Tag Archives: presidential debates

President Obama’s State-by-State Job Approval Numbers Mean He’s Headed for a 1 Term Presidency

Bookmark and Share Gallup recently released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers and the results paint several pretty dismal pictures for the President, pictures that reflects the overall dismal economic condition that that the nation is in.reside
According to the analysis the President received a plurality of approval from residents of only the District of Columbia and 10 states, while his job approval was below 50% in the remaining forty states. Furthermore; in a majority of them, his approval was well below 45%.

This analysis is particularly troublesome given that while the President’s job approval rating nationally is below the 50% mark, the President’s reelection rests not within the national opinion as much as it does within the collective electoral college results that arrived at through the opinions reflected in each individual state. And while a Real Clear Politics average of national polls put the Presidents approval rating at 46.5% and his disapproval rating is at 47.9%, what the Gallup state-by-state analysis shows is that the President’s challenge is actually tougher than the national polls indicate.

Gallup points out that President Obama received a 44% job approval rating in his third year in office, which is down from 47% in his second year. If that trend were to continue, Ron Paul could be nominated by the G.O.P. and probably defeat President Obama handily. But reality dictates that Ron Paul will never see the light of day as a Republican presidential nominee, and that President Obama’s numbers are not likely to trend downward as he embarks upon a billion dollar campaign that will seek to rehabilitate his own image while eviscerating the image of his Republican opponent.

However, if the President finds his reelection effort failing to reverse the trend of his existing numbers and change the opinions that voters have of him now, he is doomed. Based upon the current trend, If the President were to only carry those states in the Gallup poll which he he had a net positive approval rating in 2011, he would lose the 2012 election with 215 electoral votes, to the Republican nominee’s 323 electoral votes.

A White House 2012 breakdown of the Gallup study demonstrates how daunting a challenge lies ahead for President Obama.

Based upon his current state-by-state approval ratings, if we give President Obama each state where his rating is at 50% or above, he would lose the election by winning 159 electoral college votes from D.C., California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont. The Republican nominee would receive 379 electoral votes, 109 more than needed.

But White House 2012 tried to be a bit more realistic and decided to breakdown these numbers down by giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt by assuming he can turn his numbers around in all those states where his approval was as low as 45%.

That was not only generous, it was also responsible for a fairly more accurate picture of things.

Regardless of the numbers, there are some states that will not likely vote Republican regardless of how bad a job President Obama is doing or who the Republican presidential nominee is. States like Washington and Oregon on the West Coast will probably remain dark blue and the president may easily turn around his downward trending approval ratings among the liberal sympathisers of those states. That accounts for 19 more electoral votes. Then you can easily see the President take Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan in the Midwest. That’s 36 more electoral votes. Then because his numbers are barely above 45% in Iowa, let’s say he can pull off some magic there, a state which he won in 2008. That’s 6 more. Then on the East Coast, you’ll find Maine, and Rhode Island remaining true blue. That’s another 8 electoral votes. And throw in Pennsylvania too if for no other than reason than the Southeast portion of the state may still be strongly under the President’s spell. That’s 20 more for a total shift of 89 electoral votes which gives President Obama 248 to the G.O.P.’s 290, a figure that still gives the win to the Republican nominee with 20 more electoral votes than needed.

With 29 electoral votes, this would make Florida the key to the President’s winning reelection. Without it he needs Ohio with 18 electoral votes and at least one of the following other states; Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, or North Carolina.

Those four states are not goof for him right now, but he has better numbers in them than he does in other states like New Hampshire or Arizona.

But even these state’s will be hard for Obama. Currently his job approval is 40.4% in Colorado, 41.7% in New Mexico, 41.3% in Nevada, and 43.7% in North Carolina. Meanwhile his approval numbers in Florida and Ohio are at 43.6% and 42.1% respectively.

While turning these numbers around will not be impossible in the course of the lifetime that politically speaking, exists between now and November, doing so will be quite a dramatic achievement. One that may require not just a well run campaign on the President’s part, but also a badly managed campaign on the part of whoever his Republican opponent is.

On a sidenote, I can not figure out for the life of me how the President’s job approval rating went up in a place like Wyoming. It went up slightly in Connecticut and Maine, but those two states are known for the lunacy of their liberalism and in many cases their socialism. But Wyoming?

As for the final outcome, no one can honestly say they know how the election will end. But based upon a bit of instinct, the issues that will play out during the campaign, and the existing numbers, I offer my own following projections.

It should be noted that if this scenario does come to fruition, there is the potential for an Electoral College crisis, for it offers the possibility of a tie in the Electoral College:

However I do not suspect that such a tie will occur because of the battleground states that I believe this will come down to, I foresee Republicans winning Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Mexico.

Bookmark and Share
Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Santorum Ad Tells Us What the “DEAL” with Newt Gingrich is

Bookmark and Share Fresh off of his poor third place showing in Florida, Rick Santorum is trying to take advantage of Newt Gingrich’s big 15% second place loss to Mitt Romney in the Sunshine State by reclaiming the title of “conservative alternative” to Mitt Romney, the big winner in Tuesday’s primary contest [see the ad below this post].

The ad entitled “Deal”, is a very powerful condemnation of Gingrich which catches you off guard with opening arguments that would have you think the ad is comparing Santorum to his three Republican rivals, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul. It claims that the three politicians in question support legislative policies which are conservative anathema; Cap-and-Trade, amnesty, and the government bailouts. It would be bad enough for Santorum’s Republican rivals to have to wear all three of those issues around their necks, but the surprise comes when it is revealed that three politicians in question are not Romney, Paul, and Gingrich but rather President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Newt Gingrich.

The surprise comparison is twice as debilitating for Gingrich because while you might expect Mitt Romney to be accused of being too liberal, this ad avoids Romney and shockingly puts Newt Gingrich in an entirely differently league, one that puts him directly in the room with iconic liberals Obama and Pelosi.

The ad happens to be one of the most effective of this campaign cycle to date. It is produced well and is quite creative. It also presents Santorum’s case against Newt in a way that avoids being overly outlandish and to the point of being too hard to believe.

Yet while the ad is quite good, it is also indicative of the unfortunate position that Rick Santorum finds himself in. This ad pits him against Newt Gingrich, not frontrunner Mitt Romney, and it signals the fact that Santorum knows he is still competing in a primary within the primary………. the conservative primary within the Republican primary. It demonstrates that Rick Santorum is in a desperate fight to just get in to the race against Mitt Romney.

The good news for Santorum is that it is quite possible that conservatives have not yet ensconced themselves in Newt’s camp and Rick could still possibly win over a majority of them. One most notable conservative to recently go to Santorum’s side is Michele Malkin, a talking head with a considerably large conservative following. But at the same time it is a little late in this race for Santorum to hope his horse places or shows when the only ticket he can cash in on is the one to win.

But hope springs eternal and this ad is has a spin on it that forces me to give Rick Santorum a lot of credit, even though I believe it will help Mitt Romney than it will help Santorum.

5 Comments

Filed under politics

OBAMAGATE – CAMPAIGNING FOR A COMMUNIST KENYAN COUSIN

This is a tale of two campaigns.  An honest tale that involves a young, newly elected United States Senator named Barack Obama and a Kenyan cousin from the African Luo tribe named Raila Odinga.

Obama took his family on what was an official United States “fact finding mission” to Kenya in 2006. What facts were to be found on this taxpayer funded expedition are not clear to me, but they are also unimportant when compared to the facts about the trip itself.

While in there, Barack Obama not only found facts he found a candidate that wanted his support. That candidate was his cousin, Raila Odinga, the leader of Kenya’s largest opposition party. A socialist party called the Orange Democratic Movement and Raila Odinga was the ODM’s nominee for President.

Odinga is the son of the late Jaramogi Oginga Odinga , the former Kenyan communist opposition leader. Before the end of the Cold War , he was educated in the communist nation of, what at the time, was called East Germany. He even named his eldest son after Cuba’s communist leader, Fidel Castro.

All of this gives you a clue as to where Raila Odinga’s political allegiances lie, at least it would to most people, but not to Barack Obama. No, apparently Barack didn’t know, or if he did, he didn’t care because Obama decided to go out and campaign for Odinga. This sitting United states Senator actually used the money of American taxpayers for a trip in which he campaigned for another nation’s President. Not only that but all along the way, at each and every campaign event for Odinga, Barack Obama handed out American flags with his own face imprinted on them.

If you are wondering what the big deal is, let me spell it out for you.

Barack Obama used a taxpayer funded, government sanctioned, fact funding trip to campaign for a presidential nominee in another country. Not only was that wrong, it was poor judgment, especially when you consider the fact that the candidate he campaigned for was the communist leader of a socialist party.

But it goes much deeper than that.

Ralia Odinga did not win his election. He ran a campaign that oddly enough was quite similar to the one that Obama is running now. Official ODM campaign documents, which were shared with Obama, run with the themes of change and hope, among other things.

Odinga lost by 231,728 votes. Out of about 9 million votes cast, it was a close race but a defeat nonetheless. However, Odinga did not accept the results of the election. Instead he actually called for demonstrations which led to ethnic warfare. In regards to Raila Odinga’s efforts, the group Human Rights Watch stated there is “evidence that the ODM formented post election violence” and as a result thousands were killed and more were injured and displaced.

Because of Odinga’s refusal to accept the results of the election, his tribal faction participated in an ethnic cleansing of the Kikuyu opposition and Christians who did not support Odinga.  With chants of ‘No Raila, No Peace”, a church was even overtaken and it’s inhabitants beaten and stabbed and left to burn as they set it on fire. Those who were able to flee were tracked down and killed.

The violence raged on for weeks until the duly elected President, Mwai Kibaki caved in and in an attempt to save his people, entered into a power sharing arrangement in which Kibaki kept the title of President but Odinga was named prime Minister.

Since then the conditions have been tenuous. And the two have agreed to split the selection of cabinet ministers but Odinga has been operating on his own and those actions have not been in the best of democracy. In August of 2007 Odinga signed an agreement with the National Muslim Forum.  In exchange for their support he vowed to end Kenya’s support with the U.S. in the war On Terror.

All of this begs to question why Barack Obama used taxpayer’s money in an attempt to promote Raila Odinga’s elevation to President of Kenya? How could he use a government sanctioned event to elect a communist leader to a nation that was allied with us in the War On Terror? The issue calls into question, not only his judgment, but his ethics.

There are some quarters, which I am not among, that call into question whether or not this would-be-President of the United States ’s actions for Odinga, violated the law and if he should be indicted.

The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization. That being the case one, must now ask, what arrangement was made between Raila Odinga and Barack Obama?

I do not see this as meeting the legal standards of an impeachable offense that could strip Obama of his senate seat, but others do. Such a determination, in my opinion, would hinge on the fact that at the time, any arrangement that Obama made with Odinga cannot be construed as one being conducted with “the nation” (of Kenya), as explained in the Logan Act. Odigna was not President at the time. He was only running for President so I do not believe that it can be said Obama negotiated or made a deal with Kenya.

Even if my determination is correct and the Logan Act does not apply to this case, my greatest concern is Barck Obama becoming President Obama. As President, will he carry out the same kind of judgment that he did in endorsing Ralia Odigna for President of Kenya? Will Obama apologize for working to put a murderous despot like Ralia Odinga into power? And even if he did, can we trust that he will not take the side of those who enter into opposition of freedom and the United States?

I have consistently repeated that Barack Obama has no record of accomplishment. Well I was wrong. From unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers to Raila Odigna, Barack Obama has a consistent record of tying himself to those who work against America. To those whom oppose all that we represent and strive for. Barack Obama has a consistent record of being wrong and if you want proof, all you have to do is look to Kenya and Raila Odnga.

2 Comments

Filed under politics

IF A DEAL IS NOT MET, POSTPONE THE DEBATE. PUT COUNTRY BEFORE POLITICS

McCain Putting Country First

McCain Putting Country First

Days ago I wondered why aren’t the two men who are sitting, United States Senators, and running to assume the presidency of the United States, actively involved in the proposed, largest in history, government bailout and economic initiative that we are about implement? It would only seem logical that their potential leadership as presidents be applied in this process.

This past Wednesday, John McCain took to thinking the same way. He announced that he would suspend all of his normal campaign activities, including a scheduled debate on foreign affairs, in order to actively participate in shaping the rushed legislation to correct the economic woes that exist within several sectors of the financial market . He called upon Barack Obama to do the same.

Contrary to the opinion of critics and liberals, this was a move that called for a cessation in the political pugilism of a campaign and replace it with action. The economic policy initiative being worked on here is a an expensive proposal that requires due diligence and attention. By suspending the political exploitation of the issue to participate in the process and allow for proper attention to it, John McCain has once again put country first and shown us that he is serving a cause greater than self.

John McCain has been in the lead on this issue since 2005 when he put forward Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. It was a measure that would have prevented the lack of proper regulation and recording practices that allowed the current crisis to get to this point. Democrats, including the current chairmen of the house and senate committees responsible for such legislation, blocked it.

Liberals Chris Dodd and Barney Franks are the Chairmen of the committees which oversaw the very aspects of the process which led to the crisis we are now in. Suddenly they are working together, holding hearings and trying to hammer out a solution to a problem that has now exploded. Where have they been prior to this? For them to suggest that John McCain is not needed to solve this crisis and that he need not to suspend his campaign to address the issue properly is preposterous. He is a sitting Senator, as is Obama. Since 2005, McCain has tried to avoid the problem we are now facing and led the way to prevent it. For the last two years, his first years in the senate, Barack Obama has campaigned for President. I would suggest that of the two, John McCain is the more rational voice on the issue. His actions to postpone that which would distract from the dire attention needed for this bailout package are not only right, they are prudent.

Detractors claim that this a political ploy. They suggest that a President must be able to handle more than one issue at a time. That is true, however, a President must also be able to demonstrate that he can properly prioritize issues and actions. A president needs the instincts and judgment that allows fellow Americans to understand the urgency of a situation. When 9/11 struck, we accepted it’s obvious importance as the most immediate concern to our nation and we accepted the postponement of other priorities in order to focus on the main concern. The failing of certain sectors of the financial market does not compare to the tragedy and horror of 9/11 but it does represent the necessity for the same type of urgency for action and attention.

I am concerned with the rush of pork barrel spending, legislators to craft a 700 billion dollar legislative initiative. I understand the need for the relatively quick development of the initiative but quick is not what the government is good at. They botch up things that they work on for years, yet we are  suppose to be confident in something that they throw together in days.

That being said, since there is the need for congress to quickly come up with a package that corrects certain wrongs before they start infecting other areas of our economy, I want them to spend the few days in question working on it, focused on it and not distracted from it. I want McCain’s input and leadership on this issue. I want attention to detail that opposes any last minute, unaffiliated, pork barrel measures added on to this bill. I do not want to see the crisis used as a political game with bumper sticker slogans being used to solve the problem.

If this budget bailout package is not worked out in time for Friday’s debate, than so be it. The work to create a truly proper and effective bailout package will still need to be done and I would not mind the two candidates applying themselves to it. One of the two will inherit an administration that will have to deal with the results of this legislation and I prefer them to work on it. I do not want them to be debating foreign affairs while our

Obama, Putting Politics First

Obama, Putting Politics First

nation deals with the most drastic measures in the history of economic affairs.

You can call McCain’s suspension of regular campaign activity a ploy but I call it a judgment call that demonstrates his sincere sense of responsibility and desire to put country first. Barack Osama’s “call me if you need me” attitude democrats the judgment of his “above my pay grade attitude. Both men are elected representatives in the United states Senate and both men have responsibilities to that position. Barack Obama is taking that responsibility lightly and putting his campaign for president first.

 

Rules Of Washington

If it’s worth fighting for, it’s worth fighting dirty for.

Don’t lie, cheat or steal…unnecessarily.

There is always one more son of a bitch than you counted on.

An honest answer can get you into a lot of trouble.

The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant.

Chicken little only has to be right once.

“NO” is only an interim response.

You can’t kill a bad idea.

If at first you don’t succeed, destroy all evidence that you ever tried.

The truth is a variable.

A porcupine with his quills down in just another fat rodent.

You can agree with any concept or notional future option, in principle, but fight implementation every step of the way.

A promise is not a guarantee.

If you can’t counter the argument, leave the meeting

3 Comments

Filed under politics