Trouble In Democratic Paradise?

Trouble In Democratic Paradise?

Much is being made by the mainstream media and the Democratic strategists about the allegedly tepid support that Republican presidential nominee-presumptive Mitt Romney is receiving from his fellow Republican power brokers. True or not, I have serious doubts that any Republican governor will withhold his or her support from Romney, let alone in a very public way. The same cannot be said of Barack Obama.

With all the advantages of incumbency and without the necessity of going through a bruising primary campaign, the president can’t even hold the Democratic governors together. West Virginia Democratic Governor Earl Ray Tomblin has gone on record as refusing to endorse Obama for reelection, but has also given some pretty strong reasons for his refusal.

Gov. Tomblin’s statement minces no words: “President Obama has apparently made it his mission to drive the backbone of West Virginia’s economy, coal and the energy industry out of business. That will not only hurt thousands of West Virginia families, it will destroy the economic fabric of our state.” Tomblin went on to say: “As a loyal member of the Democratic Party and as governor of our state, I will continue to do everything I can, including suing the EPA, to get the president to change the misguided policies that are hurting West Virginians.”

How long this will last and how much effect it will have on other Democratic stalwarts remains to be seen. But Tomblin is not the only important Democratic figure from a state heavily-dependent on the production and use of coal and oil for the health of their state economies. In addition, several Republican governors of coal producing/using states could quickly latch onto the same refrain (Pennsylvania and Ohio come to mind—both battleground states). Never mind the phony “war on women.” This is a real war on coal and oil, and now a Democratic governor has spoken the unspeakable.

Make no mistake. Tomblin is not about to become a maverick who endorses a Republican for president. West Virginia is a very poor state, with a large rural population and a significant portion of its population dependent on government handouts. But he has made a point which could resonate throughout other fossil-fuel states. And he has essentially “given permission” for other Democrats to remain loyal to their party without being loyal to the Great Job Destroyer.

Tomblin made it clear he is not a fan of either Romney or the Republican agenda, then proceeded to repeat Democratic talking points. Said Tomblin: “Mitt Romney is supporting policies that will end Medicare and Social Security as we know it. His policies will put more burdens on West Virginia families who are simply trying to make ends meet.” In other words, “I support Democratic policies which keep many West Virginians on the plantation and on the welfare rolls, but not a president who destroys union jobs and raises energy costs in quantum leaps.”

He concluded with “neither President Obama nor Governor Romney has earned my vote at this point.” That leaves open the question of whether he would reverse his position should Obama throw a few bones to West Virginia in the form of job incentives that are more apparent than real. That would be a real tightrope for both the president and the governor. Federal government handouts can go a long way toward greasing the wheels of currently-Democratic states.

West Virginia has a 2-1 Democratic registration majority, but has elected many Republicans to statewide and federal offices in the very recent past. Both the governor and Senator Joe Manchin (Tomblin’s predecessor in the governor’s mansion) are acutely aware that when it comes to unions and welfare, they are on solid ground. On the overall issue of jobs and the Obama ecoweenie attacks on coal production and coal-fueled energy their jobs are on shaky ground, and they know it. It doesn’t do them any good to support the United Mine Workers Union if the coal mines are forced to cease production and the state economy reaches final collapse.

In addition, Sen. Manchin has not endeared himself to the Obamacrats as he has implored the president to reverse course on “conscience waivers” in Obamacare to accommodate doctors religiously opposed to abortion and forced coverage for birth control and abortifacients. Blue Dog Democrats are a vanishing breed, but they haven’t yet gone entirely extinct.

So there appears to be a war going on in Democratic heaven. The question is, “who plays Satan and who plays God in this Paradise Lost scenario?” And then there’s always the question of which one will win.

Much is being made by the mainstream media and the Democratic strategists about the allegedly tepid support that Republican presidential nominee-presumptive Mitt Romney is receiving from his fellow Republican power brokers. True or not, I have serious doubts that any Republican governor will withhold his or her support from Romney, let alone in a very public way. The same cannot be said of Barack Obama.

With all the advantages of incumbency and without the necessity of going through a bruising primary campaign, the president can’t even hold the Democratic governors together. West Virginia Democratic Governor Earl Ray Tomblin has gone on record as refusing to endorse Obama for reelection, but has also given some pretty strong reasons for his refusal.

Gov. Tomblin’s statement minces no words: “President Obama has apparently made it his mission to drive the backbone of West Virginia’s economy, coal and the energy industry out of business. That will not only hurt thousands of West Virginia families, it will destroy the economic fabric of our state.” Tomblin went on to say: “As a loyal member of the Democratic Party and as governor of our state, I will continue to do everything I can, including suing the EPA, to get the president to change the misguided policies that are hurting West Virginians.”

How long this will last and how much effect it will have on other Democratic stalwarts remains to be seen. But Tomblin is not the only important Democratic figure from a state heavily-dependent on the production and use of coal and oil for the health of their state economies. In addition, several Republican governors of coal producing/using states could quickly latch onto the same refrain (Pennsylvania and Ohio come to mind—both battleground states). Never mind the phony “war on women.” This is a real war on coal and oil, and now a Democratic governor has spoken the unspeakable.

Make no mistake. Tomblin is not about to become a maverick who endorses a Republican for president. West Virginia is a very poor state, with a large rural population and a significant portion of its population dependent on government handouts. But he has made a point which could resonate throughout other fossil-fuel states. And he has essentially “given permission” for other Democrats to remain loyal to their party without being loyal to the Great Job Destroyer.

Tomblin made it clear he is not a fan of either Romney or the Republican agenda, then proceeded to repeat Democratic talking points. Said Tomblin: “Mitt Romney is supporting policies that will end Medicare and Social Security as we know it. His policies will put more burdens on West Virginia families who are simply trying to make ends meet.” In other words, “I support Democratic policies which keep many West Virginians on the plantation and on the welfare rolls, but not a president who destroys union jobs and raises energy costs in quantum leaps.”

He concluded with “neither President Obama nor Governor Romney has earned my vote at this point.” That leaves open the question of whether he would reverse his position should Obama throw a few bones to West Virginia in the form of job incentives that are more apparent than real. That would be a real tightrope for both the president and the governor. Federal government handouts can go a long way toward greasing the wheels of currently-Democratic states.

West Virginia has a 2-1 Democratic registration majority, but has elected many Republicans to statewide and federal offices in the very recent past. Both the governor and Senator Joe Manchin (Tomblin’s predecessor in the governor’s mansion) are acutely aware that when it comes to unions and welfare, they are on solid ground. On the overall issue of jobs and the Obama ecoweenie attacks on coal production and coal-fueled energy their jobs are on shaky ground, and they know it. It doesn’t do them any good to support the United Mine Workers Union if the coal mines are forced to cease production and the state economy reaches final collapse.

In addition, Sen. Manchin has not endeared himself to the Obamacrats as he has implored the president to reverse course on “conscience waivers” in Obamacare to accommodate doctors religiously opposed to abortion and forced coverage for birth control and abortifacients. Blue Dog Democrats are a vanishing breed, but they haven’t yet gone entirely extinct.

So there appears to be a war going on in Democratic heaven. The question is, “who plays Satan and who plays God in this Paradise Lost scenario?” And then there’s always the question of which one will win.

Trouble In Democratic Paradise?

View Detail

The Senate: Why Winning Isn't Enough

The Senate: Why Winning Isn't Enough

Senate Democrats have some serious problems in November. Not only will they be weighed down by a deeply unpopular Obama and their own vile actions over the past couple years, but they are facing a significant enthusiasm gap. Also, they are defending many more seats. What’s more, their people are choosing to retire rather than fight. So I think winning the Senate is all but assured. But we need more than just winning, and we aren't going to get it.



The key fight in this next election cycle will be the Senate. The Senate is important because it can block most reforms. President GenericRepublican (R) can do a lot of reforming from inside the Executive Branch, but anything like repealing laws, reforming entitlements, or amending the tax code will need to overcome a Senate filibuster. And filibusters aplenty you should expect. . . by the plethora. Indeed, expect the Democrats to filibuster everything because they have no incentive whatsoever to cooperate. So we need 60 seats.



Actually, we need 64 or 65 seats because the Republicans have a RINO problem. But what are the chances of that happening? Frankly, zero. So let's go with 60.



The Republicans currently hold 47 seats. The Democrats hold 53. In 2012, 23 Democratic seats and 10 Republican seats will be up for grabs. Most pollsters say it’s unlikely the Republicans will lose any seats, though I personally predict a surprise loss for Scott Brown in Massachusetts as most of his base in the last election will refuse to turn out. Hence, the Republicans need to win either 13 or 14 out of 23 seats to get to 60.



The problem is, there’s no “roadmap” to get them there, i.e. there just aren’t enough competitive seats. Consider:



Helping the Republicans, six Democrats have decided to quit rather than face re-election. This includes: Joe Lieberman (Conn.), Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico), Kent Conrad (North Dakota), James Webb (Virginia), and Herb Kohl (Wisconsin). Unfortunately, Lieberman’s seat and Akaka’s seat are all but assured to remain Democratic. The other four are considered up for grabs.



Also, depending on who you ask, Democratic seats in Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Michigan, Florida, Ohio and West Virginia are all up for grabs.



So do the math. Eleven total seats are considered up for grabs. That is not enough. Even if we win each seat, we will still be two seats short of 60. What’s more, I don’t think each of these is legitimately up for grabs. Every election we hear about seats in liberal bastions (e.g. Washington state, California, New Jersey) being up for grabs, and every election cycle these turn out to be mirages. This election is no different. I know, for example, from personal experience in the state that Joe Manchin simply cannot be beaten in West Virginia. History tells me that Ben Nelson also will win Nebraska quite easily despite his role in ObamaCare. I also have my doubts about Wisconsin and New Mexico. So I’m thinking that only seven Democratic seats are actually up for grabs. That works out to 54 total seats if we win them all.



Unfortunately, winning only 54 seats would be a disaster. Not only does that mean we can’t stop filibusters, but it also means that our 3-5 seat RINO contingent will hold a lot of power should the Republicans try to achieve anything through reconciliation. That means most (if not all) reform will need to come from the White House. Unfortunately, that all but excludes entitlement and tax reform.



Now, there are some factors that may affect this. For example, Obama’s incredibly low poll numbers suggest a landslide against him, which could mean inverse coattails will drag down the Democratic candidates. There is also some evidence for this in a 6% enthusiasm gap found by the Democratic PPP pollsters. That too could be serious trouble for these Democratic candidates (the 2010 election showed an 8% enthusiasm gap). But I think it’s unlikely this will do anything more than improve our chances of winning the toss up seats.



That’s a little depressing, but it’s better to know the truth and adjust accordingly. Indeed, this tells me that we need to focus much more carefully on what our Presidential candidate has to say about reforming government. . . because the Congress isn’t going to be a lot of help.

Senate Democrats have some serious problems in November. Not only will they be weighed down by a deeply unpopular Obama and their own vile actions over the past couple years, but they are facing a significant enthusiasm gap. Also, they are defending many more seats. What’s more, their people are choosing to retire rather than fight. So I think winning the Senate is all but assured. But we need more than just winning, and we aren't going to get it.



The key fight in this next election cycle will be the Senate. The Senate is important because it can block most reforms. President GenericRepublican (R) can do a lot of reforming from inside the Executive Branch, but anything like repealing laws, reforming entitlements, or amending the tax code will need to overcome a Senate filibuster. And filibusters aplenty you should expect. . . by the plethora. Indeed, expect the Democrats to filibuster everything because they have no incentive whatsoever to cooperate. So we need 60 seats.



Actually, we need 64 or 65 seats because the Republicans have a RINO problem. But what are the chances of that happening? Frankly, zero. So let's go with 60.



The Republicans currently hold 47 seats. The Democrats hold 53. In 2012, 23 Democratic seats and 10 Republican seats will be up for grabs. Most pollsters say it’s unlikely the Republicans will lose any seats, though I personally predict a surprise loss for Scott Brown in Massachusetts as most of his base in the last election will refuse to turn out. Hence, the Republicans need to win either 13 or 14 out of 23 seats to get to 60.



The problem is, there’s no “roadmap” to get them there, i.e. there just aren’t enough competitive seats. Consider:



Helping the Republicans, six Democrats have decided to quit rather than face re-election. This includes: Joe Lieberman (Conn.), Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico), Kent Conrad (North Dakota), James Webb (Virginia), and Herb Kohl (Wisconsin). Unfortunately, Lieberman’s seat and Akaka’s seat are all but assured to remain Democratic. The other four are considered up for grabs.



Also, depending on who you ask, Democratic seats in Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Michigan, Florida, Ohio and West Virginia are all up for grabs.



So do the math. Eleven total seats are considered up for grabs. That is not enough. Even if we win each seat, we will still be two seats short of 60. What’s more, I don’t think each of these is legitimately up for grabs. Every election we hear about seats in liberal bastions (e.g. Washington state, California, New Jersey) being up for grabs, and every election cycle these turn out to be mirages. This election is no different. I know, for example, from personal experience in the state that Joe Manchin simply cannot be beaten in West Virginia. History tells me that Ben Nelson also will win Nebraska quite easily despite his role in ObamaCare. I also have my doubts about Wisconsin and New Mexico. So I’m thinking that only seven Democratic seats are actually up for grabs. That works out to 54 total seats if we win them all.



Unfortunately, winning only 54 seats would be a disaster. Not only does that mean we can’t stop filibusters, but it also means that our 3-5 seat RINO contingent will hold a lot of power should the Republicans try to achieve anything through reconciliation. That means most (if not all) reform will need to come from the White House. Unfortunately, that all but excludes entitlement and tax reform.



Now, there are some factors that may affect this. For example, Obama’s incredibly low poll numbers suggest a landslide against him, which could mean inverse coattails will drag down the Democratic candidates. There is also some evidence for this in a 6% enthusiasm gap found by the Democratic PPP pollsters. That too could be serious trouble for these Democratic candidates (the 2010 election showed an 8% enthusiasm gap). But I think it’s unlikely this will do anything more than improve our chances of winning the toss up seats.



That’s a little depressing, but it’s better to know the truth and adjust accordingly. Indeed, this tells me that we need to focus much more carefully on what our Presidential candidate has to say about reforming government. . . because the Congress isn’t going to be a lot of help.

The Senate: Why Winning Isn't Enough

View Detail