U.S. 2012 Election

[a_majoor]

Remember the Republican party is not the TEA party movement, so I think a lot of this analysis is aimed at the current party establishment. The hostile takeover of the party from the inside by the TEA party movement is an ongoing process, but I am not sure it can be completed by 2012, or even 2016 for that matter:

http://conhomeusa.typepad.com/therepublican/2010/12/ryan-streeter-this-is-the-second-of-a-three-part-series-on-a-republican-agenda-for-middle-america-part-3-will-run-after-chr.html

The "purple problem," low wages, values and independent voter preferences: Republicans may be losing middle America after all - Part 2 in Ryan Streeter's 3-part series

Ryan Streeter

This is the second of a three-part series on a Republican agenda for middle America. Part 3 will run after Christmas weekend.

Yesterday, I looked at two ways that Republicans are winning in Middle America. Today I look at four ways they’re losing the middle.

Jobs and wages: Middle class wage stagnation has been around awhile, and the GOP has not put forward a plan to address it. Many smart observers have made the point for a long time that health care costs are dragging down wages, and they’re right. By fixing the tax code’s treatment of health insurance, we could free up more business revenue for wages. But beyond the health care reform implications of this view, the GOP has had little to show for an aggressive growth agenda whose primary units of measurement would be rising wages and new jobs across the broad middle of America’s income scale.

Republicans have gotten too comfortable assuming Republican support. With unemployment at 15 percent for people with anything lower than a college degree, nothing’s a given.

Values: Traditional Republican values are no longer the same things as middle class values. We once thought of Republican values as most at home in America’s middle class. Not anymore. Divorce rates and out-of-wedlock child-rearing and –bearing have skyrocketed among middle class families since the 1980s. This was brought to light recently by a report from the University of Virginia’s Brad Wilcox, which garnered a lot of public attention for documenting  this troubling trend - which the National Review’s Rich Lowry termed “social and economic evisceration of a swath of Middle America.”

The middle class is supposed to be the part of America to which you “graduate” if you’re poor but ultimately embrace work, values, and family.  Alas, the middle class has begun looking more like what conservatives used to lament as the broken society of the lower class. And no one seems to have noticed. But Wilcox’s study wasn’t the first time someone pointed this out. For instance, Kay Hymowitz noted 4 years ago in City Journal that America had formed into “two nations” in which high-earning educated women were divorcing less and less by 1990 while less-educated, lower-income women “continued on a divorce spree for another ten years.” Hymowitz’s conclusions come from a study published in 2004. This isn’t new news. Conservatives have just been quietly looking away.

Middle spectrum voters: The Republicans are losing the fastest-growing parts of the middle electorate. As Joel Kotkin noted last week on ConservativeHome, millennials and Latinos represent the most significant part of the middle that trends “progressive.” This “does not mean they will not shift center or even center-right over time but Republicans have much work to do on getting them to shift. Both groups are right now voting about two to one for Democrats.”

Republicans have shown that they can do well among Latinos, though they’ve shown they can also alienate them in a heartbeat, too. Millennials, who will constitute 1 out of every 3 voters in 10 years, are even more of a question mark for Republicans. Currently, they trend away from the GOP in a pretty serious way.

The “purple problem”: The fastest-growing states are red, but the fastest-growing sections within them may be blue. Despite the Census’s good news for Republicans this week, it may be the case that population growth in otherwise red states is driven by surging blue populations within them. I noted yesterday that states gaining congressional seats are benefitting from policies that Republicans promote. Uber-demographer Michael Barone makes a similar point.  However, as Michael Shear pointed out at the Caucus, and as Christopher Beam recounts in his post, the hidden gem for Democrats may be that the real drivers of growth favor their party.

We’ll know more about this as the Census releases more data, but the GOP should be uneasy about this. While Republican-esque policies may create environments in which people want to live, that doesn’t mean that the churning, burgeoning suburban cauldrons of diverse entrepreneurs, professionals, managers and working class families will vote red.

The Republican party is living a paradox. On the one hand, it "owns" the middle class while the Democrats "own" the low-income and super-rich segments of the voting public. But on the other hand, the trends discussed here suggest the GOP's grip on middle America is slipping - significantly. The good news for Republicans is that the Democrats don't have much more to offer middle America than a politics of resentment. The GOP can get ahead if it starts planning now. I would argue that the 2012 presidential contender who internalizes these concerns and addresses them head-on will do well indeed.

 

[a_majoor]

I thought Canada had a lock on this sort of thing with the Rhino Party....

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/12/jimmy-mcmillan-on-presidential-run-tell-obama-im-coming-after-his-black-a/

Jimmy McMillan on Presidential Run: “Tell Obama I’m Coming After His Black A$$”
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, December 24, 2010, 11:33 AM
.
Ben Smith at The Politico reported:

Because life is short, I try generally to avoid irrelevant joke candidacies (particularly ones whose views have a slightly sinister tinge) in this space, but it seems worth noting that the semi-coherent Jimmy McMillan of “The Rent Is Too Damn High Party” fame is attempting to take his black-gloved act national.

He announced his campaign for the presidency on the libertarian-leaning Revolution Radio yesterday.

The tag line: “Tell Obama I’m coming after his black ass.”

 

[a_majoor]

Two years is a long time...

URL: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2010/12/even-after-shellacking-2012-looks-ok-obama

Even after shellacking, 2012 looks OK for Obama

On Boxing Day, it's worth noting that Barack Obama is down but not out.

You could tell as much from the contrast between his petulant postelection press conference and his peppy pre-Christmas press conference. In the former he was crabby about accepting Republicans' demands that income tax rates on all taxpayers not be raised. In the latter he was celebrating the lame-duck Congress' acceptance of his stands on the New START treaty, repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," and even the previously reviled tax deal.

Obama has obviously figured out that Americans prefer to see their president describe the glass as half full rather than half empty. That's a good lesson for him, and for Republicans as well, especially those who believe that the Obama Democrats' shellacking in the midterms means that Obama himself will definitely lose in 2012.

History should provide some caution for these folks. Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush saw their parties fare pretty well in their midterm elections. But they were defeated for re-election anyway.

In contrast, pundits thought that Ronald Reagan's Republicans took a shellacking in 1982 (actually, about half their losses resulted from redistricting) and Bill Clinton's Democrats definitely did in 1994. But both the 40th and 42nd presidents were resoundingly re-elected, carrying 49 and 31 states.

Several factors will likely work less strongly against Obama in 2012 than against the Obama Democrats in 2010. Turnout will be different, for one thing. We may see again the record turnout of blacks we saw in 2008. Young people who pretty much shunned the polls in the midterms may turn out and vote -- though the 34-point margin they gave to Obama was halved to 17 points for congressional Democrats in 2010.

The balance of enthusiasm favored Republicans and conservatives in 2010, as it had favored Democrats in 2006 and 2008. It could conceivably shift and favor the Democrats once again.

Another factor is that polls show that most Americans have favorable personal feelings toward the president. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both happened to have personal characteristics that people on the other side of the cultural divide absolutely loathed. Obama doesn't.

His reliance on his teleprompter, his secret smoking, his irritability when not adored -- these are pretty minor failings. People like his family and his obvious devotion to them. They don't mind that he likes to get away and play golf or shoot hoops from time to time.

Then there is the powerful desire Americans have to see their presidents succeed. That worked for Bill Clinton in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2004. Polls and focus groups showed that voters in the middle of the political spectrum were ready to overlook their weaknesses and appreciated their strengths in those years. That could be the case with Obama in 2012.

Moreover, there will be a reluctance on the part of many voters, understandable in light of our history, to reject the first black president. I'm convinced, though I cannot prove, that Americans who feel this way far outnumber those few who cannot abide seeing a black man in the White House.

All of which does not mean that Obama is a sure winner. Polls suggest that if the election were held today he could lose to several possible Republican nominees who are much less well known and have weaknesses of their own. But they also suggest he could win.

Working against Obama still will be substantive issues. Most Americans want to repeal Obamacare; he wants to keep it. Most voters rejected his vast expansion of the size and scope of government; he still thinks it's a good idea.

Obama came to office with the assumption that economic distress would increase support for his policies to (in his words to Joe the Plumber) "spread the wealth around." But the 2010 midterms make it about as clear as these things can be that voters reject such efforts.

American voters are not seething with envy over income inequality and are not convinced that we'll all do better if the government takes away more of Bill Gates' money. Obama, like the academics in whose neighborhoods he has always chosen to live, think they should be seething and that if the message is just delivered the right way they can be convinced.

That's a big difference on some fundamental issues. Enough to make the difference in 2012? Not clear.

Michael Barone,The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.

 

[tomahawk6]

I dont see Obama's chances improving. This is a radical intent on remaking America into a marxist state. It appears that with the loss of their majority in Congress Obama intends to continue his radical agenda by using the regulatory agencies and end run Congress. Recently the FCC has exerted its control over the internet via net neutrality regulations this is a major power grab.
The Congress has the power of the purse and could gut these regulatory agencies but it wont be pretty.

 

[Nemo888]

This is a radical intent on remaking America into a marxist state. It appears that with the loss of their majority in Congress Obama intends to continue his radical agenda by using the regulatory agencies and end run Congress. Recently the FCC has exerted its control over the internet via net neutrality regulations this is a major power grab.

Net Neutrality is a Communist plot.  Must be why Marxist regimes love net neutrality so much.

 

[a_majoor]

Here are some themes for the next year, which will test the TEA party movement and their crop of new Senators and Congressmen. As I understand the TEA party movement's goals to be less government spending and a smaller, constitutional government we can see many of these themes are interrelated. Will they be able to achieve some or all of their goals, or will they be captured by the "Beltway" establishment and achieve little of their agenda? Some or all of these may also morph into election themes for 2012 as well.:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ten-political-flash-points-for-2011/

Ten Political Flash Points for 2011
Posted By Richard Pollock On December 30, 2010 @ 7:01 am In Uncategorized | 16 Comments

Next year, expect the 112th Congress and the Obama White House to be locked in battles over spending rollbacks, budget limits, the deficit ceiling, entitlements, monetary policy, and the “de-funding” of federal programs. Expect a year of oversight hearings with striking revelations, subpoenas, and dramatic confrontations with the White House. The new incoming Tea Party class in the House and Senate understand they can claim a mandate from the November elections, and in the next year, Washington’s political ground zero will be over money.

Here are ten flash points to expect in 2011:

Obama Governs by Executive Power

Having lost large majorities in both houses of Congress, expect Obama to deploy his considerable executive powers. A glimpse of what to expect occurred near Christmas as the administration unilaterally issued three new regulatory rulings [1] governing the Internet, greenhouse emissions, and federal wilderness areas. These actions taken by the Federal Communications Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Interior Department exhibited raw regulatory power.

The FCC action defied a federal court [2]. The EPA greenhouse ruling came even as the Senate voted last June [3] to deny the agency power to issue rules over climate change. The Interior Department administratively reversed Bush-era rules on limiting wilderness protection.

This is exactly the strategy progressive activists want the president to pursue.

In November, following widespread Democratic election losses, John Podesta — President Clinton’s chief of staff and the president of the leftist Center for American Progress — released a 54-page post-election blueprint [4]that urged Obama to use his executive powers to bypass Congress to continue their policy changes. Recalling his days in the Clinton White House, Podesta wrote in his introduction to the CAP report:

After his party lost control of Congress in 1994, President Clinton used executive authority and convening power to make significant progressive change. … This administration has a similar opportunity to use available executive authorities while also working with Congress where possible.

Congressional Challenges to Executive Rulings

Expect Congress to reply to the president’s use of executive power by invoking the 1996 Congressional Review Act [5]. This act allows the Senate and House to nullify Obama administrative actions by passing resolutions of disapproval. The procedure permits them to countermand specific department rules and regulations.

When the FCC voted to regulate the Internet, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) announced [6] they would challenge it, invoking the CRA. The CRA can be passed with a simple 51-vote majority in the Senate; it does not require 60 votes.

The War on Federal Spending

Expect Republicans, joined by a few Democrat deficit hawks, to declare war on all federal spending. The conflict will culminate on March 4 when the congressional temporary spending resolution expires and Congress must pass a new federal budget for the entire government. In the House, watch Rep. Paul Ryan [7](R-WI), and in the Senate, Dr. Tom Coburn [8] (R-OK).

Rep. Ryan is the chief author of the new Republican budget. Ryan’s new austere budget is expected to roll back spending to at least 2008 levels. Republicans also vow tough spending cuts to prevent America from becoming the next Greece. Last weekend on Fox News [9], Senator Coburn warned that the nation will face “apocalyptic pain” if it fails to dramatically curtail spending:

I think within 3-4 years, if we have not done the critical changes that we have to make, I think the confidence in our economy and our currency will be undermined significantly. And that may scare some folks — it’s intended to.

Entitlements also will be on the chopping block, as the presidential deficit commission [10] released a report full of proposed cuts — including the once sacred entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Will Obama Govern by Veto?

As the president faces unpalatable legislation reaching his desk, there is the distinct possibility he will invoke his power to veto. The use of the veto has dwindled over the years [11] — George W. Bush issued only eleven during his two terms. In contrast, Democrats who have faced hostile Congresses have governed heavily with the veto: Franklin D. Roosevelt invoked it 635 times, and Harry Truman 250.

What is attractive to the White House is that a veto override will force Senate Republicans to come up with 67 votes. Might Obama use the veto if besieged by unwanted legislation? Expect a classic and passionate constitutional confrontation.

Congress Defunds Obama Programs

One of the least reported last acts of the lame duck session was a vote to forbid spending to move enemy combatants from Guantanamo Bay — dealing a final blow [12] to the president’s effort to close down the facility or to try terrorists in civilian courts.

Defunding is a powerful weapon that Congress can use to stop unpopular programs. Early next year expect ObamaCare defunding to begin to work its way through the House. Look for Congress to try to defund other unpopular programs, such as EPA “cap and trade” regulations, Medicare rulings, and even the administration’s policy seeking to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs.

The Debt Ceiling and a Government Shutdown

Federal spending continues to outpace government revenue by more than a trillion dollars a year.

Today the legal debt ceiling is $14 trillion, which is expected to be exceeded [13] in the first half of 2011. House Republicans vow to repeal the “Gephardt Rule” that allows the House to raise the debt limit automatically without a specific vote of approval. If the Republicans prevail, there will be an up-and-down vote on raising the debt ceiling. The run-up to the vote is likely to intensify negotiations with the White House to use the debt ceiling as leverage to compel lower federal spending. If the debt ceiling is not passed, government programs will lack funds to operate.

Medicare, Social Security, even our military could be at a standstill. Obama and the Democrats will dare the Republicans to vote down the debt ceiling. It will be instructive to see who blinks first.

Ron Paul Challenges the Federal Reserve

Outspoken libertarian Rep. Ron Paul [14] (R-TX), a long-time critic of the Federal Reserve Board, will become the new chairman of the House Subcommittee of Domestic Monetary Policy — which has congressional oversight of the Fed. Paul plans to challenge the central bank’s policy of secrecy by holding open hearings on the institution and its policies. He also will investigate the Fed’s bank examinations and its use of its emergency authority and audits. The new chairman also is expected to denounce the current Fed policy of “monetary easing,” which Paul worries will lead to hyper-inflation — a concern expressed by many economists.

Transparency in Government

Secrecy in the executive branch has been a bipartisan sport ever since the growth of big government. Expect a House full-frontal attack on government secrecy and on the Obama administration’s lack of transparency.

The president is vulnerable, as his first official presidential act was to issue an executive order [15] promising an “unprecedented level of openness in government.”

Expect dramatic oversight hearings, particularly from the powerful House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform led by Rep. Darrell Issa [16] (R-CA). Issa and his allies are expected to seek new measures to force transparency in governmental actions and decision-making. Look for numerous House subpoenas of Obama administration records and the convening of many oversight hearings.

Bailouts of Bankrupt Democratic States

California’s soon-to-be Governor Jerry Brown has not spelled out exactly how he intends to bail out California from its record $28 billion budget gap. But he may ask President Obama to bail out the state, a plea once issued by his predecessor [17] Arnold Schwarzenegger. Other Democrat state governors from electorally rich New York and Illinois will be watching to see if they too can appeal to Washington for cash.

Expect the Republican House and vulnerable deficit hawk Democrats to reject any bailout of the states.  Expect big state employee unions to lobby for it. And look to see it become a major issue in the 2012 presidential race.

More Scrutiny of Attorney General Holder

Expect the new House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith to aggressively subpoena the Department of Justice for internal documents on many of the controversial policies pursued by Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder perhaps is the weakest Obama administration member, and may be the first to resign.

He has come under fire from the left and right for his anti-terror policies. These include his hiring of attorneys who once defended terrorists, his inability to close Guantanamo Bay, the loss of his first anti-terror trial in New York, and his decision to try September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court. The House and Senate also are expected to continue their probes into the Justice Department’s dismissal [18] of the 2008 voting rights violations by the New Black Panther Party. Late this year the U.S. Civil Rights Commission released a blistering report [19] on the department’s handling of the case, charging Holder with politicizing its civil rights deliberations. The Department’s inspector general also is expected to release a report about whether political considerations led to the dismissal. Central to the case is whether the Obama Justice Department was treating civil rights cases in racially biased ways, favoring minorities over whites. If Holder resigns, expect Republicans to use confirmation hearings as a forum to further probe the Department’s controversial decisions.

Expect a wild year.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ten-political-flash-points-for-2011/

URLs in this post:

[1] unilaterally issued three new regulatory rulings: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/dec/27/epa-moves-limit-greenhouse-gases-ar-738831/
[2] defied a federal court: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10298403
[3] voted last June: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/10/senate-rejects-block-epa-regulating-greenhouse-gases/
[4] released a 54-page post-election blueprint : http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/11/pdf/executive_orders.pdf
[5] 1996 Congressional Review Act: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/congressional-review/
[6] announced: http://biggovernment.com/smotley/2010/12/27/congressional-review-act-is-the-first-line-of-defense-against-obamas-regulatory-power-grabs/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29
[7] Paul Ryan : http://paulryan.house.gov/
[8] Dr. Tom Coburn: http://coburn.senate.gov/public/
[9] Last weekend on Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/26/coburn-control-government-spending-face-apocalyptic-pain/
[10] presidential deficit commission: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/
[11] dwindled over the years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes
[12] dealing a final blow: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deals-death-blow-gitmo-closure/
[13] expected to be exceeded: http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/raising-debt-ceiling-will-first-many-ba
[14] Rep. Ron Paul: http://www.paul.house.gov/
[15] issue an executive order: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment
[16] Rep. Darrell Issa: http://issa.house.gov/
[17] a plea once issued by his predecessor: http://www.businessinsider.com/schwarzenegger-makes-emergency-appeal-to-white-house-for-bailout-of-california-2010-1
[18] dismissal: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/proof-new-records-show-doj-lied-about-new-black-panther-dismissal/
[19] a blistering report: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_investigation_black_panthers

 

[a_majoor]

More reasons not to be complacent:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-obama-gets-to-270-in-2012/

How Obama Gets to 270 in 2012

Posted By Myra Adams On January 3, 2011 @ 12:06 am In Elections 2012,Health Care,Homeland Security,Immigration,Judiciary,Legal,Politics,US News,economy | 2 Comments

Collective wisdom (and wishful group-think) among Republicans is that Obama will be a one-term president. “One & Done” is a rallying cry with the merchandise to match [1].

Not so fast my friends — as Obama’s victorious lame duck session proves, never underestimate this president or the power of the presidency.

Obama does not take defeat easily and tends to recycle negative energy into fuel for his re-launch. Obama’s re-launch plans for 2011 include spending more time outside of Washington “engaging with the public,” [2] according to a top White House adviser. This is in reaction to criticism of him for being aloof and disconnected from the great unwashed masses.

So as the president re-engages the public, the media will be there to chronicle glowing accounts of every backyard summit. We can watch as Obama’s two-year road to re-election is paved with re-kindled love between the “lamestream” media and “The Anointed One” version 2.0.  And we on the opposing team will shake our heads in disgust as our GOP candidates get lambasted in the media for every small infraction from their past and present.

Meanwhile, President Obama will have the power of incumbency. Note that since the founding of our republic there have been 56 U.S. presidential elections, 31 of which have involved incumbents. Of those 31 presidents, 21 have won, which means that, based on the historical odds, Obama has a 67% chance of winning re-election.

Now if the power of incumbency, the media fawning, Obama’s remarkable ability to bounce back, and Obama’s extraordinary campaign and speaking skills weren’t enough to ensure his re-election, let’s examine what Obama really has in his favor: the 270 math of the almighty Electoral College.  (Never discuss this with Al Gore, by the way.)

But before Republicans get too depressed, here is some good news. The 2010 census has shifted 11 electoral votes to “traditional” red states. (Traditional red states as defined from the 2004 Bush victory. Texas, for example, gained 4 votes, and Florida gained 2, even though Florida turned Obama blue in 2008.) See all the electoral vote changes here on this interactive map [3].

However, even the gain of 11 electoral votes spread among “traditional” GOP red states matters little when examining the unfavorable odds the GOP will confront getting to 270 in 2012

We begin by using the 2004 Bush/Kerry [4] election as a baseline for the red vs. blue electoral map. In 2004, President George W. Bush won 286 electoral votes to Senator John Kerry’s 252.

Bush carried 31 states and 50.7% of the popular vote. [5]

But cynics warned there was trouble ahead, for if Ohio’s 20 electoral votes had gone to Kerry then he would have been elected and Obama might still be the junior senator from Illinois.

Although 2004 was a close election, GOP strategists would dream about the look of the 2004 map. If not for those pesky northeast, Great Lakes, and wacky left-coast states, the vast body of the USA was coated in ruby red.

Here is the Obama/McCain 2008 electoral map [6] with Obama winning 365 electoral votes to McCain’s paltry 173.

Question: How do Republicans make their way back from 173 to 270?

Answer: With much difficulty.

Assume for a moment (and this is a HUGE assumption) that what I call the “Red Rogue States” of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana that turned Obama blue in 2008 will shake off the magic fairy dust he sprinkled over them and return to the red Republican barn in 2012.  These five “must win” states total 86 electoral votes, bringing our generic un-named Republican presidential candidate up to 266.

(Note: the new 2012 electoral vote totals are being used to reach 266.)

So where does our generic presidential candidate find the remaining four votes?

Oh, how I wish that was the only major problem keeping the GOP from reaching 270.

The first potential problem is that Arizona is included in the 266 total.

In 2008, Arizona was McCain’s home state and easily added 10 electoral votes to his 173 total.

But in 2012 can Arizona be counted on as reliably red?

Or will Arizona follow Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada into Obama blue territory? There is a good chance it will, especially if the Hispanic Institute Five-State Voter Project [7] has its way.

The Hispanic Institute [8], a 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt organization, has the following as its stated mission: to provide “an effective education forum for an informed and empowered Hispanic America.”

Certainly a worthwhile mission and one that I fully support. Especially when you consider Hispanics are our fastest growing minority, currently standing at 16% of the population.

Through its Five-State 2012 Voter Project, the Hispanic Institute seeks to promote and grow the participation of Hispanics in civic engagement and the electoral process.

Success has already been achieved for the Five-State Voter Project’s pilot program — Nevada’s 2010 midterm election. The project added 10,000 new registered voters and increased the percentage of Hispanics voting in Nevada to 16% for a midterm election. (By comparison, Hispanics comprised 15% of the state’s voter turnout in 2008.) So, to have increased the percentage of a minority voting block by even one point in an off year election was deemed a great victory and psyched up the leaders to implement their 2012 full plan of attack.

So what does this Nevada “victory” mean for the 2012 Electoral College map?

Consider the five targets of the Five-States Voter Project: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, and Nevada — together they represent a new 2012 total of 60 electoral votes.

During the 2008 election the percentage of Hispanic voters in these five states was:

    * Arizona 16%
    * Colorado 13%
    * Florida 14%
    * New Mexico 41%
    * Nevada 15%

The Five-State Voter Project fully expects the percentages of Hispanic voters in these states to increase for the 2012 election. For example, Arizona’s 2008 Hispanic vote of 16% is now projected to be 18.3% in 2012.

Hispanic voter growth like Arizona’s is not good news for the un-named Republican presidential candidate, especially when the GOP is considered hostile (fairly or unfairly) to Hispanic issues.

Obama received 67% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, and if that vote stays loyal, it could keep Florida blue and turn Arizona blue for the first time since 1996.

Even now, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada must be considered long shots to return to the red land of the 2004 electoral map.

So when you hear Obama bringing up the DREAM Act [9] over and over until it passes in the next two years, you know he is really dreaming of his re-election.

Now, let’s go back to our generic presidential candidate sitting at 266 electoral votes.

Remember my assumptions about the “Five Red Rogue” states that must return to red in 2012?

Florida is most problematic, especially with Florida’s Hispanic vote hovering around 15% and now targeted by the Voter Project for further increases. If only four of the five “Red Rogue States” return and Florida stays blue, our discussion ends right there and Obama is re-elected.

Too bad I don’t even get to discuss Iowa, which Obama won by 15.3% in 2008 but which could be the swing state which brings the GOP candidate up from 266 to 272 with its 6 electoral votes.

Any way you look at it, the 2012 electoral map is not user friendly for the GOP presidential nominee, even if national unemployment stays at 10% and the economy is sluggish.

The hope for Republicans in 2012 must lie in traditionally Democratic and  electoral rich blue states like NY, MI, NJ, and PA. But I would not want to bet the farm on those states, with their deep blue voting patterns and heavy union membership.

The new reality is the GOP has run out of reliable red states due to changing Hispanic demographics and Hispanics’ group loyalty to President Obama and the Democratic Party in general.

In 2012, the African-American vote combined with the Hispanic vote will comprise at least 30% of the electorate. If Obama wins these groups by the same percentages he did in 2008, 95% for African Americans and 67% for Hispanics, he easily wins re-election. Unless Republicans can make major inroads into those two minority groups, whatever Democrat follows Obama in 2016 will also start off with a huge electoral advantage.

Sorry about the 2012 reality check. But you can profit from this analysis by clicking on Intrade [10], the online prediction market. Here, you can gamble on whether the Democrats will keep the White House in 2012.  Today, players are betting there is a 57.5% chance of that happening, compared to a 41.7% chance the Republicans will take back the White House.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-obama-gets-to-270-in-2012/

URLs in this post:

[1] merchandise to match: http://www.zazzle.com/anti_obama_one_done_obama_symbol_funny_t_shirt-235409964299293386

[2] “engaging with the public,”: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/135115-jarrett-obama-to-spend-more-time-outside-of-dc-in-2011

[3] interactive map: http://www.270towin.com/

[4] 2004 Bush/Kerry: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=11

[5] Bush carried 31 states and 50.7% of the popular vote.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

[6] Here is the Obama/McCain 2008 electoral map: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

[7] the Hispanic Institute Five-State Voter Project: http://thehispanicinstitute.net/node/3233/print

[8] The Hispanic Institute: http://www.thehispanicinstitute.net/

[9] DREAM Act: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/94791/20101223/obama-to-push-for-dream-act-again-in-2011.htm

[10] Intrade: http://www.intrade.com/

 

[Edward Campbell]

More reasons not to be complacent:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-obama-gets-to-270-in-2012/

"Complacent" infers that you already know that the GOP will field a candidate who is better not measurably worse than Obama. I think Obama, two years into a four year term, is 'worse than most' US presidents but it is not, yet, clear to me that the GOP can will field a better candidate. (I am 100% certain the GOP could field a very, very good presidential candidate but the ongoing culture wars may mean that the GOP produces Palin or worse. Should anyone be "complacent" about Palin for President?)

 

[a_majoor]

Complacent also means the "One and Done" meme, or the idea that the 112 Congress will be able to fix everything.

Whoever the GOP chooses as their candidate for 2012 (and Governor Palin has a huge base and a formidable political machine, whatever you or I may think of her as a potential President may be overwhelmed by forces already in place) will be operating against all the various factors listed above. The current President might also get a boost from a "Black Swan" event like another 9/11 or meltdown in Korea, so long as it isn't handled like the Gulf oil spill. The appearance of competence in the face of a disaster may well go a long way to convincing voters not to change horses.

 

[observor 69]

I think Obama, two years into a four year term, is 'worse than most' US presidents but it is not, yet, clear to me that the GOP can will field a better candidate.

Interesting, we are calling Obama "worse than most US presidents" while talking about bookends of Bush and Palin.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Interesting, we are calling Obama "worse than most US presidents" while talking about bookends of Bush and Palin.

Yes, but we are not comparing him (or even Palin) to Filmore, Harding, Buchanan, or Johnson.

 

[a_majoor]

Let's see how this political game plays out:

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/kausfiles/2011/01/17/are-we-sure-civility-will-help-the-democrats.html

Are We Sure 'Civility' Will Help the Democrats?

During the debate over welfare reform that consumed much of 1995 and 1996 in Congress, those who generally supported the Republican approach (ending the welfare "entitlement," imposing work requirements) had a very strong hand. Polls had consistently shown voters hated no-strings welfare. Even the Democratic president blamed welfare for sustaining a "culture of poverty." It would have been a minor feat of parliamentary skill for Republicans to somehow not reform welfare in this situation.

Yet they almost pulled it off. One reason was politicians like John Mica. During one of the early debates, Mica, a GOP representative from Florida, brandished a sign reading"Don't Feed the Alligators" to illustrate his argument that "unnatural feeding and artificial care creates dependency." A Wyoming congresswoman promptly compared welfare recipients to similarly dependent "wolves." You could debate the aptness of these attention-getting zoological metaphors, but they gave Democratic entitlement-defenders such as Barney Frank an opening to portray reformers as inhuman, disrespectful, possibly racist nutcases. Fortunately for Republicans, by the time the welfare debate resumed in 1996 they'd learned to leave the animals out of it. Reform passed convincingly.

Shorter version: Republicans toned it down, and that helped them win.

Which leads me to wonder: If the current frenzy for "civility" means Republicans have to take the sharp edges off their Tea Partyish rhetoric, will that really help Democrats? Democrats may think so. Byron York speculates that they're quietly congratulating Obama for raising the civility issue in his Tucson address even as he denied that incivility had anything to do with the shooting—a strategy Obamaphile Jon Alter had advocated before the speech. Boy did it make Palin look bad! What's more, just when the number of GOP representatives is about to dwarf the number of Democrats who'll be listening to the State of the Union address, there's MSM momentum behind the idea that the parties should sit in an interspersed jumble so viewers won't be able to tell. Brilliant! Republicans are in a position to be mean to Democrats, and there's suddenly a campaign against meanness. What a happy coincidence!

But, like many seemingly clever, intuitive MSM/Dem strategies—"Let's nominate a Vietnam war hero to run against President Bush!"—this one may prove to be a dud, or worse. There's a reason, after all, why the White House has consistently attacked and therefore elevated relatively intemperate Republican figures such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck—making them the public faces of the GOP. The reason is that wild Beckish rhetoric turns off independent and moderate voters. For the same reason, the White House has always seemed to kind of like having the Birthers around. They're a great foil.

Why would Republican politicians ever fall into this "too hot" trap? Because hot rhetoric gins up their base. But now that they've won the House in an off year election, GOP pols don't need to please the base so much. They need the middle. They need swing congressmen to vote for their bills and they need supportive poll numbers to encourage those congressmen to do so. If a "civility" crusade succeeds in getting the most volatile Republicans to cool it and stop irritating the center, it won't be doing Obama's work for him. It will be doing John Boehner's work for him.

You could easily see a rhetorically modulated GOP achieving much more in the way of health care reform rollback, Social Security cuts, immigration enforcement, and educational choice than a GOP that insists Obama is a liar, a socialist, and unAmerican, that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, that illegal immigrants are mostly gang-bangers, etc. There's a reason the slicker Tea Partiers (Ron Johnson,, Rand Paul) won in 2010 while the jagged ones (Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell) lost. It's not because Rand Paul is moderate in substance. It's because he's not a John Mica.

True, none of the GOP's current issues is precisely analogus to welfare. Welfare reform was a political slam dunk, and once it passed the paleoliberals who'd defended the old AFDC program seemed to vanish into the mists like mastodons. In contrast, GOP immigration enforcement measures (e.g., requiring businesses to check new hires) and education reforms (like charter schools) have stronger opponents who aren't going to go away. But that only makes it more important for Republicans not to give them any extra lines of attack.

P.S.: Civility = Triangulation? It's also true that Obama and Boehner aren't playing a zero sum game. In 1996 the net result of passing welfare reform was a big win for Newt Gingrich and a loss for Congressional Democrats—but also a big reelection victory for President Clinton. Similarly, civility may both make Obama look good and give Boehner a legislative edge. The result: Obama winds up signing new laws that are more conservative than he might like, just as he wound up signing a lame duck bill that preserved the Bush tax cuts. As with the lame duck tax bill, these concessions to Boehner (and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell) are likely to boost the president's poll numbers while leaving Nancy Pelosi and the relatively liberal Congressional Democratic caucus seething.

Civility won't hurt all Democrats, then. It could help Obama. But don't expect Congressional Democrats—or all the liberal bloggers and columnists currently demanding that "partisans ... think twice before over-heating their rhetoric"-—to be happy about it

 

[a_majoor]

Remember the power of positive press. If things play out the way suggested here, imagine a gridlocked Congress and executive until the logjam breaks in 2016. Black Swans could work both for and against the administration, but I doubt there will be any Watergate level revelations about the administration (despite lots of indicators ranging from the thuggish maner of the Auto bailouts to TARP and stimulus monies vanishing into non existent Congressional Districts). Even constant pressure from the Blogosphere has only resulted in "narratives" being dropped rather than retractions, apologies or re examination of the issues in light of the fresh evidence.

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/01/20/get-ready-for-an-obama-victory-in-2012/

Get Ready for an Obama Victory in 2012
January 20, 2011 - by Roger L Simon

The best thing to happen to Barack Obama is that the Republicans cleaned his clock in 2010. He is suddenly looking not so bad for 2012.

The November debacle made it obvious — even to the ultra-conventional left-liberal Obama — that the United States of America is a center-right country. He hired business-friendly William Daley as his chief-of-staff and came out roaring with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, of all places, that made him sound like a re-upped columnist for Reason magazine (well, mostly). It’s not hard to predict that his State of the Union address will stress cutting the deficit and reprise tropes from his let’s-all-learn-to-love-each-other kumbaya from the Tucson memorial.

November also helped him in that it further marginalized his left flank. Left-wing Democrats can now be placated by the most minor of bones. They have nowhere else to go, except perhaps running Dennis Kucinich in the primaries, which would be comic relief. And given the state of the global economy, few believe in Keynesian economics anymore anyway, except a handful of last-ditch bureaucrats in Brussels and the commenters on the Huffington Post.

But wait, you say, isn’t Obama a leftist ideologue? Won’t that come out in the end? What about Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, and Reverend Wright?

Well, sure, but that was then and this is now, I’m sorry to say. As many have pointed out, Obama is a supreme narcissist and, for such a person, advancement of self trumps ideology virtually anytime. Forget the mind-numbing palaver about sticking to his ideals even if it means losing the election. If Obama has to tilt right to win, he will tilt right.

And he doesn’t need Dick Morris to explain to him how to “triangulate.” The information is in plain sight to a ninth grader running for middle school president. Obama also doesn’t need to be as politically astute or emotionally centrist as Bill Clinton to execute this plan. He’s the president, with all those levers at his disposal. Besides, as I mentioned, it’s not all that complicated. He doesn’t even have to believe it. The media will do that for him.

So where does this leave the Republicans’ presidential ambitions? Not in a particularly good place, I am again sorry to say. They must rely on a serious financial decline or, at best, a continued luffing of our already bad economy — something few of us really want — to win. Or they must hope I am wrong and Obama’s true leftist tendencies — and/or those of his czars — emerge to such a degree that its gets the president rejected by the American public. This latter is not very likely and, even if it does happen, can be walked back or spun by that complaisant media.

The president’s big Achilles heel is the nearly universally despised ObamaCare, which, as many have written, is simultaneously an economic and medical disaster while being incomprehensible in the first place. But even in this arena, he may be saved by a conservative Supreme Court, which seems primed to overturn the legislation, leaving Obama free to walk away from the mess or blame it on Reid and Pelosi.

Is there any hope in all this? Well, yes. It seems as if the Senate will still go Republican in 2012 and we are headed for years of gridlock. Business loves that and the economy should revive at some point. That will be good for this country and the world. So be of good cheer and remember these words by William Morris (the Victorian, not the agent) in a novel he wrote set during the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381:

I pondered how men fight and lose the battle and the thing that they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat and when it comes turns out not to be what they meant, and other men fight for what they meant under another name.

That’s the way I see things now. Of course, like any good member of Congress, I reserve the right to emend and extend my remarks.

 

[Kirkhill]

Narcissist may be a little on the harsh side but I do think that before all else Obama is about Obama....getting on and getting ahead.

He found a route from rags to riches by being a convivial spokesman for whoever would pay him a decent wage, and in his "community" that meant being an excellent commisar.

Do good in school.
Say the right things.
Get the scholarships.
Stay out of trouble.
Meet the right people.
Get to Harvard.
Repeat
Get to Acorn
Repeat
Chicago Democrats
Repeat
Illinois Democrats
Repeat
Federal Democrats
Repeat
(Secure Oprah and Soros along the way)
President
Repeat
Oh Sh*t
Career Going Well,
Career Stops
IA
Figure out the new message...
Revert to Plan A.

 

[observor 69]

Golly I can become president just by becoming a ' convivial spokesman."

Operators are standing by!!

 

[Rifleman62]

It is reported down here that the Obama reelection campaign has officially commenced. The aim (can I use that term ) is to raise one billion dollars.

 

[a_majoor]

Battlespace preparation. Obamacare has been declared unconstitutional in court, now Dems are forced to go on record as supporting it:

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/141829-senate-rejects-healthcare-repeal

Senate rejects healthcare repeal
By Julian Pecquet - 02/02/11 06:25 PM ET
The Senate on Wednesday voted down a repeal of President Obama’s healthcare law in a 47-51 party-line vote.

The vote came two weeks to the day the Republican House voted 245-189 to repeal the law, and just days after a federal judge ruled Obama’s signature legislative achievement is unconstitutional.

Republicans have vowed to carry the fight forward, saying they will seek to de-fund the law as it is implemented. The GOP also has promised Wednesday’s repeal vote will not be the last in this Congress.

The vote came on a budgetary point of order, which Republicans needed 60 votes to overcome. Democrats argued repealing healthcare would add an estimated $230 billion to the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) called that estimate “preposterous.”

McConnell was trying to add an amendment repealing the healthcare law to legislation reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration.

Neither the result nor vote breakdown were surprises. No Democrats in attendance voted in favor of the measure and no Republicans rejected it. Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) were absent for the vote.

Just before the vote on the budgetary point of order, the Senate did vote to repeal an unpopular part of the healthcare law that requires businesses to report annual purchases of goods and services of more than $600 to each vendor.

The Senate voted 81-17 to eliminate the 1099 reporting requirement, with 17 Democrats voting against the measure.

Republicans have acknowledged their goal with the vote was to get Democrats on record as defending a law that remains deeply unpopular with large swaths of the public. Twenty-three Senate Democrats are up for re-election in 2012, and many of them face tough races.

"I think the American people understand fully this issue and they know for sure where Democrats and Republicans are," McConnell said after the vote.

Republicans have vowed to pursue their attacks on the law until the next election, when they hope to have enough Senate votes to repeal it. In the meantime, they’ve announced plans to withhold funding for its implementation and have introduced multiple bills to repeal bits and pieces, such as the individual mandate or the Medicare payment board.

On Tuesday, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John Barasso (R-Wyo.) introduced legislation that would allow states to opt out of many provisions of the law, including its individual mandate. The goal, Graham acknowledged, is to make reform fail so lawmakers “would have to replace it with something that made more sense.”

Graham vowed to bring up the provision as often as possible.

“If we're going to vote on naming a post office this year, you're going to be voting on this,” Graham said. “We're going to bring this up every time we can.”

The fate of the healthcare law seems likely to be decided by the Supreme Court. Two judges have ruled the bill’s mandate that people have insurance, which would require many consumers to buy insurance, is unconstitutional. Two other judges have ruled it passes constitutional muster.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) on Wednesday called for his colleagues to support a resolution fast-tracking legal challenges to the Supreme Court.

“The vote to repeal healthcare is largely symbolic because the Supreme Court is going to have to be the one to decide this matter,” Nelson said Wednesday. “We ought to do the right thing and ask the high court to rule quickly so we don't keep arguing over this for the next several years.”

The Obama administration, however, has said it would appeal Monday's decision to an appeals court where it feels confident it will prevail.

In contrast to the party-line Senate vote, a handful of Democrats joined unified Republicans in voting to repeal the law in the House last month.

When healthcare was approved by the Senate last year, every Democrat voted in favor in a 60-39 vote. On Wednesday, most Democratic senators were wary of being tarred as flip-floppers, and freshman Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a vocal critic, said he wanted a chance to fix the law before repealing it.

McConnell has previously said Republicans owed voters who returned them to power in the House and increased their numbers in the Senate a vote on healthcare.

 

[a_majoor]

Here is a big "oops" moment:

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/258817/dccc-debt-could-consume-campaigns

DCCC: Debt Could Consume Campaigns
February 3, 2011 10:52 A.M.
By Jim Geraghty   
Tags: DCCC, NRCC

A Washington Republican points out to me that one of the big narratives throughout the 2008 cycle was the National Republican Congressional Committee, tasked with chipping away at the Democrats’ 40-seat margin in the House, could not possibly compete or go on offense because of its then-dire financial position. Obviously, we know how that turned out.

He notes that the end-of-year reports show that the DCCC is in a financially worse position in January 2011 than the NRCC was in January of 2007.

In 2006, the DCCC had $9.3 million in debt and roughly $776,000 in cash on hand, while the NRCC had $14.4 million in debt and roughly $1.4 million on hand.

At the beginning of this year, the NRCC has $10.5 million in debt and $2.5 million in cash on hand. The DCCC has $805,000 cash on hand and an astounding $19 million in debt.

 

[a_majoor]

Wisconsin could be setting the shape for the 2012 contest:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-obama-and-the-dems-blundered-in-wisconsin/?singlepage=true

Why Obama and the Dems Blundered in Wisconsin

Posted By Richard Pollock On February 21, 2011 @ 12:13 am In Uncategorized | 153 Comments

It is becoming clear that the Wisconsin battle was a strategic political blunder for President Obama and the Democratic Party. The decision by the Democratic Party and its allies to draw a line in the sand in Wisconsin was the wrong strategy, in the wrong state, at the wrong time, on the wrong issue, and executed in the wrong way.

The White House, which for the last two years seemed so tone deaf over health care, jobs, and the economy, may again be displaying a stunning political miscalculation. Unless the Democrats pull the plug on their ill-conceived Wisconsin campaign, the statewide and national backlash now beginning to emerge may continue to resonate all the way to the 2012 presidential elections.

It will take time to unearth exactly who designed and sold the Wisconsin strategy to the president. But what is emerging is that the White House may have developed two strategies for 2011, not one. The first track, clear to us all, was for the president to tack to the right on the national stage, seek the statesmanlike high road, and negotiate deals with national Republicans.

The second strategy, now emerging, was to pick a target outside the beltway that could serve as a broad political narrative, attack it, nationalize it, and use it to rally Obama’s demoralized political base. It was a bold strategy. They chose Madison, Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker’s budget-tightening initiative, and his effort to rein in public employee unions. They further decided to let loose angry union members serve as shock troops. Wisconsin would be the first test case, which would be replicated in other states, including Ohio, Indiana, and Idaho.

The plan seems to have been born both within the war room of the Democratic National Committee and within the Oval Office. The overall coordination for the operation was the remnants of the president’s 2008 political campaign organization, Organizing for America (OFA). The strategy would be launched by the DNC and by the president, who, during the height of the Egyptian crisis, incongruously granted an exclusive interview to a Milwaukee TV reporter over union policy. While Cairo burned, he took time to decry a Wisconsin governor’s effort to rein in the budget and limit union benefits. Shaping the narrative for the attack, he said that Gov. Scott Walker’s effort “seems like more of an assault on unions.” [1]

The Wisconsin political blitzkrieg on Gov. Walker was not a spontaneous eruption. It is now clear that it was a highly organized operation planned in Washington, D.C., to unleash a national counterattack on the gains made by Republicans and Tea Party activists. Getting OFA and the president to act in close coordination was itself no small feat. The plan included busing in thousands of government employees, arranging for Democratic lawmakers to flee to an adjoining state, flying speakers and political organizers into Madison, organizing thousands to leave their jobs in public safety and in classrooms, and staging rallies inside and outside the statehouse. They even enticed sympathetic doctors to draft bogus doctor excuses for government workers.

It all worked like a charm. Except that it struck all the wrong notes and portrayed all the wrong images. There is nothing more unseemly that to see a president serve as healer in Tucson and a political hack in Madison.

For in the end, the images and messages tell the story. The showdown in Madison pits pampered public employees against hard-pressed taxpayers. It portrays union workers as an angry mob against those seeking orderly legislative deliberation. It paints Democratic lawmakers as outlaws on the run, undermining the democratic process. It launched a national debate about the generous salaries and benefits for government workers during a time of economic shortages. And it showcased school teachers who abandoned their children in favor of narrow, partisan political gain.

This is a bad unraveling of a political campaign.

The miscalculation by Democrats is understandable. They still believed Wisconsin was one of the key populist centers for Midwest radicalism. Living on history long past, they envisioned Madison as ground zero for a resurrection of progressivism. It was, after all, the home for progressives’ champions, whose heroes included the La Follette family, led by former Governor Robert La Follette, Sr. The La Follette family has been a radical left Wisconsin political dynasty for the last century. Robert Sr. ran for president under the Progressive Party; his son succeeded him as governor. His other son, Robert, Jr., served in the state Senate for 22 years and led the pre-WWII isolationist movement, a precursor to the present day anti-war movement. In 2010, Doug La Follette was the only surviving Democrat to win statewide office in the November election.

But there also is the lure of Madison, Wisconsin for radicals, many of whom populate the political leadership of the Democratic Party and the unions. Madison was the Midwest home for the far-left counterculture and for the violent, revolutionary Students for a Democratic Society. In 1970, an anti-war van loaded with six barrels of explosives detonated outside the Mathematics building [2] [2]at the University of Wisconsin, killing a physicist who was working late at night. The bombing became a sensation for SDS, and overnight the four suspects were put on the FBI’s Most Wanted List. During one of the many Madison political protests, there was a three-day riot that led to the arrest, twice, of a student activist named Paul Soglin. He was later rewarded by being repeatedly elected mayor of Madison [3].

Surely behind this long history of progressive left politics, Democrats and union organizers might have thought Madison would be the first place to strike against the belt-tightening moves of a new, untested Republican governor. A line was drawn in the sand, and Madison would become ground zero in the unions’ effort to turn around their political prospects.

But they perhaps were tone deaf about Madison, just as they have been tone deaf nationally. They forgot that Wisconsin has been turning from blue, to purple, to bright red. In the 1990s it was former Republican Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson who drew another line in the sand over welfare reform. He won, and President Bill Clinton signed into law a sweeping change that sought to reward work over welfare. Thompson also was a champion for school choice, a campaign bitterly fought by the same teachers’ union that abandoned their classrooms last week for partisan gain.

Then came the latest 2010 election in Wisconsin in which there was a statewide sweep for Republicans [4]. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), long considered safe, was defeated. The governor and lieutenant governor swept to power. Today, five of the eight members of the state’s U.S. congressional delegation are Republicans. The sole Democrat in the government is Doug La Follette, who is secretary of state. The legislature is in Republican hands. And the architect of the victorious 2010 Wisconsin campaign was GOP Chairman Reince Priebus.

So the showdown in Wisconsin may assume national proportions. Priebus now will aim a national campaign against President Obama and the Democrats. And the Democrats chose Priebus’ state as their launching pad to smash Republicans.

The Wisconsin battle is not over. But it could be the beginning of a moment of clarity in which a small but entrenched special interest — government workers — is dislodged by fed-up taxpayers. And it could be a contagion that spreads to other states across the country.

UPDATE: Politico’s Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman report this morning [5] on how the unions’ high-risk Wisconsin strategy may come at a potentially steep cost: “Some strategists and labor officials watching the protest conflagration from the outside are beginning to fret that a large-scale defeat in Wisconsin [6] will have a devastating ripple effect, weakening labor state by state throughout the rest of the country.”

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-obama-and-the-dems-blundered-in-wisconsin/

URLs in this post:

[1] “seems like more of an assault on unions.”: http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/02/16/obama-on-wisconsin-seems-like-more-of-an-assault-on-unions/

[2] explosives detonated outside the Mathematics building: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1198045/posts

[3] repeatedly elected mayor of Madison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison,_Wisconsin

[4] statewide sweep for Republicans: http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/wisconsin

[5] report this morning: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49893.html

[6] Wisconsin: http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/wisconsin

 

[a_majoor]

And an interesting counterpart to the above; which may preview how the Democrat party will play the issue in 2012:

http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2011/02/22/how-the-left-sees-the-union-crisis-in-madison

How the Left Sees the Union Crisis in Madison

Posted By Ron Radosh On February 22, 2011 @ 9:01 am In Uncategorized | 41 Comments

We live in two different worlds. Try looking at the situation in Wisconsin through the eyes of the American Left. They are, as my colleague Roger L. Simon so aptly puts it [1], thoroughly reactionary. For the Left, there is no real fiscal crisis. The states can easily afford to give the public sector unions everything they ask for. There is one easy answer: tax the rich.

Because the great right-wing conspiracy has been so effective, due to its funding by the Koch brothers, the masses have been manipulated to vote for their own worst enemies. Marx’s theory of “false consciousness” has been proved once again. “What’s the matter with Kansas?”  indeed. If only they all read The Nation there would be no problem. And evidently, they don’t even read Paul Krugman. If they did, they would see that the great economist explained [2] it all: the Right doesn’t care about reality; they just want power. Their real goal, says Krugman, is nothing less than “to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy.”

Let us pause for a moment to ask whether Krugman is serious. The Wisconsin voters, having heard Governor Walker campaign on a promise to rein in the public sector unions and do something about Wisconsin’s debt crisis, not only voted him in, but voted in Republicans overwhelmingly in once Democratic districts. So democracy did its job, but not to Krugman’s liking. The people want an oligarchy.

For the entire Left, the budget is simply the excuse to gain power and crush the unions. The academic leftists, as expected, are also weighing in. On the History News Network site, leftist historian Mark Naison looks back [3] nostalgically at the Flint, Michigan, sit-down strikes in 1936-37, seeing today’s Madison events as the modern equivalent — a watershed moment for the labor movement. Not even pausing to address the major differences between this era’s public sector unions and the assembly line industrial unions of the Depression era, Naison sees the strikes as simply about  “dignity and respect,” not income.

Naison reminds readers that the auto workers, helped by “numerous left-wing organizations,” occupied the factories, ending their occupation only when GM and U.S. Steel agreed to bargain collectively with the recently formed Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). So Naison calls for a similar movement today — urging delegations from every state in the union “to join the occupation and the protests and give whatever financial aid and legal support is necessary to teachers who are keeping the local schools closed.”

Of course, no sooner did his article hit the web than the union asked teachers to return to work. Their leadership realizes that their action has produced a huge backlash among working men and women in Wisconsin, who can’t go to work because they have to stay home to watch the kids. Besides resenting that kind of behavior at their own jobs, they have nothing compared to what the public sector workers have in their contracts with the state.

Joining him in a similar assessment [4] is the socialist labor historian Nelson Lichtenstein. At least Lichtenstein realizes that the nation is talking about public sector unions, not industrial unions of a bygone age. He acknowledges the real question: “Who will pay for the budget deficits that bedevil so many states?” But he also knows the other question is whether or not “the unions [will] continue to be a backbone of the Democratic Party….” He also acknowledges another truth — that “public employees are far more likely to be unionized than private-sector workers.”

Lichtenstein, however, does not comprehend the nature of what has become a real sweetheart deal for the public sector unions. Union PACs use member dues to support and elect Democrats. Then, the same unions sits before these elected officials to negotiate contracts. These elected politicians then do all they can to give the union reps everything they ask for. It worked for a long time, especially in large urban cities like New York, until that city found its own books ready to collapse.

Fred Siegel, our best commentator on the plight of the cities, explained [5] how it all works to Wall Street Journal political reporter John Fund:

    Labor historian Fred Siegel offers further reasons why unions are manning the barricades. [Gov. Scott] Walker would require that public-employee unions be recertified annually by a majority vote of all their members, not merely by a majority of those that choose to cast ballots. In addition, he would end the government’s practice of automatically deducting union dues from employee paychecks. For Wisconsin teachers, union dues total between $700 and $1,000 a year.

    “Ending dues deductions breaks the political cycle in which government collects dues, gives them to the unions, who then use the dues to back their favorite candidates and also lobby for bigger government and more pay and benefits,” Mr. Siegel told me. After New York City’s Transport Workers Union lost the right to automatic dues collection in 2007 following an illegal strike, its income fell by more than 35% as many members stopped ponying up. New York City ended the dues collection ban after 18 months.

When public workers strike, it is not the employer who pays them the benefits they gain in a contract, it is the other people in their own state, many of them workers themselves, and some of them even union workers. More and more, the public at large is fed up with public sector workers living much better than they do, especially when they realize the better situation is coming out of their own pockets, not that of a large corporation.

So what the Left argues is the continuing stale refrain that this is a “final offensive against America’s unions” by the right wing, as another Nation writer, Jane McAlevey, explains [6] to her readers. In her lexicon, the ever more popular Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey is “beating up on public school teachers.” She clearly thinks is a phony “drumbeat” about “states going broke because of government workers’ wages, pensions and benefits.”  And forget about educational reform. She warns that some states — horrors — want school districts to move “to charter schools or to voucher programs.” She does not ask why these are popular, and why so many of the urban underclass is desperate for real educational reform so that their children also have a chance to get the same kind of education enjoyed by the children of leftist and liberal elites, many of whom send their kids to private schools

Save us from those “right-wing think tanks,” she screams, never asking why the influence of leftist equivalents like The Center for American Progress and its proposals do not seem to gather support, although they are just as well funded as their conservative counterparts. She even quotes Tim Pawlenty’s accurate observation that “unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debts.” I truly wonder if any of her readers paused to notice that Pawlenty makes sense, while her own arguments do not.

No wonder that the teacher union protestors in Madison resort to picket signs that depict their elected governor as Hitler, Mussolini or Mubarak. It is far easier to slander their opponent as a tyrant than come up with a serious discussion of how to solve the fiscal crisis facing the state they work in. Because if they did get serious, they would have to start by realizing that the concessions that Governor Walker is asking them to make are both fair and necessary. They can sign “Solidarity Forever” and “Which Side Are You On?” all they want, but it isn’t the 1930s anymore.

Sooner or later, even the Wisconsin teacher union members will come to understand the new reality.

Article printed from Ron Radosh: http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2011/02/22/how-the-left-sees-the-union-crisis-in-madison/

URLs in this post:

[1] aptly puts it: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/02/21/wisconsin-liberals-as-reactionaries/

[2] explained: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Paul%20KRugman&st=Search

[3] looks back: http://www.hnn.us/articles/136764.html

[4] assessment: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49913.html

[5] explained: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704900004576152172777557748.html?KEYWORDS=John+Fund

[6] explains: http://www.thenation.com/article/158640/labors-last-stand