Why Obama will lose next November

WaveCameCrashin

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/l ... n-2801881/



Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races.

Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I don’t believe it’s possible to turnaround America.

But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980.

Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge?

First, most pollsters are missing one ingredient- common sense. Here is my gut instinct. Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will switch to Obama. Not one in all the land. But many millions of people who voted for an unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry, disillusioned, turned off, or scared about the future. Voters know Obama now- and that is a bad harbinger.

Now to an analysis of the voting blocks that matter in U.S. politics:

*Black voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. His endorsement of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going Christians. He may get 88% of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008. This is not good news for Obama.

*Hispanic voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. If Romney picks Rubio as his VP running-mate the GOP may pick up an extra 10% to 15% of Hispanic voters (plus lock down Florida). This is not good news for Obama.

*Jewish voters. Obama has been weak in his support of Israel. Many Jewish voters and big donors are angry and disappointed. I predict Obama's Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60’s. This is not good news for Obama.

*Youth voters. Obama’s biggest and most enthusiastic believers from 4 years ago have graduated into a job market from hell. Young people are disillusioned, frightened, and broke- a bad combination. The enthusiasm is long gone. Turnout will be much lower among young voters, as will actual voting percentages. This not good news for Obama.

*Catholic voters. Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008. That won’t happen again. Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with the Catholic Church over contraception. Now he is being sued by the Catholic Church. Majority lost. This is not good news for Obama.

*Small Business owners. Because I ran for Vice President last time around, and I'm a small businessman myself, I know literally thousands of small business owners. At least 40% of them in my circle of friends, fans and supporters voted for Obama 4 years ago to “give someone different a chance.” I warned them that he would pursue a war on capitalism and demonize anyone who owned a business...that he’d support unions over the private sector in a big way...that he'd overwhelm the economy with spending and debt. My friends didn’t listen. Four years later, I can't find one person in my circle of small business owner friends voting for Obama. Not one. This is not good news for Obama.

*Blue collar working class whites. Do I need to say a thing? White working class voters are about as happy with Obama as Boston Red Sox fans feel about the New York Yankees. This is not good news for Obama.

*Suburban moms. The issue isn’t contraception…it’s having a job to pay for contraception. Obama’s economy frightens these moms. They are worried about putting food on the table. They fear for their children’s future. This is not good news for Obama.

*Military Veterans. McCain won this group by 10 points. Romney is winning by 24 points. The more our military vets got to see of Obama, the more they disliked him. This is not good news for Obama.

Add it up. Is there one major group where Obama has gained since 2008? Will anyone in America wake up on election day saying “I didn’t vote for Obama 4 years ago. But he’s done such a fantastic job, I can’t wait to vote for him today.” Does anyone feel that a vote for Obama makes their job more secure?

Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas oddsmaker and common sense small businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a world-class repudiation of Obama’s radical and risky socialist agenda. It's Reagan-Carter all over again.

But I’ll give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.

g under p

GREAT thesis, I TOTALLY agree it'll be LOOSE rather than a tight race come this November.

The President by 184 electoral votes...have a nice day.

Peace

inmytree

Hang Loose, yo....

SVRDhand13

"Has nowhere to go but down" is not equal to "will fall below what Romney can get"

guacamolejoe

SVRDhand13 wrote:

"Has nowhere to go but down" is not equal to "will fall below what Romney can get"

Agree.

PillowPants

antares434

This article is funny! I love the way the author first attempts to establish how unbiased he is, then goes on an anti-Obama tear. It's a great Romney add disguised as an unbiased opinion. Great stuff!

Indifference

Hope for change......

Godfather.

can't wait !

Godfather.

polaris_x

obama will not lose because the establishment likes continuity ... everyone gets 8 years ... that's the way it goes ... unless obama shows signs of really actually doing something in his second term - they will happily sacrifice mitt this go around ...

SVRDhand13

Godfather. wrote:

can't wait !

Godfather.

I can't wait for the strangehold that the Democratic and Republican parties have on this country to be LOOSEned.

If you realize, like me, that neither Romney nor Obama are the answers to this contries woes, give your vote to a third party candidate. Its not necessarily a vote for that person, but a vote against our current outdated establishment.

SVRDhand13

polaris_x wrote:

obama will not lose because the establishment likes continuity ... everyone gets 8 years ... that's the way it goes ... unless obama shows signs of really actually doing something in his second term - they will happily sacrifice mitt this go around ...

Goerge H.W. Bush

polaris_x

SVRDhand13 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

obama will not lose because the establishment likes continuity ... everyone gets 8 years ... that's the way it goes ... unless obama shows signs of really actually doing something in his second term - they will happily sacrifice mitt this go around ...

Goerge H.W. Bush

establishment loved reagan so they gave bush sr. 4 years as a bonus ...

SVRDhand13

polaris_x wrote:

SVRDhand13 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

obama will not lose because the establishment likes continuity ... everyone gets 8 years ... that's the way it goes ... unless obama shows signs of really actually doing something in his second term - they will happily sacrifice mitt this go around ...

Goerge H.W. Bush

establishment loved reagan so they gave bush sr. 4 years as a bonus ...

Still don't get the love for Reagan...

DS1119

polaris_x wrote:

obama will not lose because the establishment likes continuity ... everyone gets 8 years ...

Jimmy Carter and GW Sr. may disagree with this. And this is just recent...relatively speaking.

polaris_x

SVRDhand13 wrote:

Still don't get the love for Reagan...

i see it like this ...

go read the ingredients of like a twinkie ... somewhere in that list of shit is gonna be like water ... hey, water is good for me ... therefore twinkie's are too!! ... woohoo ...

reagan supporters idolize him but you can't get one of them to acknowledge the shit he did ...

polaris_x

DS1119 wrote:

Jimmy Carter and GW Sr. may disagree with this. And this is just recent...relatively speaking.

see previous comment on bush sr. ... carter is probably the most anti-establishment president in recent history ... hence he only got 4 years ...

g under p

polaris_x wrote:

SVRDhand13 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

obama will not lose because the establishment likes continuity ... everyone gets 8 years ... that's the way it goes ... unless obama shows signs of really actually doing something in his second term - they will happily sacrifice mitt this go around ...

Goerge H.W. Bush

establishment loved reagan so they gave bush sr. 4 years as a bonus ...

That was a good one.

Peace

DS1119

polaris_x wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Jimmy Carter and GW Sr. may disagree with this. And this is just recent...relatively speaking.

see previous comment on bush sr. ... carter is probably the most anti-establishment president in recent history ... hence he only got 4 years ...

I'm just saying in your own words you wrote that everyone gets 8 years and that's not true.

For as much as people "claim" that George Sr. won just because of him riding the Reagan wave...maybe, maybe not...can't that same argument be made for Obama winning while he was riding the economic downturn and anti Republican and anti GW Jr wave during 08? :? It goes both ways you know. And let's just say...in perhaps an understatement here... Obama certainly hasn't grown in popularity since his election.

polaris_x

DS1119 wrote:

I'm just saying in your own words you wrote that everyone gets 8 years and that's not true.

For as much as people "claim" that George Sr. won just because of him riding the Reagan wave...maybe, maybe not...can't that same argument be made for Obama winning while he was riding the economic downturn and anti Republican and anti GW Jr wave during 08? :? It goes both ways you know. And let's just say...in perhaps an understatement here... Obama certainly hasn't grown in popularity since his election.

uhhh ... obviously - you've taken my initial point too literally ...

i do however feel that as long as the establishment is content (and i see no evidence they are not) - they will allow him to stay in power for another 4 years ... the fact Mitt looks like a bigger douche by the day is proof of that ... if you think he looks bad now - wait till the election comes ...

DS1119

polaris_x wrote:

i do however feel that as long as the establishment is content (and i see no evidence they are not) ...

Really? :? :fp: I'm not trying to argue...but no eveidence of not being content?

DriftingByTheStorm

antares434 wrote:

This article is funny! I love the way the author first attempts to establish how unbiased he is, then goes on an anti-Obama tear. It's a great Romney add disguised as an unbiased opinion. Great stuff!

I thought he was pretty clear, from Sentence TWO all the way through the end of the second paragraph, that he not only doesn't support either major party, but essentially abhors them & thinks they are wrecking this country.

I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster.

He is a staunch libertarian, who RAN AS ONE, who is smart enough to know that America as a whole is too stupid to stop voting D or R, and thus is framing the rest of his article in that context.

I think he has some good points.

I also happen to think we are probably screwed either way you slice it. As he says.

WaveCameCrashin

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

antares434 wrote:

This article is funny! I love the way the author first attempts to establish how unbiased he is, then goes on an anti-Obama tear. It's a great Romney add disguised as an unbiased opinion. Great stuff!

I thought he was pretty clear, from Sentence TWO all the way through the end of the second paragraph, that he not only doesn't support either major party, but essentially abhors them & thinks they are wrecking this country.

I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster.

He is a staunch libertarian, who RAN AS ONE, who is smart enough to know that America as a whole is too stupid to stop voting D or R, and thus is framing the rest of his article in that context.

I think he has some good points.

I also happen to think we are probably sc
rewed either way you slice it. As he says.

Right Drifting... See the Drones aren't smart enough to know this is all true what this guy is saying. Nor do they care,bcos no matter how awful this president is they are still going to vote for him no matter what. There is no hope for these people. They are true believers as Eric Hoffer once wrote.

Snakeduck

WaveCameCrashin wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

antares434 wrote:

This article is funny! I love the way the author first attempts to establish how unbiased he is, then goes on an anti-Obama tear. It's a great Romney add disguised as an unbiased opinion. Great stuff!

I thought he was pretty clear, from Sentence TWO all the way through the end of the second paragraph, that he not only doesn't support either major party, but essentially abhors them & thinks they are wrecking this country.

I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster.

He is a staunch libertarian, who RAN AS ONE, who is smart enough to know that America as a whole is too stupid to stop voting D or R, and thus is framing the rest of his article in that context.

I think he has some good points.

I also happen to think we are probably sc
rewed either way you slice it. As he says.

Right Drifting... See the Drones aren't smart enough to know this is all true what this guy is saying. Nor do they care,bcos no matter how awful this president is they are still going to vote for him no matter what. There is no hope for these people. They are true believers as Eric Hoffer once wrote.

To give yourself a little credibility, you should learn to spell before you insult other people's intelligence.

Last-12-Exit

Obama will win because the the people that wanted obama out realized that there was no good republican choice. So they will vote 3rd party and take votes away from romney. Pretty simple really.

DriftingByTheStorm

polaris_x wrote:

carter is probably the most anti-establishment president in recent history ... hence he only got 4 years ...

HARDLY "anti-establishment".
Carter was "anti-establishment" like Obama is "anti-establishment". Actually, the two are fairly similar in this aspect of being picked & groomed for President BASED ON THEIR OUTSIDER "APPEARANCE". Both were picked for president at times when the country was suffering economic and political demoralization and were intended to put up the facade of "a People's president". I WILL give Carter the advantage over Obama for having declared publicly his dissatisfaction with the elite somewhat after the fact, and for taking on issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict later in his life, but he was never an "anti-establishment" president.

Read below to utterly dismiss that notion.

Bilderberg-Trialateral-Report wrote:

CHAPTER TWO

The Candidacy and Presidency of Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter was a charter member of the Trilateral Com-mission. He was invited to join over lunch with David Rocke-feller and Zbigniew Brzezinski at London's Connaught

Hotel in October 1972.

Rockefeller and Brzezinski had been in London, bookedat the Connaught, for talks with British Trilateralists and torecruit new members.

It was elder statesman Averill Harriman, the formerGovernor of New York, who had suggested to Rockefeller

that Carter was good presidential material. So when newscame that Carter, then the Governor of Georgia, was enroute to London on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce tosolicit foreign business for the state of Georgia, Rockefellerextended a luncheon invitation. (Carter used J. Paul Austin'sprivate jet for his international business trips. Austin is the

chairman of the Coca-Cola Company whose world head-quarters are located in Atlanta, Georgia.)

According to Brzezinski, "We were impressed that Carterhad opened up trade offices for the State of Georgia in Bruss-els and Tokio. That seemed to fit perfectly into the concept of the Trilateral."

Lunch in London wasn't Carter's first encounter withRockefeller. Shortly after Carter had been elected Governor

62






The Candidacy and Presidency of Jimmy Carter

of Georgia in 1971 he phoned Rockefeller to say that Georgiasold a lot of bonds to New York and that he therefore wanted tocome up and meet some New York bankers.

Carter proved to be a dedicated Trilateral Commissioner, nevermissing a meeting, and noting in his autobiography, Why Not theBest?, that the Commission provided him "with a splendidlearning opportunity".

During his campaign for President, Carter boasted of hisCommission membership whenever the subject of his experiencein foreign affairs arose. He freely admitted to being educated inthe field of foreign policy by the Commission. In a speech to theForeign Policy Association of New York in June 1976 Carterstressed the need for increased cooperation between Japan,Western Europe, and North America. "We must," he said,"replace balance-of-power politics with world order politics" -which is, of course, the basic theme of Trilateralism.

Slowly but surely, Carter began to arise from nowhere in thepresidential sweepstakes. Virtually unheard of by the Americanpublic, Carter took the nation by surprise when he won the IowaState Caucus in 1975. Overnight, people were asking, "JimmyWho?". Although the media focused almost all its weight intrying to answer that question, no one seemed to think itimportant to mention Carter's membership in the TrilateralCommission.

Carter's sudden rise to fame was not without some importantinside help. Time Magazine, whose Editor-in-Chief wasTrilateral Commissioner Hedley Donovan, throughout 1975published advertising in other large circulation magazines for itsown promotion which looked just like first class PR for JimmyCarter. At the first formal Trilateral Commission conference in1975 Brzezinski took the rostrum and praised Carter as "onepolitical leader with the courage to speak forthrightly on theissues".

63



The Trilateral Commission

Dr. Peter Bourne, Carter's deputy campaign chief, has said,"David and Zbig both agreed from the start that Carter was theideal candidate to build on."

Brzezinski assumed the role as Carter's exclusive foreignpolicy tutor and in this capacity became Carter's top speech-writer.

Once elected, Carter rewarded the Polish-born Brzezinski forhis efforts by appointing him Assistant to the President forNational Security Affairs.

And if that wasn't enough, Carter filled practically all of themajor policy posts in the United States with TrilateralCommissioners creating, in effect, a "Trilateral Administration".

Jimmy Carter, President Walter Mondale, Vice President CyrusVance, Secretary of State Harold Brown, Secretary of DefenseW. Michael Blumenthal, Treasury Secretary ZbigniewBrzezinski, National Security Advisor Warren Christopher,Deputy Secretary of State Anthony Solomon, Deputy Secretaryof State for Monetary

Affairs Richard Cooper, Under Secretary of State forEconomic

Affairs C. Fred Bergsten, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury forInternational Economic Affairs Andrew Young, Ambassador tothe United Nations Robert Bowie, Deputy Director of CentralIntelligence Richard Holbrooke, Assistant Secretary of State forEast

Asian and Pacific Affairs Graham Allison, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Planning Lucy Benson, Under Secretary of State forSecurity Assistance Samuel Huntington, Coordinator of SecurityPlanning at the

64



The Candidacy and Presidency of Jimmy Carter

National Security Council John Sawhill, Deputy Secretary of Energy Paul Volker, Chairman, Board of Governors, U.S. Federal

Reserve System Hedley Donovan, Senior White HouseAdvisor Lloyd Cutler, Counsel to the President Sol Linowitz,Panama Treaty Negotiator and now Middle

East Negotiator Henry Owen, Economic Advisor for theLondon Summit Leonard Woodcock, U.S. PermanentRepresentative to

Peking Paul Warnke, Director, Arms Control andDisarmament

Agency Gerard Smith, Ambassador-at-Large for NuclearIssues Elliot Richardson, U.S. Representative to UN Law of the

Sea Conference Richard Gardner, Ambassador to Italy

"Coming from Georgia," explained Rockefeller to the LosAngeles Times, "Carter had very little international exposure.Carter found in Trilateral a lot of very able people representingdifferent areas and points of view that he needed in government."

-source

[sorry for the poor formatting, i'm too lazy right now to fix it]

Byrnzie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHNLJPRVzkc

peacefrompaul

Loose... lose... Jesus Christ, you guys :roll:

brianlux

I don't blame Obama for wanting to get loose in November. Heck, I plan on getting a little loose myself in about 65 days.

polaris_x

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

[

HARDLY "anti-establishment".
Carter was "anti-establishment" like Obama is "anti-establishment". Actually, the two are fairly similar in this aspect of being picked & groomed for President BASED ON THEIR OUTSIDER "APPEARANCE". Both were picked for president at times when the country was suffering economic and political demoralization and were intended to put up the facade of "a People's president". I WILL give Carter the advantage over Obama for having declared publicly his dissatisfaction with the elite somewhat after the fact, and for taking on issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict later in his life, but he was never an "anti-establishment" president.

it's all relative ... i mean all you posted was his membership in some elitist group ... i think his actions as president spoke volumes ... he fought against the mic and big oil ... was he perfect!? ... of course not ... but you can't tell me of all recent presidents - he wasn't the most anti-establishment one of the lot ...

JonnyPistachio

WaveCameCrashin wrote:

Right Drifting... See the Drones aren't smart enough to know this is all true what this guy is saying. Nor do they care,bcos no matter how awful this president is they are still going to vote for him no matter what. There is no hope for these people. They are true believers as Eric Hoffer once wrote.

I love when people put themselves on a pedestal over everyone.
Perhaps some Drones actually do know how 'awful' the president is, and will decide that Romney is no better.
Since there are so many Drones, arent you suggesting that the people this article highlights -- *Black voters, *Hispanic voters, *Jewish voters, *Youth voters, *Catholic voters, *Small Business owners, *Blue collar working class whites, *Suburban moms, and *Military Veterans will just shake this drone state and wake up to think Romney is great? Or that the article was wrong and Obama supporters are Drones, unable to have the intelligence to shake this spell? Or will they just not vote once they shake their Dronedome? Maybe this IS the Ron Paul secret, once they shake the trance of dronedome, they will line up for Mr. Paul... :?