Indiana

The Reality Of The Next Decade: Split Government Control!

It is now clear that our political system is facing a long period, probably at least a decade, of split government control on the national level!

The Democratic Party has a long term edge with the electorate, as a result of the two Barack Obama Presidential victories, with the only difference being the loss in 2012 of Indiana and North Carolina.

But with the growing Hispanic and Latino population in Arizona, Texas, and Georgia, the likelihood of those states turning “blue’ from “red” over this decade, is becoming more likely, and with that manifestation, the Electoral College situation will become much more one sided than it is now, and yet still allow for some states to wander over to the other side without affecting a Democratic victory for the White House.

Additionally, with the surprise gain in seats by the Democrats in the US Senate, only losing one state, Nebraska, and gaining Maine, Massachusetts, and Indiana in return, and more Republican seats up for reelection in 2014, the likelihood of the Senate staying majority Democratic for the long term, continues to grow.

However, with the gerrymandering of seats by Republican legislatures and Governors in 2010, even though the Democrats won more votes for the US House of Representatives, the Republicans were able to hold on to the majority, although reduced by about eight seats. The Democrats will have trouble gaining 17 seats or more because of the gerrymandering, and even if they do gain a slight edge, could easily lose it two or four years after winning the majority.

So the likelihood of a Democratic President, Democratic Senate, and a Republican House becomes more a normal situation until at least the next reapportionment of seats after the 2020 Census, and the Presidential and Congressional Elections of that year, but with the advantage that 2020 is a Presidential year, while 2010 was not.

So this means the odds of a long range stalemate and gridlock in American politics are clear cut!

A Fascinating Idea! Former Republican Senators Richard Lugar And Chuck Hagel As Secretary Of State And Secretary Of Defense In Second Obama Term!

A fascinating idea has surfaced, which is very exciting in many ways.

It is clear that there will be a reshuffling of President Obama’s cabinet over the next few months, and two openings will certainly be likely in the State Department and the Defense Department.

For State, it has been suggested that Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, might take the post. Also, Susan Rice, United Nations Ambassador, is mentioned. Both would be wonderful in the position.

BUT there is a school of thought that IF President Obama wanted to show bipartisanship, he could do what Franklin D. Roosevelt did in World War II–pick Republicans who are intelligent, sane, responsible, and who are no longer serving in the Senate, to serve in his cabinet, and the State Department would offer a great location to put soon to be former Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, an acknowledged foreign policy expert, and a man who has worked well with Obama when they were both Senators, and went off to Russia to promote the safe collection of nuclear weapons stockpiles in 2005-2006. Lugar is a wonderful statesman, and would fill the job with excellence and professionalism. And he has been, like Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman in the past, and is still the ranking member of the committee until he leaves the Senate in January.

Additionally, as suggested earlier, former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Vietnam War veteran and military expert, would be an excellent choice to serve in the Pentagon as Secretary of Defense. Always highly regarded and respected, Hagel would add stature to our Defense Department.

Such appointments would neutralize, to a great extent, Republican attacks on President Obama in the areas of foreign policy, national security, and defense policy.

If FDR could have Republicans Henry Stimson as Secretary of War, and Frank Knox as Secretary of the Navy in 1940 and after, why cannot Barack Obama make a smart move that would help his administration to succeed, and also promote bipartisanship, at a time when it is desperately needed?

Tea Party Nasty, Mean Spirited Conservatism Lost Big: The Republican Party MUST Change Or Be Replaced!

The Tea Party Movement of 2010 has lost BIG in 2012, and the nasty, mean spirited conservatism it represents must be overcome by the Republican Party, which MUST change or be replaced!

Congressman Allen West of Florida, Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois, Senate nominee Todd Akin of Missouri, and Senate nominee Richard Mourdock of Indiana headline those who lost.

Never again can the Republican Party try to dictate to women about their reproductive lives; never can the GOP attack Hispanics and Latinos in a nasty, mean spirited way and expect to gain their support; never can the party of 2012 allow itself to let religious extremists to control its destiny and dictate religious doctrine to the nation at large; never can they promote foreign wars and aggression as the neoconservatives did under George W. Bush; never can they promote lack of concern for the middle class and the poor, as Mitt Romney made clear in his “47 percent” speech; never can they allow themselves to become the captive of billionaires such as Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers; never can they allow Donald Trump and other jerks like him to take control of their public message: never can they allow racists and talk show hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, and other extremists and hate mongers to dictate to them—and in many other ways, they must liberate themselves from their demons, or become part of the dustbin of history!

They must become more like the Conservative Party of Great Britain, which is far to the left of the present Republican Party, but still to the right of the Labour Party of Great Britain!

It is up to them, and purging and house cleaning must begin in earnest!

Final Projection On Presidential Race: Obama-Biden 332 Electoral Votes, Romney-Ryan 206 Electoral Votes

This author has spent a lot of time and effort in studying, analyzing, evaluating the Presidential Election contest of 2012, and is now ready to project the final result.

Barack Obama has been long predicted to win at least 237 electoral votes to Mitt Romney’s 191 electoral votes, with nine states in play as “swing” or “battleground” states, all of which Obama won in 2008.

The prediction that the author wishes to make is that Obama will win ALL of the nine competitive states, except North Carolina, giving him 332 electoral votes to Romney’s 206 electoral votes!

So Obama will win New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Colorado, with a total of 95 electoral votes, added to the 237, making the final total of 332 electoral votes.

Romney, by winning the 15 electoral votes of North Carolina, will go from 191 to 206 in the final total of electoral votes.

It also means that Obama will have won every state he won in 2008, except Indiana and North Carolina, and a total of 26 states and the District of Columbia. Romney will win 24 states.

Also, expect that the popular vote will be close in North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, Arizona, Georgia, and Montana, with Romney winning, but with hints that Democrats will have a grand opportunity to win those states in 2016 and beyond, with the growing Hispanic-Latino vote. The first hint will be the likely victories for the Senate of Democrats Joe Donnelly in Indiana, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Jon Tester in Montana, and Richard Carmona in Arizona.

Additionally, Obama should win about 52 percent of the vote to 47 percent of the vote for Romney, with Gary Johnson and other third party candidates winning slightly more than one percent of the total vote.

This means Obama will have won by a slightly smaller percentage of the popular vote and fewer electoral votes, but with the factor of reapportionment of seats due to the Census of 2010 changing downward many of the Frost Belt states which support Barack Obama, plus the loss of North Carolina and Indiana from 2008.

Still, overall, a very impressive performance can be expected!

Comments on this projection of the results are welcome!

Urgent To Defeat “Tea Party” Republicans Running For Senate—Akin, Mourdock, Fischer

There are three “Tea Party” type Republicans running for Senate seats in the Midwest, who are facing tough fights by Democratic opponents, and the hope is that all three of these irresponsible Republican nominees are defeated.

The three are:

Congressman Todd Akin, challenging incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri.

State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, challenging Congressman Joe Donnelly in Indiana.

State Senator Deb Fischer, challenging former Senator Bob Kerrey in Nebraska.

Akin, Mourdock, and Fischer represent extremism that would create more conflict and confrontation in the US Senate. And Akin and Mourdock have made outrageous statements about rape, angering any decent person who cares about women’s rights.

McCaskill has been a courageous Senator, and Kerrey was once a Presidential candidate twenty years ago, who now has been endorsed by his former Republican Senate colleague, Chuck Hagel, a true example of crossing the aisle. Both Kerrey and Hagel were outstanding US senators, and once could wish that both were still in the Senate, but now there is an opportunity to return Kerrey to the Senate.

Donnelly is a responsible moderate Democratic Congressman, who would be a great improvement over Mourdock although neither would fully replace retiring Republican Senator Richard Lugar, defeated by Mourdock in the Indiana Senatorial primary this past spring.

These are certainly key Senatorial races to watch on Tuesday night!

What Is It With Republicans And Women’s Rights?

The Republican Party of 2012 is absolutely crazy and loony when it comes to the rights of women.

Just look at Richard Mourdock of Indiana and Todd Akin of Missouri, both running for the Senate, and sounding like coming from past centuries, and medieval religious ideas And see how Mitt Romney endorses and supports them, showing no guts to defend women’s rights. But then again, remember he is a Mormon, a religion which promotes inferiority of women, so why should he have an open mind?

Republicans want to deny women equal pay at work.

Republicans want to deny women the right to contraceptives being covered on employer health plans.

Republicans want to deny women the right to control their own reproductive lives, and have the nerve and gall to justify rape as ordained by God, and force women to have babies born out of violence.

Republicans want to deny women the right to decide they do not wish to have a baby caused by incest of a sibling or parent or other relative.

Republicans want to deny women the right to their own life, if the life of the baby can be saved.

Republicans want to deny women the respect that allows them to decide their own futures, and instead allow religious zealots, whether Catholic, evangelical Christian, Orthodox Jews, or Muslims, to dictate to them, and treat them as second class citizens who must obey their husbands and fathers, and have no free will.

Republicans want to deny women the right to an education and professional or business career, preferring they go back to the image of women in the 1950s—obedient, barefoot and pregnant too many times, and good housewives and cooks who remind men how wonderful they are as the head of the household. They want the era of Father Knows Best, Ozzie and Harriet, and Leave It To Beaver!

Well, intelligent women are NOT going to tolerate such abuse any longer, and it is time for even “religious” women to realize they are being controlled and dominated by the men in their lives, and make it clear that they will NOT be dictated to about their work or educational lives, their sex lives, and their reproductive lives!

The days of obedience and submission of women to men is over, and the Republican Party needs to be taught a punishing lesson this November, that their attempt to go back in time, and show lack of respect and equality for women, will be punished severely by elimination from our political system.

Also, there is a need for churches and synagogues and mosques to forget “tradition”, and recognize we are in the 21st century in the most advanced nation on earth, and modernization and change are not an option, but rather essential and pronto!

We are not a backward nation of the “third world”, and it is time for women to be treated with dignity and respect!

There are a total of FIFTEEN Republican Senate candidates wishing to deny rape victims the right of abortion, and all of them need to be soundly defeated!

Five Republican Senate Seats In Danger Of Being Won By Democrats In 2012

The usual political line is that the Democrats are in danger of losing control of the Senate, with 23 Democratic or Independent seats up for election in 2012, as compared to only 10 Republican seats.

But actually, five of the ten GOP Senate seats are in play, with Republicans on the defensive!

This includes:

Maine—where retiring Senator Olympia Snowe seems likely to be replaced by Independent Angus King, former Governor of the state, thought to be likely to caucus with the Democrats if he wins, based on greater agreement with Democratic principles.

Massachusetts—where Senator Scott Brown, who replaced Ted Kennedy in 2010, is behind in many polls to consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren, in a state so strongly Democratic that Brown’s victory in 2010 was seen as an outlier.

Indiana—where retiring Senator Richard Lugar may be replaced by Democratic Congressman Joe Donnelly , because the GOP nominee, Richard Mourdock, has been labeled a Tea Party extremist, unwilling to work across the aisle with Democrats.

Nevada—where appointed Senator Dean Heller is having a rough race against long term Democratic Congresswoman Shelley Berkley.

Arizona—where Senator Jon Kyl is retiring, but the Republican nominee, Jeff Flake, is facing a surprisingly tough battle against Democrat Richard Carmona. former Surgeon General of the United States. Carmona has a distinguished law enforcement and medical career, and is seen as having a really good chance to replace Kyl, and being Hispanic (Puerto Rican) in Arizona is certainly a positive, as well as his biography.

If one had to put betting money on these five races, it would be a good bet that Maine, Massachusetts, and Arizona will go Democratic in Senate races, with Indiana and Nevada tougher races.

That would mean a three seat gain for the Democrats, making it much tougher for Republicans to become a majority, as then they would need at least six to seven Democratic held seats out of 12 seats seen as in play, with 11 others of the total 23 seats seen as NOT in play!

An analysis of Democratic seats in contention will follow in the coming days!

“Swing” States Down To Eight, Narrowing Romney Chances Of Winning Presidency!

The Mitt Romney Presidential campaign has decided to buy advertising time on television in only eight states, narrowing the chance that the former Massachusetts Governor can win the Presidency.

Eliminated as places of opportunity are Michigan, the birthplace and childhood of Romney, and the state that his father was Governor in the 1960s; Wisconsin, the birthplace and home of his running mate, Paul Ryan; and Pennsylvania, despite the well known white male battleground of western Pennsylvania, often thought to be an Achilles Heel for Barack Obama!

So what are the states still in play?

New Hampshire–4 electoral votes
Virginia–13 electoral votes
North Carolina–15 electoral votes
Florida–29 electoral votes
Ohio–18 electoral votes
Iowa–6 electoral votes
Colorado–9 electoral votes
Nevada–6 electoral votes

The total electoral votes in play are 100, while Obama leads with 247 electoral votes from 19 states and the District of Columbia, and Romney has 191 electoral votes from 23 states. Remember that the winner of the election must have 270 electoral votes.

So, with the updated realities that even Romney’s advertising campaign reflects, Obama wins If

he wins Florida (29 electoral votes)
he wins Ohio and Virginia (31 electoral votes)
he wins Ohio and North Carolina (33 electoral votes)
he wins Ohio and Iowa or Nevada (24 electoral votes)
he wins Ohio and Colorado (27 electoral votes)
he wins New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada (25 electoral votes)
he wins North Carolina and Colorado (24 electoral votes)
he wins North Carolina and Iowa and Nevada (27 electoral votes)
he wins Virginia and Iowa and Nevada (25 electoral votes)
he wins Virginia and Colorado and New Hampshire (26 electoral votes)
he wins Virginia, Colorado, and either Iowa or Nevada (28 electoral votes)

So these are ELEVEN scenarios where Barack Obama has the advantage–needing only between one and four states of the eight “swing” states to win the Presidency in the Electoral College!

The unemployment rate is lower than the national average in New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio and Iowa, while higher in North Carolina, Florida, Colorado and Nevada.

So if one were to assume that the four states that have the lower unemployment rate than the national average go to Obama, he wins 41 electoral votes, for a grand total of 288 electoral votes.

Of course, there are five states, that are considered “red” or Republican states, that actually are in play, although expected to go to Romney. These are Indiana (11 electoral votes), which went to Obama in 2008; Missouri (10 electoral votes), which was won by John McCain in 2008 by only about 4,000 votes; Montana (3 electoral votes), which is becoming more Democratic; Arizona (11 electoral votes), which is moving toward Democratic over time with the growing Hispanic vote, and the controversial immigration law under Governor Jan Brewer; and Georgia (16 electoral votes), which is gaining a large Hispanic population, which means it will likely trend Democratic over the next few election cycles. Were all of these to go Democratic in a close vote situation, Obama could, theoretically, win 51 more electoral votes!

So, IF Obama were to win all of the eight “swing states” now in play, based on Romney’s decision as to what states to spend money on advertising, he would go from what seems clearly 247 electoral votes to 347 electoral votes–meaning he would have won all of the states he won in 2008, except for Indiana!

This is 18 electoral votes fewer than in 2008, when Obama won 365 electoral votes–due to the theoretical loss of Indiana (11 electoral votes), plus the fact that the states he won lost a total of 7 electoral votes due to reapportionment of seats in Congress, based on the 2010 Census.

But IF Obama were to win the “red” states that could be in play, listed above, a total of five states with 51 electoral votes, his highest theoretical total of electoral votes would reach 398 electoral votes, meaning Romney would win only 140 electoral votes, with Obama winning 32 states and the District of Columbia, and Romney winning 18 states!

The ultimate point of this discussion is to make it clear that the odds of Obama being re-elected are very high, despite the supposedly tight popular vote on a national level, which really proves nothing, as the polls on popular vote in the eight “swing” states demonstrate that Obama is ahead in all of them, except in North Carolina and Colorado, so to bet against Obama would be a losing bet, best thought about before being placed, as the odds of losing large amounts of money is extremely a likely occurrence!

Wing Nuts Of 2010, And Now Of 2012–Lost Republican Opportunities In The Senate Then, And Possibly, Now!

The Republican Party is infamous for running wing nuts for the Senate, and as a result, lost the chance for control of the US Senate in 2010.

They ran such characters as Christine O’Donnell in Delaware; Ken Buck in Colorado; Sharron Angle in Nevada; and Joe Miller in Alaska.

The first three were so whacky that the Democrats held on to the seats, and kept control of the Senate, with Harry Reid of Nevada remaining Senate Majority Leader. Lisa Murkowski won a miraculous victory in Alaska over Tea Party favored Joe Miller, keeping that seat sane and sensible, while Republican.

At the same time, Rand Paul and Mike Lee won in Kentucky and Utah, respectively, and Marco Rubio was also backed by the Tea Party, and now Paul and Rubio are likely leaders of the party in the near future, no matter how right wing they are!

Now we have in 2012 the following: Ted Cruz in Texas, backed by the Tea Party and likely to win a Senate seat; Debbie Fischer in Nebraska, who faces former Democratic Senator and Presidential seeker Bob Kerrey, who faces a tough battle; Richard Murdock, who defeated respectable conservative Richard Lugar in Indiana; and now, Todd Akin, challenging Senator Claire McCaskell in Missouri.

With the likelihood of Cruz, Fischer, and Murdock victories for the Tea Party and the right wing of the social conservatives, the only thing that may stop GOP control of the US Senate is the Todd Akin controversy, but in theory, Akin could win that race too, and with only three or four seats gain needed to win control of the Senate for the Republicans, the future makeup of the Senate is disturbing!

It should be pointed out that the Texas and Indiana seats coming up for election are already GOP seats, so only Nebraska and maybe Missouri would be gains for the Tea Party element as things stand now! But going from Kay Bailey Hutchison and Richard Lugar to Ted Cruz and Richard Murdock is a major step backward toward further deadlock, confrontation, and paralysis in a Senate already with a terrible reputation

Inevitable Result: Defeat Of Richard Lugar, And The Death Of Bi-Partisanship In The US Senate

The inevitable defeat of Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana Republican Senate primary by Richard Mourdock, a Tea Party favorite, is a major tragedy for Indiana and for the US Senate,and also, for the Republican Party’s history and future!

Lugar, without question, was one of the most brilliant, insightful, intelligent, and learned members of the US Senate, not just now, but for decades in the past.

Richard Lugar was a man who promoted bi-partisanship and reason, rather than yelling and screaming and gridlock and stalemate, and he will be greatly missed.

And with him being forced out of the Senate, and Maine Senator Olympia Snowe voluntarily leaving the Senate, the Republican Party in the Senate becomes a true disaster area, leaving who is left as easily the most disgraceful group under the party name that we have ever seen in American history, from the beginning of the history of the party in 1854!

The GOP was a party of reform in the Civil War-Reconstruction Era, in the Progressive Era, and in the post World War II period, at least in the Northeast and scattered cases elsewhere in the 1960s and 1970s.

The deterioration of the moderate and liberal Republicans began with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and now is complete!

And to try to understand why Lugar was defeated is enough to make one wonder about the ignorance and stupidity of the voters who defeated him in Indiana.

What were their reasons to defeat him?

He is too old, being 80–totally ridiculous, as Lugar was a spry 80, fully in charge of his physical and mental faculties, more than most Republican Senate colleagues, who have far less ability at their younger ages than Lugar has always had.

Lugar spent most of his time in Virginia, and hardly ever was in Indiana for residence purposes–ridiculous as doing his job requires a Senator to spend most of his time in the DC area. This is such a totally phony issue and excuse to defeat a Senator who devoted his life to his state’s betterment.

Lugar was from Indianapolis, and the rest of the state resented his urban background–preposterous excuse to defeat him, but not uncommon in many states that the rural areas of a state resent the urban areas. But the thought that “country yokels” resent urban areas, and educated, intelligent people is an example of the problem of this country, that the “Know Nothing” hillbillies resent anyone who actually has brains and talent, and instead want a “good old boy”!

Lugar had the gall to do bi-partisan things, even with Barack Obama, when he was in the Senate–idiotic as that is the only way to get things done effectively, and Lugar always used principle over politics in his judgments, and was far from a liberal, but an honest, decent conservative.

Lugar specialized in foreign policy, and many rural people in Indiana hate foreign governments and the outside world in general–another example of the dangers of these”rural folk” having the ability to keep themselves and their fellow citizens out of touch with the “real world” out there. This anti foreign attitude is much too prevalent all over the country, and endangers our future in a complex world.

So the question arises over what Richard Lugar will do in 2013. He could go home to retirement, but does not seem like the type to want to do that. He could become a professor with specialty in international relations, and many universities would grab at the possibility of employing this brilliant statesman. He could write his memoirs, which would be fascinating.

But also, imagine this! As a good friend, and at times, supporter of Barack Obama on some issues, and with their common work on trying to prevent the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons when Obama was in the Senate in 2005-2006, and with Hillary Clinton leaving the State Department next year, there will be a vacancy that Lugar could fill very well!

Would the Republicans in the Senate oppose their long time colleague, with 36 years of experience, much of it in foreign policy, similar to the experience in foreign policy issues of Vice President Joe Biden, if Lugar wished to serve Obama as Secretary of State?

The assumption is that they would back him if Obama was re-elected and asked Lugar to serve his nation in another distinguished way, as Secretary of State.

So Indiana’s loss could be America’s and Barack Obama’s gain in 2013, and Lugar would richly deserve such an opportunity!