Update: Alan Lichtman better reconsider his prediction that Obama is a sure winner in 2012. Lichtman should consider that even the Obama campaign is starting to think they might lose. According to Zeke Miller Obama is “Not Arrogant Any More – Confidence gives way to resignation.”
Below, in our article, we note that many of Lichtman’s “keys” are now turning against Obama locking him out of a second term. Lichtman better button his pockets because it’s possible another “key” is dropping down the drain. Lichtman’s fourth key is “There is no significant third party challenge.”
Buried in a PPP poll with Romney way ahead and making it clear that “Arizona not really going to be a swing state after all” is a nugget about Libertarian Party candidate, former Governor Gary Johnson. Johnson is pulling 9% of the vote in Arizona and getting 7% of the vote in New Hampshire. What happens to Lichtman’s “key” prediction if pot smoking, anti-war Democrats decide to go with Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson?
Check your keys Lichtman. You might also ask yourself what donors know that you don’t. Ask the donors. The donors are losing enthusiasm for Obama
And Lichtman, after Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina, etc. you should consider the growing talk from many who see the entire party flushed down the drain with Obama at the top of the ticket wondering Will Obama Pull an LBJ and Drop Out?
The reaction from Hopium Guzzlers to Tuesday’s latest “get lost Barack” from the voters was “Ignore the voters…. yeah, that’s the ticket…. ignore the voters.” Get your whistles out Obama Hopium Guzzlers, there’s a cemetery ahead.
Last night in Clinton country Arkansas the voters supposedly in his own party expressly went out to vote in an act of sheer defiance and gave an unknown (John Wolfe) 41.6 percent of the vote. In Kentucky 42.1 percent wanted the “uncommitted” unknown rather than Barack Obama. In Harlen Knott County (“the heart of coal country”, as Sean Trende explains) Obama only got 26.2 percent of his own party’s vote. Add these results to Obama losing 40.6 percent of the West Virginia vote to an imprisoned inmate in Texas; 21 percent of the vote in must win North Carolina, 24 percent in Louisiana, 19 percent in Alabama, and 43 percent of the vote in Oklahoma.
“Ignore the voters!” shout the Hopium Guzzlers. “Steal the duly elected delegates and gift them to our god Obama!” Sean Trende explains to the graveyard whistlers why this is not the ticket to the ride called reality or to victory:
“To be clear, with the exception of North Carolina, none of these states is in play. [snip]
But there are three ways in which these states really do matter.
1) This is beginning to function as an unprecedented primary challenge to Obama.
Using my handy “C.Q. Guide to U.S. Elections,” I went back to the birth of presidential primaries in 1912. There are only six sitting presidents who have ever received less than 60 percent of the vote in any primary: Taft in ’12; Coolidge, ’24; Hoover, ’32; LBJ, ’68; Carter, ’80; and Bush ’92. All of these presidents, with the exception of Coolidge, were not re-elected — and he eventually faced a substantial third-party challenge from one of his primary challengers.
Moreover, consider the men who brought these challenges: former President Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, Sen. Bob LaFollette in 1924, Sen. Joseph France of Maryland in 1932, Sen. Eugene McCarthy in 1968, Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1980, and TV commentator Pat Buchanan in 1992. Obviously the quality here varies substantially, but all of these upstarts began with a much stronger national profile than Keith Judd or John Wolfe.
I think we can reasonably begin to view this as a sort of organic primary challenge to Obama, which runs strongly in the Southern and border states. Obama’s not likely to lose any states in the primaries; think of this more like Buchanan’s run against George H.W. Bush in 1992.
This is only relevant because a lot of people attribute some significance to the fact that Obama, unlike the other presidents who lost in postwar America, has avoided a substantial primary challenge. I’ve always been skeptical that this is the proper metric. Primary challenges strike me as a symptom, not a cause, of presidential weakness. Just as diseases can be present without all symptoms, presidential weakness can be present without a primary challenge. And, as always, we should be skeptical when making judgments on the basis of a fairly small number of observations.
But if you do attribute substantial importance to the lack of a primary challenge to the president, then I think you must re-evaluate, especially when you consider the weakness of his primary opponents.”
Trende is referring to Alan Lichtman’s “13 Keys” to the White House which have proved to be formidable predictors of presidential election results. Lichtman predicted in 2011 that Obama would be reelected in 2012. Sean Trende strongly suggests that Lichtman reconsider his foolish projection.
Lichtman should reconsider immediately. Consider some of the “keys” that Lichtman said are turning in Obama’s favor and reelection:
“Working for the president are several of Lichtman’s keys, tops among them incumbency and the scandal-free nature of his administration. [snip]
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.[snip]
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. [snip]
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.[snip]
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. “This administration has been squeaky clean. There’s nothing on scandal,” says Lichtman. [snip]
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any major failure that resembles something like the Bay of Pigs and don’t foresee anything.”
Scandal free???? Um.. this requires a whole lot of revision. Ignore Fast n’ Furious, Solyndra, the lobbyists, the waste fraud and abuse of the election slush fund called “the stimulus” and Lichtman drops a key.
The stimulus has been a bust and hated. The Obama health fraud law is hated and might not exist after June 28. Lichtman better grab a flashlight because the “policy change” key fell into the sewers.
Social unrest? Anyone been to Chicago lately?
Foreign/military failure? Look to the results of the Egyptian election and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood along with the already high and getting higher hatred against the United States. Who Lost Egypt?
And of course, it depends on what the meaning of “serious” is to they key about a primary challenger. Are voters coming out with little prodding from the opposition to vote against a president “serious” enough for Lichtman? Are voters from his own party bothering to go to the polls with apparently no other purpose than to slap the president’s smug face a “serious” challenge?
Check your pockets Lichtman you haven’t got a
clue key. By Lichtman’s own measure the keys are turning against Obama.
Here are some more clues from Sean Trende for Professor Lichtman:
“2) It may matter a lot in swing states that border these states.
What we’re really talking about here, and as I explored in great detail in “The Lost Majority,” is “Greater Appalachia,” an area that was settled by Scots-Irish immigrants in the late 18th century and that has retained an attachment to Jacksonian populism since then. This region begins in western Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina, stretches through the Appalachians and across the Cumberland Plateau, and spills over into southern Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, across Missouri and Arkansas, and into north Texas and Oklahoma. It also brushes along the northern edges of Mississippi and Alabama.
Now, no one expects West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Kentucky to be a part of Obama’s coalition this fall. But lots of people are looking at Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. These states are where this primary weakness becomes potentially significant.
All four of those states have substantial populations in areas geographically and culturally similar to these “problem areas”: southwestern Pennsylvania, western Virginia and North Carolina, and southeastern Ohio. In all of these states, Obama’s path to victory is to hold down his losses in rural areas, and then maximize his vote among upscale and minority voters in urban areas.
In 2008 this strategy worked well, in large part because the financial collapse produced a large turnaround in the voting preferences of whites without college degrees. He still performed relatively poorly for a Democrat among these voters, but his margins were enough to enable him to capture these four states. If he’s facing a virtual rebellion among rural white Democrats (and presumably a similar problem with independents) this time around, his odds of capturing these four states diminish appreciably. Once again, this isn’t to say that he will necessarily lose, just that his path to re-election narrows if Romney is racking up big wins in the 11th District of North Carolina, or in the old 6th District of Ohio.”
The Hopium Guzzlers say not to worry. Joe Biden is on the job. Remember, Joe is Obama’s ambassador to the bitter and the clingy. But don’t put away your whistles Obama dopes:
“Joe Biden may not be much help to Barack Obama in key swing states this fall.
In a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, Americans split on whether they like or dislike the vice president – 42% said they had a favorable opinion, 45% said unfavorable – but the numbers are worse in key swing states.
In the 12 swing states likely to determine the outcome of the presidential election, only 40% of registered voters view Biden favorably, while 54% view him unfavorably. [snip]
Independents are also down on the VP, with 50% saying they view him unfavorably and 35% holding a favorable view. [snip]
Biden is more on par with Dick Cheney, who stood at 46% favorable, 42% unfavorable in a July 2004 USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.”
Yeah, Biden… that’s the ticket in swing states.
Sean Trende’s third reason for why Tuesday’s primary results matter track with our long series Mistake In ’08:
“For years we have written (in our Mistake In ’08 series HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE as well as in our “Barack Obama’s Situation Comedy” demographics series) about the deadly effect the Teixiera draught has had on the Democratic Party.
In short, the Democratic Party committed suicide when it dumped the FDR Coalition led by Hillary Clinton in favor of the Barack Obama Situation Comedy coalition.
Ruy Teixiera has been aided and abetted in his toxic theories by books that deride “Bubba” such as the dangerous and idiotic “What’s The Matter With Kansas?” Books such as the Kansas book provided “theorists” from the left a “we’re smarter” snob attitude and justification for a class based hatred of poor whites.“
Sean Trende explains:
“3) It’s a critical problem for the “Emerging Democratic Majority” thesis. [snip]
Judis and Teixeira appropriately note that their predictions are conditional on a number of contingencies, but this is not an insignificant shift. The three Mountain West states — four if we are generous and include Arizona — comprise a total of 31 electoral votes and contain 23 House seats. Our states in Greater Appalachia comprise 47 electoral votes and contain 35 House seats, plus another 10 or so House seats in neighboring areas. In other words, by ceding these core Jacksonian states to the Republicans, Democrats are ceding about 20 percent of the House seats needed for a majority in exchange for 10 percent of the House seats needed for a majority. [snip]
Of the 63 seats Republicans picked up in 2010, 15 were in Greater Appalachia. Without these seats, their majority would be much slimmer, and Democrats would be only 10 seats from a majority, rather than 25. Many of these seats represent districts that Bill Clinton had been competitive in during the 1996 elections, but which have slipped away from his party since as the Democrats have become increasingly liberal, urban and culturally cosmopolitan.
This is the real reason Tuesday night’s results are significant. I actually don’t think these voters are complete lost causes for the Democratic Party — Republicans should be trembling at the prospect of a true populist like Brian Schweitzer of Montana running against Romney in 2016. But they do seem to be rejecting the Democratic standard-bearer for now. Given the sizable number of potential electoral votes at stake, this is not small potatoes. And the potential obstacles posed to Democratic attempts to take back the House stemming from this weakness are both real and substantial.”
So Obama loses 40% of the vote in two Democratic primaries and the dummies don’t realize this is a wake-up call to dump Obama or die.
Scott Brown was a wake-up call.
The 2010 election results were a wake-up call.
The recall election results in Wisconsin have been wake-up calls.
The phone is ringing, it’s 3:00 a.m. and no one is answering. All you hear are the whistles in the graveyard.