I think Roger is right but would add this; The progressive’s electoral strategy via the Alinsky method.
It seems eons ago since two fundamental stories broke – first Judd Gregg’s revelation about Obama’s WH’s intent to take over the Census revealing in turn just how dedicated a bunch of chicago thugs his inner circle was – and how they intened to dupe him into being a bi-partisan cross over stooge…
& 2) – the Acorn scandals.
What Andrew Breitbart was able to tie together with the second in particular helped shed light on how Obama sold America – campaigning as a center-left candidate poser – that he had some semblance of a Reaganesque mandate when addressing the sea of adoring citizens at the historic inaugral zero hour.
The true revelation of the Acorn scandal was just how deep that corruption represented the very kind of ’70-’80′s activism Obama proudly boasts as his early apprenticiship; and how important reviving it was to getting The One elected – and implimenting his agenda.
Why did a rather pedestrian (when it comes to a governing mandate) 54% in the popular vote translate into an impressive electorial victory? Besides the fawing press – it was because of the formerly Red states Obama peeled off; North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Virgina & Florida.
Scrutinze these states and what you see is that since 2000 there were ongoing liberal efforts as far as voter ‘registration’ (making voter fraud eaiser to pull off) – be it motor voter or absentee ballot or such time honored traditions as ‘raising the dead’ or ‘welcoming the new’ (immigrants granted citizenship for a day)
Obama had a profound superior advantage beyond mere conventional wisdom; facing a somewhat weak opponnent – in an economic crisis – following a dramatically unpopular Prez leaving office.
He had Acorn & the Soro’s folks to impliment a fantastic ground campaign – assembled first to defeat Hillary – and then following that victory – more money for the national than ever imaginable to buy those murky ‘walk around folk’ – everyone from the happy to be sell out (for a big Mac & a beer) homeless to the willing to be criminalized (expecting a post election pay off) as mentioned.
It’s not hard to cruch the numbers and surmise what almost shockingly (given the economy & McCain’s slavish devotion to ‘clean’ campaiging) was a close race at %50-%52 became that coast to victory %54.
As for the 70% of the Jewish vote – given what Obama has already done in only a year, it’s hardly inconcievable that conservatives can mount a real challenge to take away Jewish voters. I mean several writers here at PJM alone have made a pretty good case that unless American Jews are ready to essentially abandon Israel there is little rational room to continue supporting this guy.
And as for Blacks – for all the grief Michael Steele has lived with he has managed to recruite 37 black candidates to challenge for mostly House races. Would it be a strech to claim vicrory if 5-7 gain eleciton? For the chance to see a real alternative to the Black Caucus? Really?
Prop 8 in California proved that blacks can been peeled off in sizable numbers on some social issues – AND – if one could do that congressionally – take that 95+% down to say 85% – it is a math that favors conservatives in enormous ways electorially.
If you could extropolate dropping %20-%30 of the black vote from the Democrat Party in every election cycle in the future THEY WOULD CEASE TO BE A NATIONAL PARTY. Because they would lose every time.
Which is why they usually do lose when they lose – Blacks don’t show up when needed. The Black Vote is like giving the top ten golfers in the world a sliding handicap to face Tiger.
Take it away and the Dems cease to exist – with or without Obama. It would be interesting to hear a goof like Frank Rich try and contort his arguments on how this country is still in population free fall as far as a white majority WHILE BLACKS STARTED VOTING THEIR INTERESTS RATHER THAN RACE….
Rogers on to something here for all of the folks who are statistic geeks when it comes to elections.
