Posted on 07/08/2012 6:06:48 AM PDT by pistolpackinpapa
Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races.
Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I dont believe its possible to turnaround America.
But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980.
Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge?
First, most pollsters are missing one ingredient- common sense. Here is my gut instinct. Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will switch to Obama. Not one in all the land. But many millions of people who voted for an unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry, disillusioned, turned off, or scared about the future. Voters know Obama now- and that is a bad harbinger.
Now to an analysis of the voting blocks that matter in U.S. politics:
*Black voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. His endorsement of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going Christians. He may get 88% of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008. This is not good news for Obama.
*Hispanic voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. If Romney picks Rubio as his VP running-mate the GOP may pick up an extra 10% to 15% of Hispanic voters (plus lock down Florida). This is not good news for Obama.
*Jewish voters. Obama has been weak in his support of Israel. Many Jewish voters and big donors are angry and disappointed. I predict Obama's Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60s. This is not good news for Obama.
*Youth voters. Obamas biggest and most enthusiastic believers from 4 years ago have graduated into a job market from hell. Young people are disillusioned, frightened, and broke- a bad combination. The enthusiasm is long gone. Turnout will be much lower among young voters, as will actual voting percentages. This not good news for Obama.
*Catholic voters. Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008. That wont happen again. Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with the Catholic Church over contraception. Now he is being sued by the Catholic Church. Majority lost. This is not good news for Obama.
*Small Business owners. Because I ran for Vice President last time around, and I'm a small businessman myself, I know literally thousands of small business owners. At least 40% of them in my circle of friends, fans and supporters voted for Obama 4 years ago to give someone different a chance. I warned them that he would pursue a war on capitalism and demonize anyone who owned a business...that hed support unions over the private sector in a big way...that he'd overwhelm the economy with spending and debt. My friends didnt listen. Four years later, I can't find one person in my circle of small business owner friends voting for Obama. Not one. This is not good news for Obama.
*Blue collar working class whites. Do I need to say a thing? White working class voters are about as happy with Obama as Boston Red Sox fans feel about the New York Yankees. This is not good news for Obama.
*Suburban moms. The issue isnt contraception its having a job to pay for contraception. Obamas economy frightens these moms. They are worried about putting food on the table. They fear for their childrens future. This is not good news for Obama.
*Military Veterans. McCain won this group by 10 points. Romney is winning by 24 points. The more our military vets got to see of Obama, the more they disliked him. This is not good news for Obama.
Add it up. Is there one major group where Obama has gained since 2008? Will anyone in America wake up on election day saying I didnt vote for Obama 4 years ago. But hes done such a fantastic job, I cant wait to vote for him today. Does anyone feel that a vote for Obama makes their job more secure?
Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas oddsmaker and common sense small businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a world-class repudiation of Obamas radical and risky socialist agenda. It's Reagan-Carter all over again.
But Ill give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.
“but Obama’s going to ‘wag the dog’ with something in September or October and you know that Holder is never going to touch the ACORN crowd
“Marxists don’t relinquish power in a well behaved manner and as always the will of the people be damned”
___________________________________________________________________________
Well said. Either there will not be an election or it will be hopelessly corrupt, yet unchallenged. I will even bet, however, with the current crop of eunuchs in DC, that all Obama would have to do after he lost the election is to simply announce - with no explanation - that he was not stepping down, and tell Holder to “Make it so.”
“cant think of a single October surprise scenario that would help Obama”
Announcing Michelle’s expecting would lock up the election. (More of an ‘August Surprise’)
She could always kill the baby- before the election even if polling indicated that would be a winning move.
Rubio’s parents were not naturalized until after he was born; thus, he was born to two Cuban citizen parents.
What to speak of the fact that he holds poisonous RINO/pro-illegal globalist viewpoints.
FEH!
“Bush was not on the ballot in 2008. Your sister is an idiot.”
She was aware of that. The point of the anecdote is that like many “Bush is an idiot” folks she voted for the Dem candidate and against the Republican candidate as a reaction to 8 years of Bush. Was it stupid? Yes. Did it happen enough times nationally to put the incompetent currently in office in charge? Absolutely. Will it happen again to drive him from office in November? Hope so. I think that is what the author is intimating.
This will go back to 2004. Kerry won Rat states, Bush won Republican states. It is now back to Ohio. Difference is Romney has a better chance of picking off Obama states than Obama has of picking off Romney states.
Will it be enough?
Nobody knew who Dan Quayle was either. Most VP’s are John Does. Nobody votes for the bottom of the presidential ticket anyway. The VP needs to be qualified to be President and his main duty is to inquire daily as to the health of the President. Its probably going to be Rob Portman a senator from Ohio and as far as I know he’s qualified to be President.
I have dreamed that same dream.
This was posted back when it first came
“This will go back to 2004. Kerry won Rat states, Bush won Republican states. It is now back to Ohio. Difference is Romney has a better chance of picking off Obama states than Obama has of picking off Romney states.Will it be enough?”
The way I see it is there are 4 possible outcomes.Romney in a landslide. Romney in a close election. Obama in a landslide. Obama in a close election.
The only outcome I think we can currently rule out is the Obama in a landslide scenario because I agree that the marginally red states that voted for him last time will not be voting for him this time.We may very well have the reverse with Romney picking up the marginally blue states like Iowa and Wisconsin resulting in a landslide with a Republican Senate ushered in or the 2004 scenario you described fighting over a few battleground states and a divided Congress. I think it gets down to the white vote. Obama won last time with the highest percentage of white voters (around 4%)than any Dem candidate since Johnson.Right now he is polling in the high thirties among white voters, the lowest in 60 years. Only problem is they are lesser share of the population this time around than in 2008.
Correction (around 4%) should be (around 44%)
“to be eligible to be president of the united states, you have to be a natural born american citizen. which is born in the usa of two legal citizens of the usa, or one legal citizen of the usa, or born of two legal citizens of the usa in a usa military post.”
Complete nonsense and has been shown to be so in court. “Natural born” folks have about the same level of rationality as Paulbots.
pistolpackinpapa....like your name...lol lol lol
The issue of Natural Born Citizen was brought against the white guy, John McCain, long before Barrack was nominated to the DNC as a Presidential Candidate.
In fact, in order to place McCain on the ballot, the United States Senate went so far as to craft the Senate Resolution 511 proclaiming John McCain a Natural Born Citizen.
There is a cloud over Barrack's birth, to be sure. But the fact that still remains is his birth was of a divided nationality British and American. One is wholly one thing or another but not completely two things at the same time.
I've leveraged some work on this from
On February 28, 2008, about the time Barack Obama began to overtake Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential primary, the New York Times published an article questioning McCains eligibility to be President according to the natural born citizen clause of Article II, Section I of the Constitution.
Needless to say, the Times story was immediately followed by numerous other news items questioning McCains eligibility.
After publication of the New York Times article in February, at least three lawsuits were filed challenging McCains eligibility e.g. California and New Hampshire.
Strangely enough, on February 29, 2008, the day after the Times article appeared, Sen. Barack Obamas campaign announced he would co-sponsor legislation already introduced on February 28, 2008 by his political ally Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to ensure that John McCain could become president, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. (Washington Post)
Obama said:
Senator McCain has earned the right to be his partys nominee, and no loophole should prevent him from competing in this campaign.
SR 511 was introduced April 10, 2008 by Senator McCaskill and co-sponsored by Senators Leahy (D-VT), Obama (D-IL), Coburn (R-OK), Clinton (D-NY) and Webb (D-VA) and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
It was reported out of committee without amendment by Senator Leahy on April 24, 2008.
On April 30, 2008, the non-binding (no force of law) SR 511 was passed by unanimous consent (no recorded vote) stating:
As reported by the New York Times on April 18, 2008:
Many who have studied the issue say it can only be definitively resolved by a Constitutional amendment.
Obviously, we are not going to get the Constitution amended in the next two or three months, said Ms. McCaskill, who was driven to clear up any ambiguity after learning of the potential problem. We are just trying to send the strongest signal we can as quickly and simply as we can.
So, in April 2008, it appears that a political deal was struck between the Democrats and Republicans that would provide cover for both McCain and Obama on the issue of eligibility. That would also explain the continuing conspiracy of silence by our political elite.
Senate Resolution 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen of the United States;
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their countrys President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congresss own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen;
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
Now, let us take this simple and explore its hidden meaning.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen of the United States;
They apparently have read the Constitution and have zeroed in on one clause that no law or legislative body has the right to amend.
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
The term natural born citizen is not defined, however other rulings by the Supreme Court, Congress, and other writings from such as John Bingham, do define what a natural born citizen is. For sake of space I will only quote the following.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their countrys President;
So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a Gentlemans Agreement on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they claimed to have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congresss own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen;
So the Senate decided to make assumptions and attempt to pass a Gentlemans Agreement on the same. We have already seen from the prior statement that they have no knowledge of the meaning, and its definition.
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
It sounds nice, but means nothing? Some fluff but again means nothing.
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
Whom are they referring to, that was born outside the United States and who deemed them eligible?
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
So the Senate gave by law, what nature failed to do. Would that not be a naturalized citizenship?
So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a natural born citizen that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what constituted a natural born citizen? It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesnt. There is but one defintion that a natural born citizen has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattels Law of Nations.
As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the bodys approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.
Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.
Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.
The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their Gentlemens Agreement, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim Oh, what a good boy am I.
Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the Natural Born Citizen Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.
More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCains eligibility based on being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is born in country. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.
Where is there a definition as to a Natural Born Citizen based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattels Law of Nations.
Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States.
Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a Natural Born Citizen as required by the United States Constitution?
I think despite what people say, this won’t be a razor clise election.
Obama won 53-46-1. I think the margin will be within a point of that rangw.
Just my gut talking. Or possibly that burrito I had for breakfast
No.
In order to serve as VP you must be eligible to be president.
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
Rubio is a Native Citizen.
I`m always entertained by these comparisons to 1980. The America of that era would`ve laughed off the idea of electing a hardcore marxist. As a matter of fact, Gus Hall and Angela Davis were roughly the same ideology as today`s democrat party, and they garnered all of 1% support.
The America of today is rife with a self-interested entitlement mentality. The level of understanding of things political is far less, because voters are driven far more reflexively by ideology and not issue awareness. As a result, the candidate who promises the most “free stuff” has the inside track.
Add to all that an intensely liberal “media” providing free airtime for the dems, and we have an America that bears very little resemblance to the one that elected Reagan. The best hope for defeating 0bama (at best, a close election.. there`ll be no landslide defeat of him) is an unforeseen, cataclysmic development that turns public opinion against him.
Amazingly, the drumbeat of negative economic news, the 0bamacare ruling, F&F, the national security leaks, the homo marriage issue haven`t touched 0bama. Prompted by “media” propaganda, Americans still blame Bush for the ongoing recession.
I wish I could share the optimism.
I don’t know the answer to that question. Is not the VP positioned to take over for the POTUS in the event the latter cannot fulfill his or her duties?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.