Voting blocs, by the numbers

J. R. Dunn in American Thinker explains “Obama’s Numbers” for the 2012 election.

[…] So we can put aside all notions of O commanding a winning or even near-winning percentage of the vote. In fact, we can put aside more than that. The same McClatchy/Marist poll quoted above also found that 49 percent to 36 percent definitely plan to vote against him, and 52 to 38 percent expect him to lose, no matter whom he’s running against.

The point is this: Obama at the beginning of the election cycle explicitly controls no single voting bloc. Not one of the blocs that went his way so avidly in 2008 remains unquestionably in his corner. Far from it — a near-majority fully intends to vote against him. This is unprecedented in American presidential politics. No president in recent decades, and perhaps no president ever, has been in such a miserable position a year before the election.

Can he pull out of it? Anything’s possible, but it seems unlikely. It’s hard to see exactly what accomplishment would turn things around for him. Though lucky enough to have Osama bin Laden killed on his watch, he derived no more than a flea-sized bounce from that victory. Short of his defeating the King of the Morlocks in single combat, it’s not at clear what actions would benefit him. […]

1 thought on “Voting blocs, by the numbers”

  1. Two things:

    Sean Hannity voluntarily suggested to a democratic operative that Hillary is much more respected and could be elected. I know I read that Soros is spending lots of money to undermine Fox News. Is this an example of it? Egad.

    Today Rush’s show was preempted by Michael Smerkonish interviewing Obama. Mr. S. is on later on the same station. Curious that this was the only time Obama could find to give him the interview. But why did Mr. S. accept this time?
    Obama spoke spontaneously, without a teleprompter and answered the questions put to him. Obama sounded reasonable and quite intelligent. What a surprise. Scary. But this proves he knows what we want and what he is doing is deliberately destructive.

Comments are closed.