► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Michael Barone’

The differences between the 2004 and 2012 elections

by Mojambo ( 175 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, George W. Bush, Politics, Republican Party at July 30th, 2012 - 3:00 pm

I think the main difference between 2004 and 2012 is that Barack Obama is such a radical politician (not a conventional liberal) that the stakes are so enormous.  The troika (or Axis of Evil)  of Obama-Pelosi-Reid needs to be broken up and hanging over the nation like a Sword of Damocles looms “Obamacare”..

by Michael Barone

Does the 2012 campaign look a lot like the 2004 campaign? Many Democrats think so.

And there are some resemblances. As in 2004, current polling suggests a close race and shows only about a dozen states in contention.

As in 2004, the incumbent has been running negative ads against the challenger, hoping to disqualify him as Bill Clinton disqualified Bob Dole in 1996. Many Democrats think that Barack Obama’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s business career will have the same effect that they think the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads had on John Kerry in 2004.

But, as William Galston of the Brookings Institution, an alumnus of the Clinton White House, writes in The New Republic, “the evidence in favor of all these propositions is remarkably thin.”

Galston points out that in 2004 no single issue was as prominent as the economy is this year and that on most significant issues George W. Bush had a clear edge by the end of the campaign. He cites polling evidence that the Swift Boat ads hurt Kerry less than did Bush ads replaying his March statement that “I did actually vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

Also, he points out that many more voters this year think the nation is seriously off on the wrong track and that the economy is in trouble. Obama’s job rating now is weaker than Bush’s was then.

Galston, as usual, is on target. His analysis tracks with the statement of Democratic pollster Peter Hart (for whom I worked from 1974 to 1981) that Obama’s chances are “no better than 50 percent.”

But there are at least two other salient differences between 2004 and 2012.

[……]

In the preceding four congressional elections, Republicans won between 48 and 51 percent of the popular vote for the House and Democrats won between 46 and 49 percent. In 2004 the parties’ percentages in both the presidential and congressional popular vote were within the same narrow ranges.

Since then, voting behavior has been much more volatile. In the last three congressional elections, Republicans’ share of the House popular vote has ranged from 43 to 52 percent and Democrats’ share from 45 to 54 percent.

In 2004, only three states cast their electoral votes for a different party than in 2000, and the margins were narrow in all cases.

In other words, almost all voters in 2004 were firmly committed to one party or the other. Bush political supremo Karl Rove was right in saying there were few uncommitted voters and that his campaign’s big task was to turn out the faithful. The Kerry campaign operated on the same assumption.

[……..]

The conventional wisdom is that we know with certainty the identity of the dozen or so battleground states. But the list has changed since 2008.

In 2008, Obama carried Indiana and lost Missouri by only 3,903 votes. Today, Indiana and Missouri aren’t on anyone’s target list.

In contrast, most analysts’ battleground list this year includes Michigan and Wisconsin, which Obama carried in 2008 with 57 and 56 percent of the vote.

[……..]

Cultural conservatives supported the Bush tax cuts. Few economic conservatives had much problem with Bush’s stands on abortion or embryonic stem cell research.

Barack Obama’s Democratic base is more heterogeneous. He probably increased turnout among young voters by endorsing same-sex marriage. But he risked turning off the many black voters who are solidly opposed.

Blocking the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada pleased gentry liberals who embrace every green cause. But private-sector labor unions don’t like it a bit.

Bashing Romney’s record at Bain and Co. may be helping him with some modest-income voters. But it risks antagonizing the affluent, which is a problem for a candidate who last time ran even, 49 to 49 percent, among those with incomes over $100,000.

Every campaign cycle is different, and 2012 is more different from 2004 than many Democrats think.

Read the rest – 2012 Campaign Very Different Than Kerry vs. Bush

Blaming Racism for Obama’s decline

by Phantom Ace ( 112 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Communism, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Fascism, Liberal Fascism, Progressives at June 25th, 2012 - 2:00 pm

On a daily basis we see Charles Johnson calling any opposition to Obama racist. If he was the only one doing this it would be a laughing matter. Unfortunately, it is very prevalent among the left to blame Obama’s decline on racism. The Left views Obama as a semi divine Sun King who can not be questioned. Any mention of his failures leads to accusations of racism.

Michael Barone makes the case that the racism charge is a way to distract from Obama’s policy failures. Let’s not forget Obama’s most loyal and fanatical followers are young, white, progressive hipsters. They also tend to be the ones to use the racism charge.

As Barack Obama’s lead over Mitt Romney in the polls narrows, and his presumed fundraising advantage seems about to become a disadvantage, it’s alibi time for some of his backers.

His problem, they say, is that some voters don’t like him because he’s black. Or they don’t like his policies because they don’t like having a black president.

o, you see, if you don’t like Obamacare, it’s not because it threatens to take away your health insurance, or to deny coverage for some treatments. It’s because you don’t like black people.

This sort of thing seems to be getting more frequent, or at least more open. As White House Dossier writer Keith Koffler notes, HBO host Bill Maher accused Internet tyro Matt Drudge of being animated by racism because he highlights anti-Obama stories.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown if House Chairman Darrell Issa’s treatment of Attorney General Eric Holder was “ethnic.” Brown agreed, and Matthews said some Republicans “talk down to the president and his friends.”

There’s an obvious problem with the racism alibi. Barack Obama has run for president before, and he won. Voters in 2008 knew he was black. Most of them voted for him. He carried 28 states and won 365 electoral votes.

Nationwide, he won 53 percent of the popular vote. That may not sound like a landslide, but it’s a higher percentage than any Democratic nominee except Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.

The racism charge is a sign of desperation. The Sun King’s policies have failed and the Left knows if Obama loses it will be a defeat for their ideas. At this point they are left flinging poo. Hopefully American voters see through this and vote out the false Messiah.

The perils of taking the advice of wealthy liberals

by Mojambo ( 441 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Elections 2012 at June 13th, 2012 - 3:00 pm

It is apparent that wealthy liberals are the ones who have Obama’s ear.  From gay marriage, Keystone pipeline, taxes, contraception services – Anna Wintour,  George Clooney, Sarah Jessica Parker et al are the ones who get his attention. These rich liberals are completely clueless about America and Americans because they live in life styles that only few will ever glimpse.

by Michael Barone

Who does Barack Obama listen to?

Not Republican politicians. Evidently weeks go by between his conversations with House Speaker John Boehner, who determines what legislation comes to the House floor.

[…….]

Speaker Tip O’Neill walked around the Capitol, asking member after member, “What do you hear?” In contrast, Obama, a former adviser told Vanity Fair‘s Todd Purdum, “is a total introvert. He doesn’t need people.”

But there is one group of people Obama has to listen to: the people who give him large sums of money. He recently attended his 150th fundraiser. That’s more than the number attended by the last four presidents put together.

Obama has seen enough Architectural Digest-type interiors in Park Avenue triplexes and Beverly Hills mansions, and on the block in San Francisco’s Pacific Heights, where every house is owned by a billionaire, to develop an expertise in Louis XV walnut commodes and Brunschwig & Fils fabrics.

He’s also had plenty of chances to absorb the advice of the kind of rich liberals who like to give money to Democratic presidents. And the evidence that he has taken some of that advice is his initiatives on three controversial issues, each of which involves serious political risk.

The first and least risky of these stands is his endorsement of same-sex marriage. Many Democratic money-givers, straight as well as gay, have strong convictions on this issue and were probably not appeased by his assurance that he was “evolving” from his opposition to it.

[…….]

Still, his move probably turned off some older voters and puzzled others who wonder why with a sluggish economy he was spending time on an issue that he said should be handled by the states.

The second issue on which Obama seems to have been listening to his money-givers was the health insurance mandate requiring employers to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients.

Many rich liberals feel strongly that women’s “reproductive rights” (actually, the right not to reproduce) are so vital that government must ensure they have free access to contraception, even though it is widely available and inexpensive.

That’s one view. Roman Catholic bishops and leaders of Catholic institutions feel that such services are sinful and refuse to provide them. They cite the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise of religion, while the other side relies on what courts have called “emanations” and “penumbras” radiating from constitutional texts.

The political point is that, as polling suggests, most Americans don’t like government forcing people to violate their religious convictions. That’s in line with tradition in a country that exempted those with religiously based conscientious objections from military service in a war in which more than 400,000 Americans were killed.

The third issue is the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport oil produced from tar sands in Canada to United States refineries and create thousands of jobs in the process.

Earlier this year, Susie Buell Tompkins, John Kerry’s fourth-biggest money-raiser in 2004, picketed outside an Obama fundraiser at San Francisco’s W Hotel to protest the pipeline. She wanted Obama’s State Department to block it because she thinks tar sands production hurts the environment and the planet.

Our neighbors the Canadians, who are not unconcerned about the environment themselves, disagree. The pipeline’s promoters say it would produce 20,000 American jobs and would tend to lower U.S. gas prices.

Obama came out on Tompkins’ side and blocked the pipeline.

If the same-sex marriage reversal seems somewhat risky politically and the contraception mandate considerably riskier, the Keystone pipeline decision seems downright foolish politically. Voters tend to favor it by 2-1 margins, and if they’re not aware of it, the Republicans (and maybe the pro-pipeline unions) will make sure they are.

[……]

The question is, is he listening to anyone else?

Read the rest –  Obama listens to rich liberals at his peril

Obama’s Solyndra scandal

by Phantom Ace ( 37 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Fascism, Socialism at September 15th, 2011 - 11:30 am

The media has been giving Obama a pass on the fast and furious scandal. They have downplayed it and are now ignoring it. A new scandal is brewing for the Obama Regime. The “Green” jobs company was hailed as a model for future economic development. They were the first company to receive loan guarantees for the 2009 Pork laden stimulus. Obama even sat in on a board meeting. Now Michael Barone describes how the ties between Solyndra and the Obama regime is potentially a major scandal.

One factor favoring President Obama’s re-election, according to a recent article by political scientist Alan Lichtman, is the absence of scandal in his administration.

Lichtman may have spoken too soon.

The reason can be capsulized in a single word: Solyndra.

That’s the name of a company that manufactured solar panels in Fremont, Calif. (which voted 71 percent for Obama in 2008).

Solyndra was the first company to receive a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy as part of the 2009 stimulus package. This wasn’t small potatoes. The loan guarantee was for $535 million.

[….]

Unfortunately, there were other things going on at Solyndra for those with eyes to see. As my Washington Examiner colleague David Freddoso reported, an audit of the company performed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers two months before Obama’s visit noted that the firm had accumulated losses of $558 million in its five years of existence.

The auditor noted that Solyndra “has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception and has a net stockholders’ deficit that, among other factors, raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.”

One of the original investors in Solyndra was Oklahoma billionaire George Kaiser, who was also a major contributor to Obama’s 2008 campaign. In early 2011, Kaiser and other investors provided an additional $75 million in financing to Solyndra. They did so on condition, approved by the Energy Department, that they receive priority over previous creditors, including the government.

Read the rest: Obama Tainted by Loan Guarantees to Solar Firms

I wish I shared Michael Barone’s optimism on this being a major scandal. DOn’t get me wrong, this could be very damaging to the Obama regime. However, seeing how the media has covered up fast and furious, I doubt this will damage Obama. The regime has gotten away with murder.