Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Does Wisconsin 2011 = U.S.A. 2012?

    Does Wisconsin 2011 = U.S.A. 2012?

    Alexander Burns at Politico argues that Wisconsin in 2011 is a template for what will happen nationally in 2012, a split electorate with a narrow margin of victory:

    Wisconsin’s contested Supreme Court race has set in motion a drama that’s by now almost painfully familiar. It goes something like this: A hard-fought election comes down to a few troublesome precincts. National commentators fret about ballot-box shenanigans and voter fraud. A not-ready-for-primetime local official becomes the target of withering partisan attacks. 

    Then, both parties send in the lawyers.

    I’m not sure I agree.

    My feeling right now is that Obama either wins comfortably or loses comfortably.  He is so polarizing a figure that he manages to resurrect the lovefest and adoration, or he falls miserably on his face.

    What do you think?

    ——————————————–
    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    Isn't it is just as reasonable to believe that the personal polarity might also result in an even split, rather than either a comfortable swing one way or the other?

    My own sense is that the key factors deciding the race will boil down to how some people see their own prospects in and around election day — not whether they like or dislike him.

    I don't doubt that he will resurrect much of the love fest amongst his own "progral" base, regardless of any of their current concerns.

    They will really have nowhere else to go . . . well . . . perhaps with the exception of this distraught young warrior!

    Heh. If only . . . if only!!

    But seriously, I think the success of his campaign will depend on his ability to attract non-ideological voters, by convincing them a better future for them and for their families lies with supporting "the new and improved Barack Obama" rather than buying into the "uncertainty principles" associated with the other team.

    He simply cannot make voters swoon by trying to sell them a retread of the 2008 Barack Obama.

    Instead, he has to sell himself as a more reasoned, more seasoned and more experienced leader . . . a statesman with a plan. And, he certainly cannot sell "Change" because that means asking voters to reject him. Maybe he could try to sell "continued change," but it is risky.

    Two other factors will be involved. We have seen over the past few years that race has become a far less potent factor in motivating voters. The Democrats sealed their own fate in that regard by trying and miserably failing to paint Republicans, Conservatives, and Tea Partiers as a bunch of racist thugs. It has backfired on them big-time. Recall that even Obama disgustingly trotted that vile theme out once or twice during his 2008 election.

    But I'd look for him to take that arrow out of his quiver this time! He will, however, instead play class warfare by trying to link any hope of succeeding in a reasonable reduction in the deficit, to a huge tax increase on the rich.

    He'll say that those Bush tax cuts really started it, and he'll add that his own policies — even though they increased the deficit — were really a "necessary sacrifice" occasioned by the need to climb back out of that horrific, Bush-induced economic downturn.

    My own prediction?

    Too much 'splainin' needed to get that message across, and too many new media sources of solid information — like this one — are available to punch big holes in it.

    Obama would lose to Michael J. Mouse at this point, especially if Mr. Mouse keeps pointing out that Obama took a sharp left turn, and ended up driving the country on a radical, risky and bumpy detour route, one that needs to be corrected.

    Though as a Nicene Christian (there aren't any others), I regret his nome de plume, on this I concur with Arius. The counsel of Jeremiah applies in our circumstances: don't fight, pack your bags and head off quetly to Babylon, where you are going to stay until the Almighty, who has given you this fate you face, decides to return you home. Fighting is only against the Almighty.

    Jeremiah's point is, you don't have power to resist the invader so you have two choices, die now fighting, a true waste which the Almighty does not want, or take your chances in a foreign land on the Almighty's ticket. In other words, whom do you trust, your own piddling minds, vague impulses and unintelligent blather or the record and promise of your unseen caretaker?

    This isn't a political fight. Politico and the socialist machine to which it belongs want everyone to think it is. Burns would like everyone to think 2012 USA is prefigured by 2011 WI, just as the same machine would like everyone to think that the House Speaker "won" last week's agreement to fund the US government. The Priests and their "Prophets" at Jerusalem wanted everyone to think that the Babylonians would be thrown back by the God of Israel. The priests and "prophets" got to hang on a little longer if the nation thought and expected so. The socialist machine today gets to hang on a little longer if the nation thinks and expects the situation to be political and a cliffhanger. The machine is trying to make opponents squander energy on the forlorn hope of throwing back the machine in 2012.

    It's not about politics. The socialist machine wants everyone to think it is because that machine controls politics, period, and through both "parties." Nor is it about "rights," of which there are none for any who want there to be none. It's about liberty, which is to say nature. Today, as in Jerusalem of Jeremiah, the path of liberty is going into captivity and bondage. This nation, which BTW is not threatened in the least, is far from being serious about liberty. Therefore, let us let the socialist machine, domestic and foreign, instruct her.

    Here's one scenario out of many:

    Donald Trump has threatened to run as an independent if he does not get the nomination. Per Nader 2000, I can picture him siphoning enough votes from the GOP nominee to make the difference between victory and defeat. Especially if the Republican nominee is sane, qualified and competent.

    sorry, hit the wrong button and deleted Viator's comment as follows:

    "Uh, oh. That that GOP $39 billion budget victory is rapidly approaching $zero cuts.

    CBO: Budget deal cuts this fiscal year’s deficit by just $353 million, not $38 billion touted

    "A new budget estimate released Wednesday says that the spending bill negotiated between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner would produce less than 1 percent of the $38 billion in claimed savings by the end of this budget year."

    Washington Post

    http://is.gd/fy625q

    Professor, I hate to disagree with you, but here are compelling arguments in favor of the close vote:

    * The are more government workers than manufacturing jobs in all but 2 states; it is in their best interest to keep government growing and not expanding.

    * Public employee unions will infuse cash into Obama's coffers any way they can — no matter how their membership feels.

    * There will be some faction of the Conservative/GOP group that will decide to sit-out the election; the nominee will be deemed a RINO and not worthy of their vote.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend