Archive for the ‘President Bush’ Category
Most recent college grads are too young to remember the last time government ran efficiently. Bill Clinton was president and John Kasich was chairman of the House Budget Committee. The reason I mention that is because Byron York’s column about the Obama administration got me thinking.
In 2016, we will have suffered through 8 years of utter incompetence. The Obama administration, apart from their misguided priorities, has repeatedly shown that they’re utterly incompetent of running government. First, I’ll start by saying that things weren’t all rosy during the Bush administration. President Bush’s mishandling of Katrina was embarassing.
That being said, President Bush’s handling of the war on terror, back when government admitted that terrorists were dangerous people, was pretty good. During Bush’s administration, the intel agencies actually talked with each other. Fast forward to the Obama administration, when the Secretary of State didn’t even talk with her ambassadors serving in dangerous parts of the world.
But I digress.
Prior to the Republican landslide of 1994, Bill Clinton was mostly unfocused, adrift on policies. Enter Chairman Kasich. Shortly after Kasich got the Budget Committee’s gavel, he floated a radical idea, namely balancing the federal budget. Suddenly, President Clinton got engaged.
The end result was that Clinton didn’t expand the federal government’s regulatory reach like the Obama administration did. They didn’t have any moments when people wondered if Clinton had the basic skillset to run the federal government.
Fast forward to 2014. John Kasich is now Ohio’s governor. He’s turned the state around. First, he defeated the incumbent governor, Ted Strickland, campaigning on a reform agenda. Once he was sworn in, he started implementing that reform agenda.
Not surprisingly, Ohio’s economic health has returned. At least, it’s returned as much as possible while President Obama’s policies are still in effect. Gov. Kasich’s ideas, unlike President Obama’s, actually make sense. Gov. Kasich’s ideas have actually been used before and worked.
Gov. Kasich’s Office of Workforce Training, aka OWT, is brilliant on multiple levels. Check it out here. Here are the key takeaways:
Marketing Ohio’s In-Demand Jobs
Update in-demand jobs data regularly
Market in-demand jobs to students, job seekers, business and local workforce
Align Training Programs to Ohio’s Workforce Needs (Implementation)
Increase career pathway opportunities in our education system, from K-J (Kindergarten to Job)
Increase experiential learning opportunities
Expand and enhance career tech opportunities
Unify and Align State’s Workforce Programs
Improve support of businesses struggling to find workers
Prioritize veterans as a ready workforce by providing support to transitioning veterans and marketing opportunities to veterans and businesses
In other words, the system is integrated. That eliminates the possibility of duplicative programs and excessive overhead, aka an overglut of bureaucrats. Best of all, it fits training with verified needs.
That’s the approach we need to make government work again. Please understand this. I don’t want government reaching into places that it doesn’t belong. Higher education is something that state governments are involved with. Here’s part of Gov. Kasich’s plan for implementing his OWT initiative:
Create a dashboard to highlight aligned workforce success measures:
- Expand business resources center currently housed at Ohio Department of Job and Family Services
- Create virtual online access and single point of entry for business and job seeker
- Enhance online tools and access to the tools for career pathway exploration for Ohio students
In other words, it’s an integrated system that’s user friendly and focused on Ohio’s workforce needs. That’s what government looks like when it works.
Technorati: John Kasich, Budget Surpluses, Office of Workforce Training, President Bush, Homeland Security, Terrorist Attacks, Republicans, President Obama, VA Hospital Scandal, Obamacare Rollout, Democrats, Election 2016
When Hugh Hewitt interviewed Max Boot about the Syrian affair, Boot said a no vote was “a vote for isolationism and retreat.” That’s questionable. In fact, I’m not buying it. Glenn Reynolds isn’t buying it either:
When I wrote last week on our bumbling Syria diplomacy, it seemed that things couldn’t possibly go further downhill. Boy, was I wrong.
Last week, it seemed our only ally was France. But now the French are having second thoughts. Obama’s efforts to get support at the G20 conference came to nothing. Even the pope is undercutting him.
A no vote in either the House or the Senate is a vote of no confidence in President Obama and President Obama’s national security team of incompetents. Secretary Kerry’s flippant remark yesterday gave Russian President Putin the opening he was waiting for. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if Putin didn’t call Bashar al-Assad to share a hearty laugh after Kerry’s mistake. Thanks to Kerry’s mistake, Assad gets to stay in power, Syria’s chemical weapons get to stay in Assad’s hands and Putin gets to say checkmate to President Obama.
Anyone that’s thinking that Syria’s WMD stockpile will suddenly be in the hands of the “international community” is kidding themselves. That won’t happen. Ever.
Here’s something that Boot said that I’m questioning:
MB: I think they have to vote yes, because for all the qualms they might have about whatever course of action President Obama might embark on, and I have some qualms myself, the bottom line is at this point a no vote is a vote for American retreat and isolationism, and it will send a terrible, terrible signal to WMD proliferators in places like Iran and North Korea. We just cannot afford to shoot down the Syria resolution.
That’s wrongheaded thinking because it assumes North Korea and Iran will take President Obama seriously if the resolution passes. They don’t take him seriously now. They won’t take him seriously if Congress authorizes the use of force.
That’s because President Obama is a known quantity. Dr. Reynolds says he’s a laughingstock. I wholeheartedly agree. World leaders already know what he’ll do. He’s utterly predictable. His pattern is to ignore a problem until it’s about to explode in his face, then he dithers, votes present, then dithers a little bit more. Then he makes a decision that nobody likes.
Thanks to that pattern, allies can’t trust him and enemies won’t fear him. If there ever is a vote on the Syrian fiasco, the only right vote is a no vote. Voting yes will just give President Obama the belief that he isn’t in over his head. That’s sending the wrong message to this incompetent president.
Finally, I appreciate Dr. Reynolds’perspective:
As I said, if I were George W. Bush or Romney, I’d be sorely tempted to laugh, because Obama’s chickens are coming home to roost. Obama was elected after he and his party sowed distrust of U.S. military endeavors, mocked “intelligence estimates” about “weapons of mass destruction,” and suggested that anything the United States did in the region was probably somehow a scheme to benefit oil companies. Now Obama and his administration are shocked to find that when they go on about intelligence estimates and weapons of mass destruction, people don’t take them seriously.
But I’d bet that Bush and Romney aren’t actually laughing. That’s because they’re both serious men who understand international politics and who care for the future of the country. They no doubt understand that, as fun as it is to watch a political opponent twist in the wind due to his own ineptitude, the price will ultimately be paid not by Obama, but by the people of America.
I totally agree.
If this article is right, President Obama is staring at an historic defeat in the House of Representatives:
If the House voted today on a resolution to attack Syria, President Barack Obama would lose — and lose big.
That’s the private assessment of House Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides who are closely involved in the process.
If the Senate passes a use-of-force resolution next week, which is no sure thing, the current dynamics suggest that the House would defeat it. That would represent a dramatic failure for Obama, and once again prove that his sway over Congress is extraordinarily limited. The loss would have serious reverberations throughout the next three months, when Obama faces off against Congress in a series of high-stakes fiscal battles.
That’s the least terrible information in the article. This is a political nightmare for President Obama:
But Democrats privately say that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) can only round up between 115 and 130 “yes” votes.
That comes out to President Obama getting 150-175 votes for a limited missile strike on Syria. What’s more is that it would fail because a solid bipartisan group of congressmen and women voted against the resolution.
That’s a political nightmare for this administration.
First, it would virtually confer lame duck status on President Obama before the 2014 midterm elections. Second, it would deny President Obama the credibility he’d need to blame the defeat on recalcitrant Republicans. He’ll still accuse Republicans of obstructionism but it won’t convince anyone who isn’t already in the tank for President Obama.
One person who’s apparently still suffering from Kissing Obama’s Ass-itis is a NYTimes blogger named Timothy Egan. This post is a portrait in either Mr. Egan’s gullibility or his dishonesty. Here’s how he’s attempting to shift blame away from President Obama:
Blame Bush? Of course, President Obama has to lead; it’s his superpower now, his armies to move, his stage. But the prior president gave every world leader, every member of Congress a reason to keep the dogs of war on a leash. The isolationists in the Republican Party are a direct result of the Bush foreign policy. A war-weary public that can turn an eye from children being gassed or express doubt that it happened is another poisoned fruit of the Bush years. And for the nearly 200 members of both houses of Congress who voted on the Iraq war in 2002 and are still in office and facing a vote this month, Bush shadows them like Scrooge’s ghost.
What this idiot is arguing, feebly arguing I would add, is that Congress would vote overwhelmingly to authorize an unserious missile strike in Syria if President Bush hadn’t soured us on war by invading Iraq. That’s BS.
If the Syria authorization vote were held today, it would lose badly because President Obama isn’t proposing doing anything serious about Syria’s dictator. Had President Obama acted 2 years ago, there would’ve been support in Congress. Thanks to President Obama’s dithering and his pacifistic nature, al-Qa’ida gained a foothold in Syria. Because of that X-factor, there aren’t any good options in Syria.
This difficult decision is brought on by President Obama’s unwillingness to lead, not President Bush’s wars.
Liberals do not grasp the distinction between Ronald Reagan and (either) George Bush. This blind spot creates a massive confusion and hazard to their ambitions. Obama defeated neither the Reagan Narrative nor Team Reagan. Team Bush appropriated, and then marginalized, both. Obama beat Team Bush, not Team Reagan. The implications are huge.
This post isn’t about trashing Karl Rove or the Bush family. Frankly, that’s a waste of time when there’s important things to be done. Instead, it’s about identifying underlying principles undergirded President Reagan’s policies. Mr. Benko is spot on with this analysis:
Real conservatives saw Reaganomics as a way of creating broad-based opportunity, not as catering to the rich. It worked out exactly that way in America and throughout the world. The blossoming of free market principles, especially low tax rates and good money, brought billions of souls out of poverty, from subsistence to affluence.
Several things worked together to make America infinitely more prosperous during Reagan’s time than during President Obama’s time in office. First, the dollar was much stronger than during President Obama’s time in office. That’s partially because President Reagan’s domestic energy policy was infinitely more robust than President Obama’s. The less money we needlessly ship money overseas for oil, the stronger the dollar is. Our trade deficit shrunk, too.
The new conservative Republican leaders are strikingly formidable. The leaders of the new generation, like Reagan, and Kemp, before them (and Kennedy still earlier), all recognize the power of the “rising tide lifts all boats”.
It isn’t a stretch to think that conservatives like John Kasich, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and Marco Rubio will re-ignite the Reagan Revolution. Each of these men have spotless conservative credentials, which is why they fire up the base in ways Mitt Romney and John McCain couldn’t.
When President Bush won in 2004, he got 62,000,000 votes. McCain got fewer votes than President Bush. Mitt got fewer votes than Sen. McCain. Had Paul Ryan been at the top of the ticket, however, it isn’t a stretch to think he would’ve topped President Bush’s vote total.
That’s because he’s the spitting image of Reagan. The Reagan Revolution was fueled by a glut of great ideas. A Ryan Revolution would be powered by the same thing. Most importantly, he’d talk conservatism like his native language. This isn’t an attempt to trash Mitt. It’s simply stating the obvious. He just didn’t prosecute the case against President Obama the way Ryan would have.
President Bush’s spending turned conservatives off because he had a Republican House and Senate much of the time. President Reagan’s spending was done, in part, because he had to rebuild the military after President Carter gutted it, partly because Tip O’Neill controlled the House.
Everything President Reagan fought for was targeted towards creating prosperity. He didn’t back away from a fight, either. When PATCO went on strike, he fired them because they broke federal law. When Tip O’Neill accused him of not caring about the average working Joe, Reagan responded mightily. His temper flaring, he marched back to the podium, then said, essentially, that he’d made his money because he’d worked hard, then adding that it wasn’t given to him.
It’s a fight Mitt Romney backed away from too often in his attempt to win over women voters or independents. It’s a fight the next generation of conservatives will fight with vigor.
Tags: Reagan Revolution, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Prosperity, Pro-Growth Policies, Strong Dollar, Oil, Job Growth, GDP, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Conservatism, President Bush, Karl Rove, Mitt Romney, GOP Establishment
This afternoon’s hearing on the terrorist attacks to the Benghazi Consulate have been explosive. One such exchange happened between Rep. Raul Labrador, (R-ID), and Patrick Kennedy, the Undersecretary of State for Administration. Here’s the transcript of that exchange:
REP. LABRADOR: Ambassador Kennedy, you said that, if any administration official, including any career official, had been on television on Sunday, Sept. 16, they would have said what Ambassador Rice said. The information she had from the intelligence community — I see how specific you’re being — from the intelligence community — is the same information that I had at that point. Can you explain to me how it was that, on Sept. 12, you told congressional aides that you thought it was a terrorist attack?
AMBASSADOR KENNEDY: Congressman, I told them that because that was my personal opinion and that I also believed that, because of the nature of it and the lethality of it, that it was a complex attack.
REP. LABRADOR: So how can you sit here today and say that the following day, you had an idea that it was a terrorist attack, and you have said that you aren’t a security expert, how can you claim today that you would have said the same thing as Ambassador Rice said?
This is explosive because it’s telling us this administration used Clintonesque wording to spin the terrorist attack into a simple impromptu uprising, something it clearly wasn’t.
Lt. Col. Andy Wood and Eric Nordstrom, both security experts, said security experts knew almost instantly that this was a terrorist attack. The question then turns from why Ambassador Rice relied on the narrowest, Clintonian spin rather than telling the nation that this was a terrorist attack.
The most obvious reason Ambassador Rice didn’t say that was because that didn’t the storyline Democrats spent a week in Charlotte creating. At their convention, speaker after speaker said that we couldn’t trust Gov. Romney on national security, that President Obama had lots of national security experience and a lengthy list of national security accomplishments.
This terrorist attack happened just days after the Democratic National Convention. It would’ve demolished Vice President Biden’s line that “bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.”
The truth is that bin Laden is dead but al-Qa’ida and other terrorist organizations are regrouping. The Benghazi attack is proof of that. Another truth is that President Bush’s strategy of taking the fight to the terrorists is the only strategy that’s capable of stopping terrorist attacks long before they’re set into operation.
President Obama won’t admit it but that’s the truth.
What’s apparent from the hearing is that security experts like Mr. Nordstrom and Lt. Col. Wood painted a dramatically different picture of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Benghazi Consulate than did the political appointees in the State Department.
Tags: Congressional Oversight, Eric Nordstrom, Andy Wood, Security Experts, Patrick Kennedy, State Department, Diplomat, Terrorist Attack, Benghazi, bin Laden, al-Qa’ida, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Coverup, Joe Biden, Democrats, Election 2012
In 1979, Islamic extremists raided the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. They held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. In 1983, U.S. Marines were ordered out of Beirut after a massive attack killed 241 Marines. In 1993, the Clinton administration ordered U.S. troops out of Somalia after al-Qa’ida terrorists shot down a U.S. Blackhawk helicopter in Mogadishu.
UBL summarized the lesson al-Qa’ida learned from those experiences during an interview with ABC News’ John Miller:
Miller: You have said, “If the Americans are so brave they will come and arrest me.” Do you think that is something my country will try?
Bin Ladin: We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier. He is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight hot wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions, showing they can run in less than twenty-four hours. This was then repeated in Somalia.
It’s easy to understand why UBL reached that conclusion. His mistake isn’t that Americans haven’t fled hotspots. It isn’t just that Americans have looked impotent. It’s that American presidents have contributed to U.S. soldiers looking impotent by having them flee after terrorist attacks.
The lesson that President Bush learned from these lessons is that terrorists are terrified when U.S. soldiers don’t hide from adversity. Terrorists are most worried when U.S. soldiers run towards hotspots. Unfortunately, President Obama didn’t learn that lesson. He ‘learned’ that it’s best to be timid, to talk in civil tones to barbarians. That’s what he did here:
The president said the disputed election would not change his belief in greater diplomatic efforts with Iran.
“I have always felt that, as odious as I feel some of President Ahmadinejad ‘s statements (are), as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on core issues, the use of tough hard headed diplomacy, diplomacy without illusions, is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of national security interests,” the president said. “We will continue to pursue a tough direct dialogue between our two countries.”
That’s what ABC’s Kristina Wong wrote on June 15, 2009 during the Green Revolution. What the Iranian mullahs heard was that President Obama was giving them carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. They essentially heard President Obama say he was ambivalent to the protests.
A short 39 months later, North Africa, the Middle East and Southwest Asia have erupted in anti-American violence. The people serving in the U.S. embassy in Pakistan are only safe because the embassy compound is surrounded with a wall of tear gas. The consulate and annex, aka the safehouse, in Benghazi, Libya are decimated, the ruins the product of a well-planned, coordinated terrorist attack.
This is a great political opportunity for Mitt Romney because it’s a great opportunity for him to explain his vision and strategy for the Middle East, Southwest Asia and North Africa. Simply saying that a Romney administration would a) have an open door relationship with Israel, b) use covert assets to prevent terrorist attacks and c) condition foreign aid on nations’ willingness to partner with the U.S. in preventing the security nightmares currently erupting around the Mediterranean.
That would dramatically differentiate Mitt’s foreign policy from President Obama’s failed foreign policy.
Tags: Paper Tiger, Blackhawk Down, Somalia, Bill Clinton, Beirut, President Reagan, Tehran, Hostage Crisis, Ayatollah Khomeini, Jimmy Carter, Benghazi, Pakistan, Terrorist Attacks, Embassies, President Obama, Israel, Covert Operations, Foreign Aid, National Security, Mitt Romney, GOP, Election 2012
When he left office in January, 2009, lots of Republicans were rightfully upset with President Bush. Still, it’s important that Republicans learn from President Bush’s re-election campaign of 2004.
Just to give a little historical perspective, I started blogging after the election in November, 2004. In September, 2004, President Bush became the first sitting president to visit St. Cloud. I joined with 15,000 of my closest friends that day at Dick Putz Field.
President Bush’s speech had people jazzed. Mostly, it got them jazzed because it was a substantive speech. That morning, President Bush talked about how his tax cuts pulled us out of a post-9/11 recession. He explained that staying on the offensive against the terrorists meant that we fought them in their sanctuaries rather than fighting them here in the United States. He talked about the importance of appointing strict constructionist judges.
He didn’t get into the weeds on policies but it gave activists a reason to fight for him and volunteer for a massive GOTV operation.
The point is that Mitt Romney, I think, would win if he gave the people substance in each stump speech. This isn’t just about resumes. If we know anything about this election, it’s that we know people are thirsting for ideas and solutions.
That’s why Mitt’s polling shot up when he picked Paul Ryan. Ryan immediately launched into substantive critiques of President Obama’s agenda. He made the case for reforming Medicare in easy-to-understand terms. GOP enthusiasm reached its apex.
Mitt Romney needs to hit the same themes day after day, opportunity after opportunity, whether that’s on Cavuto or Hannity or The View or out on the stump. Forcing the media to cover his agenda would work wonders for Mitt.
Mitt should include the EPA’s shutting down coal-fired power plants while preventing new natural gas opportunities in Ohio and other Rust Belt states. He should highlight this administration’s foreign policy failures, then use that as a launching pad for telling people how he’d be a better ally to Israel and how he’d go after terrorists in Iran, Yemen and Benghazi. He should talk about the need for repealing the Affordable Care Act. Finally, he should talk about being the president that will usher in the next great domestic energy boom in our nation’s history.
Billy Joel wrote a song that’s an odd fit for this. Here’s that song:
Here’s the specific part that Romney needs to excel at:
Tell her about it Tell her everything you feel Give her every reason To accept that you’re for real
The lesson Mitt needs to learn is that he’s got to give independents a reason to vote for him. The activists are fine with voting against President Obama. To win independents, though, he’ll need to give them something substantive to win them over.
Telling independents specifically what he’ll do to lower gas prices, create jobs and make them safe from terrorists must be Job One for Mitt Romney every day he’s campaigning. There’s no alternative.
This devastating new study is additional proof that President Obama’s economic policies are failing the American people:
According to Pew, the Census Bureau showed that the median income for American households in 2009, the official end of the Great Recession, was $52,195 (in 2011 dollars), while the median income dipped to $50,054 last year, falling 4.1 percent over two years.
“The decrease in household income from 2009 to 2011 almost exactly equaled the decrease in income in the two years of the recession,” the Pew report stated. “During the Great Recession, the median U.S. household income (in 2011 dollars) dropped from $54,489 in 2007 to $52,195 in 2009, a loss of 4.2 percent. By this yardstick, the recovery from the Great Recession is bypassing the nation’s households.”
This administration will repeat their tired lines about not returning to “the failed policies of the past 8 years” and “29 consecutive months of private sector job growth.” Those lines are talking right past the American people.
The key for the Romney-Ryan ticket is to highlight the differences between free market capitalism and redistributionist policies similar to those proposed by President Obama.
President Obama can rightly say that he inherited a mess. He can’t say that today’s economic failures are the direct result of President Bush’s policies.
His regulations and his hostility towards the mining industry and entrepreneurship have strangled this economic ‘recovery’.
Median household income dropped $2,254 during the Bush Recession. Median household income dropped $2,141 during the Obama ‘recovery’. Meanwhile, real unemployment is 3.6 points higher than when President Bush left office.
Almost 100 coal-fired power plants have either shut down or announced that they’re shutting down as a direct result of the EPA’s oppressive regulations. Finally, gas prices have more than doubled as a direct result of President Obama’s wayward energy policies.
This administration’s energy policy is long on bailing out Solyndra but short on promoting a robust fossil fuel energy policy.
President Obama’s economic policies are strangling the economy. They aren’t moving America forward.
I’ve heard enough from what’s best described as the ‘it isn’t Obama’s fault crowd’. Conservatives can probably mumble the left’s argument in their sleep. For newcomers, it goes something like this (in no particular order):
- Bush put 2 wars on the national credit card.
- President Obama inherited a mess.
- The rich aren’t paying their fair share.
That’s nothing more than a steaming pile of BS. While the first 2 points are true, they’re also irrelevant.
Putting 2 wars on the national credit card has nothing to do with this administration’s hostility towards the business community. It has nothing to do with the EPA’s inflicting pain on families and power plants through an out-of-control regulatory regime. Those wars have nothing to do with the EPA’s attempt to shut down the coal industry in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Indiana.
Those wars have nothing to do with President Obama’s decision to push the biggest job-killing bill in US history, the ACA, down our throats against the will of the American people. Those wars didn’t prevent companies from putting their capital at risk during the Bush years.
Capital didn’t start redeploying to places other than the American economy until this administration took over. The left still hasn’t explained why that ‘redeployment’ happened. I don’t think we’ll hear an explanation until after the election.
The deficits didn’t start increasing until after the election disaster of 2006. The deficits didn’t start skyrocketing until President Obama laid out his misguided economic blueprint. Democrats can’t blame President Bush for President Obama choosing not to start the Keystone XL Pipeline. In fact, if President Bush was still the president, it’s a lead pipe cinch he would’ve approved the project, thereby creating tens of thousands of construction jobs while reducing U.S. dependence on Saudi oil.
President Obama won’t attempt to rebut my ‘indictment’ against their economic policies because the indictment is airtight. It’s true that President Obama inherited a mess. It’s verifiable that President Obama promptly made things worse. Here’s how he ‘accomplished’ it:
- pursuing an agenda filled with hostility towards businesses large, small and in between,
- unleashing the EPA to demolish the coal industry and coal-fired power plants,
- starting a war against fossil fuels,
- pushing the biggest job-killing bill in US history down our throats and
- pursuing a strategy that created economic uncertainty at the very time we needed economic and regulatory certainty.
If you’re looking for a blueprint to destroy a nation’s economy, you needn’t look further.
The headline Drudge picked for this article should frighten the Obama campaign. Here’s Drudge’s headline:
Bad economy dampens enthusiasm among black voters
If there’s anything that President Obama would be frightened to read, it’s that minority voters aren’t as enthusiastic to vote this election as they were in 2008.
Last night, FNC aired a focus group of journalists. The focus group was led by Frank Luntz and included some of the highest profile journalists in the nation. One journalist, the WSJ’s James Taranto, nailed it in terms of what turnout means to the Obama campaign:
TARANTO: If you look at the numbers, according to exit polling, the black percentage of voters went up from 11% in 2004 to 13% of voters in 2008. John Kerry got 88% of the black vote in 2004. Barack Obama got 95% of the black vote in 2008.
Those don’t sound like big differences but they actually add up to a difference of about 5,000,000 votes. So the improvement in the black vote from 2004 to 2008 accounted for more than half of Obama’s margin of victory.
Factor that information into this scenario and it’s a recipe for disaster:
Polls have Obama winning more than 90 percent of the black vote against Mitt Romney, but there are signs that the high African-American turnout that fueled his 2008 victories in North Carolina and Virginia could dissipate after the hard realities of the president’s first term.
The chances for depressed turnout are increased by the bad economy, which at its worst drove the unemployment rate for blacks above 16 percent and led to some disillusionment with the candidate of “hope and change.
This chart shows the significant dropoff of support for President Obama in the black community:
According to this chart, Sen. Kerry got 88% of the black vote in 2004. President Obama got 95% of the black vote in 2008. Today, President Obama’s support has eroded to 86% in the black community. While that’s certain to rebound somewhat, that’s a significant dropoff that President Obama can’t afford and still expect to get re-elected.
Earl Ofari-Hutchinson understands that:
African Americans “don’t have to vote for [Romney]” to help his campaign, said broadcaster and author Earl Ofari Hutchinson.
“An abstention from the polls is effectively a vote for Romney,” he said. “If there is only a minuscule drop-off [in turnout], it will spell trouble.”
A dropoff in turnout and support would be President Obama’s nightmare scenario.
The difference isn’t just in numbers. In 2004, President Bush focused his attention on black churches in Ohio. As a result, President Bush won 16% of the black vote in Ohio in 2004, essentially giving him his margin of victory in Ohio.
If President Obama can’t reverse the trend of waning support in the black community, it’s possible he’ll lose Ohio, Indiana and North Carolina as a direct result of that downturn in support. Losing those states plus Florida would drop President Obama’s electoral vote total to 264.
Couple those statistics with the distinct possibility that President Obama might lose Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan and it’s difficult to impossible to see a winning scenario for President Obama.