Trunkline 2012: Monday’s Election News Wrap-Up From the Campaign Trail

Bookmark and Share   Leading the buzz from the campaign trail in today’s Trunkline 2012 news and views wrap-up are stories dealing with Romney’s growing lead among women, Hispanics, and in battleground states and the White House 2012 Electoral College projection, good reasons why gays should be voting for Mitt Romney, how Romney’s $171 million dollar September fundraising haul will shape his final push towards Election Day, unions fining members for not attending a rally for Massachusetts liberal Senate candidate Betsy Warren, a great ad from the T.E.A. movement, and as always… much more;

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

The Dumb Blond Joke Behind the Democratic National Convention

“Why don’t women wear a watch?

“Because there’s a clock on the stove.”

Tell a joke like that and you can rest assured that the person who told it will not be a winning candidate for dog catcher, no less than President of the United States.  And with good reason.  It suggests that a woman’s place is in the home where she plays a subordinate, supportive role to her husband and family.  In this day and age, women have stepped out of the shadow of such untrue and degrading gender based assumptions.  They were assumptions which women from Joan of Arc, to Florence Nightingale proved wrong in days of yore and whose examples which contemporary women from Golda Mier, to more recently Margaret Thatcher and Condoleezza Rice continue to prove wrong today.  These are all women who defied attempts by others to define them as helpless damsels in distress and stewards of the kitchen.  They are women who didn’t even rely on men to achieve their own greatness.  Thatcher, and Rice did not marry into power.  They are proud self-made women who shattered the sick sexism of society without parlaying their husband’s last names and political careers into their own careers. They are perfect examples of strong women who have proven the shameful stereotypes perpetuated by the tasteless badinage of the aforementioned wisecrack to be utterly false and sublimely ignorant notions.

The recent Republican National Convention went to great and not so subtle, but natural lengths to demonstrate just how false those outdated stereotypes of women are.  They featured women in their natural roles as leaders, self-made leaders who rose to power thanks to their own determination, talent and ingenuity.  From Cathy McMorris Rodgers to Mia Love and Governors Susana Martinez and Nikki Haley, Senator Kelly Ayote , Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and dozens of others, the G.O.P. convention allowed women to be themselves and make the case not just for those of their own gender, but for all Americans.  But as Democrats gather to hold their convention in North Carolina, they are about to use women to exploit the very stereotypes they have fought so hard against.  At their convention, Democrats will depict woman in a way that should make militant liberal feminazis like Gloria Steinem so violently ill that it causes them to burst into spontaneous episodes of painful, involuntary, heaving that produces dangerously powerful projectile vomiting.

Much like the Republican National Convention, women will be front and center at the Democratic National Convention.  Well some women will be.  The most powerful woman in the Obama Administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be out of the country and even out of the hemisphere as she embarks upon an apparently critical mission to the string of 15 small islands in the Pacific known as that Cook Islands.  From there the President is sending her to Siberia. Really, he is.

But Clinton’s politically timed exile from the convention to the far reaches of Siberia aside, Democrats are gearing up to feature liberal women like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz… two people who argue that unless the government finances the interests of women, woman can’t succeed.  Other women they will feature include women’s rights activist Lilly Ledbetter, President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund Cecile Richards, National Abortion Rights Action League Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan, and the highly accomplished and well-known Georgetown Law School Graduate Sandra “Who”  Fluke.

All of these women will try to have you believe that Republicans are trying to kill women.  They will try to offer up tear jerking tales that depict women as helpless victims who are at the mercy of the hands of government… the big hands of big government.

Lilly Ledbetter will try to claim that the G.O.P. opposes a woman’s right to equal pay for equal work.  She will highlight the bill named after her which was the first legislation President Obama signed into law.   Ledbetter will claim that while it assured women the right to equal pay, Republicans opposed it.  She will not mention that the bill actually simply extended the amount of time a woman had to sue an employer if they believed they were a victim of pay discrimination.  She will not mention that it does not guarantee women anything ant that the whole Lilly Ledbetter law was merely a symbolic political  attempt to make it look like Democrats were focused on helping women.

Cecile Richards will argue that Republican attempts to ban the tearing off of limbs of infants during late term abortions, or to ban the termination of a life because of its sex are cruel examples of some sort of Republican hatred of women.

Nancy Keenan will argue women want a President who believes that the only way they can make the personal, private medical decisions that are best for them and their families is if the federal government takes charge and makes those decision for them by increasing the size, scope, scope and cost of government.

And in what will perhaps be the most amusing argument of the entire liberal convention, Sandra Fluke, a truly inconsequential personality whose greatest accomplishment is that she graduated from law school without getting pregnant, will try to convince Americans that if the evil and heartless heartless Republican Party and its candidates had their way and stopped Americans from seeing their taxes pay for her birth control, she would be barefoot, pregnant and without a law degree.

Then on Thursday night President Obama will portray himself as a princely knight in shining armor who rushes in to save the stereotypically helpless fair maidens of America.

It’s a message that should have all women truly doubtful of how much respect Democrats have for them.  Their characterization of women as a monolithic bloc of one issue voters who will support the failed liberals policies that we are all suffering under because of the liberal promise to hand out free birth control, is a narrative that should insult all women but especially the left wingers behind such liberal entities as Emily’s List.

Traditionally, liberal women’s rights groups like  Emily’s List and similar organizations have touted the strength of women and celebrated their independence and endless abilities.  But today, Democrat groups like those are hypocritically going out of their way to paint a much different picture of women.  They are portraying women as helpless, lost souls with no self-control or capacity to stand on their own without a federal government that mandates their healthcare treatment and like a good husband, gives the little lady an allowance. In this case, a taxpayer subsidized federal allowance.

Gone from the liberal lexicon are the portrayals of women as leaders who have taken control of their own destiny and led themselves, their families, their towns, cities, states, and nation to a better life.  Gone from the Democratic Party are the days when women had their own voice because according to today’s Democrat Party, government provides them with a stronger voice than their own.

The whole liberal inspired election strategy that claims Republicans are waging a war on women is akin to the telling of a bad joke about blonds.  Their claim that women are helpless without government in control of their lives and the lives of their families, is as offensive as the President standing before the nation and quipping;

“How do you make a blonde laugh on Monday?”
“Tell her a joke on Friday?”

It is a mocking and odious approach that does not address the real problems facing women; it simply operates under the false premise that women are gullible enough to believe they need someone to provide for them.   And it is ultimately based on the real question that President Obama has been asking advisors…  “How do I get women to vote for me and fellow Democrats on Election Day?”

For Democrats the answer to that question is “lie to them and hope that they don’t realize the truth till at least the day after the election.”

And the truth they hope that women will be too slow to understand in time for Election Day is that under President Obama, women have lost much of the parity in society that they have fought for over the past four decades.  Under President Obama women have had to endure their highest rate of unemployment in over 17 years as they account for 92.3% of the jobs lost since he took office, an accomplishment that distinguishes President Obama’s record on women’s participation in the labor force as the worst ever.

These are not points you will hear Democrats talking about at their quadrennial celebration of liberalism.  In fact at the Democrat’s convention there will be few if any direct and turthful references to things the President has actually done “for” women.  The overwhelming result of his record on women is one which has done more to them than for them.  But with the women’s vote in several key swing states being critical to Obama’s reelection, Democrats will continue to exploit women as helpless and reliant citizens married to the trough of government and they will continue to pray that their attempt to make women believe that Mitt Romney is The Boston Strangler and that Paul Ryan is Jack the Ripper takes hold.

Bookmark and Share

Hit Piece Misses

The day after Scott Walker demonstrated the sheer might of the conservative vote over the power of public unions, media outlets are doing everything they can to find something else to talk about.  For example, Ross Tucker at The Exchange writes “Republicans Bungle the Battle Over Light Bulbs”.  His article is all about how Republicans are preventing Americans from saving money by preventing Democrats from making incandescent light bulbs illegal.  Apparently, the only way Americans know how to buy economically is if the government eliminates all non-economical options as determined by bureaucrats in DC.

In other news, MSNBC tried to say that the Walker win was a great thing for Obama because the exit polls that showed Walker barely surviving also showed Obama winning in Wisconsin.  Of course, Walker didn’t barely survive, but instead creamed his opponent by a 7 point margin.  If you adjust exit polling by the actual results of the election, Romney will have the distinction of being the first Republican President to win Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan.

AP highlighted Elizabeth Warren tweeting about Scott Brown’s no vote the Democrat equal pay bill that would unintentionally make more women unemployable.  I’m not sure why Warren needs an equal pay bill for women; she already got her affirmative action benefits for being a “Cherokee”.

But the best hit piece was a headline from Rick Newman at US News & World Report stating that Mitt Romney’s desire to sell the government owned GM stock would cost taxpayers $15 billion.  Or as his headline put it, “Mitt Romney’s Stance on GM Sale Would Cost Taxpayers Dearly”.  What a headline.

Newman himself reviews the reason we have GM stock in the first place, but can’t seem to make the connection that the losses to taxpayers from GM might actually be Obama’s fault.  When GM was faltering and heading into bankruptcy, instead of selling GM to Italy like he did with Chrysler or allowing them to go through the legal bankruptcy protection process, Obama funneled about $25 billion dollars into GM making the US taxpayer a Wall Street shareholder.  He did the same thing with AIG and Citigroup.

When it comes to playing Wall Street fund manager with our tax dollars, Obama sucks. I wonder what Occupy Wall Street thinks about our Wall Street fund manager-in-chief?

When GM re-emerged on the market at $35 a share, Obama did not cut our losses and sell.  Instead he held on to GM with our tax dollars.  GM has now dropped to $21 a share according to Newman’s article.  Newman admits that GM would have to reach $52 a share in order for taxpayers to recover the original money Obama invested in GM.

The premise of Newman’s article is that we don’t need any of our money back and can wait to see if GM makes it back to $52 a share.  Of course, at this point GM would have to more than double in value.  Newman thinks this could happen by the end of 2013.  I’d like to know what he is smoking and where I can get some.

Large cap stocks rarely double in a year.  Large cap stocks freshly out of bankruptcy with 60% of their common stock shares owned by a government who is just itching to sell may never double in price. Romney is wise to cut our losses.

By Newman’s own math, Obama cost taxpayers $8.7 billion by not selling when GM peaked at $39.

Newman was trying to use fuzzy math to make Romney the bad guy for cleaning up the President’s taxpayer funded investment.  Instead, he unintentionally presents a clear indictment of one more foolish Wall Street fund manager: Barack Obama.

Gay Marriage and Equality

In the land of liberalism, portraying Obama’s timid conversion to gay marriage support as the sort of principled, bold action that no other executive would ever take (kind of like choosing to go in and shoot Bin Laden) is a trump card.  In fact, Obama is now playing his conversion up for all it’s worth, acting as though he’s the Martin Luther King Jr. of the homosexual movement.  Cash-wise, it’s paying big dividends.

However, reality may soon kick in.  While Obama’s conversion is symbolic, it doesn’t change anything anymore than when Dick Cheney came out in support of gay marriage.  Obama himself admitted that he still prefers to leave the issue up to the states, which puts his view in company with most other conservatives.

Obama thinks he’s so original

In addition to nothing changing policy wise, and Obama filling his campaign advertising with gaudy rainbows, Obama is in danger of losing votes in several swing states who have amended their constitutions to protect the definition of marriage.  For example, Colorado, California, Florida, North Carolina, Michigan and Virginia are among the states that have defined marriage in their constitutions.  Perhaps Obama’s coming out of the closet won’t lose him California, but it will have an effect in North Carolina and Florida where traditional marriage won with super majorities.

There is a debate brewing in the country now over how Obama has framed the gay marriage issue.  Is gay marriage a requirement for true equality in our country?  There are two issues that conservatives must be clear on with this question.

The first is the question of legal rights.  Can homosexuals be considered equal if they don’t get the same tax treatment, however favorable or unfavorable, as traditionally married couples?  By the way, as a tax accountant I’ve been able to save some gay couples more money by filing them both as single than I would if I had to file them as married filing jointly.  Just sayin’, in case you are reading this, homosexual, and think you are missing out on all sorts of great tax benefits because you can’t file jointly.

The question about equal legal rights can easily be defeated by testing if the individually truly cares about equality or is just using that argument to advance their agenda.  Ask them if they support a progressive tax system.  The progressive tax system that taxes rich and middle income earners at higher rates than the poor is a staple of liberalism, and a clear antithesis to equality.

The other question is whether the government should be telling homosexuals what marriage is and isn’t.  What many call the government defining marriage, others call the government banning all other forms of marriage.  But what is in a definition?  Fortunately, we have a prominent liberal Democrat who has demonstrated the importance of words and their definitions.

If you’ve heard the name Elizabeth Warren, then you know what I am talking about.  Warren, the liberal candidate who said the rich should pay higher taxes because they only reason they are rich is that the government gave them education and roads, lives what she preaches.  She gave herself a leg up both in school and career by claiming she is a Cherokee Indian.  Harvard touted Warren as adding diversity to their staff. Turns out she is about 1/32 Cherokee, and her ancestry has more Indian killers than actual Indians.

But that brings up an interesting question: can we all call ourselves Cherokee Indians in order to achieve equality and have a better shot at employment at Harvard?  Is it the government that is banning me from being a Cherokee Indian?  Perhaps you find that argument offensive.  Let’s back up about 60 years when there was a true battle for equality taking place in our country.  Should blacks have been given the right to be called white in order to achieve equality?  Of course not.  There is no need to redefine the word “white” in order to achieve equality.  Same with the word “marriage”.

Still, now that the war on women angle has failed, as has the war on the poor, the next play is the war on equality.  Be prepared to be accused of opposing equal rights for all if you are a Republican.  Suddenly the candidate who admits he was forced into revealing his gay marriage support has become the champion of equal rights simply by endorsing redefining marriage.  Romney will need to find ways to connect with the voters who have overwhelmingly voted to protect marriage in every state they’ve been given a chance, and he will need to win this debate.

Editors Note: As with any post on Whitehouse12.com, the opinions expressed in this post are the opinions of the author and represent the site only in as far as they represent the views of this particular author.  These views may not be representative of the site as a whole.

Predicting the Politically Unpredictable in 2012

2012 will see liberal extremism leading the way for wins by Romney and Republicans and  losses for Obama and Democrats, and an  electoral college decision that leaves the left more disgusted than ever.

Bookmark and Share   When it comes to 2012, the only prediction that I am fully confident in is that the unpredictable will continue to dominate and shape politics.  It always has and always will.  Be it unanticipated scandals, of the real or manufactured kind, or be it the unforseen events and circumstances which are thought to be impossible realities on the national and international stage, or random personal events in the lives of  the players on those stages, it is the unexpected which will ultimately create our reality and determine that which in the future, will be history.

However, until those inevitable unknowns reveal themselves, the best each of us can do is project the logical progression of events based upon that which we do already know.  For instance, while I may not know with certainty who will win the Republican presidential nomination, I can confidently predict that if the nominee is Ron Paul, you can rest assured that a Democrat will occupy the White House come 2013.  But one need not be Nostradamus to make that prediction.  So many rational Republicans and conscientious conservatives understand that inevitability, that it makes it impossible for Ron Paul to win the Republican presidential nomination.

A bolder prediction is that come September of 2012, Mitt Romney will be making an acceptance speech at the Republican national convention.  But that too is hardly seer seeing and it should not be hard to understand why he will be the nominee.

Romney is quite a capable conservative and while there are legitimate reasons to question his conservative credentials, the facts are that you can not find anything that is not conservative about his stated vision for America.  The only real reason he has not yet locked up the nomination is not because he is not conservative enough, but because he has not been bold enough.  It it is my hope that this will change once Romney’s lock on the nomination becomes undeniable.  At that point, I believe we might very well see Mitt Romney go from playing it safe with his longstanding Republican frontrunner status and begin taking some risks with semi-bold reform proposals designed towardsd providing  TEA movement types and the significant portion of the electorate that shares anti-establishment sentiments,  a reason to believe that Romney will, at the very least, be better for America than Barack Obama.

That leads me to my second prediction and the one that I most confident of.

Come September of 2012, Republicans and even conservatives will have a hard time remembering exactly why the dislike Romney so much.  Many will still be too stubborn to admit that they like Romney, but by the time the Republican convention is over, they will indeed like him.  People do not realize the magic that is a good, well run campaign, but they soon will.  Therefore I am confident when I state that Romney will be far more liked in the latter part of 2012 than he is in the earlier part.

As the groundwork for such an emergence of a new impression of Romney is laid, speculation about who he will choose as his running mate will take on a life of its own.  The undeniable reality of the value that the obvious choice, freshman Florida Senator Marco Rubio,  will dominate, but the likelihood of his willingness to be a vice presidential candidate will probably deny Romney and the G.O.P. the benefit of his place on the ticket.  This will force Mitt Romney and Republican powerbrokers to look for the next best thing.  That search will force the likes of Virginia’s Bob McDonnell, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, and New Jersey’s Chris Christie to be given serious consideration and lead to a media firestorm around their possible candidacies.

Other names that will receive vast attention will come from those who were or are still competing against Romney for the top spot on the ticket. Most of that speculation will swirl around such names as Newt Gingrich, former Minnesota Governor and rival Tim Pawlenty, and former Arkansas Governor and 2008 Romney rival Mike Huckabee.

That will be followed by the names of individuals who were onceconsidered potential Romney rivals for the presidential nomination.

That list will include Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, and South Dakota Senator John Thune.

Then there will come the dark horse contenders.

As the process of picking a runnignmate that can help Romney create the type of balanced ticket which can hammer together a winning electoral coalition entertains such factors as sex, ethnicity, and the need to attract votes in regions that Romney will need to shore up, names like Tennessee’s Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, New Mexico’s Governor Susana Martinez, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, and the darkest of all horses, Puerto Rico Governor Luis Fortuno, will all receive a good degree of attention.

In the end, I believe Rubio and Ryan will not accept the nomination, Gingrich will be passed up because of too much perceived baggage and not enough realized popularity, and the final short list will leave Romney choosing from Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, John  Thune, Susana Martinez, Bob McDonnell, and Chris Christie.  Like Rubio, Jindal will probably reject the offer and  it will most likely come down to Daniels, Thune, Martinez, and Christie.  My instincts suggest that it’s an even chance for either Thune or Martinez to win out over both Christie and Daniels.

Amidst all that drama will come the multiple fights for control, of Congress.

In time, many of the  hard fought individual fights will also take on lives of their own that will grab national headlines and influence national opinions which will ultimately keep Republicans in control of the House.

On the Senate side, I see the G.O.P. taking control by picking off three of the Democrats five most vulnerable incumbents in Michigan, Missouri, and Montana.  They could also possibly take down Bill Nelson of Florida.   Additionally, the G.O.P. will pick up 4 or 5 of the open Democrat seats, winning in Nebraska, North Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin.  A big surprise gain could also come from Connecticut where Joe Lieberman is retiring.  This means a net gain of anywhere from 7  to 9 senate seats and a solid majority of anywhere from 54 to 56 senate seats.  But before Republicans realize those gains, they will get some much needed help from the Democrats that they will fight to take that control from.

I expect several liberal candidates for the House and Senate to generate the type of attention and controversy that will energize conservatives and turn many independent and moderate candidates off and prevent them from getting caught up in any wave of enthusiasm for Democrats. The three liberal candidates who will go too far in their rhetoric and create the type of controversies that will produce a backlash against Democrats in general, are Florida’s Allan Grayson, Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, and Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren.

Grayson,  a Florida liberal, was defeated  in his first attempt at reelection to the House in 2010.  In 2009, his first year in office, Grayson famously took to the floor of the House and claimed that Republicans want senior citizens to to drop dead.  A year later, Floridians told him to drop dead as they gave him the boot and elected conservative Daniel Webster to replace him.

In 2012, Grayson is trying to recapture the seat and while he will fail to do so, he will again go too far and provide fodder for Republicans to use against Democrats.

In Wisconsin openly gay Rep. Tammy Baldwin is running to replace retiring Senator Herb Kohl.  Baldwin’s homosexuality is not necessarily what will make her candidacy so controversial.  However the extremism of the loyal liberal, militant, homosexual lobby that will swoop down upon Wisconsin to influence her election, coupled with Baldwin’s own liberal extremism, will undoubtedly become the epitome of liberal lunacy in the 2012 election cycle.  As such, it will go a long way in providing conservatives with the type of material that can be used nationally as examples of how out of touch President Obama and his Party are with most Americans.

Another campaign that will generate a negative national reaction to the liberalism of today’s mainstream Democrats will be the Senate campaign of Massachusetts liberal Elizabeth Warren.

Warren will be a stereotypical socialist whose extremism will help moderate incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown stay in office for his first full six year tem in the upper federal legislative chamber.

Brown’s 2009 upset victory in the special election to replace the seat long held by Ted Kennedy and his brother before him, was an early indicator of national sentiments that revealed themselves in the 2010 general election.  However, given the ideological bend of the usually deep blue Bay State, in 2012, with an incumbent Democrat president running at the top of the ticket, Scott Brown, even as a moderate Republican, should not have much of a chance for reelection.  But thanks to two factors, he will be reelected.

One of those factors is the lack of popularity for President Obama, even in Massachusetts, and Mitt Romney’s presence on the top ticket for Republicans.  While Romney will still likely lose Massachusetts to Obama, his presence on the ticket will be enough to have a positive effect further down the Republican line.  The other factor will be Warren herself.

Like Baldwin and Grayson, Warren will go too far and become a national example of the dangers of unrestrained liberalism.  In the end, that will be enough for voters of Massachusetts to want to restrain liberal extremism by reelecting Scott Brown.

Another plus will be that Elizabeth Warren will come off as so extreme and arrogant that conservative Republicans will be willing to go out of their way to support Scott Brown over her.  Even those who believe that Brown is little more than a RINO, will find Warren to be so sickeningly left-wing that even a Republican in Name Only will be prefered to the socialism that Warren represents in every way.

On other fronts, the political atmosphere for the White House will continue to sour as circumstances involving Fast & Furious and Solyndra turn in to scandals that help establish strong evidence of the Administration’s incomptenece and lack of ethics.

The economy will also remain a main issue but it is likely to bottom out during 2012 and after four years, a resilient and innovative American population will have begin to move beyond the dismal economy that has become the economic norm under Barack Obama.  With no thanks to liberal economics and governance, the natural ability for Americans to adapt and to overcome hardship will begin to lead the way for a mild, citizen backed recovery of sorts that is based on American’s inherent ability to deal on their own with economic stagnation, high unemployment, and federal obstacles to growth.  This will not be enough to make most people feel secure enough about the economy, but it will provide enough stabilization for Democrats and President Obama to try to exploit by claiming they have guided us through the worst part of our most difficult economic times since the Great Depression.  The case will not be a strong one, but with a campaign war chest of nearly a billion dollars, it will be one that G.O.P. will have to strongly counter or else they will risk the possibility of having too many voters actually believing the claim.

But Republicans will get some help when the Bush tax cuts that Democrats caved in to extending, but for only a year, come back up for debate.  The timing during the course of the election will give Obama and Democrats the opportunity to again overplay their class warfare arguments and overextend themselves in their committment to being the Party of big government and big spending.

Then there are the supreme court cases that will help polarize the electorate and motivate both sides of the spectrum.

How the Supreme Court will rule in both the case of Arizona’s creation and enforcement of tough new state anti-illegal immigrant laws and on the new national healthcare law, will have at least a minimal effect on the election but even just a minimal effect could be enough to swing the electoral votes of critical swing states.  In the case of the Arizona anti-immigration law, a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Arizona could unleash an unprecedented mobilization  against Republicans by Hispanic voters who happen to heavily populate swing states like Colorado, Nevada, and maybe most pivotal of all, New Mexico.   ‘

In consideration of the Obama national healthcare law, a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the law, would go a long way in producing a strongly motivated anti-Obama vote in the general election and help swing critical states like Ohio and Florida to the Republicans.

The way I see it, the Supreme Court due in large part to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s own swing vote,  will rule against  Arizona’s anti-immigration laws based primarily on the argument that  it is preempted by federal law and foreign policy, and violates the Supremacy and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution.   That ruling will subsequently motivate the anti-Obama vote more than the anti-Republican vote.

On Obamacare, I am totally in the dark.  How that will go is in great doubt given Antonin Scalia’s previous interpretations of the federal commerce clause.  President Obama could actually benefit if he were to lose the case on the grounds that the national healthcare law exceeds the constitutional powers of the federal government and that it can not in fact force Americans to purchase something.   Such a ruling would remove some of the motivational momentum behind President Obama’s limited government enemies and his liberal base may become more fired up to turn out and vote for him.  Winning the case would simply be added stimulation for his opposition.  But which way Scalia and Kennedy go on that one is anyone’s guess.

While I am too unsure to go out a limb on those court cases, I am not too unsure of the outcome of the general election.

By the time the new political year begins to close this November, I do predict that the presidential election will be far closer than some may think, at least as far as the popular vote goes, but it will not necessarily be so close in the electoral college vote.

The way I see it, Republicans will have a lock on 258 electoral votes while President Obama will only have a likely 222 electoral votes readily available for him.  In between the two will be 5 undecided states with a combined total of 58 electoral votes.  Those states will be Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  The only way for President Obama to win will be by winning a combination of 4 states that inlcludes Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Those two states will be must wins.  That leaves him with three winning combinations.

For Republicans, they will have any one 4 winning combinations available to them. And two of those winning combinations do not require either Pennsylvania or Ohio.  I am  not quite sure what combination they will end up with but I am confident that they will win with at least 272 electoral votes and possibly as many as 316 electoral votes.  However, I think there is a very good possibility for this to be another rare presidential election that sees the candidate who receives the most popular votes, be on the losing end of the electoral college.

Given the existing imbalance in popularity that President Obama experiences in densely populated states like New Jersey, and urban dominated states such as New York, and California, the chances of him receiving more popular votes than a Republican candidate racking up big majorities in many relatively sparsely populated, rural states like Montana, Utah, and Idaho, but losing the electoral college,  is becoming increasingly likely .

Given that possibility, I can only be certain that if my prognostications which are more suspicion than prediction, happen to come to fruition, the only real certainty we can predict is that after the 2012 elections, the American electorate will be either just  as polarized as it is now,  or even more so than it currently is.

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: