The times are a changin’: If it ever hopes to see the White House again, GOP must tap into growing Hispanic demographic

It’s really quite simple. If the Republicans want to win a presidential election, they have to win the support of the only constituency that is large enough to make a significant difference and is actually expanding.

The black population is not growing and, even declining, in percentage terms, and white upper-middle class families have so few children that they are hardly replacing their numbers, let alone increasing them.

Jews still support Democrats to the rate of 70% and more are increasingly detached from Israel and cannot escape their liberal guilt spasms. The gay vote is tiny, and will only vote Republican if the party abandons its moral values, and organized labor is what it is. Which leaves Latinos, Hispanics, Spanish-speakers.

This is the future of American politics. An enormous and growing population that still boasts a high birth rate is increasing through legal and illegal immigration, is upwardly mobile, and becoming extremely politically active. At least three major states are now decided by Latino voters, all of them capable of being Republican as well as Democrat.

Nor are Hispanic Americans particularly liberal in their views or socialistic in their aspirations. They tend to still be Roman Catholic, are generally opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion, believe in family rather than state and are suspicious of left-of-centre policies. But they do, naturally, fear parties and governments that flirt with deportation and denial of citizenship.

The genius of conservatism has been its ability to adapt to changing demographics, and few conservative parties have demonstrated this more effectively and efficiently than Canada’s Conservatives and Minister Jason Kenney. The Liberals smugly sat back in their clumsy complacency and assumed that immigrants would always vote for them. How wrong they were, and it’s unlikely they will be able to reverse the trend.

The Republicans have to do the same, and develop a relationship with tens of millions of voters by communicating in their language, literally as well as figuratively.

The battles of the past are long gone, and appealing to fringe players in border states will not win an electoral college. Until and unless this reality is grasped, the White House will belong to Democrats.

There is no need to change views about moral and family issues, and the people who genuinely obsess about being gay or aborting babies are not the right but the left; don’t be convinced by Hollywood and big media that ordinary people want nothing more than their gay friends to be allowed to play at being husband and husband or wife and wife.

Nor is it about the economy stupid, but about the vote stupid.

Obama’s health care program was similar to Romney’s in Massachusetts; Obama’s bailouts, in spite of what was said, were close to what Romney would have done; the foreign policy of both men differ in degree and not fundamentals.

But in terms of appeal, one party remained rooted in anachronism and the other, the Democrats, understood how America looked and how America voted.

Los tiempos estan cambiando.

Yes, the times really are changing, and while the Republicans should never forget the Alamo, nor should they forget that in the final analysis, it’s votes and winning that matter.

The better man lost the election

There will be scores of books written and words piled up alongside the mounting American debt to fathom the results and consequences of the 2012 U.S. election.

In columns of such limited space as these, one can only suggestively wink at, as I once wrote, the complexity of subjects such as this requiring treatment at much greater length to do them justice.

On Tuesday evening, American voters balked on seeing their republic at a fork in the road — one path sloping towards greater dependency of individuals on the big government welfare state, and the other towards keeping secure the American ideals of individual freedom and responsibility — and voted to maintain the status quo of the past two years.

Republicans remain in control of the House, Democrats in control of the Senate, and the incumbent returns to the White House after an estimated cost of nearly $6 billion spent on the election.

This status quo reflects a bitterly divided America.

The 2012 election turnout was lower than that of 2008. According to the U.S. Federal Election Commission, 131 million Americans voted in 2008; the 2012 election turnout is estimated to be around 119 million.

In 2008, Obama’s share of the popular vote was shy of 69.5 million, or 52.9% of the total vote cast. Though his share of the 2012 popular vote was significantly less at 60.7 million or 50.4% of the total, it allowed him to squeeze a win.

In 2008, John McCain, the Republican nominee, received 59.9 million votes or 45.7% of the total.

Mitt Romney received 48% of the total vote in 2012, and though his share of 57.8 million votes fell below McCain’s, he received more electoral college votes.

The difference in numbers between an Obama win and a Romney loss was approximately the difference in numbers between those who voted for McCain in 2008 but did not vote for Romney. These nominally Republican voters staying home in the 2012 election, whether they were discouraged conservatives or unenthused independents, left the better man as a loser.

The fundamentals of the American economy — the figures for unemployment, people on food stamps, debt burden, depressed income, gas prices, the cost of Obamacare — were indicative of a failed Obama presidency.

But most of us anticipating a Romney presidency misread how greatly the American electorate has changed over the past three decades.

Open immigration since the mid-’60s has altered America’s demographic profile, as it has Europe’s and ours in Canada. During these decades, multiculturalism, with its attendant political correctness, have also greatly affected, in my view for the worse, the values of work, thrift, freedom and responsibility at the heart of America’s great republican adventure.

I have received my share of vitriolic mail — the occupational hazard of standing in the public square — and likely more will come.

It is a bracing experience to take such mail as bird droppings, to wash them away without any disquiet, and move on with the task at hand.

I also know keeping faith in democracy is not forgetting, as Churchill with irony and given his bittersweet experience in politics observed, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

Good luck, America (you’ll need it)

And here I believed that Obamacare, chronic 8 percent unemployment, stagnant economic growth, crippling spending and the potential for more would sink a sitting president. Boy howdy, was I ever wrong. I take small comfort that people far smarter than I am were much more mistaken than I was – Michael Barone and George Will among them – but even so, I and my fellow crestfallen conservatives must ask ourselves just why we were so far off the mark.

My friend David Frum (also smarter than I am) has for years been urging Republicans to moderate if, in David’s parlance, they wish to orchestrate a “Comeback” in national politics. With a monsoon of respect for David’s intellect, I disagree with that notion.

Our previous nominee, John McCain, was as moderate as they come – even downright lefty on some issues – and he got trounced. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, despite apparently successful efforts to paint him as a corporate pirate, swinging in from the hard right with a dagger in his mouth and a briefcase full of pink slips in his free hand, is and was a moderate, too.

This may seem like utter rhubarb to those who have been fed a steady diet of Romney’s supposed radicalism, but here is a man who spoke of tax cuts as “spending,” enacted gender quotas (see also, “binders”), and, not for nothing, constructed the state-level prototype for Hi Barack!Obamacare.

Moderate or not, we have seen that GOP presidential candidates are painted as extreme. With that in mind, can Republicans reconcile their core beliefs with an electorate that thinks in completely different terms? For example, we believe that a simpler tax system with lower rates increases tax revenue, while causing the wealthy to pay a greater share, and we can prove it by citing presidencies all the way back to Calvin Coolidge (as economist Thomas Sowell has done). But what good does that do when the reflex of every journalist, politician and undecided voter is to refer to tax cuts as something you “pay for”?

On social issues, Republican candidates will always be asked the most difficult, gut-wrenching questions, regardless of whether they choose to campaign on such matters. In a way, this is a good thing, as it forces us to scrutinize our views. But Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock ought to have known that, sure as God made little green apples, Republicans running for office will be asked about abortion in the cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. If the best you can do is make Leviticus sound like a Planned Parenthood pamphlet, let someone else run.

To be sure, Democrats will almost never be asked to defend partial-birth abortion (or “late-term” abortion, as they insist it be called, along with attendant euphemisms like “evacuating the cranial cavity”), nor will they be asked just why an infant who survives an abortion should be denied medical care and left to die – as was Barack Obama’s policy as a member of the Illinois legislature.

But that’s just life on the right. There are many such unfair double standards; it’s why Republican Sharron Angle is supposedly too obtuse for the US Senate, yet a Democratic loony tune like Debbie “I can feel global warming when I fly” Stabenow cruises to re-election.

Republicans knew much of this going into the election, though. So again, why were we wrong and can we win without compromising our beliefs?

Columnist Andrew Klavan notes, “The smartest political writers in the country, all of whom are conservative, will now be addressing those questions.” But is it even a question of who is smarter than whom? For example, is Charles Krauthammer smarter than Paul Krugman? (Answer: Oh, yes). That said, Krugman was closer to calling this election than Krauthammer was.

Barone has been typically gentlemanly and philosophical in defeat: “So I was wrong. I take some pleasure in finding I have been wrong, because it’s an opportunity to learn more. As I prowl through the 2012 election statistics I will have an opportunity to learn much more about America and where we are today…Lots to learn for all of us.”

And perhaps therein lay the answer. Maybe we were so far off because the United States simply isn’t the country we thought it was.

As an American immigrant, I idealized this nation’s embodiment of liberty. Bit by bit, I have had to let go of those illusions. The Land of the Free locks people up at a rate 13 times faster than its population growth, and holds more prisoners than any other country on Earth. Its tax department treats citizens and their families as US government property, regardless of where they live in the world. And now that same IRS will be the arbiter of whether your health care meets the requirements of the federal government that ordered you to buy it.

Two years ago, I wrote that Americans would not stand for the excesses of a depraved organization like the TSA. And yet, polls show widespread support for that literal manifestation of government overreach, even as its perversions have spread beyond airports. Citizens born into freedom obediently line up to be molested and manhandled by government employees in the name of “safety.” No one wants to break from the herd. In truth, Americans would rather belong than be free.

Actually, it seems Americans rather like being told what to do. And that is what modern liberalism is all about – telling you what you can say, what you can eat, what kind of car you can drive, and whether you must wear a helmet while talking, eating or driving. The late William F. Buckley described a liberal as, “someone who wants to reach into your shower and adjust the temperature of the water.” Americans have voted for just that kind of official officiousness.

I never would have thought it, and it flies in the face of convention to say so but, with lower tax rates, greater freedom of movement, and a more liberated view of industry and energy, Canadians are more attuned to freedom than their American cousins are (socialized medicine notwithstanding, but just wait…).

It is said that Americans will elect anyone to Congress – once (John Edwards, please call your office). Since 2008, I have wondered if the same is true of the presidency. Obama swept into his first term amid a unique confluence of events, including a financial crisis, a deeply unpopular incumbent party, and a somnambulant Republican opponent. It could have been a fluke.

And despite his liberal leanings, I thought it was possible Obama might pleasantly surprise. As I wrote at the time, “Here’s hoping that he is such a smashing success that he gets busted onto Mt. Rushmore and his face knocks Thomas Jefferson’s right off the nickel.”

But it was no fluke, and Obama was utterly unsurprising. As I said on radio after this year’s election, nothing would make me happier than to become a fan of Barack Obama. But this time, there is far less reason for hope. He has proven to be the hard-left, big-government liberal he seemed. And Americans seem to be okay with this.

I genuinely do not know if conservatism can win again, or what this will mean for the future of the nation. While others on the right have pronounced this to be the end of America, perhaps they’ll forgive me if I rage a little longer against the dying of the light.

Lord knows I have been wrong before (and recently), so I hesitate to make hard and fast predictions. Nevertheless, it seems that in re-electing Obama, the United States has ratified its own decline. Good luck, America. You’re going to need it.

Good News?! Maybe now conservatives will finally have learned the lesson: Go bold. Not pastel.

It took two candidates, but maybe it will have sunk in this time. Going with that so-called “moderate” and “electable” candidate has failed yet again. It always does.  For those science-loving conservatives like me, it can quite literally be called a scientifically provable fact now, having been tried over again with the same outcome.

I’m not bashing Mitt Romney here. He was better than the last failed effort. He’s a good man in every way. But now, conservatives should take the remote control away from the self-anointed elites who think they know better, and do the right thing.

This time, take the sage advice of Ronald Reagan: speak in bold colors. Get your conservative message out there yourselves, and in plain, bold colors, not pale pastels. A year or two ago I might have suggested you start a web site with the name BoldColors just to emphasize the importance of that simple but effective message, but thankfully it’s already been done by someone very wise. Help him out and don’t worry, there are also other ways to do it.

Let’s start: conservatives, don’t now lament. That’s just what the progressive-left expects and hopes. Instead, chin-up, get your tools out, and activate. Fix it. That’s what conservatives do.

Socialists, liberals  –  progressives  –  and their media are all expecting you to now be demoralized, while they are freshly emboldened. Laugh at them and their arrogance as they whistle past the grave yard. Stand up and oppose them. This usually causes enormous shock and a freaked-out look on their faces and sometimes some pretty outlandish responses from them. It’s really pretty fun.

As our friend and my former columnist Ann Coulter wrote in her book How to Talk to a Liberal, “You must outrage the enemy.  If the liberal you’re arguing with doesn’t become speechless with sputtering, impotent rage, you’re not doing it right.”

This activist behavior will be new to most conservatives, but try it. You’ll see how others join you simply because it’s so much fun, and it’s so useful to the nation to boot.

Then activate yourself further. Get involved, from the top down and middle out and bottom up. Pick the right candidates. Send money. Act right. Live right. It’s not hard. It’s easier in fact. You’re probably holding back. Stop it.

Then really start to fight. The political “enemy” is not simply the politicians on the progressive left; it’s the corrupt “news” media which pretends  –  and has convinced  —   most people that they are “objective” and “fair” and “balanced.”  Get this through your head if it isn’t already, and through the heads of everybody around you: the mainstream media is not “objective” and “fair” and “balanced,” they are liars and shills for progressives. They are progressives.
Ronald Reagan
They’re not necessarily doing it on purpose either. Some liberals in the mainstream news media are just that ignorant and that dumb after decades of living in a liberal-left bubble, having been taught by liberal-left academia and raised under liberal-left parents and entertained and informed by a liberal-left media. They don’t know there is another side. If they do, they utterly misunderstand it. They are simply dumbed-down to a world view that is just that simplistic and provincial.

Some are so progressive (liberal, socialist, and some are full-on communists) that they don’t even know how progressive they are anymore. They have no clue that there’s another way to look at things. They think everyone in the room agrees with them. Don’t feel sorry for them. They’re lazy and stupid.

School them. Call them out. Fight them. Most of them cannot be trusted to present “news.” Most cannot present fact-based opinions either. You cannot trust a news media working under a guise or a pretense of objectivity when they demonstrably aren’t; when they actually have an agenda. Make them own their liberal-left bias and activism and their pretense to the contrary. It’s their perfidy. Define it as such.

The media is the enemy.

By the way, yes I mean enemy.

Define them. Don’t let the media define you. As you know, the Left and their media say the most ridiculous, insulting, extremist things about conservatives all day long, while hypocritically assassinating people like me who use the benign, descriptive word “enemy” as if it were meant to be taken as an actual call to arms (the actual arms being the others ones they want taken away from us), and as if I’m using it in terms of a gun battle or crazed, violent, conservative militant revolution. Call them out on that BS. For further examples of this, see “racist” and “homophobe” and “fascist” and “Nazi” and “extremist” and “anti-choice” and “millionaires and billionaires” and “not paying their fair share” and a hundred more lies like that that have been affixed to even the most moderate conservative. Or flash back to how they defined Sarah Palin; or how they blamed Sarah Palin for causing a Congressman to be shot simply because she used a picture of a target on a map of political targets to aim at and win. You have to fight those liberal fascists at every turn until they concede defeat.

It must be shown that the liberal-left mainstream media cannot be trusted.

Another “front” in this political war is in liberal academia. Fight them too. Don’t cower. You own them, they don’t own you.

On another front, don’t blithely support liberal entertainment media out of shear laziness. The people in that industry are some of the dumbest group-think useful idiots on planet Earth. And they are expert at playing the passive-aggressive progressive war game. They sneak progressive-left liberal or full-on socialist messages into just about everything they write, act, produce, direct, paint, sculpt, or sing about  –  often with taxpayer support. And in so doing, many of them have become multimillionaires with enormous power and a huge bully pulpit (the irony and hypocrisy seems to fly right over their air heads, or worse, it doesn’t).

Don’t watch their shows. Don’t go to their movies.

Together, liberals and the institutions that they have consumed can help make you and everybody else make very poor choices. For example, Barack Obama won the election last night.

“Liberal” or “progressive” is not the normal state of affairs. That would take “fundamentally transforming America,” as Barack Obama threatened and warned he would do, five days before his first election, and is now in the process of doing. Life is conservative.

Failure to act is arming the enemy. Stop it. Don’t let them get away with it. Fight the news media, fight liberal academia. Fight liberal entertainment media. Stand up to the liberal, anti-conservative messaging all around you. Speak out with your conservative message of good, positive, ideas; and proven conservative ideology, in big, brave, bold colors. It works.

 

Cross-posted at ProudToBeCanadian.ca and JoelJohannesen.com

 

I Hope This Is The Last Column I Ever Have To Write About Bronco Bamma

This past week a YouTube video of a crying four-year-old little girl named Abigail went viral. In the video Abby’s mom asks her why she’s so sad. Abigail replies through a steady stream of tears and mucus that she’s “tired of Bronco Bamma and Mitt Romney.” Well, little sister, I feel your pain. Now, mind you, I’m not tired of Romney and Ryan, but good Lord … and believe me when I tell you … I’m pig sick of Bronco Bamma.

Yep, I’m beyond ready for this ignoble thing called the Obama presidency to be officially finito. These past four years have been brutally lugubrious for this God- and country-loving rebel.

To what shall I compare the failed policies, ridiculous debt, over-the-top obfuscation and overall diminishment of the White House by this pusillanimous food stamp president?

Let’s see. Think, Doug. Think. Oh, I know! For me, Obama’s term in office has had all the appeal of watching Honey Boo Boo’s mom trying to get into a cat suit while eating a double meat burrito with extra guac and motor oil. How’s that?

Yep, hopefully this is one of the last columns I’ll ever have to pen about the crappiest sitting president ever. Oh, I’m sure Obama will come up in future articles after he’s ousted. For instance, I’ll probably have to cover him again when he, Hillary and Holder go to trial for the murderous Benghazi and Fast and Furious cover-ups—but that will be more fun than it will be work.

In addition, if I yield to the desires of my agent and publisher I’ll have to weigh in again on BHO’s Reign of Bollocks by writing a forthcoming book titled, Remember When America Was Dumb as Hell and Elected a Junior State Senator Who Was a Dyed-in-the-Wool Socialist to Run Our Country? But at least I’ll have a little reprieve from Obama as a topic because that slim tome’s not due out until the spring of 2014. But for week after week columns, hopefully—prayerfully—I’m done.

What’s interesting is that I’m not alone in this Obama malaise. At the cigar bar I frequent in Miami, my brothers who voted for Obama in ‘08 are finished with him; our trendy nurse and doctor neighbors are saying “adios muchacho” to the abysmal el presidente. And … and … stacks of my liberal Jewish friends amongst whom I dwell as a gentile are giving the big “Oy vey” to the thought of an Obama second term.

So, Abigail, you’re not alone in your pain, little child. Many of us throughout this God-blessed land are also tired of Bronco Bamma. Unfortunately, we will have to wait until Wednesday, sweet Abby, to see if our dreams will indeed come true.

 

Obama, Biden and Economic Patriotism

Perhaps the clearest example that Barack Obama’s re-election campaign has abandoned all hope is their slap-dash effort at articulating an economic agenda for a second term. Specifically, in response to trillion-dollar deficits, an imminent tax cliff, and the largest debt in the history of planet Earth, the president issued an absurd little pamphlet populated with pictures of himself.

Apart from the sheer flimsiness of the document – it looks like an Order of Service for some Eco-Unitarian congregation in Culver City (though they’d probably have a paperless “app” with complete liturgies and Wiccan hymnal) – one is struck by its Stalinist title: “New Economic Patriotism.”

From the beginning, it has been the wont of this administration to equate their leftist policies with patriotism itself. In 2008, Joe Biden chided those who might dare to disagree with the wisdom of raising tax rates, saying it’s “time to be patriotic” – this from a man who gives about 400 dollars to charity annually, despite collecting a hefty government salary for 40 years. As others have noted, Mitt Romney donated 1,000 times more to charity last year alone than Biden gave in a decade. Demonstrably, Democrats do not consider personal choices like charitable giving to be as worthy as forking over money to the IRS. For statists like Obama and Biden, patriotism means government redistribution.

See how that works? If you oppose Obama and Biden, or if you simply feel that the private sector is better able than centralized government to spur economic growth, you are unpatriotic (and probably a racist).

One more word on Biden: It was an act of monumental irresponsibility for Barack Obama to place that malignant buffoon a heartbeat from the presidency. If nothing else, the fact that Biden is followed around by the backup nuclear football ought to be enough to secure a Romney vote. Since he entered the Senate in 1973, Biden has been deadly, desperately wrong on every major issue of his time – from South Vietnam to the Nuclear Freeze to the 1991 Gulf War, right up to opposing the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. But beyond Biden’s legendary bad judgment, his clearly unhinged temperament – the sort only Democrats can get away with in public – poses a greater danger. To voters who imagine his maniacal, bizarre behavior while debating Paul Ryan was somehow an aberration, take it from those of us who have watched him for years: That’s just Joe.

As for Obama himself, on June 30, 2008, he declared, “I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign.” Three days later, he labeled President George W. Bush “unpatriotic” for adding $4 trillion to the national debt in eight years (a rate of borrowing that now seems quaint, as Obama has added $6 trillion to the debt in half that time). Democrats are always getting their aprons over their heads that their patriotism is being questioned, yet they are the ones who routinely hurl such charges in explicit terms (Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, please call your offices).

But back to Obama’s 20-page treatise and its totalitarian parlance: Economic patriotism is not defined by any one person or party. However, since Obama and Biden have presumed to provide their version (in short, “give us your stuff”), here is another: It is the belief in the American Dream, that tomorrow will be a bit better than today, that in this great country, it’s worth the risk and effort to build something, and to make something of yourself, free from fear that the fruit of your labor will be confiscated to satisfy someone else’s notion of fairness. If you believe that, and are willing to strive for such a goal, you are, indeed, an economic patriot.

A column to read, ponder, and keep: Charles Krauthammer’s Nov 1 2012.

Regular readers know I like Charles Krauthammer’s columns. This latest one is a must-read, and a keeper. Pass it around.

Nearly every paragraph has a quotable line or two.

Here’s a few paragraphs from the mid-section of  The Choice :

… Think about that. Health care is one-sixth of the economy. Education is the future. And energy is the lifeblood of any advanced country — control pricing and production, and you’ve controlled the industrial economy.

And it wasn’t just rhetoric. He enacted liberalism’s holy grail: the nationalization of health care. His $830 billion stimulus, by far the largest spending bill in U.S. history, massively injected government into the free market — lavishing immense amounts of tax dollars on favored companies and industries in a naked display of industrial policy.

And what Obama failed to pass through Congress, he enacted unilaterally by executive action. He could not pass cap-and-trade, but his EPA is killing coal. (No new coal-fired power plant would ever be built.) In 2006, liberals failed legislatively to gut welfare’s work requirement. Obama’s new Health and Human Services rule does that by fiat. Continued in a second term, it would abolish welfare reform as we know it — just as in a second term, natural gas will follow coal, as Obama’s EPA regulates fracking into noncompetitiveness.

Government grows in size and power as the individual shrinks into dependency. Until the tipping point where dependency becomes the new norm — as it is in Europe, where even minor retrenchment of the entitlement state has led to despair and, for the more energetic, rioting. …

 

Read it. “ The Choice

 

The puzzle in U.S. presidential elections

The role of the electoral college in American politics is unique, indirectly electing the U.S. president every four years. The American constitution provides for each state of the union to have a list of electors chosen by the state legislators equal to the number of elected representatives sent from the states to the U.S. Congress.

The electoral college consists of 535 electors, in number equal to the Congressional representation of 435 House members and 100 Senators, plus three electors from the District of Columbia.

The uniqueness of the American republican form of government is the constitutional checks and balances among the three equal branches of government.

Only the executive as the president represents indirectly the entire nation on the basis of popular vote nationally conducted, but the election of the president rests with the electors representing the states.

The candidates for the American presidency engage in a contest that comprises of 50 individual elections, plus one in the District of Columbia, held on the same day. In other words, as James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, “The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters.”

The reasoning behind such an arrangement was simple, to balance or safeguard the interests of minority (small states in terms of population) against majority (large populous states).

It was understood by the framers of the constitution that a majority vote in the electoral college meant the president-elect would be fairly representative of the union both in terms of total population and of states in the federation.

It has been rare — only on four occasions, the most recent in 2000 — when the majority vote in the electoral college went to a candidate losing the popular vote.

The reason for such a discrepancy to occur comes about when a candidate piles up the popular vote count by winning a few of the large and more populous states without winning enough of the smaller states to receive a majority of the electoral college vote.

The pattern of elections in recent years has shown that apart from a handful of so-called “battleground” states, most are locked in support of one of the two parties, Democrats or Republicans.

The coastal states — such as California (55 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (20), New York (29), New Jersey (14), — are locked in support of Democrats, while some of the southern states — such as Texas (38), Georgia (16), Arizona (11), Louisiana (8), Alabama (9) — support Republicans.

Hence, the battleground states — such as Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Iowa, where neither party has a lock on support of voters — become important in deciding the president-elect.

In the 2012 election cycle, since most observers view the race as tight, the decision will come down to a few key states putting either Obama or Romney over the top.

The 2012 election appears close based on assumptions drawn from the previous narrowly contested elections in 2000 and 2004

It is quite possible, however, this election might surprise most people, as the 1980 election did when Ronald Reagan won a landslide over the incumbent Jimmy Carter.

I will not be surprised with a similar result on election night.

Powerful Video of Two Objective Analysts Slamming Obama/Mainstream Media Coverup of Benghazi

Just uploaded this to the BoldColors.net YouTube Channel: An investigative reporter, Judith Miller (Pulitzer Prize-awarded former New York Times reporter), and Kirsten Powers, a Democratic Party spokesman, on Fox News Channel, just moments ago, bashed the mainstream media and Obama administration over the Benghazi coverup.

Both acknowledge a shared coverup between the media and the Obama administration, as I have since the day after it happened.

Some notable quotes from the video segment:

  • Dem talker Kirsten Powers: “The mainstream media is completely pathetic.”
  • Dem talker Powers: “This is as much of a scandal –the way the media has behaved– as what happened in Libya.”
  • Dem talker Powers: “It’s no longer possible to defend them [the mainstream media]“
  • Dem talker Powers: “They’re [the mainstream media] carrying water for the administration.”
  • Pulitzer winner Judith Miller: media has been “co-conspirators” with the Obama admin, covering Benghazi up.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=23kicUF2XNM)

This follows up nicely on the heels of my blog post here, called “Last chance for media, reporters, to save reputations, and finally get honest on Obama” (they missed their chance  –  it’s too late now), and numerous other posts and columns at BoldColors.net, and my many Twitter tweets about it.

You’ll remember the Obama admin blamed it on a YouTube video for weeks, and still have provided no answers.

 

Cross-posted at ProudToBeCanadian.ca and JoelJohannesen.com

 

The Presidential Race is Over, Cue the Conspiracy Theories

This race is over, but the conspiracy theories are about to begin. And, boy howdy, are things going to get ugly.

To wit, Mitt Romney will defeat Barack Obama for the presidency on November 6, after which there will be hysterical blowback. The election result is quantifiable, with Romney consistently leading in national tracking polls, finding a level at or above 50 percent in many, and closing the necessary gaps in swing states and among demographic groups. Greater evidence can be found, however, in Obama’s sour demeanor and the conduct of his campaign. What a mess.

Opinion-peddlers have noted that the Obama re-election effort has taken on the hallmarks of failed campaigns from previous cycles: scattershot messaging, flailing narratives, ad hominem attacks and joyless mockery. This was never going to work, and Democratic political veterans like Bob Beckel and Doug Schoen will likely admit as much once the polls are closed. Incurables like Alan Colmes and Maureen Dowd, however, will never let it go. And this latter stance – that Obama’s defeat is somehow illegitimate – will take hold in many, noisy quarters.

It is not only the politically interested who will adopt this view – even casual observers will be sucked in. We often see leftist orthodoxy morph into popular convention. This is because, while there are some smart people on the left, it requires almost no thinking to be a liberal. Simply absorb the political sentiments you hear in almost any Hollywood film, or on most any television program or newscast and, presto, you’re in. Repeat these nostrums at school or work and you will be rewarded. Augmented by the emotional satisfaction of the left’s perpetual righteous indignation, this dynamic becomes self-fulfilling and very cozy.

And it’s that snorting indignation warming up in the bullpen that augurs an ugly autumn. After Obama loses, every bellyacher you know will take to the world wide interwebs to blame the Bilderbergs, Bain Capital, Big Oil, Brigham Young – basically anyone but Obama himself. It will be insufferable. Theories will be all over the map, mutually contradicting one another, but advanced with furious certainty. Again, we see this often. The showerless outrage of the left knows no bounds, and it is impervious to reason.

Whether Romney’s margin of victory is large or small will matter little to the tone of these plaints. Certainly, a resounding win will foreclose the Democrats’ propensity to steal close elections through after-the-fact chicanery (presented as Exhibit A: Al Franken is a senator) but, for Obama apologists, a blowout will simply evince a wider conspiracy, and darker depths of American ignorance, bigotry and credulousness.

This sort of heads-we-win-tails-you’re-a-cheating-moron default is endemic to Democrats and emblematic of the international left. The last time a fabulously wealthy politician from Massachusetts ran for president, he lost fair and square. But John Kerry had the good fortune to be a Democrat (and had the further good fortune to marry into money – twice – making him several times wealthier than the self-made Romney), which is why California Sen. Barbara Boxer, among others, made it her business to overturn the electoral results in Ohio owing to voting “irregularities” she knew, just knew, had occurred. Britain’s Daily Mirror, meanwhile, responded to George W. Bush’s 2004 defeat of Kerry by asking, “How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?”

It will be far worse this time, however. Accusations of racism have been hurled at Obama’s opponents since he first announced his candidacy. While the effectiveness of this tactic has seen diminishing returns, its cynicism and ubiquity remain nonpareil in American politics, and will reach new heights after the election. But if, as Dr. King dreamed, we should be judged on the content of our character rather than the color of our skin, then any such assessment can be either good or bad.

The simple truth is that Barack Obama has been a lousy president – worse than Jimmy Carter, and the most antipathetic to the US Constitution since the despicable Woodrow Wilson (incidentally, one wonders how Wilson, an actual racist, would react to seeing his Progressive Era rhubarb revived by America’s first black president – food for thought).

Obama deserves to lose, and he will. By turning him out of office, the American people will be affording him the same treatment owed any president, regardless of color or creed, whose term has been a failure. In this way, Barack Obama’s defeat will provide greater evidence of America’s racial progress than his election ever did.