Tag Archives: the 2010 midterm elections

Rejection Day 2010. Will It Deny President Obama His Party’s Nomination in 2012?

Bookmark and Share In 2010, the first Tuesday in November will bring the dawning of a very significant day in our history. A day that could effect this nation quite profoundly for years to come. For many it is Election Day, but for Democrats it is looking more and more like it will be Rejection Day.

Not only will it set an early tone for the presidential election of 2012, it will have a significant impact on the Obama policy direction and the pace in which those policies are implemented . It could even lead to the repeal and undoing of many of those policies which Obama has already adopted.

These midterms elections will also have a dramatic effect on all the elections to come for the next decade, as a total of 39 states hold state legislative and gubernatorial elections.

These elections will produce the state legislators and governors who will draw the new congressional and legislative districts that are created every ten years after the national census results are in . And the Party in control of each state legislature and executive mansion will pretty much draw district lines that will help keep them in control by gerrymandering districts that are favorable to them.

Given the added pressure of the ramifications of redistricting, this year’s midterm elections are more important than most. And at the moment, for Democrats, these pivotal midterm elections are looking more and more like they will produce crushing blows to their majorities, egos, and ideological direction.

As President Obama’s popularity continues to hemorrhage as profusely as the undersea geyser in the Gulf, Democrats allover the nation are finding themselves weighed down by their standard bearer and as more and more Americans are getting more and more dissatisfied with the their Party’s total control of the federal government, Democrats are also finding themselves on the run, with no place to hide and no cover from voter anger.

This situation could turn around but with less than 5 months to go before Rejection Day, it should be noted that historically, voters attitudes do not usually change dramatically in the last closing months of an election cycle . In fact more often than not, negative sentiments towards incumbents usually get even worse as time goes by. In the case of Democrats the trend towards the negative has been going on now for more than a year, and there is little if any evidence to show that things are about to turn around for them in just a few months.

That negativity is not just a product of Independent and Republican voters. A recent USA TODAY survey showed that only a mere 35% of Democrat and Democrat-leaning voters were “more enthusiastic than usual” about voting in November. That number is down eight percent since May and 22 percent since March, the lowest that enthusiasm has been for Democrats since 1998.

This means that even the Democrat base is turning their backs on Democrat incumbents and without that base, Democrats are going to have an extremely difficult time trying to maintain control of the Senate and House as well as many of the statehouses and legislatures that will draw the new district lines in which future elections will be held.

The conditions that got Democrats into this position is no one faults except President Obama’s. With Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid at his side, he took the hopes of many misguided Americans who elected him in 2008 and in less than two years, trounced those hopes and turned enthusiastic support in to bitter distrust and disgust.

After a year and a half of blaming everything on George Bush, Obama’s miracle spending elixir that was suppose to spend us into prosperity has produced nothing but mounting debt and steady levels of record high unemployment rates and low consumer confidence. In fact as many as 45% of the population now blames the poor economy on President Obama’s policies.

Not only do many Americans now oppose Obamanomics, a great multitude of them are turned off by many other policies that the President once called “hope”, and beyond that many even oppose the way in which Obama and his Democrat led Senate and House go about conducting business. The process to pass the government takeover of healthcare alone, revealed fatal flaws in the way they conduct business, flaws that will each be turned into powerful campaign ads against incumbents who supported the government takeover of healthcare.

The passage of Obamacare revealed a process so riddled with deception and corruption that some Democrats became so disgusted with the process that they switched parties and in one case, one Democrat Senator even decided to retire because of it.

Between hundreds of millions of dollars being offered to legislators for their votes, exempting themselves from the very legislation that they force on the rest of America, voting on legislation without even reading it and attempts to pass laws without even voting for them but instead just “deeming’ them as passed, much of the Democrat voting base finds themselves embarrassed by their Party and its conduct.

Combine these themes with the Presidents refusal to allow for an independent prosecutor to investigate corruption within the Administration regarding illegal job offers that attempted to influence federal elections, the Administration’s souring of relations and even offensive treatment of out greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel, the President’s desire to sue the state of Arizona for adopting and enforcing the same immigration laws that the federal government has, but refuses to uphold , and the mishandling of the oil disaster and ensuing environmental and economic crisis in the Gulf states, and what you have is a Democrat Party that is bracing for punishment for the helping hand they have given to a President who has done about as much for America as he has for the waters of the Gulf.

That is why for Democrats, this November 2nd will not be Election Day, it will be Rejection Day.

Never before has a political Party faced a potential reversal of fortunes as dramatic as the one before them now. In the House, Republicans need 39 seats to take control. Currently, they are sure to pick up 32 seats. But at least seven more are not out of reach.

In the Senate, Republicans need 9 seats for majority control and right now they have 7 towards that goal. But with states like California, Colorado, Nevada, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio all being toss-ups at the moment, there does exist a decent chance of finding the two seats needed.

Although some knowledgeable and often correct insider believe that the GOP is on the way to picking up as many as 70 new House seats and 10 new Senate seats, let us just say for a moment that Republicans only pick up the 32 House and 7 Senate seats thay they are now clear leaders in. That scenario will produce majorities that are way too close for comfort for Democrats. There will be little room for Democrats to lose any Democrat votes on any issue. That will either force the President and his Democrat House and Senate leaders to scale back a radical liberal agenda that is proving unpopular and hope to cut down on their losses in 2012, or they could just go for broke and polarize the electorate even more than it currently is, by forging ahead with their agenda in the hopes that they can pass all they want before they lose it all in November of 2012.

But if Republicans do take back control of both houses of Congress or even just the House of Representatives, things will get even more interesting around here.

If Democrats lose control of Congress in a matter of just two short years, the Democrat Party will implode and President Obama will prove to have been the fuse that led to it.

If Democrats are beaten as bad as they may very well be, not only will Republicans have a crowded field of contenders vying for the GOP presidential nomination, Democrats might also see their own unexpected fight for their party’s presidential nomination.

Unless President Obama can survive totally betraying his liberal base and suddenly reverse ideological course by moderating his policies, some Democrats may see denying him the nomination as crucial to their Party’s short term survival.

One Democrat that would be in great position to steel that nomination away from the President would be retiringIndiana Senator Evan Bayh.

After announcing that he would retire at the end of this term because he is disgusted with the politics of Washington, Bayh is the perfect “anti-Obama” for Democrats seeking to improve their chances of survival. He is a seasoned and popular leader from America’s heartland who has legislative experience in Washington and as a former governor, also has executive experience.

Bayh is also seen as relatively conservative, something which Democrats are beginning to realize they need to have more of if they wish to be taken seriously by moderates and the all important Independent voter.

Having set the stage for an anti-establishment, anti-Washington campaign after his public denunciation of politics as usual during his retirement announcement, Bayh could have set the stage for a potential and rare challenge to a sitting President for his parties nomination.

But even more than a possible challenge from Evan Bayh is the increasingly legitimate opportunity for a challenge from a former opponent of President Obama………Hillary Clinton.

In the 2008 primaries, Democrats were almost evenly split between Clinton and Obama and although Obama ultimately received the most delegates after Hillary agreed to withdraw from the race, there were many states where she did beat the President by significant numbers and lately many of the voters in those states are making it a point to mention that they voted for her, not Barack Obama.

In fact, many Democrat and Independent voters have begun to sense that she should have been the nominee, not Barack Obama.

Now, two years later, after Barack Obama essentially endorsed Hillary Clinton’s leadership on the world stage by making her his Secretary State, if she were to resign and start running against the President, she might just be in a great position to diminish any criticism that President Obama would throw at her. Furthermore; Hillary could actually attract and earn the support of all those who have come to feel betrayed and disappointed by Barack Obama.

According to Rasmussen‘s daily tracking poll of the President, only 29% of those polled strongly approve of President Obama’s job performance while 44% strongly disapprove of his job performance and right now there is no indication of there being anything on the horizon that can help him improve those numbers.

In truth, after seeing President Obama turn his poorly received national address over the disaster in the Gulf into an excuse for passage of an unpopular Cap-and-Trade policy that would decimate our already battered economy, it looks like President Obama’s desire to spend, tax and invent more unpopular national policies, will only help to suppress his popularity and that of his Party‘s, even further.

If Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010 does turn out to be the Rejection Day that many predict it to be for Democrats, we might expect to see a halt to the extremist agenda that President Obama promised when he vowed to be a transformative figure in American politics.

When in 1994, the poor performance of the Clinton Administration produced the Republican revolution that put the GOP in control of the House and Senate for the first time in 4 decades, the Clintons reversed course and moderated their initiatives and policies to a degree. This President though, seems unwilling to accept failure or being wrong. President Obama’s natural arrogance and belief that he knows what is best for all Americans, despite what they want, is likely to force him to stay the course and just try to repackage his brand of European socialism differently than he has up to now.

But will the rest of his Party follow suit?

Democrats in the House probably will.

San Francisco’s Nancy Pelosi will be reelected to her seat in Congress and she will more than likely be reelected to lead House Democrats, whether that is as Speaker of the House or House Minority Leader is still a question though. But either way, the House Democrat leadership will continue to walk in lockstep with the President.

But not so will Senate Democrats.

Senate Democrats are likely to see their own Senate President, Harry Reid, lose his bid for re-election and even if Republicans do not take control of the Senate, as expected, the close split between Republicans and Democrats will be too close for comfort for those Democrats who will be up for reelection in 2012, when President Obama is suppose to be at the top of their ticket.

This will force many Democrats in the Senate to distance themselves as far away from President Obama as possible and it will make for a very poor support system of the President’s policies during the last two year’s of his term in office.

And if Rejection Day does turn out to be a dramatically profound beating of Democrats and puts Republicans back in control of one or both houses of Congress, expect to see first, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, resign. Then not long after that, expect to see Hillary Clinton step down as Secretary of State. Once that happens you can anticipate Rahm Emanuel, an old, close ally and friend of the Clinton’s, to join forces with Hillary and lay the ground work for a challenge to President Obama for their Party’s presidential nomination.

All of this hinges on what this year, we are calling Rejection Day.

If Rejection Day 2010 produces the extraordinary number of Democrat losses that many expect, the course for a profound change in American history will be put in place during the two years to follow.

Bookmark and Share
Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under politics

Normally Liberal Friendly Northeast Is Not Looking So Friendly To Democrats in 2010

Bookmark and Share    Throughout its recent history, the Northeast has not generally been friendly to Republicans but in recent years it has been downright unfriendly to them, and in Congress, Northeastern Republicans are now almost extinct.

Comprised of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the six New England states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont, the Northeast sends a combined total of 83 representatives to Congress, or about 20% of the total representation that the country has in the House of Representatives. Of those 83, only 13 are Republican. States like Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island have not even a single Republican representing them in the House.

It was not always that way.

Much more political parody did once exist, but over the course of the last two decades, all parody was lost. Coincidentally, this decrease in Republican representation correlated with a decreasing growth of population in the Northeast. The region has been losing many residents to the South and to the West and as a result, not only are their fewer Republican representatives in that corner of the country, with less population, there are fewer congressional districts as well.

Between the 1980, 1990 and 2000 censuses, states like New York lost 10 congressional districts. In 1980 they lost five seats, in 1990 they lost three more and in 2000 they lost another two. The declining growth of population took the Empire State from 39 seats in 1980 to 29 seats in 2010.

New York was the hardest hit but most all the of the Northeast lost seats. New Jersey has lost 2 seats and Pennsylvania saw a decline of 6 seats.

Now with the region already having one of its lowest ever percentages of representation in the Capitol, after the 2010 census figures come out, they are expected to lose even more representation.

But another change may also be sweeping the region.

As resentment towards the Democrat controlled government increases, the anger is even seeping into the normally liberal friendly Northeast.

In states like Pennsylvania, not only are Republicans likely to maintain their hold on the six seats they currently occupy, but they are on the verge of picking as many as six new Republican seats. While in New York, in addition to the paltry two Republican seats that are in their column now, they are looking at picking up as many as 8 new Republican seats.

But the gains are not limited to the states with the largest delegations.

Rhode Island which has two seats could see a seat change in the district currently held by Senator Ted Kennedy’s son, Patrick.

After representing his Rhode Island district, now for eight terms, Patrick Kennedy woke up one morning to a WPRI-News 12 poll that stated the results showed him to be in for the race of his life with only 35% of the voters saying that they would vote for Patrick Kennedy again.

Since then, Patrick Kennedy has announced that he is retiring and not running for a ninth term in Congress.

South of the Ocean State, Connecticut is spicing things up with more than just nutmeg as they find two seats heavily in play and likely to swing in favor of Republicans. And North of the Ocean State, the Bay State of Massachusetts which sent a wave change sweeping through the nation after Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat, they may elect two new Republicans to Congress.

Of the two congressional seats occupied by Democrats in the Granite State, New Hampshire voters are looking to likely replace incumbent Democratic Carol Shea-Porter and pick up the Democrat seat that is being vacated by Congressman Paul Hodes, who is seeking the US Senate seat that is held by retiring Republican Senator Judd Gregg.

In New Jersey, one seat looks likely to change hands and go to the G.O.P. but as many as two more could follow.

The changing face of the congressional makeup of the Northeast is a powerful sign of things to come nationally. It is the strongest region for Democrats in the country but in the 2010 midterm elections it will produce some of the weakest results possible for Democrats. They are results that put the fear of God into them when they look at Republican strongholds such as the South and the West.

Add to that bad numbers and lagging prospects in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states and what you have is a Democrat Party that is running for cover. Unfortunately for them, it looks like the leader of their Party, President Barack Obama, won’t be able to provide that cover. In fact, it would seem that he is why they need it in the first place. Just ask Creigh Deeds of Virginia, Jon Corzine of New Jersey and Martha Coakley of Massachusetts. All of them used Barry in their campaigns but now after sound defeats at the hands of the voters, they will all probably be among the first to tell you that if you want any chance of winning, keep the President as far away as possible.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Politcal Bloodbath Shapes Up In Illinois – Kirk & Giannoulias Win Their Primaries

Bookmark and Share   And they’re off!
`
The race for President Obama’s old Senate seat in Illinois has its official slate of candidates after last night‘s primary election. You remember the seat we‘re talking about. It’s the one that went up for auction by Illinois Democrat Governor Rod Blagojevich when Barry got elected President.

After the scandal plagued process to fill the vacancy created by then Senator Obama’s victory, under a shroud of doubt, Roland Burris was appointed by Blago and he has been keeping the seat warm ever since. Well now the race to replace Burris is set. On the Democrat side Alexi Giannoulias took the nomination for himself after defeating four others and beating his closest rival by 6%.

On the Republican side, Congressman Mark Kirk fought off five contenders and won the GOP nomination in a landslide that had him swamp his closest opponent by a whopping 37%.

Democrat Primary Results

  1.   Giannoulias   345,265    39%
  2.     Hoffman             298,845    33%
  3.     Jackson              174,433    19%
  4.     Marshall              50,725      5%
  5.     Meister                16,000       1%

Republican Primary Results

  1. Kirk              416,853         56%
  2. Hughes           141,751          19%
  3. Lowery            65,771            8%
  4. Thomas            53,673            7%
  5. Martin               37,201            5%
  6. Arrington        20,888             2%

Sounds to me like Republicans are more sure of their nominee than Democrats are with their candidate. And with good reason.

Giannoulias is the State Treasurer of Illinois. It is a job he got after he defeated State Senator Christine Rodagno in 2006 for the open seat. Part of his successful aura was based on his supposed knowledge of finances. Giannoulias’ daddy owns banks and he had his son help manage a few of them.

The ironic part of all this is, since Democrats have tried to shift attention away from their failed government takeover of healthcare, they have made banks the enemy. The President has made speech after speech about how banks are bad and how we must punish them. So now the father-made boy banker ends up being the Democrat’s nominee for Senate. I guess only those banks that don’t fund Democrats and their cronies are bad.

Which brings us to this commercial.

Without skipping a beat, the NRSC, jumped on the odd selection of Giannoulias as their standard bearer, especially given his ties to and support for some of Chicago’s shadiest characters.

The ad gives scandal plagued Illinois voters a reason to think twice about pulling the lever for another politician who is knee deep in questionable ethics and ties to corruption.

As for Republicans, Mark Kirk is really not someone who inspires conservatives. After being one of only 8 Republicans to vote for the liberal Cap-and-Trade, environmental tax scheme, Kirk passes no litmus tests. But hey, aren’t litmus tests suppose to be politically incorrect? So I guess you can say that Kirk is the politically correct candidate.

As for Giannoulias, in his victory speech he told Mark Kirk “come November, your days as a Washington insider are over”. That’s pretty funny coming from a man who has made his money from his daddy’s business and pals around with Washington insider’s like President Obama while financing Chicago political insiders like convicted slumlord Tony Rezko. Leave it to a liberal to show their hypocritical stripes.

Giannoulias is as much an insider as long serving Washington insider, Vice President Joe Biden.

Back in 2006, Crain’s Chicago Business’ reported:

Just why did Sen. Obama last week endorse for Illinois treasurer an unknown 29-year-old whose financial experience is limited to working at a family-owned Chicago bank, and who, as recently as five years ago, was shooting professional hoops as point guard with team Panionios of Athens, Greece?” (Greg Hinz, Op-Ed, “Halo Tarnish,” Crain’s Chicago Business, 12/12/05)

Beyond that, the record shows the following insider history;  

  • The Giannoulias family introduced Barack Obama to powerful contributors and raised About $100,000 for his senate race. (Greg Hinz, Op-Ed, “Halo Tarnish,” Crain’s Chicago Business, 12/12/05)
  • President Obama kept his senate campaign funds at Broadway Bank, one of the banks owned by Gianoulas (John T. Slania, “On Broadway: City’s Most Profitable Bank,” Crain’s Chicago Business, 10/25/04)
  • Giannoulias hosted a fundraiser for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign back in 2007. (Lynn Sweet, “State Giannoulias Hosts Obama Funder In Chicago,” Chicago Sun-Times’ “Lynn Sweet” Blog, blogs.suntimes.com, 9/5/07)
  • Since 2003, as a bundler for Obama’s presidential campaign, Giannoulias contributed at least $7,000 to the President’s Senate campaign. (CQ Money Line Website, moneyline.cq.com, Accessed 6/21/08)

President Obama himself stated;

“I’ve got a very personal relationship with Alexi … He was critical for me in terms of reaching out to the Greek community, other ethnic communities in the city. He was there from the start, when people didn’t give me a shot.” (Rick Pearson, “Parties Get Set For Busy Primary,” Chicago Tribune, 12/5/05)

In addition to that, his banks have aided and abetted the criminal activity of many supporters of liberal insiders. The Chicago slumlords of Obama backer Tony Rezko were, in part financed, by Giannoulias banks.

And to top it all off, like any good Chicago political insider, scandal just latches on to Giannoulias. 

  • In 2006, he was sharply criticized for loaning money to crime bosses. (Rick Pearson and David Jackson, “Obama Leans On Treasurer Nominee,” Chicago Tribune, 4/13/06)
  • He accepted a $5,000 campaign contribution from a casino owner in Florida, after his uncle was killed in an execution-style shooting and was foundd to have connections to Jack Abramoff. (Erin Calandriello, “Campaign Donation Has Links To Scandal,” Chicago Daily Herald, 2/10/06)

So Democrats have a real gem on their hands. As a person, Giannoulias has ridden his father’s coattails into fame and fortune. As a politician he has become an underhanded insider who trades in political favors with some of the most disreputable and corrupt people you can find. And when he deals with the issues, he is exactly as his campaign described him…..a devout progressive………. a label which President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Democrats et al, have turned into an anchor that, in this anti-liberal election cycle, will be worn around Alexi Giannoulias’ neck.

In fact, the record shows that Alexi Giannoulias fits right in with establishment liberals. He supports the healthcare tax scheme that would have government takeover healthcare in America. He supports the culture of dependency and opposes a proper execution of the War On Terror.

As a state treasurer, Giannoulias initiated several new spending programs and in 2008 Giannoulis invested state money in a Core Plus college savings program that experienced great losses. At the same time, despite the need for federal and state belt tightening, Giannoulias decided to have the state treasurers office purchase a hybrid vehicle that is suppose to allow state workers travel the state to sign up families for a college savings program called Bright Start. So much for fiscal responsibility.

So let the races begin! And let Democrats, and self described progressive everywhere, discover that all the king’s horses and all the kings men will not be able to put their liberal monopoly back together again.

Bookmark and Share

4 Comments

Filed under politics