration?

Nestled into the rolling hills of Western Massachusetts, a local Springfield television station has an online poll asking if there is confidence in the idea of positive change under an Obama administration. These non-scientific polls are just for “fun”, not necessarily used for much more – the question that was poised is not frivolous and what is of interest are the responses (considering the location). 51% feel that yes, there will be a positive change, 49% feel otherwise – which, considering the spread in Massachusetts, 36% for McCain, 65% for Obama – why the discrepancy?




It is a bit too early for buyer’s remorse to set in, or is it? What is telling is the content and reaction to President-Elect Obama’s speech. In his speech he talked about a unified country, a bi-partisan effort, hope and change (“yes we can”), and the kicker, “sacrifice and hard work”. He did not evoke John F. Kennedy or any other great Democrat leader, rather chose Abraham Lincoln, the first leader of the Republican Party, a Party that has stood for inclusion from its inception, of fiscal responsibility, of less government and individual freedoms. Some individuals actually believed that once Obama was elected, the taxes would be cut, and giveaways were going to increase. One young woman at a rally in Florida, was overjoyed because she would no longer have to pay for gas, or pay her mortgage, (video below), others questioned who on earth was going to do all this hard work and sacrifice? They failed to get the memo. Obama, in this speech, sent a clear message that he was going to govern his way; and not one of us has any idea of what that will mean until he actually gets to work. His intentions however, his policies, have been in place on his website since inception (granted changes occur time to time, but heck, this is politics!), leaving one to question why supporters were not better informed. This is especially true of the youth group, and those single women who voted in droves – they are anticipating a great deal, the problem is that the President-Elect is going to face challenges unlike any other president has to date: a financial crisis that will only worsen (Wall Street already gave its opinion of a Democrat at the helm, by posting the biggest post-election drop in history. This should come as no surprise, free enterprise despises over-regulation, higher taxes, (sacrifice) will stymie production, one should understand that those on Wall Street did read the memo.), there will be wars, as well as a general disregard for the United States from countries who lean Marxist or might be a tad revolutionary, there may even be an attack on our own soil; the President-Elect will have to deal with all of these situations, not like Carter - but like a Reagan in order to keep the country solvent and safe. This will leave little in the till and the result will be; social programs will wait – taxes will increase, across the board and the social services.


This scenario would have been no different had McCain won the election, all of these challenges would have been in place; the difference is, of course, the expectation of McCain supporters were not quite as high as those supporting Obama. They understand that the world view can change quickly and those whose friendship we desire, will so deride us, that there is a need to watch the war on terror, and that Wall Street reacts more favorably to Republicans (Warren Buffett aside). What each citizen must do now is exactly what the President Elect suggested; get ready for sacrifice, there will be hard times, we must work together in a bi-partisan manner, because, my friends, this is going to be one rough ride. For those still unsure of where Obama stands on the issues, BarackObama.com/issues, if you want to compare where John McCain actually stood on these issues (apparently George Bush was somehow involved according to Obama’s Campaign website), go over to the dark side and do an actual comparison. What one will find is that, there are some minor differences between the two, (McCain being more like Reagan than Bush), and that it would be of no surprise should President-Elect Obama, in an effort to move swiftly to the middle, borrow one or two ideas from the Senator from Arizona; as they work together to better the nation. That is one thing of which one can be fairly certain: McCain and Obama will work together. The promise of bi-partisanship and reaching across the aisle will have to take place; the stakes are too high to continue the level of partisanship this nation has been exposed to for far too long.

Predicting the Election Outcome - Consider Massachusetts, Methods of Polling and Other Factors

Massachusetts, long touted as the “Bluest State”, should accurately be described as the “Independent State”. The fact that there is a Democrat governor and legislature is misleading – for the most part, Massachusetts elects Republican candidates when they either appeal to the “middle ground” or if the incumbent Democrat has done such a poor job that it is inconceivable that they be re-elected. Consider this interview with Dukakis, former Governor of Massachusetts and presidential candidate done in 2006. In the interview Dukakis explains that the Bay state had Republican governors for 16 years, and notes: “So, don’t make the mistake of assuming that Massachusetts is totally in the Democratic column. Massachusets is a very independent state. The Bay State voted for Ronald Reagan not once, but twice, in the 80s. On the other hand, I wouldn’t spend two seconds looking at these polls and these poll numbers. I mean, at this stage of the game, this is nothing but recognition — these are nothing but recognition numbers “

I’m not certain what Dukakis means by recognition numbers, as I am no mathematician, however, that said, anyone with an ounce of sense understands that if one samples one thousand individuals, 60% democrats, 20% republicans and 20% independents, they cannot accurately reflect the entire electorate – in other words, it is pretty much misleading – why – Dukakis understands from a personal perspective as he led George H. Bush in the polls weeks before the election. (The NY Times even noted that many “Regan Backers Shift Sides” – Sound familiar?)
Let’s talk about “the October Surprise” and “Swift boating”. How much does a negative change anyone’s minds? John Kerry famously blames, of all people, Osama Bin Laden, for his loss in 2004. What was in that tape that pushed American’s to vote for Bush and not Kerry? Nothing: the tape from Bin Laden, and all the political commercials in the world, including Swift Boat ads and the infamous “Willie Horton ads against Dukakis are nothing more than political name calling – and I would hazard to bet that most individuals watch these commercials with a pre-conceived partisanship, which can be applied to the Independent voter. Independent voters lean either Republican or Democrat, occasionally changing positions, but for the most part, staying with one particular party - sometimes exclusively.
Election losses have been credited to the weather and the turn-out – what one does not consider is that the basic conservative v s. liberal mindset has not changed in this nation in the past 12 plus years. More about polling: Terrance Battleground Research this year: 62% of those surveyed consider themselves conservative or leaning conservative - this particular article describes how there are conflicts within the polls itself, as it predicts either a Democrat or Republican win. Go figure. The fact of the matter is there has not been a landslide since Ronald Regan hit the political scene. He followed a dismal Jimmy Carter, and George Bush, although “approval ratings” are low, could not possibly be compared to Jimmy Carter under any circumstance – Carter is extreme left, and, as any conservative knows, Bush will certainly side with the Democrats on a variety of issues, ranging from the Border to the Bailout.

Other factors to consider: What about baggage? That’s the key, the amount of baggage that a candidate drags with them into an election will tell the tale, regardless of the amount of cash on hand. How well is the candidate “known”, regardless of personality? The middle ground: is that candidate a moderate? Bill Clinton was a moderate, who appealed to the essential middle, to the common ground, yet both races were close, not landslides. Additionally, there are those who are still looking for someone with the ability to lead the nation in a time of terror/war. When one looks at all the variables, unless a poll accurately reflects the electorate (without leading questions), they are pointedly useless.
Recall the 2004 exit polls that had the nation convinced John Kerry would be the next president? Therefore, anyone who wants to know who the next president will be has to wait until November 5th, (or perhaps a month or two hence) – there is simply no way to predict - should one be inclined; there is a 50/50 chance they will be correct. However, if one uses the Battlegrounds conservative vs. liberal statistics, considers the historical inaccuracy of the polls, debate winners and newspaper endorsements, adds baggage, and includes those who are looking for a commander in chief that has some military background, then one can confidently choose the McCain/Palin ticket.

Hillary Clinton Fox Interview Part II

photo from Virginia Federalist

Hillary Clinton continued her interview with Fox News, Bill O’Reilly last night. Her take on foreign policy, vis a vis Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, the issue of water boarding and torture in general and the issue of illegal immigration were moderate, not too left, not too right and again, consistent with her voting record in the Senate. Once again, she stood her ground and came across as sincere, knowledgeable and, most importantly, tough on issues. (Granted, some might argue not tough enough). She did make a convincing case for all three issues.

Fox News Video

It now comes down to the following: as voters, and the public in general, have to make a decision that will affect the lives of middle America more than any other segment of the population this November, which candidate from either party would make one most comfortable leading the nation forward. This has nothing to do with party affiliation, rather, experience, policy and a persona that would lend to the credibility of the nation overall. There appear, as of this moment, to be two that stand out - Senator McCain and Senator Clinton. In conversations, both allow for some level of comfort, as both are similar in their previous voting patterns. The lack of experience, and the recent remarks regarding Middle America that Barrack Obama has displayed, render that candidate unacceptable to moderates and conservatives on any level.

Of course, the obligatory race and gender discussions followed the interview. O’Reilly was guilty of noting that he treated a woman differently than a man, during the interview process, which, from this perspective is one of the most appalling remarks that could have been made. That and a discussion on the Senators wardrobe, made this conservative feminist balk. All network news programs, both cable and mainstream, have been guilty of this nonsense. Not one anchor, male or female, has commented on the other two male candidate’s wardrobes. Why take away from a brilliant interview (and it was), with stupid fluff questions? Good question.

Now sitting firmly on the fence, McCain interviews next Thursday evening. It is hoped that he will be honest and forthcoming about his stance on the issues, and not play to the “base”. It is where McCain can make the case for his candidacy.

Although certainly an underdog by press standard, Hillary Clinton’s rise in the polls over the past week, indicate that “it’s not over, till it’s over”. She’s within the margin of error in North Carolina and leading in Indiana. It is my hope that she will be successful in both states and go on to secure the nomination of her party. This will allow the American people a chance to be led by one of two moderates, not an ideologue with zip for experience. Just an aside, she appeared more Regeanlike in this interview segment, than any Republican candidate, with the exception of Mike Huckabee, who remains the only true conservative to have run in the race.

What made Mike special is his ability to reach out to both parties, despite the constant drumbeat from the media that he was basically a one-dimensional candidate, stressing the fact that he was a pastor and failing to mention that his true calling was politics and he had successfully led the state of Arkansas into the 21st century. The right wing turned its efforts to downgrading Mike Huckabee, simply because he could and would work with both parties, and of course, he may not have been “elite” enough by the core group standards. His endorsement of McCain came as no surprise, and as Mike Huckabee is generally known for his character, one can assume that McCain is a man of integrity, regardless of the fact that he is less conservative on issues that are at the heart and soul of the base.

Hillary Clinton, John McCain – it would be a very close race, granted, but again, an opportunity for the country to be led by a more moderate and experienced president.