The topline number in this Pew survey shows that the current breakdown among registered voters is 43/48 GOP/Dem, which is a seven point shift from their 39/51 results in 2008. Now that alone should worry the Democrats, seeing as Pew found that the breakdown in 2010 was 43/47, which was the year where Democrats got shellacked across the country; but the news is if anything worse when you look at the breakdown by religious affiliation. A lot of attention will be on how Jewish support for the GOP went from 20/72 to 29/65 between ’08 and today; but what may be even more important is that that GOP support among white Mainline Protestant and white Catholic voters flipped from 45/45 and 41/49 in 2008 to 51/39 & 49/42 in 2011. How this will translate into likely voters is, of course, anybody’s guess… but if you’ve been wondering why the President is suddenly talking about how neat God is, it’s probably because somebody on his staff is keeping track of Pew. As to how this breaks down in the 2012 election… well, obviously the increase in Jewish support (as Pew notes, those new supporters are identifying as Republicans, not as Republican-leaning) is going to have an impact in Florida, which is a state looking increasingly like it’s going to be leaving the Democratic column. But possibly what may be even more important was what happened with Mormon support: it went from 68/19 in 2008 to 80/17 in 2011. If I had to guess as to why , I suspect that this represents fallout from the incredibly racist* Democratic response to California’s Proposition 8; and if you’re wondering what the point is then I suggest that you look at this map of LDS population percentages in 1990. Mormons make up somewhere around seven and a half percent of Nevada’s population, and while the numbers are much smaller in Colorado and New Mexico they are still significant. While Obama comfortably won all three states in 2008, they are all considered in play for 2012 : couple that with Republican gains among white Catholics and we’re seeing a suddenly-rickety Democratic position in the Mountain West. And that’s with a Generic Republican candidate. Moe Lane ( crosspost ) *Oh, yes, rushing to blame white Mormons for their opposition to same-sex marriage – as opposed to African-American and Latino Californians, both of which groups voted to pass Proposition 8 – counts as racism; after all, there was no earthly reason to do it except that one group had a conveniently low average melanin count in their skin. And the reaction to such blatant scapegoating should – but probably will not – act as a cautionary tale.
View post:
Pew: Democrats getting hammered by religious voters.
Fresh off a dominant win in the Florida presidential primary, Mitt Romney managed to unload a clip of .45 ammunition in both feet on national television this morning. In an interview with Soledad O’Brien, Romney said the following (emphasis added): Mitt Romney: “ I’m not concerned about the very poor; we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling, and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.” Soledad O’Brien: “I know I said last question. You said I’m not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net . And I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say that sounds odd. Can you explain that?” Mitt Romney: “Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad. I said I’m not concerned about the very poor that have the safety net, but if it has holes in it , I will repair them. The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor . And there’s no question, it’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign — you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich, that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus. My focus is on middle income Americans, retirees living on Social Security, people who can’t find work, folks that have kids getting ready to go to college. These are the people who have been most badly hurt during the Obama years. We have a very ample safety net, and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.” While Romney’s intent was clearly to reiterate his focus on the middle class, which has suffered greatly in recent years due to economic troubles and rising unemployment, he committed not one but two major fouls in that statement (as well as a third that is only slightly less severe). First, he committed the cardinal sin of saying, in just so many words, “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” Context be damned, Romney has now provided a direct quote that can and will be used against him ad nauseum for the remainder of his participation in this election. Second, and perhaps worse, he said in almost so many words that not only does he not care about the “very poor,” but the Democrat Party does. Take a minute to let that sink in. The presumptive nominee for the Republican presidential nomination, in a class warfare/economy/jobs election, said on national television that he doesn’t care about the very poor in our country, but that the opposition party does. As @Slublog noted on Twitter , “The only thing that could have made that Romney quote worse is if he ended it by laughing manically and lighting a cigar with a $100 bill.” The fact he didn’t mean precisely that is immaterial; you simply can’t say that in a political campaign , particularly when you’re (a) already filthy rich (and have never spent a day of your life in the middle class, let alone as a ‘poor’ individual), and (b) running for the top position in a party that is already portrayed by media and opposition as being unconcerned with any Americans outside of the super rich. Again, the fact that (b) is entirely inaccurate is immaterial; just as every possible Rick Perry gaffe contributed to the narrative that he was incoherent, inarticulate, and mentally challenged, every statement by Mitt Romney that could possibly be construed as being out of touch with (and unsupportive of) “the 99%” adds to the narrative that the rich, white, out-of-touch GOP is preparing to nominate a rich, white, out-of-touch automaton to lead its party and the country. In an election that will be focused on employment and the plight of working (and out-of-work) Americans, neither Romney nor the GOP can afford to provide any additional fuel for that narrative. In this case, all he had to say was something to the effect of, “My focus is on the millions of Americans who are suffering from the Obama economy.” The fact that Romney instead provided direct ammunition for negative advertising, while talking up his opposition’s support for the same poor he disavowed any concern for, is a major issue. Of more minor concern is the fact that Romney twice addressed the problems with America’s social safety nets in conditional terms – if the safety net has holes in it, he’ll fix it. That ‘if’ should grate those who have spent the last several months, years, and decades warning of the major issues facing our entitlement programs and safety nets (not least of which is cost, like the $55,000,000,000,000.00 that medicare and social security are currently in debt over the coming 75 year horizon), and proposing solutions to address them. Of greater concern, though, are the shots Mitt Romney fired into his own feet this morning with his declaration that he doesn’t care about the poor, but that the Democrats do – a simply inexcusable error. NOTE: Even unofficial Romney campaign spokesperson (and official Romney shill) Jennifer Rubin, who has a typically incoherent response at the Washington Post , can’t explain away such an egregious unforced error on her candidate’s part. Further, Rubin’s final line, ostensibly addressed to “the media,” is the height of irony. She writes, “Perhaps a less crazed approach to covering Romney would restore their credibility.” Ah, self-awareness.
See the original post:
Mitt Romney’s ‘Very Poor’ Choice of Words
Conventional wisdom in Washington and in European capitals is that the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad is doomed. The protests that have spread across the country since March of 2011 and claimed the lives of more than 6,000 people appear to be progressing by their own inertia. Secure in the assumption that “it’s only a matter of time,” Western countries have tagged on sanctions and other punitive measures that target Syria’s economy but have left out any discussion over the possibility of military intervention. The assumption, however, that the regime’s days are numbered is seriously flawed. After all, U.S. and EU sanctions may have driven up food and energy prices, but it has failed to fundamentally alter the regime’s behavior. The Arab League even took the unprecedented step of kicking Syria out of the organization and dispatching a 165-member delegation of observers to monitor the situation inside the country. It was hoped that their presence would reduce the level of violence. But that mission has proven to be a failure, with the average daily death toll climbing to 50 since the monitors arrived in late December. In fact, the case can be made that the international response to the Syrian uprising has emboldened the regime. On January 11, President Assad appeared in public for the first time since the uprisings began where he addressed a rally in Umayyad Square in Damascus and promised to defeat the “conspiracies” against his country. A day earlier he delivered a speech at Damascus University where he vowed to use an “iron fist” to put down the uprising, labeling the protesters as traitors and terrorists. Indeed, by continuing to blame the uprising on a foreign conspiracy and calling thousands of his countrymen “bandits, Zionists and al Qaeda,” the Syrian leader is demonstrating that he is as delusional as the late Libyan leader, Moammar Gaddafi. In past speeches, Assad paid lip service to the idea of government reform and offered some hollow concessions to the protesters but none were mentioned this time around. As the protests have continued, Assad has gauged what the outside world is willing to do — and more importantly, not do. The result is that he has become less willing to compromise. The decision to foreswear military intervention bolsters the Assad regime at the expense of the opposition and American interests. Yet without foreign intervention, the unfortunate but most likely result will be a protracted and bitter, sectarian civil war. The smart money would be on the Assad regime maintaining power due to Iranian assistance and the continued delivery of fresh arms from Russia and Iran. The greatest argument against military intervention remains the mantra, “Syria is not Libya.” And that is certainly true. In Libya’s case, Gaddafi was loathed both at home and abroad whereas Syria still enjoys the backing of Iran, Hezbollah, Russia, and to an extent, China. In Libya there were mass defections of soldiers and officers and an area of territory dominated and controlled by the opposition that could be used as a base to project power. In Syria, there are no swaths of territories firmly held by the forces of those defected, such as the Free Syrian Army. And there is no indication that Assad is failing to maintain his grip on the four pillars of Syrian power, namely, the unity of the Alawites, supremacy of the Ba’ath Party, supremacy of the al-Assad clan, and Alawite dominance over the military and intelligence apparatus. While all of this may be true, it is not a case for the White House to rest on its laurels. The U.S. must prepare for the militarization of the conflict. If the Syrian civil war grows, regional actors will likely become involved, eager to sway the outcome. One need look no further than Syria’s neighbors in Lebanon and Iraq to gauge the probability of a regional conflict taking shape. In that scenario the U.S. will need to have a plan in place to set up “no-go”, “no-fly” and humanitarian zones. To prepare for this likelihood, Washington should form a contact group to work with international partners to share this cost and responsibility, while increasing the pressure on the Syrian regime. Washington should also assist the various opposition groups in developing a strategy for coordinated civil resistance that includes providing them with intelligence, training, and advice. While a unified plan among the various opposition factions within Syria remains elusive, they have nevertheless made some uniform requests. Providing them with night-vision goggles, better communications equipment, and RPGs could help them fight beyond the current standstill and would perhaps be enough to free up towns that are under siege. The anti-regime opposition began as a peaceful protest against a dictatorship. Bashar al-Assad’s brutal response — including the arrest and torture of regime opponents, the indiscriminate shelling of cities, and the cutoff of escape routes for civilian refugees to Turkey and Lebanon — has pushed the opposition to respond with force.
Pervez Musharraf has postponed plans to return to Pakistan to re-launch his political career. Earlier this month, the former Pakistani military ruler had announced he would end more than three years of self-imposed exile in London and Dubai. However, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has warned that Musharraf will be arrested upon arrival to face charges related to the 2007 assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. But perhaps the biggest reason Musharraf isn’t returning is because hardly anybody in Pakistan would shed a tear if he were arrested and tried given his heavy handedness with the Supreme Court and the opposition when he was in power. Despite the less than stellar performance of the Gilani, Zardari and the PPP, Musharraf remains a deeply unpopular figure in Pakistan and isn’t likely to return anytime soon.
Read more here:
Musharraf Postpones Return to Pakistan
[Posted by Karl] Consumer group Public Knowledge makes the accusation about the former Senator-turned-MPAA head’s activities on behalf of the controversial anti-piracy bills: “Those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,” Dodd said on Fox News on Thursday. Hollywood moguls are also pulling out of Obama fundraisers over the issue. In general (unlike many), I do not have a big issue with lobbyists; I have a problem with a government large enough to make them a virtual necessity. However, after Dodd announced his retirement from the US Senate (rather than face a campaign centered on his involvement in the subprime mortgage crisis), he promised, “ No lobbying, no lobbying ,” as if there was something wrong with it. He became head of the MPAA — the Hollywood lobby — weeks after retiring. But openly issuing veiled threats on national television probably doesn’t count as “lobbying,” so this is really more about Dodd’s general sliminess and hypocrisy than a legal problem. Now that widespread opposition from the tech sector and the public has forced Congress to table SOPA and PIPA, Dodd has regrets . He regrets they didn’t ram these bills into law before the opposition grew, that the debate was focused on Hollywood and… that his own lobbying efforts were hampered by the law he backed. Dodd previously voted for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, which among other things increased the “ cooling off ” period for Senators lobbying their former colleagues from one to two years. –Karl
More here:
Chris Dodd intimidating lawmakers on SOPA, PIPA
