The Romney Loss

Already, the right wing morons are leaping out of the woodwork to demand that the Republican Party get even worse.  I started writing a post about what really happened in this election when I found the following from George Will - who can say anything better?

 

Thursday, Nov. 08, 2012

Status Quo Preserved

By George F. Will - Washington Post

http://www.thestate.com/2012/11/08/2511241/status-quo-preserved.html#storylink=cpy

 

I hope sensible people everywhere will simply stop listening to the awful Rush Limbaugh and his opportunist ilk.

 

If we believe in this country and its people then we have to understand that the loyal opposition to progressives are as much as half wrong.

 

 

 

 

[Some folks have trouble following links, so I’ve pasted the column below.]

 

 Status Quo Preserved

By George F. Will - Washington Post

Thursday, Nov. 08, 2012

 

America’s 57th presidential election revealed that a second important national institution is on an unsustainable trajectory. The first, the entitlement state, is endangered by improvident promises to an aging population. It is now joined by the political party whose crucial current function is to stress the need to reform this state. And now the Republican Party, like today’s transfer-payment state, is endangered by tardiness in recognizing that demography is destiny.

 

Perhaps Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election on Sept. 22, 2011, when, alarmed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s entry into the Republican nomination race, he rushed to Perry’s right regarding immigration, attacking the DREAM Act. He would go on to talk about forcing illegal immigrants into “self-deportation.” It is surprising that only about 70 percent of Hispanics opposed Romney.

 

As it has every four years since 1992, the white portion of the turnout declined in 2012. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first person elected president while losing the white vote by double digits. In 2012 — the year after the first year in which a majority of babies born in America were minorities — Hispanics were for the first time a double-digit (10 percent) portion of the turnout. Republicans have four years to figure out how to leaven their contracting base with millions more members of America’s largest and fastest-growing minority.

 

Romney’s melancholy but useful role has been to refute those determinists who insist that economic conditions are almost always decisive. Americans are earning less and worth less than they were four years ago; average household income is down $3,800; unemployment was 8 percent or more for a total of 39 months under the 11 presidents from Harry Truman through George W. Bush, but it was over that for 43 Obama months. Yet voters preferred the president who presided over this to a Republican who, more than any candidate since the Great Depression, made his economic expertise his presidential credential.

 

Voters littered the political landscape with contradictions between their loudly articulated discontents and their observable behavior. Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals 2-1 in a nation that has re-elected the most liberal president since Lyndon Johnson and his mentor Franklin Roosevelt. A nation said to be picnicking on the slope of a volcano, with molten anger bubbling just below its thin and brittle crust, has matched a rare record of stability in its central political office: For only the second time — the first was the Virginia dynasty of the third, fourth and fifth presidents, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe — there will be three consecutive two-term presidents.

 

A nation vocally disgusted with the status quo has reinforced it by ratifying existing control of the executive branch and both halves of the legislative branch. After three consecutive “wave” elections in which a party gained at least 20 House seats, and at a moment when approval of Congress has risen — yes, risen — to 21 percent, voters ratified Republican control of the House, keeping in place those excoriated as obstructionists by the president the voters retained. Come January, Washington will be much as it has been, only more so.

 

Obama is only the second president (Andrew Jackson was the first) to win a second term with a reduced percentage of the popular vote, and the third (after James Madison and Woodrow Wilson) to win a second term with a smaller percentage of the electoral vote. A diminished figure after conducting the most relentlessly negative campaign ever run by an incumbent, his meager mandate is to not be Bain Capital. Foreshadowing continuing institutional conflict, which the constitutional system not only anticipates but encourages, Speaker John Boehner says of the House Republican caucus: “We’ll have as much of a mandate as he will.”

 

The electoral vote system, so incessantly and simple-mindedly criticized, has again performed the invaluable service of enabling federalism — presidents elected by the decisions of the states’ electorates — to deliver a constitutional decisiveness that the popular vote often disguises.

 

Republicans can take some solace from the popular vote. But unless they respond to accelerating demographic changes — and Obama, by pressing immigration reform, can give Republicans a reef on which they can wreck themselves — the 58th presidential election may be like the 57th, only more so.

 

This election was fought over two issues as old as the Republic, the proper scope and actual competence of government. The president persuaded — here the popular vote is the decisive datum — almost exactly half the voters. The argument continues. As Benjamin Disraeli said, “Finality is not the language of politics.”

A Short Civics Primer

 

Here are a few things I looked up after wondering – over kool-aids on the porch – about an electoral tie this year.

 

1.      The Electoral College has 538 votes which allows for a tie at 269-269.

 

a.      Each state gets one vote per US house district and one vote for each Senator – that’s an unchanging 535 votes each and every year plus 3 more votes for the District of Columbia.

 

[I hate the fact that DC exists as a political entity – all citizens should live in one of the surrounding states.  But the fact that DC has as many electoral votes as some states and almost as many as many others is far worse.]

 

2.      In the event of a tie, the US House of Representatives selects the new President [12th Amendment].  [It happened twice, 1801 and 1825.]

 

a.      The new House does the voting but not until January 1^st.

 

b.      While the House has 435 members, they only get 50 votes – one for each state.  The first candidate to win the votes of any 26 states is the new president.  [DC gets no vote here.]

 

c.       Each state’s “delegation” of House members decides among themselves how their state’s vote will be cast.  [And they can choose from any of the top three electoral vote getters.  In theory, some total outlier could win.]

 

3.      The Vice President is elected by the Senate.  [It happened once in 1837.]

 

a.      The new Senate does the voting but not until January 1^st.

 

b.      Each Senator gets one vote.  The first candidate to win 51 votes is the new vice president.  

 

c.       So, legislative voting could result in the President and vice president coming from different Parties. 

 

d.      Further, 12^th Amendment language precludes the sitting Vice President from breaking any tie which might occur BUT this is disputed by some legal scholars – think of the possible mess here.

 

4.      Deadlocked chambers – add this to the possible Constitutional dispute mentioned above.

 

a.      The House of Representatives must choose a President-elect in time for the inauguration (noon on January 20).

 

b.      If the House fails, the Twentieth Amendment specifies that the Vice President-elect becomes Acting President until the House should select a President. 

 

c.       If the winner of the vice presidential election is also not known by then, then under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the sitting Speaker of the House would become Acting President until either the House should select a President or the Senate should select a Vice President.  None of these situations has ever occurred.

 

One last thought about all this and our current divisive political representatives.  Remember the walkouts of Democrats from the Texas and Wisconsin state legislative sessions?  Well, the Twelfth Amendment requires two thirds of the states to be present in the US House for Presidential voting and two thirds of US Senators to be present for vice presidential voting.  Imagine the utter mess these jerks could make.

 

And finally, as I read it, if the both Houses of Congress were to remain deadlocked until March 4^th, then the “sitting vice president” would become acting President until they acted.  Joe Biden would become President.  Just think of the mess the obstructionists could create.

The Real Fiscal Cliff – Please Vote for Romney

 

 

My son sent me this interesting video.

 

Part of our problem in America is that we turn each other off with our discourse.  Watch this 5 minute video;  it lays out the simple facts of America’s fiscal catastrophe.  What we’re doing is nation ruining and one does not need to know anything more than kitchen table, checkbook economics to see it.

 

Now please just pay attention to Hal Mason’s numbers;  ignore the occasional heated rhetoric, pictures of falling Trade Towers and the like.  His numbers come from the official Obama budget;  Mason is not making things up.  I provide the links below so you can see for yourself.

 

Please, watch this.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW5IdwltaAc

 

N and I are convinced that the nation’s single most important problem is the deficit and resulting national debt.  The fiscal issues are so critical as to far outweigh every other national problem combined.  If we let the country go bankrupt, it just won’t matter whether or not our kids are illiterate or gays can’t marry.

 

By 2022 the interest on our debt will be almost $1 trillion per year and that assumes both unrealistic GDP growth and unrealistic borrowing costs in the later years of the 10 year period See Summary Table S-14.  If we go down this path, GDP growth will be far lower than the President’s assumption of 6% and borrowing costs will far exceed the assumed 4%. 

 

At the moment, the debt per taxpayer is $141,204 each.  The President plans to add another $trillion a year to the debt so in 2022 my grandchildren – should they choose to work for a living – will owe around $230,000 each.  Folks, the deficits not only have to go away but turn to surplus in order to pay down the debt. 

 

And, the biggest problem inside the deficit is us.  Not only do 43% of American households pay zero income tax, we pillars of the community take out far more in benefits than we pay in.  Look again at entitlements in the budget.

 

 

In 2013 we’ll spend $3.60 for every dollar we put into Medicare;  in 2022 we’ll take out $4.38 for every dollar we put in.  Boys and girls, we are not paying our own way.

 

Skip the silly rhetoric and you’ll see that Mason’s conclusion is correct.  It is up to us as voters to never forget that the fiscal issue is the only issue for the moment and to vote for those that get it.  President Obama doesn’t get it;  maybe Romney does.  It’s our hope the nation gives Romney a chance – while making an example of President Obama as we did to the 111^th Congress.  And if Romney fails we must keep dumping the Executive and legislators until we find folks who’ll tell us the truth and act on it.

 

The President’s 2013 Budget at the OMB

            http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/

            National Debt Clock
            http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The Presidential Debates

 

For those of us who follow politics as a hobby, this campaign season has felt like the most depressing period of our lives. 

 

We have big national problems and we seem to be on the cusp of a critical national debate about everything American:  individual liberty, communitarianism, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, the role of government, Constitutionalism vs populism and not just the status of the American Dream but its very definition.  So what do we get from the candidates and the media?  Utter piffle;  a near perfect reflection of the ignorant opinion that dominates the media and the national discourse.  It’s sad and it’s boring.

 

We hear from the experts that Obama has won the election;  his supporters say it while the Romney crowd denies with a no that sounds like yes.  Of course these folks can’t agree on anything:  money is everything, no it doesn’t matter;  it’s a base election, no it’s about the independents;  the polls are wrong [nonsense];  the polls are biased [too often true];  TV ads win elections, no they’re a waste of money;  the debates are crucial, no they never matter.

 

In a recent Stossel segment, he interviews veteran campaign managers and they tell us exactly how they train their candidates to win.  We learn again that we can never have factual debate during a campaign.  As these folks put it, the coming debates will change nothing as a result of substance;  any serious change in the race will be the result nuance, accident or even perceived nuance, like a sigh.  The candidates are trained – very specifically and diligently – not to answer questions but instead beat the talking point drum.

 

Moderator: “Sir, does the sun rise in the east?”  Candidate: “Thank you for that excellent question Susie.  Let me respond by saying that my plan for creating jobs in this country is so widely accepted that the birds in the trees sing Sousa marches whenever I talk about it.”

 

Moderator: “But sir you didn’t answer my question.”  Candidate: “Why thank you Susie for giving me a chance to clarify.  My opponent has no plan that makes the birds sing and if he is elected, he’ll destroy life as we know it.”  [Rapturous applause from half the audience if such is allowed.]

 

A recent George Will column suggests some serious questions for debating candidates.  But the reader immediately perceives that such questions would turn off the mass audience – when I read the column to my bride, she said she didn’t even understand some of the questions.  But we can dream.  Will’s questions ridicule the campaign substance and the candidates on both sides.  What fun that would be. 

 

Debate Questions for the Candidates

By George F. Will, September 28, 2012, The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-debate-questions-for-the-presidential-candidates/2012/09/28/231ff27e-08fb-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html?wprss=rss_george-will

 

Stossel Site – the segment I mention wasn’t there yet when I wrote the post.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/index.html

 

[Note: for those who get the links deleted by their networks, try going to my blog page or Googling the item tiles.  The blog page is here: http://dljsrant.blogspot.com/ or Google DJ’s Rantings.]

 

I would have my readers look at this great column by Will and watch the debates to judge the moderators.  Were their questions good or campaign-like;  did the questions address crucial issues or populist diversions?  Was the moderator able to get answers or did the candidate just change the subject?  If we want change, we’ll have to pay enough attention to demand it.

 

I’m disappointed with the failure of my generation to be anything but greedy and self serving:  we demand that the government balance the budget but scream don’t touch ours;  we don’t care if government, on our watch, made promises that cannot be kept.  At the moment, this disgraceful and natural human attitude appears to have filtered down to my children’s generation because they seem poised to let President Obama off the accountability hook.

 

The President can’t do any of the stuff candidates promise;  jobs, growth, abortion, gay marriage, etc – Congress does that stuff.  Presidents lead.  A President’s job is to get the public signed up for the stuff the President bullies and maneuvers the Congress into doing.  President Obama has failed at this key responsibility because he’s just not a very good negotiator.  Success demands accountability and as I see it, this President must be replaced – as well as many legislators just like him – or we delay the return of competent government. 

 

I still believe that the election is for the center to decide.  Forty percent of Americans have still have a brain – that’s far more than those who are progressives, climate crazies, Bible thumpers or libertarians.  Yes, I have to admit that the loonies are 60% of the nation and otherwise intelligent people are picking sides rather than focusing on real national priorities.

 

Just for the record, I am not signed up for the hysteria that seems to be connected with this election which goes something like, “If my enemy wins, it’ll be Armageddon.”  That’s the stuff cultists and AM radio.  I’m with Edmund Burke who is paraphrased as saying that the individual is foolish, but the species is wise.  I agree with that wholeheartedly and I believe it applies better in America than anywhere else.  At the same time, we must remember what Burke actually said:

 

“The individual is foolish;  the multitude, for the moment is foolish, when they act without deliberation;  but the species is wise, and, when time is given to it, as a species it always acts right.”

 

So.  If we can’t get right this time, we shouldn’t give up.  I cling to this optimism in the face of what I see as growing ignorance of the pending fiscal catastrophe.

Apocalypse Not

 

Here is a wonderful column to help the few remaining sensible people combat the legions of climate and environmental extremists.  We have far too few people like George Will, Freeman Dyson and the now deceased Michael Crichton to help us keep our common sense in the face of the-science-is-settled progressive agenda.

 

Sunday, Aug. 19, 2012

Apocalypse Not

By George F. Will - Washington Post

http://www.thestate.com/2012/08/19/2403603/will-apocalypse-not.html#storylink=cpy

 

Will marks the 2012 United Nation’s Rio+20 conference — 50,000 participants from 188 nations — which otherwise passed without notice.  It was this crowd that led to the 1992 Kyoto treaty, about which we can proudly say, America never signed it.  Nothing was accomplished at the conference this year and public opinion is shifting back toward healthy skepticism.

 

In this column Will mentions that given previous alarmists, we should have starved to death by now due to population growth and capitalism should have collapsed long since due to our exhaustion of natural resources.  But the expert’s “irrefutable science" was wrong.  The point is that we must remember that environmentalism is a political movement with an agenda and that there is no such thing as “settled science” – “irrefutable science” is an oxymoron.

 

Don’t miss this bit sarcasm in the column:  environmentalism, indoctrinates children to “reduce, reuse and recycle.”  Good old Yankee thrift is an important value but recycling is “a feel-good gesture that provides little environmental benefit at a significant cost.”  We spend countless hours sorting, storing and collecting used paper, which, when combined with government subsidies, yields slightly lower-quality paper in order to secure a resource” — forests — “that was never threatened in the first place.”

 

What should alarm us quickest is any “great idea” that needs federal government subsidies.  Why do we continue to let the progressives get away with this stuff?

 

And in case you missed it, it was also Will who reminded us of these facts a few years back:

 

"The debate is over," or so Time magazine declared on the cover page of its April 3, 2006 issue.  “Be worried, be VERY worried,” they said.  “Earth at the Tipping Point:  Global Warming Heats Up” was the inside headline and the article assured us that “the climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame”.

 

If that’s not alarmist, we’re gonna need a new dictionary.

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601060403,00.html

 

At the time, eighty-five percent of Americans believed it and 62 percent said it threatens them personally.

 

But, in the 70’s we were told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling.

 

·         Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

 

·         Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age."

 

·         The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool."

 

·         Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age."

 

·         The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

 

Michael Crichton argued persuasively about the science of modeling and the nearly impossible task of modeling a planet due to the massive number of assumptions necessary to make them work.  As the number of assumptions goes up, the number of possible combinations grows exponentially and the chance for accuracy diminishes.  Crichton suggested that the climate modelers needed to publish their methods and assumptions to allow for scrutiny – to do otherwise is not science he said.  There were no takers, “our work is proprietary” and besides they worried, “people with an agenda might criticize our assumptions” – they meant those nasty non-cult members whose only agenda is accuracy.

 

Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?  - Michael Crichton

 

In many speeches and articles, Freeman Dyson and others have demonstrated how we could remove CO₂ from the air if the alarmists ever turned out to be correct – Tyson was widely trashed for his efforts by the climate cult.  “It will be too late,” we are repeatedly warned but if we put it there, we can take it back.  And if every little bit we add to the air hurts, then any amount we remove will help.

 

For me, apocalypse fatigue – boredom from being repeatedly told the end is nigh – is not my major gripe.  My biggest complaint is the total lack of skepticism, particularly by the Forth Estate and especially regarding anything government.  Where are the newspapers that hated all things government and knew that all politicians are liars?

 

I am dead tired of being called a racist just because I don’t agree with a black man and I am even more tired of being told that skepticism isn’t science.  Science is precisely that, skepticism and curiosity.  “The debate is over” and “there is no room for doubt” are the proclamations of religion, not science.

My Absolute Favorite Style of Humor

Bound and Gagged by Dana Summers    August 18, 2012

Tech Support - From Bud

  

I just couldn’t resist this one.

Is Professional Football Dead?

Is it or are we headed to ever greater gladiatorial action in this sport and others to satisfy a growing populist blood lust?  Something we can someday only see on cable perhaps?  I read the newspapers, although admittedly not the sports pages, but even so I had no idea these questions could be asked.

Everybody knows that brain damage is a growing problem in the NFL but did you know this stuff?

Sunday, Aug. 05, 2012

Football’s Big Problem

By George F. Will - Washington Post

http://www.thestate.com/2012/08/05/2382238/will-footballs-big-problem.html#storylink=cpy

For all players who play five or more years, life expectancy is less than 60;  for linemen it is much less. 

·         This is about high early mortality rates among linemen resulting from cardiovascular disease, not brain damage or suicide.

·         In 1980, only three NFL players weighed 300 or more pounds.  In 2011, there were 352 – all but one of the NFL’s 32 offensive lines averaged more than 300 pounds.

I also love Will’s understated disgust with our tort system.  3,000 plaintiffs – former players, spouses, relatives – filed a lawsuit charging that the NFL inadequately acted on knowledge it had, or should have had, about hazards such as CTE [chronic traumatic encephalopathy].  The NFL lied to these guys?  Nobody but the NFL knew that weighing 300 pounds is a health risk?

“We are rapidly reaching the point where playing football is like smoking cigarettes:  The risks are well-known.  Not that this has prevented smokers from successfully suing tobacco companies.”  How in the world can we let people bring these suits, let alone win them?

I have to mention the wonderful, gratuitous, Will swipe at “this age of bubble-wrapped children”.  But bubble-wrap or not, we all know he’s right – mom’s have been steering their sons toward the other “football” for some time now.  Our baseball talent already comes from abroad – perhaps football can last longer if we use players from places where the life expectancy matches pro ball.

This Will version of football’s problems was a revelation to me.

The Fat Cat on Trial

There has always been and always will be a segment of the progressive population that honestly despises capitalism.  That capitalism is flawed is undeniable but it seems especially poignant that the current President of the United States of America – of all places – expects to win reelection by attacking capitalism and is running against a career capitalist [and Boy Scout] who seems to be completely unable to defend it.

Thus, I could not resist passing on this singularly eloquent Kallaugher cartoon.

KAL's cartoon [Kevin Kallaugher]

Jul 21st 2012, The Economist print edition

Why Romney Wins

[This rant was inspired by an email from Bud - so blame him.]

Mitt Romney has had a bad couple of weeks.  After eliminating those towers of intellect pretending to be Republican Presidential candidates, he gained steadily against the President.  You may remember how many people were convinced that he’d never win the nomination and spoke as though his competition actually had Presidential credentials.

Now the President seems to be winning with a message of class war and lying commercials – his commercials are from his campaign, not the PACs.  [I can’t see the difference between President Obama’s rhetorical nonsense and that of Trump, Bachmann, Cain, Perry or Gingrich.  Luckily for the President, nobody is listening.]  Romney is cooperating in the current decline by arrogantly refusing to release more of his tax returns and being stupidly unable to explain capitalism – these guys knew all this was coming.

Here’s a digression that epitomizes how I feel about both Parties and the quality of the people we are selecting for government in general.  Romney knew he’d have to release his tax returns;  it’s just the way it is.  But how’s this for hypocrisy?

“Rep. Nancy Pelosi was emphatic.  Mitt Romney’s refusal to release more than two years of his personal tax returns, she said, makes him unfit to win confirmation as a member of the president’s Cabinet, let alone to hold the high office himself.

Sen. Harry Reid went farther: Romney’s refusal to make public more of his tax records makes him unfit to be a dogcatcher.

They do not, however, think that standard of transparency should apply to them. The two Democratic leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives are among hundreds of senators and representatives from both parties who refused to release their tax records. Just 17 out of the 535 members of Congress released their most recent tax forms or provided some similar documentation of their tax liabilities in response to requests from McClatchy over the last three months. Another 19 replied that they wouldn’t release the information, and the remainder never responded to the query.”

Most Members of Congress Keep Their Tax Returns Secret

By Kevin G. Hall and David Lightman – McClatchy Newspapers

July 17, 2012

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/18/156632/most-members-of-congress-keep.html#storylink=cpy

These people have no honor but Romney still has to release his tax returns.  There is right and wrong and there is politics.

So now we have to listen to all the experts tell us that Romney will lose and that the President’s despicable and un-American campaign message resonates with the nation’s voters – the latter thought makes me want to hurl.  But it’s summer and the talking heads have nothing else to talk about except who should be Veep.  There is a counter argument to all this which is why the President has gone negative rather than run on his record.

Wayne Root is an opportunist catering to the lunatic fringe like so many other political entertainers – Glen Beck, Keith Olbermann, Sean Hannity, Chris Mathews, et al.  But when you scrape away the gratuitous rhetoric from this opinion piece, I very much like the argument.  Allow me to summarize.

Root predicts that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney will be very close until Election Day.  But that on Election Day Romney will win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980.  He says that 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter [in November, Reagan won by 10 points].  Romney is right now running even in polls. 

Root’s premise is that nobody who voted for McCain in 2008 is now going to vote for Obama but many millions of people who voted for an unknown Obama four years ago are now angry, disillusioned, turned off, or scared about the future.  Here is his analysis of some voting blocks that matter in U.S. politics:

Black voters.  Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group.  His endorsement of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going Christians.  He may get 88% of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008.

Hispanic voters.  Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group.  If Romney picks Rubio as his VP running-mate the GOP may pick up an extra 10% to 15% of Hispanic voters (plus lock down Florida).  [I do not buy any argument that a Veep can help a candidate though many picks could hurt in the way Palin did.]

Jewish voters.  Obama has been weak in his support of Israel.  Many Jewish voters and big donors are angry and disappointed.  I predict Obama’s Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60’s.  [Many wealthy supporters don’t like being demonized nor do they like an American President that wages class war and seems to disparage capitalism.]

Youth voters.  Obama’s biggest and most enthusiastic believers from four years ago have graduated into a job market from hell.  Young people are disillusioned, frightened, and broke – a bad combination.  The enthusiasm is long gone.  Turnout will be much lower among young voters, as will actual voting percentages.

Catholic voters.  Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008.  That won’t happen again.  Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with the Catholic Church over contraception.  Now he is being sued by the Catholic Church.  Majority lost.  

Small Business owners.  At least 40% of small business owners in my circle of friends, fans and supporters voted for Obama four years ago to “give someone different a chance.”  Four years later, I can’t find one person in my circle of small business owner friends voting for Obama.  Not one.

Blue collar working class whites.  Do I need to say a thing?

Suburban moms.  The issue isn’t contraception…it’s having a job to pay for contraception.  Obama’s economy frightens these moms.  They are worried about putting food on the table.  They fear for their children’s future. This is not good news for Obama.  [And they don’t like being pigeon holed as automatic lefties.]

Military Veterans.  McCain won this group by 10 points.  Romney is winning by 24 points.

I find this logic persuasive.

There is a counter-counter argument that runs this way: 

1.      Obama is not Carter.

2.      Romney is not Reagan.

3.      There are no hostages in Iran.

Fair enough;  but personally, I’m not so sure about arguments one and two.  Romney should get back to beating up big government that is bankrupting the nation while telling us how to live.

Here’s my last digression;  the most discouraging thing I’ve heard about the race came from one of my kids over kool-aids last week.  His view was that Obama should win because Republicans are idiots – nobody can argue with the latter.  As I see it, the President has to lead the Congress and the nation toward the light and Obama has not only failed to do that he blames his failure on his customers – I hate excuse makers.  The President thinks voters have been too dumb to get it and that the opposition has been stubbornly and unfairly uncooperative – who’d have expected that?  I say simple accountability demands that the incumbent be fired and the next one too if he fails.

But if the rest of the nation’s pillars of our community think like this young man in his prime then it’s Obama by a landslide.  Romney cannot control Republicans any more than President Obama can control Biden.  I still think common sense will prevail in the end.