Dittos, 

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon
ADVERTISEMENT

EIB WEB PAGE DISGRONIFIER

Obama is Losing Racial Politics Game

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Do you remember, ladies and gentlemen, last November I made a big deal of something? And I remain surprised. I can't believe... And I really mean this. I can't believe that this was not focused on more. Not by the mainstream media but rather by conservative media. This was a column by Thomas B. Edsall who used to write for the Washington Post and is now big at the Huffing and Puffington Post. And he had a piece in the New York Times, which means the regime wanted it there.

He works for Obama in a way. There's a tie-in. And the piece, if you're a regular listener here you've heard me reference it many times, but it's stayed in its own vacuum. The piece was a tantamount admission that the Obama campaign had written off the working-white-voters block. They've just written them off. They were the bitter clingers. They knew, back in November, that they were not going to compete for them. They're not even going to campaign for the white, working voters of America.

And that was so stunning to me to have an incumbent president instruct -- or his campaign instruct -- one of their acolytes to head to the op-ed pages of the New York Times and admit that, that they weren't going to seek the votes of white, working class voters. The Reagan Democrats. A lot of these people are Democrats. They're working class, blue collar Democrats being written off. And the majority of them voted for Obama in 2008. Now, this takes me to this piece by David Paul Kuhn at Real Clear Politics.

He's the chief political correspondent for Real Clear Politics, and he's the author of a book. It's The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma. And he builds on it. Listen to this: "President [Kardashian] does not currently have enough white support to win re-election even if he retains his minority base from 2008. At the same time, electoral data indicates Mitt Romney has not yet attracted enough of these white voters to capitalize on Obama's weakness." Weird, that is, because MSNBC just suspended a Politico guy or Politico suspended a political guy. It was on MSNBC.

A black reporter for Politico said that Romney, you can tell he's just not comfortable except around white people. They were talking about Romney's appearance at the Latino convention. This guy said you can tell Romney doesn't like to be around people other than white people. Let me tell you something: I'm uncomfortable in a room of white liberals. It's liberals that make me uncomfortable and feel out of place. It's not racially oriented stuff. Anyway, this guy, The Politico supposedly has suspended him.

It's probably to the same degree that MSNBC employees who doctor tapes get suspended. "Pundits often note that Romney cannot win with his current level of Hispanic support. That's likely true. But so is the converse: Obama cannot win with his level of white support unless white swing voters withhold their votes from Romney as well." Well, what are the odds of that? What are the odds of white swing voters not voting? "Today, fewer whites back Obama than any Democratic candidate since Walter Mondale.

"Romney does not need to emulate Ronald Reagan to win. Should he match Reagan’s share of the white vote in 1984 -- presuming all else remains constant since 2008 -- Romney would rout Obama." That's how bad it is. They knew back in November that the white, working class vote was lost. But this is a stunning statistic. "Fewer whites back..." Now, this guy was going to end all of this. He was going to end the racial divide. He was going to end the divide, the partisan divide.

And, of course, we all know it's gotten worse.

Now, "Of course, America has changed since Reagan. Non-Hispanic whites were 89% of the electorate when Reagan first won the White House in 1980. They were 85% in 1988. By 2008, whites were 74%. That shift has upended the electoral landscape. But only so much." Look at The Loser, "Michael Dukakis’ fate as an example. In 1988, George H.W. Bush’s margin of victory exceeded Obama’s in 2008."

Did you know that? In 1988, Bush 41 won by a bigger margin than Obama did in 2008. "But if Obama’s level of white support in 2012 equals Dukakis’, and all else remains the same from 2008, Obama would likely narrowly win. He would lack a mandate and risk immediate lame-duck status. But he would survive with white support that once sundered Democrats. Unless ... What if Obama doesn't even match Dukakis with whites? That’s the dynamic of 2012," and that's what Obama faces.

"This electorate has a white floor. And it has broken for this president. Democrats cannot depend on demographics to save them," and that's what Obama is depending on. He's depending on a coalition of every fringe minority you can find out there. And he's written off the American mainstream. Not racially but demographically and politically. He's just written them off. Do you know the United Nations is thinking of saying Obama should give back his Peace Prize because of the drone attacks? I'm not kidding. The story is in the Stack. My point is, he's losing support everywhere you turn.

Now, Mr. Kuhn says, "The white margin to watch: 61-39. That’s the rough break-even point. Obama likely needs more than 39% of whites to assure re-election. Romney likely needs at least 61% of whites to assure Obama’s defeat (or 60.5 in some scenerios [sic])." But as we sit here now -- and this is a result of collating a lot of polling data -- Obama's white support right now is gone.

Doesn't.

Have.

A prayer.

This could be why Peter Orszag, the former head of the Obama Office of Management and Budget, is calling for voting to be made mandatory to make sure Obama gets the black and Hispanic turnout he needs. He's actually suggesting that.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Noel in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Welcome to the EIB Network and Open Line Friday. Hi.

CALLER: Mega dittos, Rush, from the swing state of Virginia. (chuckles) I have a question: Does the administration think Latinos are stupid and that they won't see the pandering for what it is?

RUSH: Well, can you...? Let me ask the question in a different way.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: Does the administration think that African-Americans are so stupid they do not see that Obama is pandering to them? He gets 93, 95% (every Democrat does) of the black vote every presidential election. I have polling data where Obama's down 20 points in North Carolina among blacks now, but "now" is not Election Day. Look, this is the question, Noel. This is the question on everything. This is the question we all are asking. Not just about Latinos.

We ask the question: "Has the citizenry finally devolved to the point that they would rather not work and be taken care of?" That's what it boils down to. That's the overriding question that we ask, in fear, every time we start thinking about this next election. And Obama has clearly rolled the dice and said, "Yeah. There's more people that want to sit around and be taken care of by me than there are people who want to assume responsibility for themselves." That's what he's banking on.

CALLER: All right. I just want to say, I'm a long-time listener; this is my first time talking to you. It's been an honor. (chuckles)

RUSH: I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

It's a frustrating thing to watch never-ending pandering, and you never know until Election Day. But history is that it's not so much the ethnic pandering, it's the ideological pandering. It's the assumption that there are people that can't or won't assume self-responsibility. This is what's always been the rub. The Democrat Party encourages that. The Democrat Party sponsors it! The Democrat Party applauds you checking out. To them, you're just admitting that you don't have a fair shot anyway.

The deck's stacked against you. Wall Street and 1% and the Republicans run everything. You're smart enough to know the only chance you have at fairness is to let the Democrats take care of you. They sponsor it. They promote it. And, in their minds, they think they've been pretty successful at it. I don't think we've lost the country. I think we're close, but I don't think we've lost it in that way. But all of the Founders have written variations on this.

And individuals who are not part of the Founding Fathers who studied this country, like Tocqueville and others, have all written that once people discover that they can vote themselves money from the Treasury, that's the beginning of the end. Once that number reaches a majority, then the great experiment known as America begins to crumble. Everybody knows this. So the question is: "Are we there?" And the election of Obama made people say, "Oh, sheez. Looks like we are." But no. Not necessarily. People voted for Obama for a host of reasons.

Some because he's black and they wanted to wash away their own guilt. "He's black so he's going to end racism in America. We're going to get along if we elect the black guy because we're going to show we're not a racist country." Or it was, "I hate Bush! I don't like the condition of this country." They believed this malarkey about the economy going down the tubes. But there wasn't a whole lot of support for Obama that was specific to issues, and that's coming back to bite him now.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, talking about "pandering to Hispanics." If I were Hispanic, you know what would offend me? It's being compared to an illegal. Every time Obama and the Democrats start talking about Hispanics, the assumption is that they're all illegal and they're all being discriminated against. That's what would bother me. But that's just me.

END TRANSCRIPT

ADVERTISEMENT

Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Watch Live Listen Live

original

Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

EIB Features

ADVERTISEMENT: