While polls and commentary indicate that President Obama's reelection prospects are in jeopardy, there are factors that must be considered, but seemingly aren't, in any analysis of the reelection dynamics. In my opinion, some of his advantages are “fixed” with little probability for change. However, some of his advantages can be minimized with correct strategies. The 2012 election will be the most momentous one since 1860. The essence of “traditional America” is at stake. She is in critical condition.
  • THE GENERAL ELECTORATE: About 30-32% will vote for any candidate with a D behind his/her name. Witness Alvin Greene (D), with absolutely no qualifications, in South Carolina in the last senatorial election. Many will simply respond to talking points provided to them. I see it in spades in our area. These voters don't look for qualifications. Obama is an example. It's not too far-fetched to say this group would vote for a two-towed sloth if he were billed as T. T. Sloth (D).
  • SPECIFIC VOTER BLOCS: Some of these will overlap with the 30%, others are additive.
Blacks: 95% voted for Obama and will do so again. About 20% of these are additive.
Hispanics: 67% voted for Obama in 2008. I've expected that number to grow to 70+%,
although there are some recent polls suggesting 70% is high. I will stick to my 70%
until more evidence is available. I know Hispanics very well. This 70% could be
reversed, but ineptitude on the part of Republicans prevent it. I've published on this. It's
not about amnesty either! Additive.
-- Muslims: 98% voted for Obama in 2008 and are likely to in 2012. Additive to the 30%.
-- Independents: Many are not independent at all. Many are contrarians and vote on
single issues. I've found that many do not think of long-range consequences of electing a
candidate. Their votes are most often not strategic. Yes, I know this goes against
prevailing thinking. Most do not have a core philosophy.
-- Unions: Vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, especially their patron saint, Obama.
      • Jews: 80% normally vote Democrat. True, in spite of the NY 9th District vote and polls showing some will vote against Obama, as should be expected. Not additive. 
        Trial lawyers and their vast network: Nearly 90 % of their money goes to Democrats. So will their votes.
      • Wall Street money center and investment bankers: YES. 80% of their votes and financial contributions have gone to Democrats for years. Obama got 80% from most in 2008. Partially additive to the 30%.
      • Entertainment Industry: 80% (?). Anyone have a better number?

        Teachers at all levels. 60-70%.
Then there is the new special class the Democrats have dubbed “SURGE VOTERS.” This group, in all likelihood, elected Obama in 2008. They are described by their patron saints as voters who never voted before. They can be described more accurately as dependent class who never worked and never will. These are some of the ones Obama “organized” in his only “job”of note. I would project that close to 100% of these will vote for Obama....some may not vote. There will be loads of “walking around street money” for these voters. This group is now an important voter bloc and they could care less about America and the national condition. It's all about what they're promised.They're identified by how they wear their pants!
Yes, these are constituents of the once proud and honorable Democratic Party, the party of most of the people around me as I grew up in rural Greenbrier County, West Virginia.

FUNDING: The money flowing to Obama in 2012 will be will be enormous. Predictions of $1 Billion will probably be low.
UNIONS in total are likely to contribute up to $300 million. Yes, I know prognosticators say up to $200 million. They will be wrong. It will be twice the $160 million of 2008.
TRIAL LAWYERS AND THEIR NETWORK will contribute at least $200 million, double their nearly $100 of 2008, maybe more.
Thus, at least 50% of the projected $1 Billion will come from two sectors.
WALL STREET and others in the economy-controlling financial services industry will contribute $100+ million in spite of all the rhetoric about Obama reforming wall street. Hogwash!
THE BILLIONAIRE PROGRESSIVE “SOCIETY”(my word) will infuse whatever is necessary, as they did in 2008. Soros, Peter Lewis, Buffett and the rest who staked themselves out in 2000 saying they would spend whatever required to defeat George Bush. They now have their man and they will do all necessary to keep him. They are the Edgar Bergens to Charley McCarthy. $100-200 million is likely.
INTERNET FUNDRAISING is the forte of Obama's network. Undoubtedly they will do as well, and probably more, as in 2008.... How many 100 millions. You project it. It'll get him to $1 billion.
PERSONAL AND GROUP FUNDRAISERS (TYPICAL ONES): Anyone want to project a number. If Obama can raise $30-60 million in a single event, the sky is the limit.
I'LL INCLUDE THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY IN THIS GROUP, but they are special. They will raise as much money as they need to raise.
FOREIGN MONEY: The extent of this influence will not be known, but it will be large. I won't try to estimate it, but if anyone doubts it will be large, I suggest you subdue the notion.
I could go on, and may add to this, but I hope this gets attention. Critique is welcome! I'd like to be wrong.
THE MEDIA EFFECT: I neglected to add what can arguably a "fixed" parameter in electing Obama, the media and much of the print press. They will relentlessly push the positives of Obama, even making them up as they go.


  1. Ok, that's the Democrat side, Joe. How about the Conservative Republican side of the equation?

    Does it all boil down to Fly Over Country? Those who cling to their guns and their religion?

    In another comment here I touched on who those people are and I'm still sure they are this countries strength. Those tractor drivers and farmers and housewives and the vast majority of sturdy peaceful law abiding citizens of Down Home America. Those who go to work daily and then go home to their families for supper and PTA meetings and Band Practice for that concert coming up in the Armory.

    I wouldn't be so one sided about this Joe. Give us the other side. The good side.

  2. Other side is all of the others,(surprise!) including the minor chunk of the D groups, Randy. They aren't so easily lumped into NAME GROUPS like the Progressives who have been peeling off their constituents by identifiable titles for 50+ years. The ones you mention, some independents (although unreliable), non-Jewis and non-Muslim religious groups.....well you know them.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog