Pat Buchanan

New Statistical Method Predicts Election Victory For Barack Obama In November

Ronald 3 Comments

Three political scientists–Seth Hill of Yale, John Sides of George Washington University, and Lynn Vavreck of UCLA–have set up a new election forecasting model, and used it to judge past Presidential elections, as well as the present one.

The factors involved in the predictions are the gross domestic product in the first three quarters of the election year; the President’s public opinion rating in June of the election year; and and whether one of the candidates is the incumbent in the office.

By these standards, Barack Obama, if his popularity rating holds at 48 percent, and even if there is ZERO economic growth, he has a 58.4 percent chance of winning a second term in the White House!

This works if one looks at 12 of the past 16 Presidential elections, and is, therefore, seen as authoritative by many observers.

Using this model, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had a 97 percent rating; George W. Bush had 76 percent, his dad 64 percent (but affected by Ross Perot’s third party run and Pat Buchanan’s challenge in the primaries), and Jimmy Carter at 34 percent, with everything against him in 1980.

This is just another indication that Mitt Romney has a major challenge overcoming Barack Obama this coming fall!

Two Former Governors As Third Party Candidates: Could It Affect The Presidential Election Results Of 2012?

Ronald 4 Comments

Just a few days after an post about the likelihood that no third party would have a significant effect on the Presidential Election of 2012, suddenly the possibility arises that while no candidate is likely to win a state or gain a large percentage of votes, a 2000 Presidential Election scenario, where two candidates had small numbers of votes and percentage, and yet helped to determine the electoral vote in Florida, and therefore decide the winner of the Presidency, presents itself!

In 2000, Ralph Nader ran as the Green Party candidate and won 2.74 percent of the national vote, and Pat Buchanan ran as the Reform Party candidate and won 0.43 percent of the vote. But in Florida, about 97,000 people voted for Nader; and in Palm Beach Country, Florida, about 3,400 people incorrectly voted for Buchanan over Al Gore, because of confusion about filling out the infamous “butterfly” ballot, throwing the election in Florida to George W. Bush, and deciding the election of Bush over Al Gore.

Well, in theory, the same situation could arise in 2012, although highly unlikely that “lightning” would strike for a second time in 12 years.

Having said that, neither Ralph Nader nor Pat Buchanan were officeholders, while this election, two former governors are running, and cannot , therefore, be ignored!

The Libertarian Party has just nominated former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and the Reform Party is likely to nominate former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer in August at their convention in Philadelphia.

Just being governors gives them a lot of status and clout, so we cannot assume that they will have no effect on the election results, just hope and pray that that is so!

Six Months To Presidential Election Of 2012: No Signs Of Strong Third Party Movement!

Ronald 1 Comment

With six months to go to the Presidential Election of 2012, there are no signs of a strong third party movement occurring, which would have any dramatic effect on the election results.

Third parties in the past have had significance in election results, although never able to win the election.

This certainly proved true with the Free Soil Party of 1848, the Progressive Party of 1912, the American Independent Party in 1968, and the Reform Party of 1992.

And even in small ways, as in 2000, the candidacy of Ralph Nader, and even that of Pat Buchanan, had an effect on the race, particularly in Florida.

There is no such danger at this point, and with Mayor Michael Bloomberg making clear he is not running as an Independent, and instead allowing himself to be courted by both the Romney and Obama campaigns, there should be a major sigh of relief in both camps.

Yes, there will be third party candidates, but no one seriously is seen as a major figure, although it sometimes has seemed that Jon Huntsman, the former Utah Governor, might run, and Ron Paul, still technically in the race for the GOP Presidential nomination, has been rumored as a Libertarian Party candidate, as he was in 1988.

But realistically, the most “threatening” possible candidates are two former Governors who were ignored in the Republican race for President: former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer, and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Roemer might run as the Reform Party candidate, and Johnson as the Libertarian Party candidate

Virgil Goode, former Republican Congressman from Virginia, might be the Constitution Party candidate; Roseanne Barr, the comedian, might run as the Green Party candidate; and either Buddy Roemer or former Salt Lake City, Utah, Mayor Rocky Anderson might run on the Americans Elect (online nomination) Party, with Anderson also the candidate of the Justice Party.

Of course, there is always the possibility of Ralph Nader or Donald Trump or Jesse Ventura running, as they have often talked about, but with only Nader actually running just about every four years, making him, sadly, a joke at this point, when once he had real credibility.

The point is the likelihood of a third party or independent candidate having any impact on the election is close to zero at this point!

Rick Santorum The Promoter of Class Warfare, Not Barack Obama!

Ronald Leave a comment

Republicans have, on a regular basis, accused President Barack Obama of promoting “class warfare”, because he promotes the concept that the wealthy have been very fortunate, with the biggest tax cuts in history during the Bush and early Obama years, and must start to pay their fair share of taxes to help support the national commitments and responsibilities.

But actually, it is Rick Santorum, above all, who is promoting class warfare, by advocating an anti elitist view about the news media, colleges and universities, and liberals, blaming them for reporting what is going on, and promoting investigation of the mess created by the Bush Administration and the Republican Party during the years they controlled the national government, and advocating open inquiry and analysis and thinking, rather than accepting what we are told is the ultimate truth from a man who advocates religion in government, rather than separation of church and state.

Santorum is trying to organize blue collar whites who are not educated beyond high school and have a much higher unemployment rate against white collar workers and college educated people who have a much lower unemployment rate.

Instead of seeing that education is the road to success and the stable middle class, and despite the fact that Santorum himself has three college and university degrees and will certainly hope his own children will get a college education to advance themselves economically over a lifetime, Santorum calls educated people snobs, and Obama is blamed for promoting a better life for the future generation!

This campaign pitch of Santorum is promotion of resentment, anger, and against the role of education in attainment of life’s goals. It is sick, insane, destructive of social mobility for the future of the nation, and Santorum needs to be repudiated in a massive way by his party, but they seem unwilling to take him on, and they are therefore promoting further degradation of the middle and working classes by NOT advocating what Obama says is necessary for success–as much education as any young person can handle, rather than a drive to the bottom!

If the blue collar whites of the Midwest back Rick Santorum, they are guaranteeing their continued decline into poverty and degradation!

Santorum’s pitch is the closest to that of Pat Buchanan in 1992 and George Wallace in 1968, but he is more of a threat to be the standard bearer of a major political party, and this could, therefore, be a calamity in the making!

Why Barack Obama Will Be A Repeat Of Bill Clinton Electorally, Rather Than Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, And George H.W. Bush!

Ronald Leave a comment

A lot of political observers seem to think that Barack Obama is doomed to lose re-election, just as Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush did in 1976, 1980, and 1992.

The author will contend that rather than that unfortunate history, Barack Obama will repeat the electoral experience of Bill Clinton in 1996!

The question, of course, is what is the rationale behind this thought of the author?

Gerald Ford–was an unelected President, coming after Watergate, challenged in the primaries by Ronald Reagan, an extremely charismatic individual, who almost took the nomination from him. Ford was unable to unite the party around him after the Reagan battle, despite dumping Nelson Rockefeller for Bob Dole for Vice President. Ford had little opportunity to convince the country that he was deserving of election, and yet ALMOST defeated Jimmy Carter, which he would have done if he had won a few more thousand votes in Ohio and Hawaii! Ford was not seen as all that capable to be President by many people, with the poor economy of the time.

Jimmy Carter–had a difficult last year in office, with the Afghanistan invasion by the Soviet Union, the Iranian hostage crisis, and the challenge in the primaries by Senator Ted Kennedy and Governor Jerry Brown. He faced a charismatic opponent in Ronald Reagan, and a third party opponent in John Anderson. He was not a warm personality, and came across as weak and ineffective.

George H. W. Bush–faced a primary opponent in Pat Buchanan, and a strong third party challenger in Ross Perot. His Democratic opponent, Bill Clinton, had a lot of charisma, and was helped by the strong showing of Perot. And Bush did not have a particularly likeable personality, more respected for his ability than his understanding of average Americans and their lives.

Bill Clinton–engendered strong feelings for and against during his first term, and had charisma dripping off him, as compared to Bush and Bob Dole, his 1996 re-election opponent. Times were good, and he looked strong in his battles against the GOP Congress run by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. He had no opposition for the second term nomination, and his opponent, Dole, being 73 years old, did not help his challenge to Clinton. Also, Wall Street gave more financial support to Clinton to hedge their bets, frustrating Bob Dole!

Barack Obama–well liked, even by those who do not like what he has done, but he has accomplished a lot in office, particularly in foreign affairs and national security. He has brought about substantial domestic reform despite strong opposition from the Republican party, and has loads of charisma, and tons of funding, including as with Clinton, from Wall Street, which, even if opposed as they were to Clinton and now Obama, hedge their bets and support him more than the Republican nominee, just as with Bob Dole in 1996. Also, there is a good chance of a Tea Party right wing party rebellion if Mitt Romney, the likely nominee, is the choice of the Republican party. The opposition does not have a candidate to excite the nation, so although the economy is horrible, the likelihood is that more Americans will recognize the reality that one does not overcome a near depression overnight, and will decide to stick with Obama, just as they did in the height of the Great Depression with Franklin D. Roosevelt!

The Republicans, Barack Obama, And The 2016, NOT 2012, Presidential Election!

Ronald 1 Comment

All of America is focused on the 2012 Presidential Election, as the Republicans compete over who should oppose President Barack Obama for re-election.

There are a lot of people who seem to think that Barack Obama will be easy to defeat, because of the high unemployment rate, which will be the highest for a President running for re-election since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

But these are not ordinary times, and the thought that Barack Obama is going down the road of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush is a false premise!

Remember that Ford, Carter and Bush I all had strong primary challenges, with Ford having to deal with Ronald Reagan, Carter with Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown, and Bush I with Pat Buchanan in the primaries and Ross Perot in the general election.

Also remember that none of those three Presidents had a record of domestic accomplishments that Barack Obama has!

Also remember that none of those three had the charisma or oratorical ability of Barack Obama!

Also realize that Obama has foreign policy accomplishments in the fight against terrorism, unmatched by any of those three, except briefly with the Gulf War under George H. W. Bush!

Although there are those competing for the Presidency in the Republican Party, actually, on the sidelines, there are others who desire the job, but either are not ready yet to run for the office, or are smart enough to realize that the odds of ultimately defeating Obama are long, so better to wait to 2016, when Obama would be finishing his two terms of office, if he is reelected.

It is a gamble, of course, to sit back and wait, but likely a good gamble, and if it is an open Presidential election, the odds of success for the Republicans grows by 2016.

So who is sitting on the sidelines, salivating for the Presidency, and secretly hoping no Republican is elected in 2012?

In no special order, here is a list of ambitious Republicans:

1. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey
2. Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin
3. Former Governor Jeb Bush of Florida
4. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida
5.Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts
6. Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia
7. Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin
8. Governor Rick Scott of Florida
9. Governor John Kasich of Ohio
10.Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina

Notice particularly THREE Floridians who have ambitions–Bush, Rubio and Scott, and realize the fact that Florida will have 29 electoral votes, the fourth largest number, as Florida is the fourth largest state.

So, particularly among Republicans in Florida, there are those who secretly hope that 2016 will be an open election, and are willing to sit back and wait for just that reason!

The Republican Party Again Doing What They Are Best At: Self Destruction!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Republican Party has suicidal tendencies since the years of the Great Depression.

When the Great Depression began in 1929, the party in Congress refused to abandon laissez faire economics, and some even fought President Herbert Hoover’s attempt to provide some public works projects and federal aid through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

During the New Deal years of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the party stood in the way of reform and change and continued to decline.

As World War II came on, most Republicans were isolationists who failed to see the threat of Fascism and Nazism.

As World War II ended, Republicans set out to to weaken labor unions and set back the New Deal, and after two brief years in control of Congress in 1947-1948, they lost control and saw Harry Truman stage an upset victory in the Presidential campaign.

The party pursued the Joseph McCarthy anti communist agenda in the late 1940s and early 1950s, undermining America’s effort in the Korean War, but with a popular World War II general, Dwight D. Eisenhower, they were given another chance in 1952, and won back control of Congress, but with their conservative agenda, lost control again after two years.

From that point on, the party failed to gain control of Congress for 40 years in the House, and 26 in the Senate, and after six years of a divided Congress under Ronald Reagan, lost the Senate again in 1986 and for the next eight years.

Despite Eisenhower’s personal popularity, it did not transform into party control after two years, and while Richard Nixon won over a divided Democratic Party in 1968, he could not translate his victory into a Republican majority, and Watergate damaged any hope again of a soon to occur change in party loyalties and success.

Ronald Reagan managed a divided Congress with Republican control of the Senate for six years, but again it did not change party loyalties and success in the long run, and the party was bitterly divided during the administration of George H. W. Bush, with Pat Buchanan helping to divide the party and lead to the defeat of Bush in 1992.

Then in 1994, the Republicans gained control of Congress for the next twelve years, but Bill Clinton, despite personal problems leading to impeachment, was able to control much of the political agenda.

After the Republicans won the battle over Florida’s electoral votes with George W. Bush in 2000, it seemed as if finally they had become the majority party, but September 11, two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economic collapse of 2008, took away any gains it seemed that the party had made.

While they won the House of Representatives in 2010, the emergence of the Tea Party Movement has now destroyed any chance of Republican success, as again they are seen as obstructionist in so many ways, and public opinion polls still see the party as to blame much more for the economic recession we are suffering through, rather than to hold Barack Obama accountable.

With an image of negativism, concern only for the rich and powerful special interests, isolationism, corruption, and obstructionism, the Republican Party is again in the process of committing political suicide, and relegating itself to minority status in American politics!

Total Ignorance About American History: Michele Bachmann, Pat Buchanan And Other Republicans! :(

Ronald 2 Comments

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is demonstrating her total ignorance of American history and the history of her Republican party, based on the text of her speech to be delivered tonight after President Obama’s State of the Union Address!

She says slavery was ended by the Founding Fathers, showing she is unaware of the role of her Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, and the Civil War in ending slavery. She is, as always, demonstrating her total lack of knowledge of the American past and the American Constitution, joining many other Republicans, including Sarah Palin, in this regard! 🙁

But now, Pat Buchanan, former challenger for the Presidency against George HW Bush in 1992, and running for President as a third party party candidate in 2000, has also demonstrated his lack of knowledge, by asserting there were more slaves in the Union states that had slaves (Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri) than in any of the Confederate States that broke away from the Union! He also said incorrectly that George Washington freed his slaves after his wife died, but the reality is that his wife outlived him by over two years! 🙁

The ignorance and lack of knowledge of these and other Republican leaders is shocking and reprehensible! 🙁

The Founding Fathers (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin) and the statesmen of the pre Civil War era (Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, Stephen Douglas, William Seward, Charles Sumner, Abraham Lincoln) would be shocked and mortified if they came back today and witnessed the TOTAL STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE of many GOP leaders, and Republicans of the Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight D. Eisenhower era would also be ashamed of what their party has become: a party without legitimacy, ethics, character, and morality! 🙁

Speculation About A Primary Challenge To Barack Obama: Would Such A Move Be Worthwhile?

Ronald 1 Comment

Discontent with President Obama has been growing among principled liberals and progressives who do not wish for the President to accept compromises with the opposition Republicans.

It is understandable that there can be outrage and upset, but when the question arises that someone might challenge Obama in the 2012 Democratic Presidential primaries, one has to wonder whether that would indeed be a smart move, and who would mount such a challenge!

It seems to the author of this blog that challenging Obama would be extremely unwise, as it would weaken the President and give the GOP extra ammunition after he won the nomination over his critic. History tells us that when a sitting President is challenged for renomination, he invariably wins the nomination, but is so weakened that he loses to the opposition party’s Presidential nominee in the Fall campaign! This happened to William Howard Taft after Theodore Roosevelt challenged him, and the same with Gerald Ford after Ronald Reagan opposed him, Jimmy Carter after Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown ran against him, and George HW Bush after Pat Buchanan competed against him!

As far as who would challenge Obama, there are not many choices, as there are fewer Democratic Senators and Governors, although a defeated office holder would have the freedom to run without a commitment to a political job!

It seems to the author that defeated Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin would probably be the strongest possible choice, as he is a great progressive voice, but his loss of his Senate seat would mark him as a loser in many people’s minds!

Trying to figure who else has the following and reputation to consider a serious challenge is a major undertaking, with no likelihood of a worthwhile, serious alternative!

Therefore, despite disillusionment with Barack Obama, the only real choice for Democrats, progressives and liberals is to fight to push Obama in their direction, but also to realize that a Republican victory in 2012 would be far worse than a “moderate, centrist” President that Barack Obama may represent by the time of the election in 2012!

Barack Obama And The Bush Tax Cuts: If Extended For The Rich, A Political Disaster For The Democratic Party! :(

Ronald Leave a comment

President Obama will meet next week with Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress after his return from his Asian trip, and he MUST stand strong against the GOP demand for continuation of tax cuts for the top two percent of Americans, who already have too much of the entire national income!

Just because the Democrats lost approximately 60 seats in the House of Representatives, the most since 1938, does not mean that we need a Democratic Party which acts as if it is the step sister of the Republican Party!

If Obama caves in on this matter, he will lose much of the base of his party, and endanger future economic recovery, and cause the likelihood of a challenge in the Democratic Presidential primaries in 2012!

If that happens, while Obama would almost certainly win the nomination–as William Howard Taft did in 1912 over Theodore Roosevelt, Gerald Ford did in 1976 over Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter did in 1980 over Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown, and George HW Bush did in 1992 over Pat Buchanan–it would certainly weaken him for the election campaign, and likely cause his defeat, as it did for all four of the above Presidents challenged in the past century for the nomination of their party!

No one can seriously consider that Obama intends to do anything about the burgeoning national debt, if he permits an additional $700 billion to be added to the debt over the next ten years, just to keep “peace” with the Republican party, as that party has no interest in cooperation, and has made clear their major goal is to cause Obama to be a one term President!

So, Mr. President, show some guts and courage, and do NOT cave in to the GOP! Refuse to go along with tax cuts for the wealthy who do not need it! Show principle and conviction, and know that loyal Democrats will be there defending you, and know that the average middle class American, including many Independents, who are struggling to survive and keep his or her employment and housing, will regain their senses by 2012, and reward you and your party for being truly the party of the middle class, unwilling to continue the GOP plot to enrich the top two percent at the expense of the rest of the population!