Romney Still Winning the Election in the Electoral College But Wisconsin and New Hampshire Are Becoming Critically Important

   The latest White House 2012 analysis of polls, conditions, and circumstances in individual states projects a slightly smaller Electoral College vote total for Governor Mitt Romney than he had last week, but Romney still remains above the magic number of 270, that he needs to win in the Electoral College.

This week, WH12 has seen the battleground states of Iowa and Nevada taken out of Romney’s column and designated as toss-up states.  This switch has taken away 12 electoral votes from the Romney-Ryan ticket and brought  them from last week’s total of 291 electoral votes , to 279 electoral votes this week.  But as Mitt Romney sees 12 votes go from him to the undecided column, President Obama sees his previous Electoral College projection decrease by 10 votes as WH12 now takes Wisconsin out of the President’s column and classifies it as a toss-up state.  So President Obama now finds  his Electoral College vote drop from 247 last week, to 237 this week.

But the big story here ends up not being the new numbers projected in White House 2012’s analysis.  The real story here is the increasing importance that these numbers places on New Hampshire, Nevada, Iowa, and probably most of all… Wisconsin.

Based upon WH12’s  current level of confidence in Mitt Romney having solid leads in all his base states* and strong leads in the once very competitive states of Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, combined with our increasing confidence in Romney’s ability to at least squeak out a win in Ohio, what we find ourselves with here is a race that really hinges upon Romney’s need to win any combination of New Hampshire, Nevada, Iowa, and or Wisconsin.

With former toss-up states like Colorado, Virginia, and Florida projected to be solidly behind Romney, as seen in the map below, all the Romney-Ryan tickets needs to secure victory is Ohio.    With Romney’s base states, and locks on the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, North Carolina,and Virginia, if Romney can squeak by in Ohio, he can lose New Hampshire, Nevada, Iowa, and  Wisconsin and still win with 5 more electoral votes than he needs to secure the presidency.  That would produce an electoral vote of 275 for Romney, to 263 for President Obama.

But Ohio is too close for comfort for Romney to count on.  So the Romney-Ryan ticket must secure an optional path to victory to rely upon.  Based upon the current projection which gives Romney the battlegrounds of Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and New Hampshire, ,  if President Obama wins Ohio, the only state that Romney needs is Wisconsin.   In that scenario, even if the Obama-Biden ticket won the remaining battleground states of Iowa and Nevada, Mitt would still win in the Electoral College with 271 electoral votes to Obama’s 267 electoral votes.

Without Ohio, this New Hampshire plus Wisconsin combination to victory for Romney is currently the best and most logical strategy to pursue.

In New Hampshire, the Romney-Ryan ticket is behind Obama-Biden by only approximately 1%.  That is well below the 2.2% margin of error that WH12’s projection formula adds to Romney’s numbers in an attempt to compensate for the erroneous turnout models that pollsters are using in their polls.  So by WH12’s standard, Romney is actually ahead of President Obama in New Hampshire by approximately 1.2%.    Then there is Wisconsin.

While Real Clear Politics has Obama ahead of Romney by approximately 2.8% in Wisconsin according to White House 2012 that is only a .06% lead for the President.  It is a lead so small that that it could easily by overcome.  Especially if its favorite son, Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan,  focusses on Wisconsin during this last two weeks of the election. That is a point White House 2012 made last week in a post entitled  “Checkmating Obama with Wisconsin: A Romney Win in the Badger State Dooms Obama“.   Furthermore, Ryan’s focus on Wisconsin could also produce an overflow effect that impacts the close contest in Iowa which borders Wisconsin and possibly provide the margin of victory for the G.O.P. ticket there.

What this all means is that if projections that give Romney his base states and the critical battlegrounds of Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, but he losses Ohio, the Romney-Ryan ticket can still win the election if they take Wisconsin and either New Hampshire, Iowa, or Nevada.   But under this situation, if Romney does not win Wisconsin,  Romney would have to win all three states of New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada.

So it becomes clear to us that while several states remain quite important in this election, if Mitt Romney’s momentum  continues to hold, Wisconsin and New Hampshire may be the states that offer him the best assurance of a victory in the Electoral College. Especially if Ohio remains as tight as it currently is and goes down to the wire as a state so close that its results might not be known until days or even weeks after they are litigated in the courts.  However, the outcome of such litigation would be meaningless  if Romney can put New Hampshire and Wisconsin safely in his final Electoral College vote total.

In the meantime, while White House 2012’s current projection classifies 22 electoral votes as toss-ups, no matter which way they ultimately go, the most Barack Obama could get is 259 electoral votes.  That would leave and Romney with at least 20 more electoral votes than Obama and nine more than Romney needs to win in the Electoral College.

Meanwhile, if Barack Obama fails to curtail the Romentum that we currently see, it won’t be long before White House 2012 finds itself issuing the very best but still realistic projected outcome that Mitt Romney could see.  That projection may end up with a far more lopsided Electoral College than anyone is expecting.  As seen in the map below, existing trends may soon establish a projection that looks like th e map below.  It’s a Romney led Electoral College result of of 302 electoral votes to 236 electoral votes.

Right now, that is the best case scenario for Romney but if current trends to continue, it is the result we are most likely to see.  It is also a result that would include something new… the splitting of Maine’s electoral vote between Romney and Obama.  Maine, like Nebraska splits their electoral vote between their congressional districts.  Some recent polling has shown that in  Maine’s second congressional district, Romney was leading Obama 49 to 44%.  If that holds up, it would be the first time Maine ever actually split it’s electoral vote.  And it would also give Romney at least 1 electoral vote from a region of the country that Romney has been all but written off in.

With Obama Dropping Like a Stone, Liberals Are Replaying the Race Card in a Big Way

    As liberals begin to fear that Mitt Romney is proving to be a better leader and candidate than they once expected he could be, they have begun to make a noticeable shift back to their traditional tactics of divide and conquer by returning to an emphasis on playing the race card.  This disturbing reemergence of their ugly, disingenuous, racially divisive tactics is beginning to rear its ugly head again in every liberal narrative being offered in regards to the presidential election.   Evidence of this can best be found on cable television where two obscure media outlets occupy channels that have become  headquarters of liberal propaganda.  They are none other than the low rated MSNBC and Al Gore’s barely watched, ludicrous little cable venture, Current TV.

Current is a bastion of  liberal lunacy that promotes its propaganda with the help of third, fourth, and even fifth rate, failed, Democrat politicians like disgraced former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and the mindnumbingly dense and over-dramatic, inept, former Governor of Michigan,  Jennifer Granholm, who both host hour long shows on Current.  The station also has another level of talentless liberal, wannabe politicians who have hosting responsibilities.  Like Cenk Uygur, an ignorant ass who thinks he’s funny and witty but consistently comes off as dumb and obnoxious.  Current recently expanded their vast wealth of political experience with the addition of political sage Joy Behar, a ditzy dunce whose fat rump  is usually spread out on the couch of  “The View” and whose claim to fame is a heavy a Brooklyn based, Jewish accent that supposedly lends itself to some kind of comedic genius that she is suppose to have but which most people just don’t see as particularly creative or funny.  Now in her sixth week at Current, Behar has hit her stride and offers an endless but consistent array of attacks, swipes, barbs, and downright dumb shots at Mitt Romney.  And in between spewing her own ignorant interpretations of political reality, Behar seeks guests who will offer their own interpretation of the opinions they share with Behar.

Over the past few days, as the stupidity that is this new Joy Behar show played itself out, Behar conducted two separate interviews, one the day before the second presidential debate and one the day after the debate.   Both of these interviews were truly disgusting.  (See video of the two interviews below)

They were reprehensible examples of the most despicable and disingenuous tactics that anyone could dare to employ in politics.  The first disgrace came in a one-on-one with actress Kathleen Turner.  In that interview, the manly voiced Turner states that she is tired of being told what to do by “rich white men”.

The comment was an upalling and totally uncalled for interjection of  racism, sexism, and class warfare that reeked of Hollywood hypocrisy and insincerity.  First of all, if that is how Turner really feels, how come she never told that to any of the “rich, white men”, she listened to do when they directed her in movies that packed her purse and pockets full of dough?  Secondly,  Mitt Romney never told her or any of her friends what to do.  He has however proposed a bunch of things that he will not have the government do if he is elected.  But here we have a case of the very limited mind of another liberal trapped in a world of politic al bigotry who finds herself with only one way to try and win people over to Barack Obama…. by playing the race card, along with the class warfare angle too.

The following day, Behar had another expert who offered up their opinion of Romney.  This time it was actor/comedian D.L. Hughley, a foul mouthed ignoramus who has more ill will and contempt for Caucasians than he has talent.  Like Turner the day before, Hughley also played the race card with Romney.  In this case he claimed that during the debate, Mitt Romney spoke to the President as if he was his servant.

Now I am not sure what debate D. L. Hughley was watching, but I am certain that I did not hear the disrespectful request by Mitt Romney for the President to shine his shoes or carry his bags that Hughley would have us think he heard. Nonetheless, Joy Behar responded to Hughley’s highly charged statement with glowing approval as her agreement with Hufghley gushed endlessly while claiming that she has been saying what Hughley said, on every show she’s on.  Unfortunately for Hughley and Behar though, their claim was not supported by any examples and why not?  Because they were lying.  Throughout both debates,  Mitt Romney treated Barack Obama with a great deal of respect.   What he didn’t do was ignore all that he disagreed with the President on.  But in Hughley and Behar’s parallel universe in liberal la-la land, any lack of support the president or disagreement with this President is an act of racism.

The sad truth though is that the remarks offered by Hughley, Behar, Turner and an increasing number of liberaltards, such as Chris Matthews, (see Mathew’s recent racist rant here) and the entire cast of clowns at MSNBC, are designed to do what Barack Obama has failed to do.  They are designed to motivate the black vote to turn out for the President in the same historic numbers that they did back in 2008.  It is becoming a critical element of the President’s increasingly desperate attempt to ge reelected.  As seen here, with his “they’re gonna put Y’all back in chains” remark, it is a strategy that Vice President Biden has been trying to employ for quite some time now Biden’s

No matter what, this election continues to be close but ever since the first presidential debate back on October 3^rd, polls are signaling a decisive shift towards Mitt Romney.  It is so decisive that if it continues to build at the same rates we are currently seeing, by Election Day, Barack Obama will be looking at a defeat almost as resounding and embarrassing in the Electoral College as the one President George H. W. Bush  experienced in 1992.  While such a lopsided victory for Romney is not the most likely result, it is not out of question, especially if the President is unable to begin to first put a stop to Romney’s forward momentum and then begin to reverse it.

The problem is that with less than three weeks to go in the campaign liberals and the Obama-Biden campaign may not have enough left in their arsenal to overcome the rising Romney tide that is seeing the Romney-Ryan ticket’s numbers pick up across the board.  So far this tide has raised Romney’s numbers among practically every critical demographic  and every crucial swing state.  Be it women, Hispanics, independents, or undecided voters, Mitt Romney has gotten through to the very voters  that strategists once said he could not win the election without making significant inroads among.  At the same time, so far the Obama-Biden ticket has spent more than $234 million on attack ads that have tried to define Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as evil robber barons who are waging a war against women, children, the environment, education, puppies, and fluffy little kittens.  On the flip side,  Mitt Romney has spent a mere $91 million on ads to help define himself and the President.  Given that Barack Obama has spent nearly two and half times the amount of money that Romney has on such ads, it would seem that the President’s strategy is not working and his ads are not doing the job they were supposed to.  After throwing everything from Sandra Fluke and the kitchen sink at Romney, the Romney-Ryan ticket continues to gain on the Obama-Biden ticket among every demographic that the President can not afford to lose to Romney.

I suggest that they might have been working until the first presidential debate when after most Americans really got a chance to take a good look at Mitt Romney for the first time, and realized that he is not as extreme, heartless, irrational, and irresponsible as President Obama made him out to be.  It is the same effect we saw in 1980 when the liberal narrative was that Ronald Reagan was a radical, war mongering, madman whose finger we could not allow anywhere near the nuclear button.  But after the nation’s first real introduction to Reagan in the one and only debate between him and Jimmy Carter, American’s came to see that he was not the evil, unreasonable, extreme person they were led to believe he was.  The same thing happened after the first presidential debate between President Obama and Governor Romney.

Liberals understand this and so now they are beginning to act on their fears instead of their hopes.  Now they have stopped trying to paint the President’s pathetic polices and revolting record as promising prospects for our future.  Instead they have begun to cut to the chase and target the one voting bloc that Romney can’t seem to make significant inroads into… African-Americans.   In the case of black voters, Barack Obama is not at risk of losing of his overwhelming support from them to Mitt Romney.  He is however at risk of not seeing blacks turnout to support him in the same historically large numbers that he saw in 2008. And without that same extraordinarily large turnout, Barack Obama is not likely to be able to win enough votes to win a second term from among the increasingly smaller share of votes that he getting from women, Hispanics, and independents.

The irony of it all though is that no one is willing to call a spade a spade here.

While the left is trying to fan racial tensions as a way to ensure that blacks come out to vote for President Obama, no one is calling them out for  their disgraceful and blatant attempts to incite racial tension.  And while the liberal liars who are trying to interject race in to the election are not being held responsible for their reprehensible words and conduct, no one is willing to admit that the most racist individuals of all here are the 90 to 95% of all African-American voters who are supporting President Obama.  Any other group of Americans who offer such near unanimous support would labeled a bunch of racists.  But because the people voting based on color here at African-Americans, the fact is ignored.

If America really wants to deal with the issue of racism, it can no longer ignore racism where it exists.  That means we should not be letting off the hook liberals like Chris Matthews, D.L. Hughley, Joy Behar, Kathleen Turner, or all of the others who are using race against Mitt Romney.  We cannot tolerate their attempts to cry wolf in regards to racism or their irresponsible attempts to incite racial tensions.   And it also means we should not be ignoring the fact that African-Americans are the people who are actually the ones basing this election on race and ignoring the issues that should lie at the heart of their decision of whom to vote for.  Instead of holding President Obama accountable to his dismal record, an overwhelming number of African-Americans have chosen to endorse Barack Obama simply because he is half black.  In doing so they are ignoring the basic facts which are that under this President, regardless of his color, African-Americans are suffering more than any other voting bloc in the nation.  African-Americans are now forced to rely on food stamps and government assistance for survival more than any time in US history.  As both a percentage and gross total, more blacks are now incarcerated than they were at  any previous point  in US history, and African-Americans are now also the most unemployed ethnic group in the nation and are the ethnic group that leads all others when it comes to the number of foreclosed homes being taken away from them.

Normally, such a record would result in a hemorrhaging of support for the person under whom a particular group of people  endured so much suffering.  Up to now, that has not been the case with African-Americans.  So far they remain blinded by color and loyal to the half of President which is black.  However; the Obama record is so undeniably bad that while liberals and the President are not necessarily worried about blacks actually voting for Mitt Romney, they are quite fearful that disappointment with President Obama will force far too many blacks to stay home and just not vote.  That is a harsh reality which has already cost the President the state of North Carolina.

In 2008, thanks to a relatively large African-American turnout for the President, he won that state, which is traditionally a large electoral rich state that Republicans can rely upon.   President Obama had hoped to again deny the G.O.P. North Carolina’s electoral votes in 2012.  They even held their national convention there in an attempt to keep the state blue in 2012.  But as polls have shown North Carolina is now solidly for Mitt Romney and the reason for this is simple.  Blacks in North Carolina arer not suddenly voting for Mitt Romney but they are not going to vote for Barack Obama in the same numbers they previously did, and without that support, the President is losing his edge and the election.

So get ready everyone, the left is about to start bluffing to a degree we have never seen before.  They will try to lead us to believe that they have a full house in their hand and that Mitt Romney is going down.  But as we are increasingly seeing, the only card Democrats have left which they can try do anything with is the race card.  And they are going to try to do everything they can with it.  Just ask D.L. Hughley and friends.

Checkmating Obama with Wisconsin: A Romney Win in the Badger State Dooms Obama

     Mitt Romney’s continued rise in the polls has created a new narrative that continues to offer an almost infinitesimal number of possible outcomes in the Electoral College but at the same time it is increasing the number of realistic scenarios in which Romney can win and the President can lose .  Such is the reality of a race which since the first presidential debate some two weeks ago, has seen Mitt Romney turn the tables on President Obama in several key battleground states… specifically Virginia, Florida, and Ohio.  With Romney now practically even with or ahead of Obama in those states, the Romney-Ryan ticket has momentum behind them and is quickly changing electoral the game board by  forcing the Obama-Biden ticket to play catch-up for the first time in this general election.

These developments are probably most pronounced in two states which have up till now been considered solid Obama states…  Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In the case of Pennsylvania no Democrat has won the White House without it since 1948 when the Keystone State supported Republican New York Governor Thomas Dewey over President Harry Truman.  In many ways it has become for Democrats what Ohio is for a Republicans. But in recent days, Romney has significantly reduced the size of the President’s lead in Pennsylvania practically in a half.   It is a trend that the Obama-Biden campaign cannot ignore, especially since Mitt romney has not yet been aggressively campaiging for Pennsylvania or spending much money in the state.

Without Pennsylvania, assuming that Romney has Virginia and Florida, an assumption that is increasingly likely, President Obama must win the remaining battleground states of Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin.  That is a tall order given that the White House 2012 analysis currently projects five of those seven states to be going for the Romney-Ryan ticket.

Making matters worse for the President is the fact that one of those states that the Obama-Biden campaign must win if he loses Pennsylvania, is Wisconsin, a state that he is finding even more trouble in than he is finding in Pennsylvania.

Wisconsin has been trending Republican at least since 2010 when the state elected a Republican Governor and rejected liberal icon Russ Feingold by electing a Republican T.E.A movement-backed to replace Feingold in the U.S. Senate.  Then, earlier this year,  Wisconsin became ground zero in a recent union-based recall election that pitted the entitlement mentality of the left against the fiscal responsibility mentality of the right.  In that recall election, the left lost by an even bigger even margins than they did in 2010.

It is along with this troublesome backdrop that President Obama now finds his once comfortable lead in the Badger state slipping to an uncomfortable 2.0% lead.  Add to that the fact that Romney’s running mate hails from Wisconsin and that Romney is seeing his numbers rising across the board in every state and among most all voting blocs, including independents, women and Hispanics, and what you have is an Obama-Biden reelection campaign that is struggling to remain competitive in the Electoral College.

But let us not get ahead of ourselves.  While Romney is certainly currently riding a mild surge in polls, it is no tidal wave and at the moment short of that tidal, Pennsylvania is still likely to go blue for the President.  And while Virginia and Florida are still likely to go for Romney, the Obama-Biden ticket has a good chance of taking Ohio.  A win there by the President would leave Romney with only 11 paths to victory… 11 very viable and realistic paths.  On the flip side, a loss by the President in Pennsylvania, leaves him with approximately half as many realistic paths to victory.  Some of those paths include winning a combination of Virginia, Florida, and or Ohio with a mix of other states that include Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, and New Hampshire.  But  most important here is that without Ohio, Virginia and Florida,  every possible path to the 270 Electoral College votes that the President needs to wins, includes both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

What All Means;

For President Obama this means he has less and less breathing room in these last three weeks of the campaign.   It means that states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which he is still leading in, will require him to divert much needed time, money, and resources  away from states like Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, where a win by the President in any one of those states would be a significant blow to Romney.

For Governor Romney this means, the mountain before him remains treacherous, but if he can maintain his current pace the top of the mountain, the top is certainly within his reach.  So Romney must continue to wage an extremely successful campaign in Florida, Virginia, Ohio.  But the latest numbers indicate that Romney should also look at Pennsylvania where even though he is not likely to win, if he invests time and money there, he will forced to President Obama to reroute resources to from Ohio and Florida in an attempt to keep Pennsylvania blue.   But at the same time Romney must also now begin to really target Wisconsin.  Recent history supports facts that show the state is open to the fiscal responsibility message of the G.O.P. and Mitt Romney.  And with Wisconsin being a state that Paul Ryan is from and still very popular in, combined with the polls showing that the race is already tight there, Wisconsin is a prime state for the Romney-Ryan ticket to pick off from the President.  It is also a state that would make it nearly impossible for the President to win the election without.

So for Mitt Romney, this means it’s time to send Paul Ryan home.  Let Paul Ryan do a non-stop tour of every county and town in Wisconsin.  If Romney can keep up his own end of the deal in Virginia and Florida, by denying the Obama-Biden ticket a win Wisconsin, Romney could win the election just by taking a combination of Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada.  And that is without winning Ohio.  With Wisconsin painted red, a win in Ohio would put Mitt Romney over the top even if he lost Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Romney Increases Lead in White House 2012 Electoral College Projection

    In what is now a verifiable trend, White House 2012’s newest Electoral College projection has increased the size of Mitt Romney’s lead in the Electoral College over President Obama for the third time in a row.  In the previous projection, after forecasting Ohio for Romney for the first time, New Hampshire and Nevada where switched from Romney to Obama.  This latest forecast now places both of those states back in Mitt Romney’s column, increasing Romney’s lead in the Electoral College by a combined total of 10 electors.  This now puts Romney’s Electoral College count at 291 to the President’s 247.

According to the White House 2012 formula, Nevada and New Hampshire are still very competitive and not solidly in Romney’s camp.  The same goes for Iowa and Ohio where WH12 considers the Romney-Ryan ticket to be currently holding a slim but still growing lead. But the most significant development in the latest forecast model is that the apparent bounce Romney received in the wake of his first debate, is now proving to be a definite trend.  More importantly, it is a trend that is revealing itself to be so pronounced that it has forced White House 2012 to now add three more states to our battleground map… Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

That is a dramatic development. Especially in the case of Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania is to Barack Obama what Ohio is to Mitt Romney.  Without Pennsylvania solidly in the Obama-Biden column, the Democrat ticket finds itself with significantly fewer paths to victory in the Electoral College.  This is a switch from the narrative that had defined Romney’s need to win Ohio.  No Republican has ever won the White House without it.   If Romney can’t win Ohio, he will find significantly fewer ways to accumulate the 270 electors needed to win.  White House 2012 has however stipulated that we are sure Romney can win without Ohio and in fact originally projected him to do so.  But recently polling and other factors have now turned the tables and are forcing the President to have to focus us on his m.

While White House 2012 still projects Pennsylvania to go for the President, if current trends continue, that can quickly change.  In the meantime White House 2012 is forced to now make Pennsylvania a battleground state and in what is turning out to be continued trend that is putting the President’s campaign in a more defensive posture when it comes to the electoral map, White House 2012 has also moved Wisconsin and Michigan to battleground status.

Of these three new battlegrounds, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are most profound.

Without them, President Obama must win Ohio and various combinations of other states that include such states as Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and/or Colorado.

While many factors will continue to change future projections, the analysis behind this forecast is most notable for the conclusion that at the moment, the Romney-Ryan ticket is turning the tables in the Electoral College and forcing the Obama-Biden ticket to take a more defensive electoral strategy.  It is forcing the Obama campaign to spend time and much needed resources and money in state’s that at this point in time, they had hoped were in the bag.  Meanwhile, the need to reinforce his standing in places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and even Michigan, is taking time and money away from President Obama’s ability to work on winning other important states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, Iowa, and Colorado.

Romney’s Strategic Focus Away from Evangelicals to Catholics

      With a highly polarized electorate and pundits and polls pointing to an election that we are led to believe is still very close, each campaign for President is finding themselves having to sharpen their focus on specific voting blocs in specific states.   Foregoing any embarrassing October or early November surprises for President Obama or Governor Romney, states like California, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Utah, and others, are so far in the bag for one campaign or the other that the candidates are not visiting them and only running the most minimal of ads in them.  But states like Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin are somewhere in the middle and with the right approach, many uncommitted and undecided voters can easily be swayed to vote one way the other.  So Romney and Obama are campaigning hard in those states.  But among the voters in those states are voting blocs that can be appealed to on sets of issues that tend to affect them more than others.

For Mitt Romney one of the most crucial voting blocs to target are Catholics, a segment of the electorate that often does not receive the  political attention it deserves and is often more homogeneous as voting bloc than politicians assume.

Catholics comprise approximately 25% of the American electorate and since 1972, every single presidential candidate who has won the popular vote has also won the Catholic vote.  Additionally, in the last 5 presidential elections the Catholic vote total mirrored within 1 percent, the total popular vote received by the winner.   This indicates that in addition to being a significant portion of the electorate, the Catholic vote is also a swing vote which is a pretty good bellwether of national election results.

During the Republican presidential primaries, it was the Evangelical vote was a critical determining factor in the fate of Mitt Romney candidacy.  But since then, the Evangelical vote seems to have solidified behind Romney, or at the very least, against Barack Obama.  So while they will play an important role in Romney’s Get-Out-The-Vote operation, Catholics are for now one of the primary voting blocs that Mitt Romney is trying to convince to vote for him (see video of his latest ad at the bottom of this post).

And the strategy is a good one.

In recent years, Catholics have been offended by what some call the War on Christmas.  It is a hyperbolic term that refers to a very real liberal based, societal and federal enforced agnosticism which does everything from force municipalities to call Christmas trees Holiday trees to banning nativity scenes and menorah from the public square.  This disturbing trend to deny the freedom of religious expression even once forced Federated Department Stores, which includes Macy’s, to “ban” their employees from saying “Merry Christmas” to customers.  It is a trend which Rick Perry skillfully but unsuccessfully tried to exploit when he was competing for the Republican presidential nomination last year.

This liberal, politically correct based assault on public desires to express their faith has long annoyed Catholics but in 2012, Catholic sensitivities to the issue have only been exacerbated by President Obama and his signature accomplishment… Obamacare.

Among the Affordable Care Act’s  nearly three thousand pages of regulations is a clause which in 2011, the Obama Administration concluded to mean that many church-affiliated institutions will have to cover free birth control for employees.   This has outraged religious groups and fueled a national debate about the continued overreach of government and the ongoing  federal regulatory infringements being placed on  religion.  Leading this charge against this latest assault is a Catholic… New York City Archbishop Timothy Dolan.

Dolan calls the new Obamacare mandate “a dramatic, radical intrusion of a government bureaucracy into the internal life of the Church”, and states that it forces Catholics to oppose their own conscience.

The issue has intensified anti-Obama sentiments among a large portion of Catholics, even among those whose religious fervor may not find them in church each and every Sunday.  To them the mandate has become another symbol of excessive government control that in this case goes so far that it actually forces religious institutions to participate in that which it is considers to be sinful.  In this case, the sin of abortion.

The situation has made the Obama-Biden ticket extremely vulnerable to attack and Mitt Romney knows it.  So he is making it an issue in these closing days of the campaign and he is doing so in a strategically smart way.

In the closing weeks of the campaign, as it becomes more important than ever to win over non-ideological, non-partisan independent voters, Romney is avoiding the harsh terms that the Obama campaign uses when they wage class warfare or claim Republicans are waging a “war on women”.  So Romney is not out on the stump and campaigning on this federal infringement on religion by using phrases like “war on religion”.  Instead while out on the campaign trail, Romney will make brief mention of the issue, he is relying mainly on short ads that are being played to target audiences in targeted states and which through repetition, are driving the point home to independent voters who are sensitive to government overreach and concerned Catholic voters disturbed by continued federal infringement on religious liberty.

But the importance of the Catholic is not lost on Barack Obama either.  That is why his campaign’s surrogates have taken their own approach to winning them over.

As first told by Deal W. Hudson for Catholic Online, Obama operatives have been calling Catholic voters with a push poll that ask several pointed questions such as; “How can you support a Mormon who does not believe in Jesus Christ? And “What do you think about the “Nuns on the Bus” who support Obama?”

Push Polls are primarily an unethical interactive marketing technique, which campaigns use in attempt  to influence or alter the opinions of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll.  In this case the underhanded tactic is ironically exploiting religion by trying to incite anti-Mormon religious bigotry against mitt Romney.  It would be akin to a Romney campaign operation that called White Southern Evangelicals and intentionally used a question to make the President’s color an issue.  Such a racist act would surely be turned in a media inspired “October Surprise” that would derail the Romney campaign.  But such is not the case among a national mainstream media whose obvious liberal biases allow their own politically bigotry to run rampant and neglect to hold the Obama-Biden mpaign caaccountable for anything it does.

Meanwhile, Romney is smartly and ethically pursuing the Catholic vote by appealing to them on the issues… issues which have been leading Catholics to trend towards Republicans more and more over the past few elections.  It’s a trend which Romney may be able to have its best chance to exploit in Ohio, a swing state that is as, or more important than other battleground state that Mitt needs to win the Electoral College and which contains the type of blue collar, Reagan-Democrat, Catholic voters that Romney must win to put Ohio in his column.

Two other states that fall in to that category include Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, both of which are states that will make it nearly impossible for President Obama to win reelection without.

And as Romney makes his case, Catholics are also doing their part to make their case for Romney.

FRC Says No Rice Please

In their Monday email, the Family Research Council rained on the Condoleeza Rice parade.  Describing her as a “non-starter”, Tony Perkins said that she is not pro-life, pro-marriage or a strong defender of religious liberty.  Perkins also noted that the Family Research Council would only accept a candidate who was strongly pro-life, not just someone who “checks the ‘pro-life box'”.

Will FRC stop promoting Mitt Romney if he chooses Condoleeza Rice as his VP?  No.  They supported Bush even though Cheney supported gay marriage.  But now is the time to use their leverage as a group representing a large segment of fundamental Christianity and steer Romney towards a more socially conservative choice.

Condi is a great and extremely qualified candidate.  But Romney should carefully consider the promises he has made regarding his VP selection process.  If he is looking to shake the Etch-a-sketch image one of his staffers foolishly gave him, than now is a perfect time to take a principled stand.  On the other hand, Romney may do the calculations and figure he will pick up more independents with Condi than he would lose from his base.

Liberal Class Warfare Rhetoric…And Then There’s The Truth

In what is sure to be a tough fought election full of scathing rhetoric, none has been more apparent in the last year then the class warfare being perpetrated for the most part by those on the left.

“Republican’s represent the rich. Republican’s support the rich. Evil millionaires and billionaires the lot of them.”
“Democrat’s represent the little guy. Democrat’s support the poor and downtrodden. Democrat’s are ‘one of you'”.

Basic political rhetoric that most often comes from those on the left. Especially when their fiscal record is as bad as it appears it will be heading in to the 2012 elections. They sure can’t run on the record but what they can do, and do effectively, is pit American’s against each other as they head to the ballot box using the ‘evil rich Republican’ vs. the ‘poor and middle class Democrat’ argument. An argument which I am about to prove false.

Using 2009 data from the 2010 Census, out of the top 20 states in median household income 14 of those states are Blue (Democrat), 2 are considered Purple (Center) and 4 are Red (Republican). The bottom 20 states in median household income are the exact polar opposite. Out of the states at the bottom of the income data 14 are Red, 2 are Purple and 4 are Blue. Median household income data by state

So, if the Republican’s support the rich and Democrats support the poor why is it that the richest states vote Democrat and the poorest vote Republican?

Because that’s what false data and rhetoric does. It attempts to paint a picture that isn’t always a fair and accurate one. Some politicians believe that if you repeat a lie enough it becomes the truth. That appears to be the case in regards to the class warfare being perpetrated as we head into November. The problem is as long as this false information has been perpetrated it apparently hasn’t weighed on the opinions of the classes who are supposed to be ‘at war’. The poorest states still vote Republican and the richest states still vote Democrat.

Don’t tell anyone. We don’t want the Democrats to have to change the perception they believe they have built over decades. We will simply just hope that they don’t notice the rich and poor aren’t listening.

Illegals Debacle Shows The President Has No Clothes

Too true to be funny anymore?

The famous poem is inviting:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Is this the spirit behind the president’s announcement of an immediate end to the deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the US as children? Obama thinks so, saying this is “the right thing to do,” just like everything else he decides.

The true spirit behind this action is the hubris of a President with no clothes. This announcement and the anger it has sparked gives an anatomy of how the president does things, to the point of obscuring the issues involved. Let’s look at the anatomy which is exposed:

 

First, Obama speaks objective truth which he then feels pragmatically he has to contradict.

It was only a year ago at a 2011 Univision Town Hall, President Obama admitted it is beyond his power to suspend deportations for anyone because there are laws he’d be breaking by doing that, and would be a breach of separation of powers. If he believed this then, then today he must believe he is violating the separation of powers. You can see the clip here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shock-video-obama-admits-he-cant-do-what-he-did-today/?utm_source=co2hog

Did the law change since? The jurisprudence? Of course, stupid me, last year was not election year. This year, Obama is naturally addressing a key Latino concern….in an election year.

 

Second, he ignores due process in an increasingly monarchical sense of self

As Charles Krauthammer explains: “He proposed the DREAM Act of which the executive order is a variation… He proposed a DREAM Act. The Congress said no. The Congress is the one who makes the laws. What the administration does is it administers law.” Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/krauthammer-new-obama-immigration-policy-out-and-out-lawlessness-video/#ixzz1xwzPGJip

The plan goes into effect immediately, affecting some 800,000 people, without discussion. He hath spoken, it is done.

Justification? Speaking at the White House, Obama said the initiative was “the right thing to do,” adding that “it makes no sense to expel talented young people” from the US. Is it me, cynicism, or are we really to believe there are 800,000 talented people out there, surely some of them are duds?

 

Third, a Machiavellian Prince who seeks to control and coerce rather than convince

Maybe the real story is the sense of visible shock when the President was interrupted by a Daily Caller reporter during his announcement. How dare anyone interrupt, that’s, well that’s like someone interrupting a monarch, just not done! The reporter ought to be expelled from the country!

The reporter, Neil Munro, explained Munro says open press events at the White House are “well designed by the president and his staff…He comes out of the Rose Garden, gives a short statement and then turns his back and walks away very quickly without taking questions,” he said. “Sometimes he takes questions. He took a question on Trayvon Martin in March. Sometimes these shouted questions at the end work — not today: He refused to answer an obvious and conventional question about the impact of his policy on American workers at a time of record unemployment.”

Munro said “Timing these things is a little awkward. He speaks very well, very smoothly — very nice delivery. It’s hard to know when he’s about to end. I thought he was going to end today. I asked my question too early. He rebuked me. Fair enough.”  In the future, Munro hopes the White House will “arrange events so the reporters can ask the president or his senior staff about the important policy changes.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/video-neil-munro-explains-his-exchange-with-president-obama-in-rose-garden/#ixzz1xx05KPCS

 

Finally, he sets himself up as a savior, but watch out for those “sell by “ dates folks!

In order to be eligible under the new initiative, illegal immigrants must:

• have arrived in the US when they were under the age of 16
• have lived continuously in the US for at least five years
• be in school, or have graduated from high school or be honourably discharged veterans of the US military
• have no criminal record
• be under 30 years old.

If successful, applicants would receive a work permit for two years that can (note my italics) be renewed an unlimited number of times. In other words, they’re safe until after the election and the end of Obama’s long-running campaign for office and re-election.

 

In running for this office, Republican opponent Mitt Romney needs to highlight this shameful anatomy and he himself must be: consistent, truthful and make long-term commitments. His reaction to this latest move from the White House was a good one: “I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and it should be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future will be in this country….I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution.”

More of this please, Governor!

Everything is fine, time to put your feet up Mr President!

The private sector is doing fine apparently. This is at least according to President Barack Obama. I guess the 23 million Americans who are either unemployed, underemployed or have given up searching for work are suitably reassured. Not to worry, four more years! Yes folks, four more years out of work if this administration gets another victory in November.

Of course, President Obama later clarified things for reporters, and the rest of us stupid people, “the economy is not doing fine.” Then White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters they should know better than to miss the broader point Obama was making. Oh what stupid people, why did they not realize the president intended that public sector job cuts are hurting the economy.

Carney crowed “You all ought to do your jobs and report on context…We’re for truthful, factual, accurate reporting done in context.” Oh, yeah, right.

Perhaps the president and Mr. Carney can explain why the Federal Reserve felt compelled to report the median net worth of families plummeted by 39 percent in the three years of the Obama Era of Salvation. Well, they didn’t say that exactly. They said the numbers, I added the editorial gloss. The figures speak for themselves though: a fall from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. That puts Americans back where they were in 1992.

Even the president’s current day Rasputin, Paul Krugman, the mystical Nobel Prize-winning economist, admitted “That was an unfortunate line…The president bungled the line.” In a sentence more articulated than a truck driven by a Commerce Secretary, Krugman’s apologia for a president states “The truth is the private sector is doing better than the public sector, which is not well enough…The real story of this economy is that cutbacks at the public sector are what’s hurting the recovery.”

Mitt Romney’s take on this is “Last Friday, the unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent and 300,000 more people joined the long-term unemployed. One week later, President Obama said the private sector is doing fine. Only a president that presides over forty months of unemployment over 8 percent would think that the last jobs report is “doing fine.” These comments show that President Obama is completely out of touch with the middle class.”

The Heritage Foundation notes “While the President’s comment is astoundingly out of touch with the public—and economic reality—perhaps even more distressing is that this wasn’t a passing verbal gaffe. This is actually a consistent talking point of the President and Democratic leadership that goes largely unchallenged by the media.” http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/morning-bell-the-private-sector-is-not-doing-fine/

A famous Philosophy discussion on observation and knowledge of reality centers on the question, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” I believe the same can be asked of the relationship between Obama’s errors and the liberal media…the noise is definitely made but they don’t seem to be around to hear it.

The only thing that will be fine is a change in the White House. Of course, Barack Obama will not be made unemployed, he has a new career trajectory to follow of more books, speaking tours and all the perks of being ex-president.

This election is about the economy, and we’re not the stupid ones.

3 things Romney needs to get Right, and so far he only has 1 of them.

Romney Looks the Part, but does he have the ideas in place yet?

 

To win in November, Mitt Romney has to get three things right. First, he has to be a positive physical presence, showing Americans what an optimistic American face looks like. Second, he needs to show how the American Mind works to solve problems. Third, he must win over the undecideds and the Blue Dog Democrats.

He achieves the first with some ease. He does look like a president, and although a little stiff and awkward at times, he has a smile and positive outlook that is very American. Unlike his dour and aloof opponent, Governor Romney shows hope in his physical presence which America badly needs in its leader.

Why? Because the one thing that all nations need right now, not just America, is a positive and can-do Capitalist attitude to lift us out of this recession. Back in 2007, at this time, candidate Obama was painting the economy in apocalyptic terms, because he was going to arrive on wings, lifted by adulation, to solve the nation’s, and the world’s, woes. Don’t just take my word for it, even Hilary Clinton was saying as much.

Also back in 2007, the economy was in a punishing mood. We were living in a bubble that was only amazing in the sense that it took so long to burst. Living off too much debt and leverage, which are not bad things in themselves when used wisely, the spirit was a “can’t do” attitude. The basics of economic life were consigned to the trash, and individuals, companies and government contrived to live as if the economy can’t fail and we can’t be bothered to work to produce real wealth.

Hence, the misery that followed. Hence, the big disappointment that became President Barack Obama. Hence, the constant concern on the president’s face, disguising a man out of his depth. So, we need a can-do president, who believes there is enough of the American dream to fuel a new era of economic growth; which brings me to the second thing.

Rooted in the American dream, Romney needs ideas that get the people energized. At a time when Capitalism is under stress, the battle of ideas has to be won. Folks need to see what the future can look like under Capitalism, not holed up in OWS enclaves or rallying against the rich. No-one complained about the rich when the economy was going up; why pin all the blame on them when it goes down?

Unlike Europe, Capitalism has been the engine of America from the beginning. It is inseparable from the enlightenment and religious ideas which formed the nation. Capitalism is not just a theory. It is a realistic, though like humanity itself imperfect, instrument for managing the needs and wants of a people. Romney needs to go beyond trotting out the same ideas of small government and tax cuts, and all those things, because they are ideas that are not just familiar, they are falling on barren soil.

Romney needs to shape these old ideas – and bring in some new ones – to show a recession weary nation why there is reason to hope. This is not the hope that was on the way for John Edwards, nor the hollowed hope of the Obama presidency. It is not even a hope in a Romney administration. It has to be a hope in Capitalism and a hope in the nation itself, in other words a hope in America.

So, the third thing falls into place if the first two are achieved. If Romney can capture the imagination, rooted in a realistic vision about the nation’s economic needs and other policy options, then he will reach out to those he needs to win over to become Romney 45. He needs to show a picture of the future that is not about government filling gas tanks or paying mortgages, but hard working Americans taking care of their own business.

The Obama bubble burst a long time ago, even for many of his supporters, and especially for those independents, youth and Blue Dog Democrats who believed he offered a new hope. Romney has only a little time to raise up new thinking in his campaign, and show why the economic bubble burst under the Republicans and George W. Bush, and why the economic solution bubble burst under the Democrats and Barack Obama.

Romney has one of the things he needs, the physical presence, but he needs the second thing of right thinking if he is to get the third thing which will sweep him into the White House. It’s over to you Governor….

The Student Vote

There is a truth that Obama will have to face in 2012.  The majority of reasons students voted for Obama in 2008 are irrelevant or evaporated in 2012.  He is not running for the historical title of first black President in 2012.  He did not close Gitmo or bring our troops home, in fact he started a war in Libya.  He did not provide free health insurance for all.  Most of all, he has done nothing to guarantee all these sociology and philosophy graduates jobs when they graduate.

John McCain was not inspiring for student voters.  He was old, determined to win the wars America got into, white, male, loved America, and he was a Republican.  Students have it drilled into their heads that this represents the great satan.

Romney may not be the next great satan to the educational institution, but he certainly isn’t the hip symbol of progressive diversity that Obama was.  However, Romney doesn’t need to win the student vote.  He just needs Obama to lose it.

Obama is still popular with teachers, who by and large are enslaved to their unions and engrained socialism.  But students now have a record to go on, and the novelty has worn off.  The funny thing about students is that they tend to be idealistic purists as often as they are naively ignorant.  The same student who would trade an A for a six pack might also skip the Avengers movie because certain details don’t conform to the comic books.  Obama is certainly not everything American students hoped and dreamed about.  In fact, students who are honest with themselves would realize Obama is nothing that they hoped and dreamed for.

Obama has a special sort of hypocrisy that attentive students will sniff out.  Obama might flash his environmental credentials to a crowd of students, but then in front of business owners he touts how oil extraction has increased under his Presidency even if he had nothing to do with it.  He might tell students how he is bringing our troops home, but then he celebrates excursions into Pakistan to kill terrorists and Libya to do nation building.  He may make overtones to the gay community and talk about equal rights, but look how fast his administration is throwing Biden under the bus for endorsing gay marriage.  Perhaps in 2008, young students might be fooled.  But now Obama has a record.

Obama can’t even win on student loan rates since he demonstrated those take second place to his healthcare legacy.  Republicans wrote a bill to keep student loan interest rates low, but Obama has opposed the bill since it is paid for by tapping a special fund created by his healthcare law.  Obama would rather pay for it by borrowing more from China, which will cause interest rates to balloon even more in the long term.

The difference between a student voter and nearly any other of Obama’s target groups is that as purists students will not vote for the lesser of two evils.  Students won’t vote for Obama just to keep Romney out of office.  They have been taught two things very well: follow your heart, and your vote doesn’t count.  This frees them to vote for Rosie O’Donnell, write in their dorm-mate’s name, or skip the voting booth altogether to stay home and put those free morning after pills to good use.

Can Obama afford to lose the student vote?  Not if you believe the statisticians who put the student vote at 1/5th of the population.  A significant decline in this voting block for Obama means Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia,  and Colorado, even if they simply stay home.

Romney needs to call Obama’s Bluffet….

 

We know that the Bluffet, sorry Buffet, rule is a motif for President’s class warfare, and more warning shots will be fired when Congress returns today from a two-week recess to a test vote on the rule, which would impose a minimum 30 percent tax rate on income over $1 million. The Bluffett tax targets wealthier Americans’ investments rather than salaries.

Today is the day when this issue of class warfare kicks off for November in earnest, now that we know it will be Romney for the GOP and Congress gets to have a say on the matter.

President Obama, who pays less tax than HIS secretary (he filed tax returns showing he paid an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent on income of about $800,000 in 2011) says the government needs the revenue from the Bluffett rule, estimated at $47 billion over 10 years, to cover “a broad range of goals.” He also says “This is not just about fairness.” Well, he got that right, it is very unfair, but not in the simplistic moralistic way he is peddling.

He says “This is also about growth. It’s about being able to make the investments we need to strengthen our economy and create jobs. And it’s about whether we as a country are willing to pay for those investments.” In other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Fact is, do we really need government to do the investing, and where does the investment go? Into government black holes and deep pockets, rather than into businesses which create wealth. The Bluffet tax would not create wealth, it would merely enhance dependency. We would see a better rate of return on the $47 billion in business investment by the wealthy than we would from government. That is an awful lot of liquidity to take out of the markets, and I don’t see too many secretaries taking up the slack.

Of course, keeper of the Treasury keys Tim Geithner was out pushing the rule on Sunday, “Just because Republicans oppose this does not mean it’s not the right thing to do and not the right thing to push for,” he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program. Double negatives aside, we can say that just because Democrats think it is the right thing to do doesn’t mean it even begins to make sense.

If we look at the paying side of this, we see the rich targeted for this end up paying more. Simple. But for what are they paying? Increased revenue means increased expenditure, and so the things for government to spend on expands to meet the expanded revenue. More programs, more dependency and less reward for effort. What does the payer get in return? They get little benefit, and the wealthier they are the less they need what they are paying for.

Which means the sole purpose of the Bluffet rule is twofold, increased state powers and redistribution of wealth. Conservatives who attack Romney or the rich for their wealth are playing with the same deck as Obama.

Obama says, “If you make more than $1 million every year, you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do… Most Americans support this idea. We just need some Republican politicians to get on board with where the country is.” Of course, Obama doesn’t have to worry too much about his investments, because after leaving office, which cannot come soon enough, he will make a ton of cash for the remainder of his days. He doesn’t have too much to worry about…The rest of us do.

Limbaugh Apologizes; Can GOP Get Back On Message?

Moments ago, radio host Rush Limbaugh released a statement apologizing to co-ed law student and part-time women’s rights activist, Sandra Fluke. The talk show host caused an national uproar by labeling her a “slut” because of her congressional testimony requesting the government pay for her and others birth control. He also suggested she upload porn. In his brief statement, Limbaugh admits “My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

Limbaugh also scoffs at the absurdity of the nature of this discussion during such a crucial election cycle, stating “ if this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level”.

Many view this as a continued GOP attack against women. This has become a new battle cry for liberals offended by remarks from former Sen. Rick Santorum and others who have been said to speak irresponsibly and insensitively about women’s issues.

This denotes a  problem for the GOP.   The amount of women within the party, according to Gallup Poll, is down and has been trending this way for the last decade.  However, women are not being swayed by the Democratic party either.  The former female Republican is now opting to become an Independent. While the U.S. Population is 313,120,595 million, women account for 157 million. Thus, women are the majority. 85.4 million of these women are mothers and66.6 percent of female citizens have reported being registered to vote. This demographic is crucial to any party if they intend to make gains or seek national office majority. It is of great concern amongst many analyst that the Republican party is focusing on a new aged revival of social crusades and abandoning the message of economic reform that has been said to be both key and crucial to the 2012 election cycle.

It’s NOT About the Economy, Stupid

Republicans are preparing to come to a rugby game in their best golf pants.

The world is different than it was in 2008 when we were caught with a war candidate going into an election that was all about the economy.  This time we have the best business man money can buy and we are about to go into an election that is all about the constitution, social issues, personal freedom, and the size of government.

Yes, I know.  Today the economy still sucks.  However, with the expanded power of the Fed and the Presidency, we are going to see just how much the President actually can affect it in the short term.  For example, leading into the 2010 election, the Fed had over $2 trillion in stock securities on their balance sheet and Wall Street was inflated.  Mainstream Media and administration spokespeople called that Obama’s summer of recovery.  Obama also ramped up federal spending and provided tons of government jobs.  Unemployment, as it is in our current “recovery”, remained mostly unmoved.  Despite all the tax hikes hidden in Obamacare, Obama said he was a tax cutter.

So why did we win big in 2010?  Social conservatives, lead by the TEA Party, made the election about deficit spending, constitutional rights, social issues, and personal freedom.

I keep hearing that only Romney can win because only Romney is focusing on the economy.  But Romney’s solutions on the economy include a redistributive tax policy that hits up the top 1% and a plan to increase the minimum wage and price low skilled labor out of the work force.  So why is Romney the economic guru who can save us?  Because he is a successful businessman.  But that won’t get voters to the polls in 2012, especially when Obama sinks another trillion dollars in imaginary money into the economy this summer to make the election about what Americans really care about: social issues.

Think about it this way.  How much more would you pay in extra taxes if it meant abortion would be made illegal?  Or legal, if that is your preference.  Democrats are willing to pay a great deal to force everyone to cover birth control and abortion pills.  I don’t think most Democrats have realized yet just how much Obamacare is going to cost them in higher insurance premiums.  The only Democrats who don’t know that Obamacare is all about social issues and government usurpation of personal freedom are still waiting for insurance rates to magically fall.  I have bad news for them.

Obama and his energy secretary have openly admitted that they want to let oil prices keep going up so that Americans will stop using oil.  I don’t know about you, but I can’t put wind, solar, coal, nuclear, ethanol, or algae in my gas tank.  And I’ve already inflated my tires.  That’s ok though because it’s not about the economy, stupid.  It’s about social issues.  It’s about greenhouse gasses and global warming and Obama is going to win on that because Romney is focusing on the economy.  Instead of fighting Obama on the social issue of whether the government should steal our freedom to protect us from made up scientific threats, Romney will be talking about how he is the best guy to grow the economy.

When the economy is artificially inflated this fall and “I’m the best candidate to grow the economy” rings hollow, what will we have left?  Don’t be fooled, Obama is already running on social issues.  Obama and his party are fighting for big government that will take care of and coddle every poor voter they can get their hands on.  What will we have?  Someone who will promise those poor coddled voters that he will provide them with the opportunity to work hard and be successful?  That’ll get the moderates to the polls.

In general, Americans oppose taxpayer funded abortion.  They oppose federally mandated gay marriage.  They oppose federally mandated funding for abortion.  They oppose big government and big deficits.  They oppose the current size of government.  They oppose the President stealing their rights in the name of coddling them.  These are TEA party issues, not establishment issues.

2012 isn’t about the economy.  At least it won’t be.  We’re about to run the wrong candidate, again, based on January issues for a November election.  What will get people to the polls in November is whether we want a President who will prevent taxpayer funded abortion, or a President who once voted to let doctors perform abortions after the baby is born.  Where do you stand?

The worst possible scenario for Republicans in 2012 will be a race where a significant percentage of Americans don’t care who wins or think the candidates aren’t that far apart.  We saw that in 2008.  The only way Republicans will win in 2012 is if we run a distinctly conservative candidate who gives Americans a clear choice.  Vote for the radical Liberal or the radical Conservative.   The more moderate a candidate we run, the more moderate Obama will look in comparison.

If the moderates stay home in 2012 and the 40% of conservatives beat the 20% of liberals in the country, I’m ok with that.  The strategy of getting the moderate vote and praying the 40% of conservatives will hold their nose and show up is a sure loser.

Democrats Betting on Gridlock

Steny Hoyer is leading the charge among Democrat Senators to put the brakes on an extension of the 2% payroll tax cut.  After nearly a month of blaming Republicans for the delay in passing the extension and parading around middle class Obama supporters saying how much $40 will change their lives, now Democrats in the Senate look likely to be the ones who kill this extension.

Why are Democrats defecting after a deal had been worked out?  Because the current payroll extension bill makes new federal employees contribute 3.1% to their own pensions.  Apparently we should share sacrifice and have skin in the game unless you are a federal employee.  Currently they contribute .8%.  The government picks up the rest of the tab and returns on the pension are guaranteed.

Meanwhile, many middle class Americans contribute anywhere from 3-10% to their 401k plans with no guaranteed returns and a maximum 3% matching contribution from their employers.  However, Democrats have characterized the plan to increase federal employee pension withholding as a budget war on federal employees.

Democrats appear to have figured out that they are succeeding in blaming congressional gridlock on Republicans.  It also appears that their strategy is to maximize gridlock even if it hurts the middle class.  But if Americans figure out why Democrats are holding up this tax cut extension, sentiment could turn pretty quick.  Democrats are betting against the intelligence of American voters.

Romney Taking Heat Over Position on Auto-Bailout in Michigan

Throughout the media Mitt Romney has taken heat for his position on the auto-industry bailouts.  Voters are noticing, too, as recent polls show that Santorum has taken the lead in the state.  It comes at a particularly bad time as the Michigan primary is just weeks away.

Earlier this week, Mitt Romney penned an op-ed in the Detroit News criticizing the 2009 bailout of Detroit’s Big Three automakers.  In it, he stands by his position at the time of letting the companies go through a managed bankruptcy, which was eventually done by Obama, and touts his Michigan roots as the son of former American Motor Company and Michigan Governor George Romney.  Romney goes on to blast Obama, calling the bailout and subsequent caving to union demands “crony capitalism on a grand scale”.

Republicans Should Capitalize on Obama Budget to Nowhere

Class warfare has become a central theme of the Obama campaign.  In his 2013 budget released earlier this week, President Obama proposed major tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans – those making $200,000 per year or families making over $250,000.  Indeed, the “debt reduction” that the president claims is dependent largely on these tax increases alone. Class warfare and raising taxes on the rich may be beneficial to his political campaign, but it is bad for the economy as it merely redistributes wealth, not create it.  The Republican nominee needs to be committed to capitalism and battle the President’s class warfare, big government, Keynesian economic rhetoric using free-market principles, stressing economic growth, job creation, and wealth creation through lower taxes, less regulation, and smaller government.  Despite what the President claims, his budget does not promote growth and has the potential to be a weak spot that Republicans can capitalize on.

Included in the President’s proposal is around $1.5 trillion in new revenue coming from tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations.  These tax raises take various forms; a 9% raise in capital gains tax rates, the dividends rate jumps 25% from 15-40%, the carried interest tax on investment partnerships rise from 15 to 39.6%, and the estate tax rises to 40%.  In addition, the budget calls for allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire, raising the top-level income tax rates to 39.6%.  Then there’s the new “Warren Buffet Rule“, which requires all those making more than $1 million per year pay at least 30% of their gross income in taxes.

Obama signing The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010

Perhaps the most damning, however, is the tax hike on businesses; Obama has yet to announce his new corporate tax rates, but included in the budget is a “financial crisis responsibility fee” on large banks that amounts to $61 billion, taxing energy companies $30 billion over a decade by ending tax cuts, $148 billion in new taxes on multinational corporations, and another $87 billion by changing how businesses value their inventory.