Monday, April 4, 2011

The Election of 2012: Obama vs. Obama vs. a Republican



            As the radical right takes control of the Republican Party they have embarked on a coordinated campaign to overturn one hundred years of progressive changes in our society.  They have decided to use the power of state governments, and what they call the “limited”  federal government, to refight and this time win the culture war.  They spend their time dealing with abortion rights, gay rights, senior citizen entitlements and even have gone so far as to threaten unemployment insurance, progressive taxation and child labor laws.

            As part of this attack against those who cash paychecks - the Republicans having given themselves over entirely to those who sign paychecks-- the Republican Governors (the majority of them) are using budget shortfalls to repeal public policies some of which were enacted in the era of Theodore Roosevelt. 

            One hundred years ago the Presidential contest was a three way race that decided the path the country would take for the second decade of the twentieth century. There were three candidates: President Taft, former President Teddy Roosevelt and the Gov of NJ, Woodrow Wilson.  Next year President Obama has to seek re-election; he has to campaign for four more years and defend his record - he can’t run against Washington nor can he call for change since he is the incumbent.  There is a second candidate - though not on the ballot.  He is Senator/Candidate Barack Obama of 2008.  His call for change resonated - his campaign positions energized a progressive base in this country.

            A perfect example of the Obama dichotomy is the current struggle over the right of collective bargaining of public employees.  Candidate Obama pledged to put on his comfortable shows and as President join union demonstrators if collective bargaining rights were ever threatened.  You didn’t see President Obama go to Wisconsin.  So what happens next year - do those public employees vote for President Obama? – Most surely.  Do they canvass and work for candidate Obama 2012  -- to be decided.

            In 1912 the incumbent President and Republican candidate Wm H. Taft was the 1908 clone of Teddy Roosevelt. He was handpicked by TR as his successor and was sold to people as a calmer progressive version of TR.  It soon became clear that he wasn’t TR and when the establishment controlled Republican Party wouldn’t nominate TR again he helped form a Progressive Party.  The voters had a choice between the TR clone and the original TR.  The Democrats nominated the one year Governor of New Jersey, Woodrow Wilson, who adopted Progressive ideas.  Wilson won with only slightly over 42% of the vote because those who wanted the real TR and those willing to settle for the imperfect clone split the vote.

            Assuming the Republicans in 2012 do not nominate a wacko candidate who becomes the issue and instead run a solid non-threatening conservative (Romney, Daniels,) the issue becomes Obama yes or no.  And can President Obama reenergize that Progressive base that campaigned for Senator/Candidate Obama in 2008 and won the election for him.  They will of course vote for him but will they work as they did in ‘08.  And believe me as someone involved in Democratic campaigns since 1956 never was there such a grass roots outpouring of volunteers and activists as there was for SenatorCandidate Obama.four years ago

            Without an active base Obama may in fact win the popular vote and lose the election (just ask President Gore); 51% or 52% of the popular vote may not translate into an Electoral College majority.  With the reapportionment of electoral votes and so many of the ‘08 Obama states now in play he needs better than 55% of the nationwide popular vote to win the electoral votes (even then it could get problematic). Or worse case scenario Pres Obama could lose to a Republican because the supporters of Candidate/Senator Obama stay home on Election Day.

            The Republicans seem intent on waging a campaign to bring us back to the good old days of the or 1890’s (depending upon how right wing the Republican is) and President Obama has declared a campaign to Win the Future.  In a campaign between the Past and the Future the Present may lose.

            Obama and the Democrats can sit back, self-compromise, toy with the center and bank on the Republicans blowing it with a kook candidate.  Or, the President can return to his roots-- show again his strong support for people’s rights, for labor unions,  and a fairer and better America for all - Yes He Can!

4-4-2011

2 comments:

  1. By 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

    In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters- voters-in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    Since World War II, a shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes.

    The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    www.NationalPopularVote.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO - 68%, FL - 78%, IA 75%,, MI - 73%, MO - 70%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM-- 76%, NC - 74%, OH - 70%, PA - 78%, VA - 74%, and WI - 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK - 70%, DC - 76%, DE - 75%, ID - 77%, ME - 77%, MT - 72%, NE 74%, NH - 69%, NV - 72%, NM - 76%, OK - 81%, RI - 74%, SD - 71%, UT - 70%, VT - 75%, WV - 81%, and WY - 69%; in Southern and border states: AR - 80%,, KY- 80%, MS - 77%, MO - 70%, NC - 74%, OK - 81%, SC - 71%, VA - 74%, and WV - 81%; and in other states polled: CA - 70%, CT - 74%, MA - 73%, MN - 75%, NY - 79%, OR - 76%, and WA - 77%.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes -- 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

    ReplyDelete