Start A Petition
Group Discussions
Discouraged Democrat Voters May Mean Historic Sweep for GOP
6 years ago

By Bruce Walker, 15 May 12

Most polls, Rasmussen excepted, continue to show that neither presidential candidate is pulling away from the other and that close Senate races have shifting leads. Primary elections, however, are showing a very different situation -- and it is voters who turn out in elections, not random Americans called by pollsters, who determine the winners and losers in politics. If the latest news can be believed -- and we have every reason to believe it -- there is a conservative voting trend building, and its momentum is going to make it truly terrifying for liberals come November.

Let's start at the beginning. In the first place, Rasmussen, which polls likely voters, has shown for years now that a huge chunk of Americans "strongly disapprove" of the job Obama is doing. On May 10, for example, more than twice as many Americans strongly disapproved of Obama's job performance as "strongly approve" of the job he is doing.

Gallup in March showed an enthusiasm-gap edge that Republicans had over Democrats of 53% to 45%. This is particularly important because Rasmussen, on a month-by-month poll, shows consistently that more Americans call themselves Republican than Democrat. More troubling for Obama is that Gallup recently published a poll which showed that his strongest age group of support -- voters 18 to 29 -- strongly favor Obama over Romney, but only 56% say that they will definitely vote. Meanwhile, the older voters -- especially voters 65 and older -- strongly tilt towards Romney, and 86% of these voters say that they will vote.

Then there's the proof in the primary pudding. Two months ago in Oklahoma, Obama lost 15 counties to a protest candidate with no chance of winning. How many of these unhappy Democrats will stay home in November? Oklahoma (and West Virginia, but more on that later) is a conservative state which has historically been run by Democrats, but unenthused Democrat voters are appearing in other states as well.

The April 24 Pennsylvania primary took place 17 days after Fox News declared that the Republican presidential race was over. Yet the Republican candidates for the presidential election received about 800,000 votes to 700,000 for Obama. Democrats had the only close race in that primary, for state attorney general, yet out of the six different statewide races, more votes were cast for Republicans than Democrats in every race except that race.

Two weeks later, in the Wisconsin recall primary, Democrats alone had competitive primaries. These races included not just the primary to decide who would face Governor Walker in the June recall election, but also several state senate primaries in which Democrats were running against other Democrats. Yet Governor Walker received almost as many votes as all the Democrats running in the gubernatorial primary put together -- the highest number of votes that any Wisconsin governor has received in any primary in the last sixty years. 

6 years ago

The only reason Republicans had for voting in this primary at all was to cast a symbolic vote for Walker, while some Wisconsin Democrats had a couple of races -- gubernatorial nominee and state senate nominee -- to cast ballots which meant something. Yet Democrats, not Republicans, seemed to stay home.

North Carolina primary results noted that the gay marriage issue got walloped, but that issue ought to have turned out voters on both sides in roughly equal numbers. Both parties had large turnouts for other races, but Obama received only 750,000 votes in the presidential primary, with 200,000 Democrats voting no preference despite the fact that there was no Democrat -- not even a convicted felon in another state -- to vote for in the primary. The Republican nomination was already sewn up as well, but the four Republican candidates received 915,000 votes, with only 50,000 voting no preference.

Finally, there's the singular and eye-opening example of West Virginia. When a sitting president whose re-nomination is presumed a foregone conclusion struggles in primaries, that is a profoundly bad sign for his party. In 1912 and in 1976, when Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan sought to grab the Republican nomination from incumbent Republican presidents, the challengers were very popular men who were fabulous campaigners.

Keith Judd, a convicted felon imprisoned in Texas, however, had no money or positive name recognition, and he did not campaign at all against Obama. So how did Federal Inmate 11539-051 get 41% of the vote running against Obama in a state in which both senators, both state legislative chambers, and the governor are all Democrats?

Senator Manchin and Governor Tomblin, both of whom must face voters in six months, declined to support protest candidates against Obama. Why should West Virginia Democrats turn out to support either man in his re-election bid this November? If these voters stay home, Democrats could lose a senate seat, a governorship, and even control of a state legislative chamber.

One datum alone cannot predict a general election, but primary news that is starkly bad for Obama and Democrats -- like the West Virginia primary results or Governor Walker's stunning numbers in an otherwise meaningless Republican primary, along with the polls which show Democrats less happy about voting than Republicans and show Republicans consistently outnumbering Democrats -- may add up to a quietly growing, almost invisible electoral tsunami. We may see not just Obama swept out of office -- Democrats in congressional and state races have much to fear as well.

America desperately needs a conservative revolution. Few of us believe that electing a moderate conservative like Romney will, by itself, produce what we're looking for. An electoral tidal wave as described above, however, can create the revolution that we need. Those eager to vote in 2012, and those who have already shown up in big numbers to vote in primaries, strongly suggest that the a political day of reckoning for Democrats is nigh.

Liberals Ruin Everything
6 years ago

By Christopher Chantrill May 16, 2012


When friends suggest that the election in November will be close, I half-agree, with a twinkle. Because I don't think it will be close.

That's because this lot, as the Brits say, don't have it sorted -- unlike Bill Clinton in the 1990s, who knew how to seduce the middle class. It's a point of pride among urban liberals around the president not to understand the ordinary American. It's been this way ever since John Kenneth Galbraith's bestsellers like The Affluent Society taught liberals how to sneer at the ordinary middle class rather than understand it.

 Of course, you can be a governing elite and be wrong about everything and still not wreck everything. That's because, as Adam Smith said, there is always a great deal of ruin in a nation, even at the best of times. But when a political dynasty has been getting things wrong for the best part of a century, then the ruin can get to be pretty serious. And that is what is agitating the average white guys of the nation like Ray Guy: the specter of ruin, economic, moral, and personal.

Let us rehearse four big things that liberals have got wrong again and again and that are increasing the amount of ruin in the nation.

First of all, there is government money. For over a century, the money in the U.S. was metallic. Governments messed around with it, from the stupidities of the United States Bank wars to the inflationism of Free Silver. But it took liberals to create the Federal Reserve System, staff it with political hacks (and now economist hacks), and reduce the value of the dollar by 95 percent in a century.

Monetary stupidity seems to come up every generation under the Fed, with the 1929 Crash, the 1970s inflation, and the 2000s Fannie-Freddie credit bubble. Every time, the politicians blame the bankers for the mess. It's more accurate to say that every time, the politicians ruin the bankers. But they bail them out, because they need bankers to buy their debt.

Then there are government entitlements. We know now what happens with government entitlements. They run out of money, and the dependents start to tear the place up like a bunch of unpaid soldiers. This makes complete sense, because every government is an armed minority, a band of pirates with good PR. Every government must keep its supporters paid, or they will start to mutiny, just like they are mutinying in Europe right now.

But there is more. We've always known that entitlements ruin a nation's willingness to save. Now we learn that they ruin a nation's birth rate to the point of national extinction.


6 years ago

Let's not forget government education. Everyone agrees with the Jesuits that if you "give me the boy ... I will give you the man." But in the U.S., we are supposed to have a separation between church and state. That means a separation between the political power and the moral/cultural power. Liberals think this means that government money shouldn't be spent on church schools. I'd say that it means that the political elite should be banned from legislating about childhood education and that government should be forbidden from confining children in a government child custodial facility without a court order.

Whatever else may be wrong with it, the venal nature of government education particularly ruins the education of the children of the poor. In the third world, the government education is so bad that many among the poor pay for private education.

Finally, there is government morality. Governments have not always peddled morality. Homer's political leaders merely squabbled over women when they were done raping and pillaging, just like their gods. But by Plato's time, the idea of divine judgment had reared its head, and political leaders began to pose as the representatives of divine justice on earth. Eventually, our modern disestablished churches began the process of separating government and morality, and the old liberals helped with clichés about "legislating morality."

But now things are different. When it's a question of inequality, racism, hate speech, diversity, gay marriage, dietary fat, climate change, or fairness, today's liberal legislates morality with the ferocity of a Savonarola. Their legislation certainly hasn't done much to improve morality -- or government. More likely it has ruined both.

This rising tide of ruin may not may not combine into the Perfect Flood by this November, but it witnesses daily that the Dynasty of the Educated Elite has lost the mandate of heaven. It witnesses also to the truth that when the people have control of their money, their savings, and their children's education, and when they promote morality through their churches, we can call the result civil society. When they lose it, bit by bit, we call it the road to serfdom, a road that ends in totalitarianism.

6 years ago

Excellent articles Sandy and now we have to hope and pray and spread the word.

6 years ago

Sandy and Linda, American Thinker is my "go to website."   Love the articles they share with us.   This one is right on the mark. 


  The American people will not let us down in November.  

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.

New to Care2? Start Here.