Ending Mail-In Ballots

An interesting topic, a perfectly reasonable and respectable objective. Will it get anywhere? I hope so but let's wait and see.

Outrage: rules for thee but not for Democrats

JFK Jr. can't get off the ballot in swing states Michigan and Wisconsin, but Kamala Harris was able to be swapped in for Let's Go Brandon no problem... yeah, elections are totally fair.

Here's your threat to democracy:

French elections explained

This is a great explainer of how French elections work and how difficult it might be for the French, female Trump, Marine Le Pen, to win the second round of French elections coming up outright. These weird tactical set-up elections favor the centrists or the left. Stay tuned.

Where there is smoke, there's fire

The United States can be infuriating. Here's how you fix voting, and how most civilized countries do it, or should do it if they don't:

1. Photo ID and recent proof of address for voters
2. Ballot/poll watchers from all parties present at every polling location
3. Hand counted ballots in every polling precinct
4. No calling of results in a riding until all poll watchers from parties have signed off 
5. Recourse for recounts under certain conditions

Why is that so hard in the United States?  Additionally, specific to the United States, why not make election day a national holiday? No mail-in ballots except for overseas military.  If you are a civilian out of the country, tough luck.  I know that's disenfranchising, but it's a relatively small number of people and if it were that important to you, you'd plan for it. Sorry, not sorry. Also, why do some Democrat states take a week for votes to get counted?  And in those cases there is always a Democrat surge from behind.  It's bull and everyone knows it.  In your quest for power you are destroying the democratic process and the concept of democracy itself.

The above 5 requirements are not disenfranchising, they make sure every vote is counted, once, and ghost votes are not counted. That empowers real voters.  Corruption in the voting process is the real disenfranchisement of voters. Instead, we get crap like this:

Hopefully it's not too late for America, but it is getting grim.

There are elections today

Red Eagle Politics predicts some state level elections being held today. In today's off the rails woke climate, every single election matters.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands, winning

Last week in the Netherlands, there was a big win for farmers who have been fighting back against oppressive fertilizer regulations that would fundamentally gut the industry.  The Netherlands is one of the world's largest agricultural exporters.  They have achieved what the Canadian trucker protests known as the Freedom Convoy could not do.

A brand new party, known as the BBB for short have won the most seats in the recent parliamentary elections.

Trump's predicament

President Trump has made no great secret that he wants to run for president again in 2022. But he's in a bit of a tricky situation due to a number of converging factors. 

Firstly as of right now, the GOP are walloping Let's Go Brandon and the  Democrats in generic congressional polling (as of this writing, the Republicans hold a 4.2% lead in the RCP average, an average that most recently tends to understate the margin of victory of the poll leading party see 2018, 2014 and typically understates GOP support).  That's good news for conservatives and an apple cart we do not want to upset heading towards the November midterm elections. It behooves president Trump not to upset that momentum as the Democrats have been bleeding Hispanic and now African American support too.  It's on the best interest of the party right now for Trump to keep a low profile except in strategic races where he can help.  

Secondly Elon Musk is in the process of claiming Twitter. He's vowed to make it more open and balanced and has offered to reinstate president Trump's account (who, thanks to his efforts with Truth Social, has so far declined to return). Let's Go Brandon and the Democrats (not to mention CNN et al.) would secretly love to see president Trump return unfettered to the platform.  They need him as a foil to counter the Democrats' absolutely abysmal record on everything since taking control of D.C.  He could act as a distraction for them, and his brash style most certainly would attract/distract a lot of attention. Circling back to the first point, keeping a low profile is not president Trump's style. Whether it's Twitter or Truth Social, he wants to be in there swinging.  We'll circle back to this point as well.

If polling is to be believed, Ron DeSantis is lined up to produce a crushing electoral win in the coming Florida gubernatorial race.  If logic is to be believed, he's lined up to be an eventual presidential contender either in 2024 or 2028.  If he crushes it in this gubernatorial election the case for 2024 becomes that much stronger, as Trump-hating Allahpundit points out.

That diminishes the window for president Trump to remain quiet, to remain off Twitter if Truth Social is still experiencing birthing pains.  He has a limited window to act if he doesn't want to be threatened as the GOP frontrunner for 2024. It precedes even the window that Allahpundit suggest of January 2023.  Why?  If president Trump appears to sit on the sidelines during the 2022 midterm run-up he hardly exudes leadership.

Conversely, if he does insert himself, he risks giving the Democrats the arch-villain they want for this election.  President Trump is not one to back down from a fight. He's likely to go all in for 2022 and as a conservative, that's something we should be glad about: running from a fight has failed Republicans for decades.  Why go back to that approach now?  So it really isn't a predicament.  We know what media storm is going to come if president Trump inserts his support and speeches into the midterm elections. We know there will be potential polling pitfalls that come with that. But there is also the potential benefit of rallying support around a rebuke of D.C. Trump need only make it about the contrast between his record good numbers and Let's Go Brandon's record bad numbers.  If he can do that in 6 second sound bytes the news is all good for conservatives.  And we still have our secret weapon: Let's Go Brandon is still the one making decisions, and all of them are bad.

This out-powers the Democrats' demographic advantage

You can read it almost anywhere that politics written or discussed - due to the changing Demographics of the nation, specifically growing Latino and African American populations, Democrats will own the electoral future.  Never mind that there are inherent flaws in that idea, there's something stronger that matters a whole lot more, and it will determine every single election in the future, just as it has in the past.

Every president in my political lifetime - I started paying attention as a teenager in 1979 during the Iran hostage crisis -  except one, won for one clear reason: optimism.

• Ronald Reagan promised to restore America to a shining city on a hill (a notion borrowed from Jesus' sermon on the mount). He campaigned on optimism and American exceptionalism.  In the face of malaise, American defeat and humiliation abroad he promised prosperity, a force to stand against Soviet aggression and America's unique place in the world.  His success was so great that his vice president George H W Bush won in a landslide without breaking a sweat, carried by a promise to continue Reagan's legacy and to create "no new taxes" (which he then broke).
• George H W Bush campaigned on a positive note as well, modifying Reagan's message to his own 1000 points of light.
• Bill Clinton won promising a new covenant to America to heal the gap between the rich and the poor.  Many conservatives mocked him for claiming he felt the pain of the plight of the poor.  Nevertheless, his presidency received a major post convention bounce because, despite the campaign platforms, the spirit was one of positivity and optimism. True, he had a powerful third party candidate draining away disaffected Republican voters from president Bush who had also betrayed his own tax pledge, making himself a weak candidate.  But the positivity, the optimism surrounding his convention were crucial and instrumental to allowing him to become a palatable alternative to a sitting president.
• He was followed by George W Bush whose message frankly was muddled, won a close election between two weak candidates.  He won re-election after 9/11 with a more honed and positive message about America's place in the world.  His initial election could be regarded as the exception to the rule.
• Following Bush of course was president Obama.  His platform was terrible, his ideas backwards but his message was one of 'Hope and Change', clearly optimism and positivity (cleverly, coyly bundled with radical change).  He couched it with his own tabula rasa (blank slate) so people would see in him what they wanted to see.  He too, unlike Clinton, won in a massive landslide.
• That brings us to president Trump. Make America Great Again is clearly a message of optimism and positivity.  Take away any underlying disagreements you may or may not have with him about immigration or free trade etc., the underlying message is one of positivity.  Not we can do better, but we WILL do better.

There's a thread among all of those victories (skipping past the power of incumbency for now) - optimism and positivity.  That makes victories.  Candidates who can do that put plainly, win.  It trumps demographics and it always will.  And here's the greatest irony about it - Democrats are not only relying on demographics to win, they are leaning into it by pandering to and embracing identity groups.  Not only is that a recipe for disaster for the country if it succeeds, it luckily is a recipe for disaster for Democrats.  They cannot find the truth when they continue to believe their own lie.  They will continue to pursue their own lie.

Coming to this realization has significantly changed my worry about 2024.

Yes, I am positive president Trump will be re-elected this year. Joe Biden's "C'mon man!" catch phrase is akin to "Bah humbug".  That's not a recipe for victory and it's no wondering the campaign team is trying to keep Joe under wraps until the convention.  They are trying to minimize the damage he can do to himself.  He's got to smile, he's got to stay on script and appear positive.

But the people writing his speeches will be those same lie-seeking individuals who believe they are on the right side of the demographic ledger.  They will not be able to forge a truly positive message that will resonate because they don't believe the truth. The truth is that America is great, has been great and will continue to be great unless they win and tear it all down.   Trump will win in 2020.

It's 2024 that worries me.  Mike Pence is a good, honorable man. But he lacks the demeanor to  carry the positivity message convincingly.  Conservative voters could fall back to their old ways and just nominate the next in line.  Heck, Donald Trump could just fall back on loyalty and endorse him.

Pence has not shown the vision to look forward with the eagerness necessary to convey the optimism and positivity with a connective empathetic feeling.    Maybe he will prove me wrong, or maybe he won't be the candidate.  I think the 2020 election will be the second most important election in my lifetime, more important than 1980 and second only to 2016.  So this belief that 2020 is all but assured for president Trump is not a call for conservative complacency.  But all that said, I believe that 2024 will end up just as important as 2016 was.  That is where conservative energy and focus and the drive to find a candidate of positivity will matter most, because that is what will ensure victory, on perhaps a generational level.

And if we can remember that, there's no reason we cannot win every election and in doing so not only impact the courts for generations to come, but also perceptions of Latinos, African Americans, millenials and generations beyond, that America actually is a great (not perfect, but great) place.

Project Veritas releases more Google insider info

The Google-is-evil rabbit hole is deep:

The Atlantic frets over Democrats' hold on religious voters

The hypocrisy doesn't help your case.

There's an article in The Atlantic today, explaining why the Democrats need to regain the trust of religious voters.  That's not the real point.  The real point is why they lost that trust in the first place.

The Atlantic, missing the point entirely (and not for the first time):

Democrats ignored broad swaths of religious America in the 2016 election campaign and the nation has suffered because of it. Yet calls for a recommitment to faith outreach—particularly to white and other conservative or moderate religious voters—have been met in some corners of liberal punditry with a response as common as it is unwarranted. Some quarters of the Democratic party would rather maintain rhetorical and ideological purity than win with a more inclusive coalition. For the sake of the country, the party must turn back to people of faith.

We know faith outreach works, because it has worked before. In 2005, after the reelection of a president many Democrats believed was clearly unfit for leadership, a concerted decision was made to close the “God Gap” that the GOP had so effectively exploited. Yes, the Democratic Party was losing among white religious people, but there was also an understanding in the party that its margins among black and Hispanic voters were limited by the perception that the party was antagonistic toward religion. Democrats took back Congress in the 2006 midterms, through a combination of direct engagement, district-based flexibility on policy, and rhetorical adjustments.

That's wrong on so many levels. Firstly the Democratic party is clearly only interested in providing lip service to religious voters. Their actions - from abortion, to prayer in schools, to hard stands on gay marriage  and birth control,  to banning of religious displays, to referring to religious voters in terms of being 'bitter clingers' - speak much louder than anything they might say during election season.  They want the votes of religious voters but they don't want to actually do anything to support their concerns because they are anathema to Democrat dogma. So they entice them with notions of being charitable and supporting the community as being a Christian duty. But not only do they not-so-secretly disdain Christian voters, they are openly hostile to them in political practice.

Even the Atlantic view the connection with those voters as a means to an end - saving the country from conservatives, and in the process, many conservative and often Christian traditional values.  The Atlantic speaks of outreach as having the ability to win back religious voters and they use 2006 as an example.  Even their example is wrong; 2006 was simply an anti-Bush anti-Iraq-war backlash.

The Atlantic article is cynical and hopefully religious voters don't fall for this sort of political sophistry any longer. Then again, the Democratic party seems to be headed towards a hard turning of its's back on religious voters anyway.  The true positions are more and more out in the open thanks to former president Obama.  What likely remains to be seen is if the Democrats can win with a more overtly anti-Christian platform.  Instead they are likely to continue to rely on a combination of identity politics and social safety net handouts hoping that will trump voter religious views when it comes to the ballot box.  The Democrats turned their back on religion decades ago, it's just now that people are finally starting to notice.  Assuming that stark stance remains,  whether it works remains to be seen, but for the sake of having a culture, a national identity and even social norms, let's hope it fails.

Hong Kong flummoxed by Kangaroo Court

If you are simply going to overrule election results that you don't like, why bother with the pretense of even having elections?  I'm looking at you communist China.  Hong Kong recently held local elections and the results were simply dismissed.

Activists accused Beijing of crippling Hong Kong's parliament Friday after four pro-democracy lawmakers were disqualified.

More than 1,000 people protested near the government offices Friday night in response to the decision.

The High Court judgement came as a massive blow for the democracy movement as it means the balance of power in the partially elected legislature swings further to the pro-China camp because opponents do not have enough seats to veto bills.

Former Umbrella Movement protest leader Nathan Law was among those barred in a case brought by the semi-autonomous city's Beijing-friendly government after the four changed their oaths of office to reflect frustrations with Chinese authorities.

Law was one of several rebel lawmakers to secure a foothold in parliament at citywide elections in September.

But that triumph was soon jeopardised [sic] after Beijing issued a special interpretation of Hong Kong's mini-constitution in November to insist oaths be taken in a "sincere and solemn" manner.

That's one way to run a kangaroo court; just be obvious about it.

Ukraine vs the 2014 elections.

A friend of mine thinks that what is going on in the Ukraine is the ultimate test for Obama. The way he sees it is that this will have worldwide geopolitical implications for the United States, all dependent on how Obama reacts to the crisis in the Ukraine with the Russians demanding they surrender Crimea to Russia.  He also postulates that Obama could use this opportunity to distract from scandals and failures of his administration for the past five plus years.

It's the latter point that intrigues me.  Obama by talking Putin down from the ledge of all out war, could come across as both diplomatic and strong at the same time.  This represents a golden opportunity for him.  If Russia does back away from it's demands that it may now be claiming it didn't really make, and Obama claims he talked them away from annexation of the Crimea, it could fundamentally alter the dynamics of the midterm elections.

Saturday Learning Series - Election Basics

Saturday Learning Series returns today with a brief look at elections. Here are a couple of simple explanations of the election process in the United States.   

Presidential elections



Voting patterns

The Republican hurdles on the horizon

It's eight months and a few days to the November mid-term elections and things are looking fairly good for the Republicans in terms of being in a position the day after the elections to slam the brakes on everything Obama. It's nearly morning in America again. The sun for conservatives will come out tomorrow. Health care cap and trade need only;y be stemmed until then, and afterwards there will no longer be a threat to American civilization. The countdown to freeing America from the bonds of progressivism is well under way. There won't be any hurdles.  What could possibly go wrong?

Well, there's a list of possible hurdles the GOP faces. Any of these could cause problems for the GOP's prospects in November 2010, but the real danger is the possibility of more than one of these factors coming into play. Sure, it might seem paranoid and counter-productive to think things in such a negative way, but I've always been one who believed that planning is at least half the battle. Anticipate problems and have a risk mitigation plan at the ready. Politics is like chess - you need to think a few moves ahead of your opponent if you want an advantage.

The risks

1. An ineffectual GOP in messaging. As I mentioned previously, it would seem the Tea Party crowd (not using that in any derogatory way, since I'd count myself among them) haven't all heard the GOP message that they've heard the Tea Party message and have mended their ways. When you have someone like Glenn Beck saying he doesn't think they've heard, then the message isn't filtering through loudly enough. There's plenty of time for things to go wrong, but here's an opportunity for things to go right. The negative here is NOT GETTING THE MESSAGE OUT. The GOP has 6 months to let people know that they are going to do things right.

The trick is making sure people hear it. If the voters don't hear it, it could dampen turnout in November. Furthermore, failure to get the message out allows your opponent to be the one to describe you - and you don't want that happening, ever. Failure to get your own story out there is a recipe for disaster. I suspect it wouldn't be for a lack of effort, but the media represents an uphill challenge for the GOP so a smarter effort will be necessary.

2. A resurgent Obama in either popularity or at least rhetorical impact. President Obama proved yet again with the State of the Union address that he can still swing polling numbers, even if it is only temporarily. He still believes in his own swagger. A few riveting speeches in late September and through October could be enough to swing a few key seats back his way. The way to counteract that, sadly enough, is to damage the brand before then. The only way to do that is to pound the faults with his agenda at every opportunity. Jobs, debt, misguided health care, and an expensive belief in Cap and Trade, based on dubious science. Hammer those themes every day. Yes, offer your own ideas, but they must always be coupled with a 'why'; the Democrats' solutions are counter-productive and they insist on forcing them upon you. Look at how they've performed on jobs, debt, misguided health care, and unnecessary Cap and Trade.

3. A wave of non-incumbent Democrats with bona fides on outsider status, could argue that they, not the GOP represent the real change. They have learned from the mistakes of both parties and they represent the real fresh blood that the Capitol needs. Okay, I don't even buy that as a fleeting possibility. Next.

4. Third Party Spoilers. A wave of third party spoilers is not likely. But nevertheless, eating up a possible seat or two by splitting the conservative vote could count if the swing to the GOP ends up at around 40 seats in Congress and 8-10 seats in the Senate. I see this as being more of a potential Congressional impact than a Senate influencing factor. Still, despite this being a small risk, the GOP should do everything they can to make sure their tent is big enough to include Tea Party issues in as an inclusive way as possible. There's a fine line though - you want to avoid the kook factor so that Chris Matthews doesn't get to play up the Tea Party wacko factor.

5. Economic recovery/prosperity in full gear by election day. Jim Geraghty at National Review asks the right question - is the GOP peaking too soon? His answer is heartening for GOP prospects in that there's no reason to believe that the job recovery will be in full swing by September. But I think it misses one critical point to an as yet, unmeasurable extent. That is, that perception is reality. A couple of quarters of positive GDP would be followed by a flood of Democrat and MSM messaging that the Democrats' approach was sound and we just need to give them time to let the recovery play out - business is booming, jobs are sure to follow. True or not, there's going to be heavy spinning of the story. It would seem quite easy to counter the spin. If they were talking about green shoots of recovery last year, why is it taking so long? But again all that's really needed is some positive signs over the next few months and it will be portrayed as the start of a tsunami of job creation. Reality will bear out the truth if the jobless rate is still over 9.5% Anything lower and you'll see the "we've turned the corner on the Bush failings" argument. Above 9.5% I don't see how that distortion can hold water.

6. Impact on 2012. A lot of people have speculated that the economic recovery will be anemic at best and that by winning in 2010 the GOP invite upon themselves some of the animus currently reserved for Democrats. The anger it is argued is with Washington, and right now that means Democrats. Is 2012 more important than 2010? Maybe to the Mayans, but in terms of political wins, I say score when you can, as often as you can. You don't go for a field goal on 2nd and 10 in order to play the clock smarter. That philosophy pre-supposes that the GOP have no value to add over the ensuing two years, and that the resulting gridlock between Republican bills and Presidential vetoes will be blamed on Republicans.

I see that as a golden opportunity. If Obama won't go along with GOP proposals, instead of the GOP watering down their efforts to be bi-partisan, it provides a fantastic example of where the real hard partisanship is coming from. A President who just wanted a Democratic controlled Congress to just get something on his desk to sign, will suddenly be seen as being axiomatically against GOP bills and clearly, not post-partisan.

Furthermore, the GOP will be presented with a strong electoral victory the chance to prove they stand for something rather than just against something. While they should be proving that now anyway, a victory allows them the opportunity to prove in practices what they are now mouthing in theory only; we heard you, we share your ideals, and we have the right ideas - just watch us.

2010 elections - the logical outcome of 2008

Democrats are undoubtedly still perplexed at the steadily eroding public support for President Obama. You can see it in their actions. Those who had rushed to support his agenda, from Nancy Pelosi to Blanche Lincoln have either clung desperately (the irony of using that phrase is sweet) to the agenda, tried to come up with their own path or else abandon it (falsely or genuinely) and him entirely. You can see it also in the chattering class - from Jon Stewart taking the occasional and previously unimaginable, shot at the President to those expressing utter dismay at his lack of results, to those clinging to his supposed brilliance by ferociously defending him with the same verve that they had while attacking President Bush.

But the predicament the President, and Democrats in general find themselves in is a, no the, logical outcome of the events of 2008. There was no other way that things could turn out. And there is very little leeway now for Democrats to impact the outcome of the 2010 elections. At this point, it's a little bit like a convicted felon awaiting either a death sentence or life without parole. You know one of the two is going to happen and you make your pitch for the latter but clemency or a pardon is just not coming.

Even Republicans, having been chastised by the public in 2006 and again 2008 were disoriented by the Obama momentum. John McCain wasn't running against Obama - he was running against his pre-ordained myth. After the election for a time Republicans just shut up. Or tried to play along for fear of losing even more in 2010.

A while ago I mentioned detecting a small shift in the public mood and that as a conservative I was suddenly a bit worried about 2010. That feeling of a shift has thankfully passed. But despite the fact that I believe the Democrats are in big trouble there is still the possibility that Republicans can blow it. So the worry is still there. Worry is better than complacency and ironically complacency is one of my biggest worries. But, as is often the case, I digress.

Most would be shocked by where things stand today. Obama's job approval ratings are at or near the underwater mark, depending on the poll. But there are those of us, plenty actually who knew this day would come - that people would wake up to the reality of an Obama Presidency.

The President campaigned in 2008 based on saying a lot of things that would be difficult or impossible to fulfill. He also positioned himself in a way that put him in opposition to himself. Basically, he tried to portray himself as a centrist and as a far left progressive at the same time, depending on what suited the moment or the audience.

Now the public, individually expected him to govern one way or the other, depending on their own personal transference upon him. If they were moderates they believed what they heard when he said he was post-partisan. They believed his words about middle class taxes not going up. They believed he would clean up and change Washington and that he would put Congressional back room dealing out in the open on CSPAN. Some of them heard Afghanistan is the war of necessity.

The far left wing of the party on the other hand, heard "out of Iraq", Cap and Trade, and single payer universal health care. They heard close Guantanamo or they heard student loan forgiveness.

And when candidate Obama talked to Joe the Plumber about spreading the wealth, conservatives felt they had their smoking gun of socialism. Surely the center would abandon him. But they didn't - it was too late. He had become larger than life by campaigning in a way that allowed everyone, including conservatives even, to project upon him their own image of him and his agenda.

Simon and Garfunkel in the song The Boxer (not Barbara by the way) put it best:

"a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

No man can possibly deliver on divergent promises. And his promises ARE divergent. As a result it was only natural the Obama's support would erode. It had to - no other outcome was ever possible.

[Note - the remainder of this article is new, replacing what Google / Blogger deleted on me in my original attempt to post on this topic.  This content differs from what was previously written, as that content was lost entirely.  For the record, Google sucks].

So what happens in 2010 because of that?  Look at it from the perspective of Democratic candidates.  Since I wrote this last time (and Blogger swallowed two-thirds of my post into a black hole, stupid Google), Democratic Senator Evan Bayh has become a sterling example of the possibilities.  He has announced he will retire and not seek election.  Democrats have three choices at this point.  They can stick with Obama and the far left agenda (since he doesn't appear to be pulling a Bill Clinton and tacking back to the center).  They can quit.  Or, they can distance themselves from the left wing agenda and try to come off as more centrist in hopes of winning back lost independents.

None of those are a winning strategy in and of themselves. Retirement only works if you are already vilified (are you listening Harry Reid?).  The Evan Bayh retirement was a surprise.  While he was in some trouble, his seat was certainly still very winnable for him (ignore the Kos polling - his race was tight).  His retirement makes little sense.  Blanche Lincoln on the other hand has no chance of climbing back into her Senate race, yet she has decided to appear to tack back to the center on the national security and the KSM trial issues.  Again - it makes no sense.  She should retire and let the Democrats find someone less tied to the Democratic political establishment to try to take on the Republicans.  Then there are those who are the most like Marie Antoinette who are clinging to their Obama religion hoping it will save them from electoral defeat.  They are blinded to the reality of the current electorate and because they are still blinded by the euphoric liberal enthusiasm of last year, enabled by the mainstream media which has the same problem by and large, they can't see the world as it currently is.  They are driving the nation, looking in the rear view mirror instead of looking at the road ahead.  At every turn Democrats seem to be doing the wrong thing.  They have been caught unaware and seem to be (under the surface of course) in full-on panic mode.

The decline of Democrats in 2010 is inevitable, regardless of the fact that they are seemingly REALLY contributing to their own demise.  Michael Barone has a piece today in the Washington Examiner talking about how the GOP has to react to take advantage of the Democrats current crisis. In the specifics, he is quite right;

The architects of Bush’s victory in 2004 and of Obama’s victory in 2008 dreamed of establishing permanent governing majorities for their parties. But as political scientist David Mayhew has argued, and as the events following those victories suggest, a permanent majority is a will o’ the wisp.

Better to put into place public policies that will be enduring as party majorities come and go. This is what the Republican Congress elected in 1946 did: It repealed wartime wage and price controls, it revised labor law to reduce unions’ powers and it provided bipartisan support for Harry Truman’s Cold War policies. Democrats won back congressional majorities in 1948, but Republicans’ policies stayed in place, shaping prosperous postwar America.

Americans have rejected the Europeanizing policies of the Obama Democrats. Republicans may get a chance to put us on a better American path. They need to be prepared to do so.

BINGO.  It's true that it's still a long way to November (8.5 months).  It's true that the GOP needs to be, and to be seen to be, proactive.  But not politically.  They need to focus on what they want to fix and how - what damage they can undo, like the deficit for example.  From a political strategy standpoint, they shouldn't focus too much on anything other than the basics - get candidates, get money to advertise, connect with voters and talk about your ideas.  Other than that, just stay out of the way of the Democrat free fall.

The Democrats who decide to cling to Obama have a potent weapon in his speaking ability.  He is not a superb orator, but he does have the ability to spike his own approval for a few days after a speech and could do so again for others, despite his lack of success in Massachusetts and New Jersey in particular.  But the spike as seen in the Rasmussen graphs are temporally very brief.  Obama is not as ubiquitous as he was last year. because the White House knows that he was getting over-exposed.  They are keeping his powder mostly dry for the 2010 election cycle.  That's a double edged sword for those Obama hangers-on.  They need him to come in and save the day.  But it has to be close to election day.  He cant be in 360 districts and make 360 speeches in one week.  You'd think the Democrats would have a better plan than that, wouldn't you?  If not, we had no business losing to them in the first place.  Ever.

Democrats who retire are a bit of a wild card - in some districts like Dodd's it helps the Democrat chances, in other's like Bayh's it hurts.  It's too early to gauge these individual races.  But for those who have abandon ship Obama, his message to the Democrats as reassurance had been "you've got me" in comparing 2010 to 1994.  for those distancing themselves - they don't want him.  He's like an albatross they can't shake, or a boat anchor tied to their neck.  Or cement shoes.  Pick your metaphor, it's fun.  The problem with this approach is that they have a record of having supported directly or through being bought off, the very items they are now wanting to step away from.  It's pretty transparent and therefore it's not going to help them much.  It might in a few races, but overall, the damage of 2009 has been done.

Emboldened with hubris as a result of the anti-Bush election of 2008, Democrats believed they had an agenda mandate that Americans didn't really give them.  Further, the American political system, by it's very nature of checks and balances, sets politicians up to under-deliver, especially those who over-promise, and boy did the Democrats and Obama ever do that.  Positioning yourself as The One to solve everything, combined with a rhetorical flair to make it seem believable and a broad unspecific platform beyond Hope and Change guarantees you will disappoint a lot of people.  It obviously can get you elected, but it also pretty much also guaranteed the fallout for this year.  Barring a miraculous 2010, and 2011 it has a lot to say for 2012 as well.

Whatever the Democrats and the GOP do now, they are playing at the edges.  The Democrats could lose anywhere from 5 to 10 seats in the Senate and 20-50 seats in Congress.  What both parties are trying to do is work within that range, but only strong economic change will bring about real tilts in those numbers.  Well, that and big blunders by the GOP, though I suspect they may at some point in the next few months shift into the Prevent Defense for the remainder of the cycle and work on consolidating their gains to date. That may or may not be the right strategy - that's worth a discussion of its own.

The course is fundamentally set now.  It was set back in 2008.  My own moment of panic aside, there's no reason not to enjoy the coming months.  That doesn't mean become complacent, it means be positive about the outcome of the November mid-terms, and work towards them in that frame of mind.  You'll enjoy it so much more.

2010 elections: The logical conclusion of 2008

This is what I could recover from what may have been one of my best posts in some time, but has been lost thanks to stupid Blogger on Google. I found some rough notes on what I was going to write. I'm too angry to even bother re-writing it right now.

Following the opening paragraph below, is the rough draft of what I had intended to post, repleat with examples that had been completed, and a lot of 2010 analysis that I made the mistake of writing directly into blogger rather than drawing in freaking crayons and mailing to Google. ARG!!!!!

Maybe if I get over it, I'll pik up where this leaves off. Apologies in advance for any spelling or grammar errors. I'm done for today.


************************************

Democrats are undoubtedly still perplexed at the steadily eroding public support for President Obama. You can see it in their actions. Those who had rushed to support his agenda, from Nancy Pelosi to Blanche Lincoln have either clung desperately (the irony of using that phrase is sweet) to the agenda, tried to come up with their own path or else abandon it (falsely or genuinely) and him entirely. You can see it also in the chattering class - from Jon Stewart taking the occasional and previously unimaginable, shot at the President to those expressing utter dismay at his lack of results, to those clinging to his supposed brilliance by ferociously defending him with the same verve that they had while attacking President Bush.

*****************************************

But the predicament the President, and Democrats in general find themselves in is a, no the, logical outcome of the events of 2008. There was no other way that things could turn out. And there is very little leeway now for Democrats to impact the outcome of the 2010 elections. At this point, it's a little bit like a convicted felon awaiting either a death sentence or life without parole. You know one of the two is going to happen and you make your pitch for the latter but clemency or a pardon is just not coming.

Even Republicans, having been chastised by the public in 2006 and again 2008 were disoriented by the Obama momentum. John McCain wasn't running against Obama - he was running against his pre-ordained myth. After the election for a time Republicans just shut up. Or tried to play along for fear of losing even more in 2010.

A while ago I mentioned detecting a small shift in the public mood and that as a conservative I was suddenly a bit worried about 2010. That feeling of a shift has thankfully passed. But despite the fact that I believe the Democrats are in big trouble there is still the possibility that Republicans can blow it. So the worry is still there. Worry is better than complacency and ironically complacency is one of my biggest worries. But, as is often the case, I digress.

Most would be shocked by where things stand today. Obama's job approval ratings are at or near the underwater mark, depending on the poll. But there are those of us, plenty actually who knew this day would come - that people would wake up to the reality of an Obama Presidency.

The President campaigned in 2008 based on saying a lot of things that would be difficult or impossible to fulfill. He also positioned himself in a way that put him in opposition to himself. Basically, he tried to portray himself as a centrist and as a far left progressive at the same time, depending on what suited the moment or the audience.

Now the public, individually expected him to govern one way or the other, depending on their own personal transference upon him. If they were moderates they believed what they heard when he said he was post-partisan. They believed his words about middle class taxes not going up. They believed he would clean up and change Washington and that he would put Congressional back room dealing out in the open on CSPAN. Some of them heard Afghanistan is the war of necessity.

The far left wing of the party on the other hand, heard "out of Iraq", Cap and Trade, and single payer universal health care. They heard close Guantanamo or they heard student loan forgiveness.

And when candidate Obama talked to Joe the Plumber about spreading the wealth, conservatives felt they had their smoking gun of socialism. Surely the center would abandon him. But they didn't - it was too late. He had become larger than life by campaigning in a way that allowed everyone, including conservatives even, to project upon him their own image of him and his agenda.

Simon and Garfunkel in the song The Boxer put it best: "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

No man can possibly deliver on divergent promises. And his promises ARE divergent. As a result it was only natural the Obama's support would erode. It had to - no other outcome was ever possible.

****************

1300+ more words MISSING.

Stupid Google. I'm seriosuly thinking about moving to Wordpress.

20 Things You Didn't Know About... Elections

I'm at a point in my life where learning has never been more important.  I love discovering new (to me) knowledge. I stumbled upon Discover Magazine's series 20 Things You Didn't Know About...

One that's quite relevant to this blog, 20 Things You Didn't Know About... Elections

My two favorites;

7. In 2007 neuroscientists examined the brain activity of undecided voters as they viewed the leading presidential candidates in the race.

8. The two candidates who elicited the least amount of activity? John McCain and Barack Obama.