As President Obama tries to save his presidency, it is becoming more evident that he risks a historic defeat of the type if not magnitude of Ronald Reagan's defeat of President Jimmy Carter in 1980. For Obama, such a loss would be an unbearable rebuke. The man who compared himself to our greatest presidents becoming an also-ran through a near-historic defeat.
Obama is not likely to lose California, a loss that would be comparable to that suffered by Carter. Mitt Romney is not from California which would be much more favorable to him than the always blue Massachusetts. But in the latest polls, twisted somehow into the incredible claim that Obama has the momentum, we see the continuing erosion of Obama's America, the amalgam of voters who hoped for change from one of America's least popular presidents in modern history.
Looking at yesterday's Real Clear Politics map, copied at right and available on their website here, some obvious facts pop out.
During the past two weeks, President Obama has not managed to maintain the status quo, his previously "solid" states have begun to crumble. Why one would believe that this would be unique for these states is unclear. It is likely that all states are involved in this cut to the future.
What we do know is that Mitt Romney finds himself in Philadelphia this weekend. Why?
Obama will tell you that he cannot win unless he gets Pennsylvania, and that this is a long-shot showing that he knows he is going to lose Ohio. But the Ohio polling has not been what the MSM, including often Fox News, have claimed. Because of the vagaries of the RCP method of averaging, the polls like Rasmussen are treated as outliers. And the dating of the polls are averaged, making momentum difficult to determine.
As yet, no polls dealing with the automobile dust-up that has major executives of automobile firms that continue to be beneficiaries of US largess, including Chrysler that is owned by Italy's Fiat, coming out in opposition to Romney, or the pre-Halloween superstorm, have emerged on their website. But we do know that Ohio remains too close to call. As does Pennsylvania now.
The fact is that momentum, unless somehow blunted by the Democrat hiding as Independent Bloomberg or the 2016 chasing Christie support for Obama, is still with Romney.
To get that back, Obama and his government have gone all out with the spin of recovery, something the Federal Reserve and anyone else who is the least bit neutral will tell you is hanging by its fingernails. Thus, we have today's figures which show that unemployment rose but the claim that this was because more people are looking for jobs.
Here are some pertinent facts from the government's own press release.
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for blacks increased to 14.3 percent in October, while the rates for adult men (7.3 percent), adult women (7.2 percent), teenagers (23.7 percent), whites (7.0 percent), and Hispanics (10.0 percent) showed little or no change. The jobless rate for Asians was 4.9 percent in October (not seasonally adjusted), down from 7.3 percent a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
Will "blacks" vote for Obama despite their increasing unemployment, and if so why?
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 269,000 to 8.3 million in October, partially offsetting an increase of 582,000 in September. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)"
"Part time" "[r]efers to those who worked 1 to 34 hours during the survey reference week and excludes employed persons who were absent from their jobs for the entire week."
Thus, September's more robust figures and the new part time workers this month include an additional 313,000 part time jobs that could include a majority of people who worked one hour during the "survey reference weeks."
Why such minor numbers so skewed by facts that they allow both sides to argue something?
Because any modest increase allows Obama to make the absurd argument that he "created jobs." Let him tell that to African Americans and the other groups that show an increase in unemployment or little or no change.
If you are employed, and wondering who to vote for to help others, look no farther than these facts and you find no evidence whatsoever that Obama will improve things in the next round. Look at his "green" jobs, where there is a net loss and companies have gone out of business, study green in Germany and understand its costs.
If you are Bloomberg, you had to refer to climate change. I admit that I have changed my views on this because of the latest information from the scientific community, which is not the same community that The New York Times examines. Their paper claims global warming is because of facts that are not born out over the past twenty years.
Al Gore has made a fortune from global warming. So have a handful of Obama cronies. The US has lost and continues to lose money because of a theory not born out of longterm facts, but instead "supported" by the latest weather events.
Have the people on the coast move to higher ground, or away from storms if you feel that global warming really exists. But the history of storms shows that Sandy ranks only 17th in terms of ferocity and damage during the past fifty years or so. And do not remove coal as an energy source because of those who do not use science but instead make money from the concept.
We can go through the other parade of horribles Obama has paraded before you. The claim that Romney will deny women their right to choose reproduction, or, as bloggers who are apparently demented but say they are repeating what Obama has said, require women to be brood mares based on the decision of men, or to deny birth controls. Complete nonsense lies designed to get you to vote for Obama. Or all the other nonsense promoted by Democrats, when the facts of unemployment, increasing poverty, lack of openness, truth and honesty, and total abdication of management shown at the most recent point by Benghazi. Or most importantly the criticisms of Obama's loner personality, something few bring up and no one refutes.
As to the rest of you, you will need to explain far better why we want Obama in the White House with the facts before us.
Maybe it is his ego you like. The fact that he claims he can part oceans. Or his contention that he is among our greatest presidents perhaps below FDR and Lincoln. Or apparently his claim that he has managed our country so well in secrecy that we can rest assured we will have freedom of speech after institutions are declared to have no right to speech including our publishers and others whose speech can be condemned for any reason the government chooses.
And perhaps you want Obama's America, including the many other ways he will change the country by executive fiat, without regard to law or legal process.
For me, these are plenty enough reasons to vote for Romney. Race has never been a reason, and never will be, for those of us who vote with our heads. Can you say the same for yourselves?