This past Sunday Barack Obama went to West Virginia – not to mourn the loss of coal miners but to try to block Hillary Clinton. On April 9, we noted our long ago crystal ball prediction that the moment Hillary Clinton appeared in “states where she walloped Barack Obama” that would be a signal to us that plans were afoot for a move on the electoral front. [Our Hillary in Kentucky thesis is HERE.] On the day Hillary Clinton went to Louisville, Kentucky Barack Obama finally decided to actually say something about the coal mine deaths of West Virginians.
Hillary Clinton went to Kentucky and soon thereafter Barack Obama put aside his hatred of those “bitter” and “clinging” small town Americans – ones who mined the coal Obama vowed to destroy – and finally pretended not to snub those Americans he snubbed repeatedly during the election campaigns of 2008.
We were wrong on April 9, 2010 about one thing. We wrote that Hillary’s visit to West Virginia would “go unnoticed by Big Media”. But after that article by us appeared, a bunch of other articles appeared in Big Media outlets speculating on Hillary (‘Hillary’s tired and won’t be SOS for a full four years!’ and ‘Hillary can beat Barack Obama’ and ‘the unthinkable – a challenge to Mess-iah) running for president in 2012.
The scenarios from those Big Media articles track faithfully those described by us: (1) a collapse of Dimocrats in 2010 elections; (2) awakened elected officials running for office in 2012 to the fact that Barack Obama is poison; (3) explosive Republican investigations of Barack Obama (what happened to that bag of cash Rezko now says he gave you Barack?) in 2011; (4) a Hillary Clinton resignation AFTER the 2010 elections (so she does not have to campaign for treacherous Dimocrats in 2010); (5) a continuous stream of Barack Obama cave-ins to Republicans after they win congressional elections; and (6) a total and complete collapse of the Barack Obama “situation comedy” coalition.
“While we don’t think Hillary Clinton will directly challenge Obama for the nomination in 2012, we do think it is the job of sensible Democrats and smart Hillary supporting websites to drive Obama from the 2012 race. It is also the job for American citizens who care about the country.”
we do think the collapse of the “situation comedy” is increasingly obvious.
Yesterday, the dunderheads who describe themselves as the “creative class” (we call them the “creative clueless”) finally came to grips with the reality we at Big Pink have described for so long. Donna Brazile and David Axelrod described the Barack Obama base as:
A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.
Axelrod has declared The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes.
It took all these years for the clucking clown who leads the “creative clueless” to finally have the truth “revealed”! The clucking clown thinks he leads the “creative class” but he is a clown who fell for the machinations of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelousy, and particularly the defunct tank of woman-hate called Ted Kennedy. Here’s the revelation of the clucking clown of the “creative clueless”:
“The weakness of the Obama coalition, revealed.
In a video message to Organizing for America’s 13 million members today, President Obama announced that targeting people who voted for the first time in 2008 would be the top tactical priority for OFA 2010. This makes perfect sense. Compared to Gore and Kerry, young voters and first-time voters where [sic] President Obama’s top demographic groups. Obama’s margin among those two groups surpassed Gore’s by over 30%:
Young voters and first-time voters are absolutely Obama’s base. McCain actually won voters age 40 and over, and Obama only won non-first-time voters by 2%. Compared to other recent Democratic coalitions, Obama relied far more heavily upon young voters and first-time voters.
However, this also reveals a fundamental weakness of the Obama electoral coalition, especially during midterm elections. Turnout is way down during midterm elections, and there is no group where turnout declines during midterms more than it declines among young voters:”
No kidding you clown? Now you realize this? Only know does your brilliant “creative class” mind grasp the damage your foolishness inflicted? To build a party on ephemeral first time voters and young voters is foolishness. That foolishness is akin to a store which sells baby clothes only to virgins – there might be some curiosity value and foot traffic but the business model will not work.
Only now does the clucking clown of the “creative class” at NothingLeft realize the foolishness of party building based on a group of political virgins and soon to grow up and change their views young people. That’s not to say that those groups should not be courted, but to build a party on a one time only group of voters is monumental foolishness.
This clucking clown restricts his (yup, it’s a Big Blog boy who writes such foolishness) analysis to the midterm election demographics. But the damage is long term and much more than just limited to the midterms. Here’s more clucking from the clown:
“When young voters and unlikely voters form such a central pillar of a presidential electoral coalition, then that coalition is going to face huge problems in midterm elections. While it is absolutely the correct move for Organizing for America to try and get those voters back to the polls in 2010, they are unfortunately faced with an almost impossible task. Overall turnout drops by more than 33% from presidential elections to midterm elections, and by much more than that among young voters. No GOTV operation, however strong, can reverse trends on that massive scale. Whatever efforts OFA ends up making will only limit the amount of damage Democrats will suffer by basing their coalition on younger voters and irregular voters.”
Laughably, comments to the clucking clown call out for: Help From Hillary!
“In the 2008 primary campaign, there was a huge generation gap between Obama voters and Clinton voters. Thus, it’s not exactly rocket science to hope that Hillary Clinton will have a political role in 2010, especially to help some of her endangered former colleagues. Traditionally, of course, Sec’s of State have been above the political fray, but Hillary has broken barriers before. One way or another Democrats need to bring some habitually high voting senior citizen voters back home in November or else its going to be really ugly.”
Ha! Ain’t ta gonna happen, dude!
And a woman responds wisely to such clownish clucking:
“Hillary’s voters were always more from the traditional Democratic base..popilist, blue collar. older and even had more white males. Barack Obama as candidate did not engage them. Hillary was the traditional mashed potato Democrat who had always won presidiential primaries before over the likes of the quiche Democrats like Gary Hart or Paul Tsongas. Until Barack Obama came along. African American Democrats had always before voted to the mashed potato Demcorat. He changed that voting pattern.
He did bring in young voters and independents, but another reason they are unreliable is that even before midterms, during the 2008 campaign they also were there much more for Barack Obama himself, then they were for the Democratic party, the Democratic brand or even other Democrats. That was a weakness I long saw. It was one of the reasons that I did not support him in the primary.
It was also a weakness, that at least during the presidential campaign and even as he has governed he has not done much to rectify. He has given mmore props to Republicans for their good ideas….an oxymoron if I ever heard of one….than he gives to Democrats or progressives.
He has failed to make a contrast for these sometime voters that it matters that THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND DEMOCRATS get elected to office. That voting for him alone is insufficient.
It is why his aversion to ideology is harmful to the polical health of the party he leads. Because Democrats do have a better ideology which can and will make life better for most people. But by not making that contrast he has not built a case for why it matters who gets elected in November 2010.
It’s not just who went to the polls in 2008, it is what their motivation for going was. We need voters to go to the polls for Democrats in 2010 who think Democrat Jo(e) is better than Republican John because they are Democrats.
So I agree he needs to get Hillary out…because she has always known that, and can take that message to the voters.“
It’s too late for that. Hillary saying good things about Obama only hurts Hillary and does nothing to help Obama or his clown posse of Dimocrats. So abandon the idea that Hillary will help you now. Barack Obama is poison and there is no antidote. Painfully, Hillary Supporters will have to tolerate Hillary as Secretary of State (imagine how bad thing would be without her there, even as bad as they are now), with a minimum of justified griping, in order to keep Hillary safely away from the campaign trail (waiting is always the most painful duty).
Once Obama snubbed the White Working Class, that destroyed him. Bill Clinton, John Kennedy, FDR, and even Jimmy Carter respected the White Working Class and worked to get those votes. Obama and his clucking “creative class” clown posse insulted Appalachia America and now the favor is returned. The White Working Class will not return to the Dimocrats while Barack Obama politically exists, not because of the color of his skin but rather because of the corrupt content of his character.
We’re not the only ones who laugh today at the late day “revelation” to the creative clueless. Sean Trende noticed too:
“Gallup’s latest polling shows why this is such a problem for Democrats. 47% of voters aged 18-29 were not very enthusiastic about voting this fall. This is almost double the number of voters aged 65+ (29%) that are unenthusiastic about voting and well over the number of voters aged 50-64 that are unenthusiastic about voting. This is highly problematic for the Democrats because younger voters plan to vote for a Democrat by a 51-39 margin, while voters in the 65+ demographic break 50-41 for Republicans. In equal numbers these groups would cancel each other out, but a flood of elderly voters would swamp a less enthusiastic youth vote.
Most analysts have assumed that this will change in 2012, and that Obama’s coalition will rear its head again. I’m not so sure. 2012 is a long way off, and I’m not making any predictions here. But part of Obama’s appeal was the freshness surrounding his candidacy. The prospect of “change,” the excitement surrounding electing the first black President, the posters, baseball hats, t-shirts and all of the iconography contributed to Obama’s outsized showing among these groups.
I think recreating that excitement is going to be like trying to catch lightning in a bottle. Re-electing the first black President is exciting, but not nearly as exciting as doing it the first time. By 2012, Obama will have a difficult time running as the candidate of change, especially if he continues to make substantial accomplishments in his first term. He’ll have been on the scene for five years then, probably will have endured at least one scandal, and may have been forced to compromise with Republicans repeatedly if they take control of Congress in 2010.
And even if Obama can re-energize his base in 2012, what then? His is a uniquely personal coalition, and whomever comes next is going to have a hard time filling the shoes of a rather unique candidate. If the damage done to other parts of the Clinton coalition is permanent, then the Democrats are going to have to make some major changes to retain their electoral coalition.”
Trende trades the blunt “cult” with “uniquely personal coalition” but it is still a “cult”. And a cult is not a political party except in countries where the people are slaves, not sovereign. Trende intelligently notes that if the Clinton coalition is permanently damaged and not restored, the Dimocrats are doomed for sure and the hope to restore the once great Democratic Party of FDR and Hillary Clinton will be doomed as well. Hopes to replace the White Working Class with Latinos will not work out. Election year politics on immigration reform will prove to be a disaster for Dimocrats as well. Watch out for what you wish for. But that is a story for another day.
The warnings are shouted every day now and not just from Big Pink. Democrat Brent Budowsky dreams dreams that will not be but he assesses the situation well:
“Democrats need to take an ice-cold shower and view the coming election with cold, clear eyes. At this moment, at best, Democrats will lose enough seats to destroy any working majority for any substantial agenda in the next Congress.
The No. 1 issue in the 2010 campaign, by far, is jobs. Americans want jobs, not talking points about jobs.”
Once November elections take place and Dimocrats are defeated, Dimocrats better assess the 2012 elections with “cold, clear eyes.” The old Obama flim-flams will not work, flim-flam videos will not work.
“It’s the same message Obama used to pitch Creigh Deeds for governor in Virginia, Jon Corzine for governor in New Jersey, and Martha Coakley for Senate in Massachusetts. It’s also the same pitch he made for health care—the one instance in which it actually worked, at least on the Hill, but health care’s numbers are still about on par with Corzine’s, Deeds’, or Coakley’s.[snip]
In this video, he is Barack Obama. He is the man whose problems are still inherited. He is the man who fights the health insurance companies… whose product he’s requiring that every American buy, battles the big banks… who bankrolled his campaign, and stifles special interests… with whom he meets behind closed doors to hash out deals on legislation. And, he posits, all of this should inspire those who voted for the first time in 2008 to vote again on behalf of all the uninspiring Corzines, Deedses, and Coakleys who will in some unspecified way guarantee the uplifting change at sometime in the unspecifed future that Obama himself has not delivered. Fired up and ready to go![snip]
Obama once reassured Democrats that “the big difference” between the disastrous 1994 mid-term elections and 2010 is “you’ve got me.” This newly narrowed version of his inspirational message suggests even he doesn’t believe that anymore.”
“You’ve got me” is no longer a promise full of hope. It’s a threat, full of danger and foreboding, and death.
The Obama health scam has proved a “no bounce” mess as even James Carville now admits. Latest surveys demonstrate that even “safe” Senate seats (such as Patty Murray in Washington State) are no longer safe. The latest flim-flam Obama video (which mentions women and Latinos but is really a race-based appeal) is Obama flapping his arms in the water as he knowingly drowns:
“This report tells us a lot about where Obama stands politically and the degree to which he has frittered away the promise of his candidacy:
The Democratic National Committee this morning released this clip of the president rallying the troops, if rather coolly, for 2010. Obama’s express goal: “reconnecting” with the voters who voted for the first time in 2008, but who may not plan to vote in the lower-profile Congressional elections this year.
Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”
Several things are noteworthy. First, so much for the post-racial presidency. We are back to naked pleas for racial solidarity. This comes from a man who told us that there were no Blue States or Red States, and that we should stop carving up the electorate into ethnic and racial groups. It was moving and appropriate and now it’s inoperative.
Second, this also suggests that just about everyone else in the electorate is a lost cause — whites, men, independents, and older voters. The Obama coalition has fractured — a little later than Hillary Clinton predicted, but it has. It seems he is reduced to the core left, not a recipe for successful governance or re-election.
And finally, the Democrats are in big, big trouble if they are banking on casual voters, especially young people, to turn out in large numbers in a midterm election. I’ll go out on a limb (I really don’t have to, because you can look at the turnout in New Jersey and Virginia) — the electorate in 2010 is not going to resemble the 20o8 electorate. It will be older and more conservative. In other words, the Democrats are throwing a Hail Mary.”
In Woodstock Nation: Barack Obama’s Situation Comedy, Part IV published in August 2009, we noted that the “Woodstock Nation” of young idealists who in 1968 would have loved to support an African-American candidate with real Democratic qualifications to be president are now the ones protesting at Tea Parties against unqualified Dimocrat Barack Obama. We wrote:
“Simply put, the trade off of the white working class which was a bulwark for successful Democrats was traded by Obama and his Dimocrats for the evanescent youth voter. That is no way to grow a political party. That is no way to run a political party.
The crop of 2008 young are now a year older and supposedly a year wiser (though it’s tough to teach a B.O.T. new tricks). When a young, unemployed B.O.T. discovers the world of taxes and health insurance, and property responsibilities and taxes and family, they lose that new B.O.T. glow.
As the 2008 crop of young grow into middle age many will begin to identify not with the latest fad or rave – whether hoola-hoops, or mp3s, but rather with aging parents and the infirmities of age.”
It’s no way to grow, or run, a political party:
“Younger voters remain less enthusiastic about voting in this year’s midterm elections than those who are older, underscoring the challenge facing the Democratic Party in its efforts to re-energize these voters, who helped President Obama win the presidency in 2008.
The fact that voters under age 50 — and particularly those under 30 — are less enthusiastic about voting this year is not a new phenomenon; voter turnout typically skews older. The current data, based on Gallup Daily tracking conducted April 1-25, confirm that so far, 2010 provides no exception to this traditional pattern.
It thus is not surprising that President Obama and Democratic Party leaders on Monday launched an effort to stoke enthusiasm among young people and other voting groups that helped support Obama in the 2008 presidential election. Obama issued a new online video that includes this exhortation to his supporters: “It will be up to each of you to make sure that the young people, African Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again.” [snip]
The good news is that younger voters disproportionately lean to Democratic candidates. The bad news is that younger voters have a historically bad track record in terms of turning out in big numbers on Election Day.
The current data confirm that at this juncture, both of these patterns continue to play out in this year’s midterm elections. Democratic leaders have apparently recognized these realities, and are attempting to re-create the enthusiasm for Democrats among younger voters that was apparent in 2008.< "
It took this long for the Big Blog boys “creative class” young clods to learn the obvious. FDR and Hillary Clinton supporters, of all ages, knew what only now the “creative class” clowns find to be a revelation.
It used to be said that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. Updated for accuracy: “you just can’t teach a Hopium guzzler new tricks.” Dogs are easy.