Thing are looking down for Obama and the Democrats

What’s new Today

Story #1 shows us how the current Gallup favorability ratings for BHO aren’t good news for the President.  #2 has the details of the CBO forecast for this year.  It also is bad news for the president.  #3 posits that HHS’s ruling on Catholic Hospitals etc, isn’t simply looking at abortion but control over religious institutions.  #4 shows you what a mess the Democrats have made of this if you are at all a reasonable person.  #5 shows you what an unreasonable person thinks about this.  #6 is a list of ways a leftist thinks Obama might be defeated.  Read my comments if you want to see what the most obvious one was and the one he missed.  #7 looks at whether wind and solar power actually work. 

1.  Gallup:  Obama’s future not bright

…With the average state showing a 3.2-point drop in approval between 2010 and 2011, the number of states showing majority approval of Obama did not change much between the two years, moving from 12 states and the District of Columbia in 2010 to 10 states plus D.C. in 2011. Washington state and Rhode Island were the two states that dropped below 50% approval last year.

However, Obama was on pace to show an increase in majority approval states -- to 16 plus the District of Columbia –midway through 2011. But his lower approval ratings in the third and fourth quarters of the year resulted in a net decline in the number of states above 50% approval by the time the year was complete.

Implications

Obama's approval rating at the state level provides some insight into his chances to win an Electoral College majority. He would seem to be well-positioned in the states in which his approval rating was above 50% last year, including three of the larger states in California, New York, and Illinois. The states with majority approval of Obama in 2011 account for 159 electoral votes. Obama won all of those states' electoral votes in the 2008 election.

On the other hand, states in which his approval rating was below 40% seem less likely to recover enough to allow Obama to claim their electoral votes this fall. Those states account for 153 electoral votes. All except New Hampshire voted for John McCain in 2008.

Thus, the key to Obama's winning a second term lies in the states whose approval rating is in the 40% range, which account for the remaining 226 electoral votes and include traditional "swing states" such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Obama won the vast majority of these states in 2008.

Gallup and USA Today have identified 12 swing states that will be vitally important in this year's election, and Obama's job approval rating within those states ranges from 39% in New Hampshire to 48% in Michigan.

His approval rating is a key indicator of his electoral vote chances, but it alone will not dictate his success in a given state's vote. The electorate in each state represents a smaller share of the population than the larger pool of all state residents on which his approval rating is based, so turnout among his supporters and opponents will be important. Also, state residents' electoral choice will be shaped in part by the choice voters have between Obama and his Republican opponent, and potential third-party candidates

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152372/Obama-Approval-Above-States-2011.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics%20-%20Presidential%20Job%20Approval

Normally what we see is when they poll all residents the Democrats lose 3-5 percent when the actually voting takes place.  In view of the map this does not portend well for Obama and the Democrats. 

2.  CBO Forecast:  Not What the Democrats Wanted

The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday predicted the budget deficit will rise to $1.08 trillion in 2012. CBO also projected the jobless rate would rise to 8.9 percent by the end of 2012, and to 9.2 percent in 2013. These are much dimmer forecasts than in CBO's last report in August, when the office projected a $973 billion deficit. The report reflects weaker corporate tax revenue and the extension for two months of the payroll tax holiday.

A rising deficit and unemployment rate would hamper President Obama's reelection effort, which in recent weeks has seemed to be on stronger footing. If the CBO estimate is correct, it would mean that the United States recorded a deficit of more than $1 trillion for every year of Obama’s first term. The deficit was $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010 and $1.3 trillion in 2011. The largest deficit recorded before that was $458 billion in 2008.

CBO had forecast an 8.5 percent unemployment rate for the end of 2012 in its August report. It now expects the jobless rate to be higher, and to still be at 7 percent in 2015. The higher unemployment numbers are due to lower economic growth than previously estimated. Gross domestic product for 2011 is now estimated to have grown 1.6 percent in 2011, down from the 2.3 percent forecast in August. CBO a year ago had predicted 3.1 percent growth for 2011. The outlook for 2012 has also worsened. GDP is forecast to grow only 2 percent this year, compared to a previous estimate of 2.7 percent….

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/207603-cbo-budget-economy-worse-than-estimated

The article I posted yesterday about it not mattering who the Republicans nominate, they will be Obama seems to have some backing with this report from the CBO.

3.  Separation of Church and State

…No serious observer can believe that the administration's real goal is to ensure the acceptance or availability of contraception.

Everyone knows that anyone who wants contraceptives has easy access to such measures even if he or she does not have a health plan that provides for them. The local friendly drugstore has aisles stacked to the ceiling with condoms and other "family planning" measures, while clinics such as Planned Parenthood hand out birth control pills and abortions with abandon -- sometimes even to underage girls, as damning videos taken by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have shown.

No, the real issue is not birth control or the provision of it.

The central issue is government intimidation of and control over religious institutions. It is government's overriding of the consciences of Catholics and members of other denominations who oppose abortifacients and sterilization.

The 2013 deadline for Catholic institutions to conform to the health care mandate is the proverbial governmental foot in the door for controlling religious institutions -- actually, for controlling all people of faith who disagree with the administration's stance toward abortion.

For the truth of the matter is that the U.S. government's intrusion into religious organizations, if not halted at this stage, will continue to press even harder for even more sacrifices of conscience. The next step on the part of the government will almost certainly force all religious institutions to provide access to health care insurance that provides coverage of surgical abortions. The administration's demands are only the first salvo in what is bound to be a continuing battle between the federal government and churches if ObamaCare continues its trajectory and is not dismantled….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_state_ruling_the_church.html#ixzz1l8HqQRJm

This makes sense when you realize what a stupid move this is during an election year.  There has to be a motive like this to make this big a mistake.

4.  The Real Moral Issue for the Catholic Church with Obamacare

Last weekend in homilies across America, Catholic priests lambasted the new Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation mandating Catholic and other religious institutions fund insurance coverage of abortifacients, sterilizations, and contraceptives (what collectively we call ObamaCeptives). HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called this mandate an "appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services." In the Archdiocese of Washington, priests read from their pulpits Cardinal Donald Wuerl's letter calling HHS's regulation a violation of "our faith conviction and...freedom" and for us to contact legislators.

However, HHS's regulation should not surprise us. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) allows unlimited federal control of insurance plans, and for decades feds have called for increased public access to abortifacients and contraceptives. Recently, for instance, HHS's Healthy People 2020, an inter-agency workgroup that issues lengthy wish-lists of federal "health" initiatives, tells feds to, among other absurdities, "Increase the proportion of publicly[-]funded family planning clinics that offer the full-range of FDA [Food and Drug Administration]-approved methods of contraception, including emergency contraception, onsite."

We must remember that, although feds now threaten Catholic and other religious institutions' liberty, we have failed to protect Catholic and other religious individuals' liberty. Since the mid-1990s, many states have forced insurance companies to cover abortifacients and contraceptives while religious institutions gained exemption from participating in such coverage. For example, since 1998 our state of Maryland has mandated contraceptive coverage but a "religious organization may request...an exclusion...if the required coverage conflicts with the religious organization's bona fide religious beliefs and practices." What about us individuals' bona fide religious beliefs and practices? Instead of donating more money to church collection baskets and such noble causes as pro-life advocacy and Christian outreach, we've been funding others' Plan B and Progestin-only pills…

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/oppose_hhss_obamaceptive_mandate.html#ixzz1l8JRJ6lW

I saw a priest talk about this issue yesterday.  He said the exclusion for the Catholic Church only works if they only work with Catholics.  He said,” Rather than asking someone if they are hungry, we would now have to ask if they are Catholic.”  It appears Obamacare has decided charity is not something you can give freely anymore. 

5.  How the Left see’s the Obamacare regulations on Catholic enterprises

I'm just a big ol' secular lefty, so I guess it's natural that I'd disagree. And I do. I guess I'm tired of religious groups operating secular enterprises (hospitals, schools), hiring people of multiple faiths, serving the general public, taking taxpayer dollars — and then claiming that deeply held religious beliefs should exempt them from public policy. Contra Dionne, it's precisely religious pluralism that makes this impractical. There are simply too many religions with too many religious beliefs to make this a reasonable approach. If we'd been talking about, say, an Islamic hospital insisting that its employees bind themselves to sharia law, I imagine the "religious community" in the United States would be a wee bit more understanding if the Obama administration refused to condone the practice.

I can understand compromising over a very limited number of hot button issues. Abortion is the obvious one. But in general, if Catholic hospitals don't want to follow reasonable, 21st century secular rules, they need to make themselves into truly religious enterprises. In particular, they need to stop taking secular taxpayer money. As long as they do, though, they should follow the same rules as anyone else….

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/01/if-you-take-taxpayer-money-you-have-follow-taxpayer-rules

Believe it or not, this person actually believes what he is saying.  I thought the straw man argument about the Islamic hospital and Sharia Law was pretty predictable.   Somehow the left always claims they are free from prejudice but then uses prejudicial examples to try and make their case.  This reminds me of how Mother Theresa was trying to start a shelter up in New York.  The building didn’t have an elevator and they didn’t have the money to put one in.  The building inspectors failed the building because of this asking Mother Theresa what if someone who was paralyzed came in.  She answered, we would carry them on our backs up the stairs. 

6.  12 Ways a Democrat sees Obama could lose

… As a partisan Democrat, I’m rooting for Mr. Obama, but there are numerous problems, both visible and unforeseen, that could trip him up.

Barring the nomination of a Republican ticket of Ron Paul and Christine O’Donnell, anyone who says this election is in the bag is crazy. How could President Obama lose? Let us count the ways.

1) The president could win the national popular vote but lose a majority in the Electoral College

http://pjmedia.com/blog/twelve-ways-obama-could-lose/?singlepage=true

After reading his posting, I think he forgot one thing.  People might actually look at what he’s done for the past 3.5 years and realize what a disaster he’s been.  This list assumes the Republican standard bearer will be so bad people will forget this.  They won’t.  Obama is toast.

7.  Do Wind and Solar Work?

Everyone knows that wind and solar energy are inefficient sources of energy compared to fossil fuels. But, as the Science and Environmental Policy Project points out in the current The Week That Was, the extent to which “green” energy actually works is surprisingly opaque:

Someone experienced in analyzing potential investments in innovative industries may be surprised by the lack of hard data on the performance of solar and wind in generating electricity. Certainly, it is understandable that solar and wind companies may wish to keep certain trade secrets from the public, such as manufacturing design and techniques. But if the results are as solid as the promoters claim, than one would expect the promoters would give the hard data on performance. Yet these are being withheld on the claims that such data is proprietary – confidential.

Slowly, information is leaking from nations that have spent heavily on wind and solar, such as Germany. This information should give pause to those touting solar and wind, including politicians. England is pulling back from wind, Germany has announced drastic cut-backs on its subsidies to solar, and Spain has announced the elimination of subsidies for renewable power. These actions are not the result of success. The erratic nature of these sources is well established. Further, electricity is rather unique among energy types – it cannot be stored on an affordable, commercial scale.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/do-wind-and-solar-work.php

Solar and Wind remain technologies we should keep investing in R&D on, but not in creating large wind and solar farms.  The technology is not there yet.