Why Obama Will Win in 2012
I didn’t want to write this, and I take no pleasure in it. But it’s vital to face trouble if you want to head it off before the manure pile lands on your head.
Now that they’ve shot down Cain, it’s time for the insiders and their media lackeys to turn their attention on Gingrich, until it’s over for the Anyone-But-Romney camp. Then begins the long, slow march to Obama 2.
It’s already begun. Peggy Noonan recently wrote that Gingrich is “disturbing” and “ethically dubious,” and that those who know him “are mostly not for him.” Meanwhile, she wrote that “those who’ve known and worked with Mitt Romney mostly seem to support him…” Her depictions may be accurate, but she said nothing about Obama’s inexperience and destructive presidency, providing no context for her Gingrich analysis.
Popular, allegedly-conservative talk show hosts benefitted Obama’s campaign, too:
- Michael Savage offered Gingrich $1M to drop out.
- Glenn Beck said he’d vote for Ron Paul as a third party alternative, if Gingrich won the nomination. Beck also believes if you support Gingrich over Obama, you’re racist.
(Not that Newt is some great prize. Being a longtime GOP operative and consultant for Freddie Mac, plus his affair while investigating the Clinton/Lewinski scandal, should give one pause. Unfortunately, the other GOP candidates make the nomination race reminiscent of the Seven Dwarfs.)
GOP insiders want Romney, because he best represents business as usual. They offer us a “better” candidate than Obama, but not the best, because the best would support smaller government, which is anathema to the money and power brokers of both major parties.
Open Secrets calls their game the “Revolving Door:”
“Although the influence powerhouses that line Washington’s K Street are just a few miles from the U.S. Capitol building, the most direct path between the two doesn’t necessarily involve public transportation. Instead, it’s through a door—a revolving door that shuffles former federal employees into jobs as lobbyists, consultants and strategists just as the door pulls former hired guns into government careers. While members of the executive branch, Congress and senior congressional staffers spin in and out of the private and public sectors, so too does privilege, power, access and, of course, money.”
Romney won’t win because he’s Obama’s Mini-Me. Examples why: Romney Care, and socialist states like Massachusetts breed “Republicans” who’d be liberal Democrats in Texas. When faced with a choice between Obamney the Me-Too Socialist and the genuine article, voters will choose the real deal. Better the devil you know…
Some claim Obamney’s better than Obama, because a GOP Congress will control his worst socialist tendencies. Really? You mean that Kabuki theater run by Speaker Boehner, who hasn’t the spine to cut the budget or close the federal government temporarily to underscore its runaway spending and power grabs (April and November) and who renewed the PATRIOT Act in toto? Including their part in the failed deficit reduction theater, the GOP has done what it can to restore a Democrat Congress in 2012 by supporting big government at every opportunity.
Real Clear Politics shows a long-term trend of voters disapproving of this Congress and favoring Democrats returning to power.
The November 11 Newsweek ran a piece by Paul Begala entitled “Republicans are getting stupider” on their front cover. True. Eventually, they’ll all be Democrats, and then maybe people will finally see we’ve had one big Socialist Party for decades, assuming voters can turn off the modern opiate of the masses–TV–long enough to attempt critical thinking.
To pull this out, there’s only one tough options:
- Pick the least stinky of the GOP offerings and then plan on four years of non-stop activism/delaying action to slow their feudalist tendencies long enough to…
- Find somebody good among the People who’s not a career candidate/prostitician.
In any case, the best strategy is to stop looking for a messiah. Don’t ask an elected official to do for you what you’re unwilling to do for yourself. Make them fear you, the voter. If you want smaller government, plan to fight for it, as the Founders understood when signing the Declaration of Independence:
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Anything less is a victory for feudalism.
I dunno. I’ve heard it observed (in a PJTV video, IIRC) that Newt’s baggage is so well-known that it’s old news, chewed out bubblegum, and that folks have become so acclimated to that part of his background that it no longer weighs him down, much.
Short of, say, Santorum suddenly rising in the ranks, I think Gingrich is, warts and all, the best we’re gonna be able to do. That said, he is tough, savvy, and unrelenting in a fight, and, while Romney could end up being McCain 2.0, I dun think Obama would stand a chance against Gingrich in a debate. And voters know this. =^[.]^=
Savage just broke the law. Offering a candidate money to drop out of the race is attempted bribery.
It does not matter who the Republican nominee is because Obama is unelectable.
Obama unelectable? That was sarcasm, right?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
Real Clear Politics has Obama beating each GOP candidate.
I was not aware that RCP polls decided Presidential elections. Silly me, I thought the Electoral College had something to do with it….
True, but it was very accurate in predicting the Congressional results in 2010. Currently, if people are not paying attention to the warning signs in the RCP polls, they’re helping the Dems in 2012. The GOP House is working hard to lose, and polls show this.
Well, if GOPnicks want to re-elect Obama by nominating Obama-lite… so be it.
Wow, Howard. I’m glad someone agrees with me. I have been saying the same thing about Obamney and the laughable idea that a GOP Congress would be a “check” on him for several weeks.
That said, I’m not pessimistic about the GOP holding the House. In fact, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate is within reach.
But there won’t be significant changes in Washington unless we elect a President who will lead this corrupt group of establishment, status-quo loving Congressmen into doing the right thing.
One other thing – I agree that the GOP field blows. The fact that Newt and Romney are our frontrunners says it all.
Some truth in this, but not enough.
I don’t doubt for a second that Romney’s supporters are sabotaging all of the other candidates because they want to remain in the ruling class…but Romney is still leagues better than Obama. Implying that he is Obama light is silly.
It’s also true that there are an awful lot of conservative pundits opposed to Gingrich, but their reasons don’t seem to fit a tight pattern. The closest thing to a pattern seems to be that Newt is acknowledged to be a smart guy yet doesn’t agree with THEM on every detail. How dare he! There is also more than a small element of self interest in the attacks from conservatives. A real conservative revolution wouldn’t exactly help the business in the conservative blogoshpere and punditery, would it?.
And it certainly isn’t clear that Obama can beat Newt or Romney. Yes, the talkers still have control over their lockstep groupies, but I’m reading an awful lot of people who are beginning to actually think for themselves. And if they are beginning to think, the chances of them voting for little lenin are about zero.
Romney better? I’d rather have a real enemy in office, as opposed to a fake friend. Romney and Boehner together could do more damage to the GOP than if we had a Dem Congress again.
“A real conservative revolution wouldn’t exactly help the business in the conservative blogoshpere and punditery, would it?”
How do you figure this? Is this the argument people make against the NRA: “If they got rid of gun control, NRA would be out of a job.” Like the feudalists would ever give up trying, considering the amount of power they could control? If this country got on the right track, it would be wealthier and more powerful, which would attract even more vultures.
So far, polls show Obama beating Newt, and most shot Obama beating Obamney.
No, the polls don’t. They say Newt and Mitt both beat Obama. See PJM’s Scuttlebutt, right now.
Real Clear Politics. Romney vs. Obama aggregate: Obama +0.8. Obama vs. Gingrich aggregate: Obama +6.9.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
So polls are saying different things. What else is new? Let it all play out a little, how about it?
Howard Nemerov
So far, polls show Obama beating Newt, and most shot Obama beating Obamney.
December 13, 2011 – 1:13 pm
So What?
I don’t remember Carter having a Second Term….
October of 1979, Ronald Reagan
Favorable 38 %
Unfavorable 39%
January 10, 1980 Gallup Poll
Carter 63%
Reagan 32%
October 24 – 26 1980 Registered Voters
Carter 45%
Reagan 42$
October 24 – 26 1980 Likely Voters
Carter 47%
Reagain 39%
Howard Nemerov
So far, polls show Obama beating Newt, and most shot Obama beating Obamney.
December 13, 2011 – 1:13 pm
So What?
I do not remember Carter Winning a second term, correct me if I’m wrong on that.
October of 1979, Ronald Reagan
Favorable 38 %
Unfavorable 39%
January 10, 1980 Gallup Poll
Carter 63%
Reagan 32%
October 24 – 26 1980 Registered Voters
Carter 45%
Reagan 42$
October 24 – 26 1980 Likely Voters
Carter 47%
Reagain 39%
What was the Actual Outcome again???
And your source? Here’s one that shows the opposite: Reagan beating Carter in October before election.
http://www.amstat.org/sections/SRMS/proceedings/papers/1981_011.pdf
1) the source is Gallup as noted in the January poll above.
2) if you look at Table 1 – Presidential Preference 1980,
The entry for 10/26 item listed by Gallup you’ll see the same Reagan 42 Carter 45 numbers I listed above.
I think the mose Apples to Apples comparison, however, is the January 10 poll that shows Carter Cleaning Reagain’s Clock 63 to 32. There is NO poll showing Obama with a number even close to the 63 Gallup was giving to Carter in January of 1980.
The other point I’d make (since my 45/42 numbers are listed in the link you provided) is that CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, and WaPo will emphasize that 45/42 number and ignore all the rest when reporting, especially when reporting polls involving Obama.
I slighty favor Gingrich but can live with Romney. I don’t consider either one a godsend either, but they are the best of the lot who declared, and are probably both better candidates than many or most in the last 30 years.
Calling either one of them an enemy is beneath serious discussion. You want an enemy, look to the White House.
And I recognize that they are both big gov kinds of guys. Unfortunately, no viable small gov candidates declared other than Perry, and Perry shot himelf in the foot several times. Now few people want to take a risk with him. So the rational thing to do, is to accept what the lay of the land is, and to aim for a viable small gov person next time.
As for the ratings, it’s pretty obvious that the talkers and pundits will be even more successful if Obama wins another term, for a couple of years at least. I think of that possiblity as the final presidential term in US history, although I suppose there is a small chance the congress could block little lenin. But Obamacare will be implemented, drilling will be blocked, milirary power will continue to degrade, the economy will go into an even worse depression, and the bureaucracy will become even more entrenched and more radical.
No way as many people will listen to the talkers and pundits if Newt or Romney is elected. You can bet your last dollar that they all know it. I wouldn’t suggest that they are all actively pushing for Obama’s election, but it’s in the back of the mind of a lot of them. For example, what are the odds of Beck’s network surviving if he doesn’t have Obama as a foil? He has already lost first tier status by losing his Fox gig. If millions of people stop listening and watching because Obama would be gone, it’s a sure thing that Beck would be hurt financially and might even go out of business. I could be wrong that HE would be hurt or other specific talkers, but overall, it doesn’t even seem disputable that talk-show listeners will be fewer if Obama is driven out of office. People who think the talkers are saints and do it for the good of the public aren’t rational. They are in business to make a buck, and will pick the buck over principle every time.
“Glenn Beck said he’d vote for Ron Paul as a third party alternative, if Gingrich won the nomination.” Tell me it ain’t so! That Beck could support someone so dismissive of (if not hostile toward) Israel just doesn’t compute. Besides, if Ron Paul runs as a 3rd party candidate he’d be this generation’s Perot, guaranteeing Obama a second term.
It ain’t so. This if straight from glennbeck.com:
“Glenn invited several callers onto the program today to debate his comments regarding Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. During a call yesterday, Glenn said:
It is really down ‑‑ for me if I had to vote, it would be a tough choice between Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. The ‑‑ it goes to Rick Santorum. However, I just said last week, I have a gun to my head, I’ll vote for Mitt Romney and if it’s Newt Gingrich and there’s a third party and it’s Ron Paul and I don’t agree with his Middle Eastern policy at all, I might consider Ron Paul as a third party. So there’s where I stand. Pretty much all of them have been reasonable. The two big progressives are Romney, his progressivism has led right to state stuff. He claims that he wouldn’t do it nationally but Newt Gingrich will. He said ‑‑ he’s admitted it. He said it. He’s championed progressive ideas on the national level.
Now, of course this was taken as Glenn is voting for Ron Paul or he would absolutely vote for Ron Paul third party before a GOP ticket with Gingrich in the top spot. Note that he clearly said he would only “consider” the option.”
Hardly an endorsement, wouldn’t you say?
No, it’s not an endorsement. But even considering it is bad enough.
Interesting, Howard…I’m not quite there yet, but I see the path you are on from where I am.
I don’t think we WILL lose, although I think we CAN squander this opportunity.
1)Mitt is not a Marxist, I don’t believe. He is simply a guy who wants to be a pal and is not likely to be aggressive in rooting out all the Marxist landmines left behind by the Fabian in the White House and his leftist czars and czarinas and their flying monkey minions and lackeys.
2)Newt has been hit by Steyn, Coulter, Krauthammer, Levin, Beck, Blankely, his campaign staff, his staff when he was Speaker, …I’m sorry…we can stick our fingers in our ears, squeeze our eyes shut tightly and go “nyah, nyah, nyah” real loudly…but it isn’t making ALL of that go away very well.
They are ALL wrong???? Maybe. They are “jealous”? Ridiculous.
I would be quite a bit more comfortable if we took in all that information, dissected it…and then dealt with it…as opposed to sweeping it under the rug.
I’m interested where each of these two would go AFTER the nomination. As they tack to the center, what would each do?
Romney is not likely to appear to change much, I don’t believe. He will play it down the middle, safe, trying not to offend.
Newt…is likely to say anything. And…he could tick off a huge segment…voters in chunks…as he bounces ideas off the cerulean walls of formerly blue states, purple states….or swing states.
Mark down these words and remember them well. Newt in the general is not going to play anything down the middle or safe. He will scrape the side of the car and careen off the guardrails. He will say things that will madden and infuriate.
Romney and Gingrich are the tortoise and the hare. And the jackal could benefit from that race.
Steyn, et al., are too quick on the draw.
Newt Gingrich has risen to the occasion, and he is real serious now.
#3. TommyTee2011, “It does not matter who the Republican nominee is because Obama is unelectable.”
Don’t believe that for one minute. In our indecision and waffling back and forth between candidates and our threats to vote third party if so and so get the nomination, we are moving him ever closer to reelection by the minute. We don’t have much time left to pick one and back him or her with all we’ve got no matter who gets the nod.
I’ve made it clear I like Rick Perry but there is no way I am going to throw my vote away if someone else gets the nomination. Make no mistake, Obama is electable and all we have to do is hand it to him. If Newt or Mitt or any of the others gets the call, I will back them for all it’s worth even if I don’t like it. We can’t survive another four years of what is going on now. We have to fight this tooth and nail. I’ve never been this vocal about an election before now but this one is too important to lose.
You’re exactly right, perry1949. We can try and hope to get the best candidate, but we can’t afford ideological purity.
This mad howling against Newt Gingrich made up my mind.
I’m for him.
You can tell whom they fear by the howling. Notice Romney never gets criticized by the establishment Pubbies? He’s their boy. Newt will do some things to make us want to pull our hair out, but he will also do things to absolutely rip up some establishment interests. That sword cuts both ways.
The only one more dangerous to the establishment is Sarah Palin.
And no, Obama will not win, unless we choose Romney. If we choose Mr. Establishment, the ground game will fall flat. The base will just stay home.
I, as a Conservative, would rather have Obama than Romney; The Establishment would rather have Obama than not-Romney.
Ah, Sarah, I miss her. She sure had ‘em howling their heads off.
– that, Mrs. Lincoln, but…
You seem to think that the Republicans could have survived shutting down the federal government. How did that work out when Gingrich was speaker?
No, the reason the non-front runners are doomed is that they’re too extreme, you shut-the-government kill-the-EPA-with-fire sort of fanatics (and I don’t know if you supported that but it’s an example of stupid extremism) are the reason that we’re only left with Gingrich.
The Republican base is looking like a bunch boomer punks who think they’re cool instead of acting their age. The tea party isn’t any more responsible than the hippies the OWS crowd are emulating, not in policy matters and you can’t possibly win the presidency if you can’t act like responsible adults.
Gingrich’s flaws were well known before this election cycle as were Romney’s. The question you should ask yourself is “why didn’t we support a single candidate who has no significant negatives and isn’t too much of a nut”
Of course one possibility is that smart candidates won’t run against an incombant president, and all the talk about Obama being too much of a failure has been fluff for the masses that the Republican politicians don’t believe.
There you go acting like a non-scholar again. Show me the citations where the Tea Party poops in public, rapes women, murders, shuts down seaports, etc. Thought not.
“incombant president” Did you take any English on your way to your scholar’s degree.
Dear Josh Ignorant;
Once again you show that the only scholarship you engage in is the Mainstream Media Naritave.
You asked, “You seem to think that the Republicans could have survived shutting down the federal government. How did that work out when Gingrich was speaker?”
Well, the Shutdown in 1995 as an individual incident would have been more successful than it was had Bob (let’s make a deal) Dole not pulled a Gang of Six manoever and pulled the rug out from under the house, but even with that happening the end results are still the same.
“Gingrich’s four years as speaker proved to be the most productive, legislative congressional years since at least 1965 to 1967, and they were led by Lyndon B. Johnson from the White House. Working against — and with — Democratic President Bill Clinton, Gingrich passed into law most of the Contract with America, welfare reform, telecommunications reform (which ushered in the modern cell phone and Internet age), he had the first balanced budget since before the Vietnam War, he cut taxes and lowered unemployment to under 5 percent.” Source – Real Clear Politics.
To be honest, I think Romney has a chance to win in a general election if Obama. I don’t think Newt does.
Oops you can take out that “if obama” phrase. I was starting to say something like “if Obama stumbles” but every politician stumbles.
“Being a longtime GOP operative and consultant for Freddie Mac…. should give one pause.”
Indeed it should. Nothing screams insider/status quo to me like a guy who gets paid a gazillion for using his DC rolodex to promote blood sucking behemoths like Freddie Mac. Dodd-Frank to the left of me, Gingrich to the right, and us stuck in the middle again, paying for the privilege.
“I’d rather have a real enemy in office, as opposed to a fake friend. Romney and Boehner together could do more damage to the GOP than if we had a Dem Congress again.”
Do you really believe this?
Pain seems to be the only motivator for people to put down their beer, step away from Dancing with the Stars, and get involved. It was slow-motion socialists like GW Bush who let most self-proclaimed modern conservatives fall asleep believing we had one of our own running things. The conservatives’ Messiah drove up the budget and expanded the federal government 50% during his administration. On the other hand, for example, Obama has gotten Second Amendment supporters involved.
The only question is why people don’t believe this.
Howard Nemerov: I never thought GW was a conservative…he was just preferable to the alternative. How many times has this been the case? President Ford lost due to the Nixon pardon. Ronald Reagan won because people were voting against Carter (TG!). Many of us held our noses and voted for McCain. I almost didn’t vote in 2008. Now we need someone with stones or we won’t have this discussion in 2013. The prominent elites have already run off the people who are not “prostitians” (love that). We are going to be left with choices we as Americans don’t like. If the elites at the top of the food chain don’t like Newt–as Chaim above–I am all about Newt now.
Since he’s currently the only candidate with any spine remaining, I can see why you would prefer Newt. The rest are Newtered.
Yeah, that damned socialist W gave us Roberts and Alito on the SCOTUS too.
And he grew the fed and put us in debt the last 6 years of his administration. That’s the longest lasting consequence. So he got it right sometime. Okay, socialist-lite.