Two words: Reagan Democrats.
A Santorum-Obama race could look very much like a Reagan-Carter race, with the two candidates close together until election day, when there’s a sudden surge for the straight-talking challenger with blue-collar appeal over the failed pseudo-intellectual incumbent who’s perceived by his party as too moderate.
Worth watching, since there’s now a 6 percent chance she’ll be our next first lady.
Jim Geraghty explains:
Color me skeptical that a drown-him-in-negative-ads approach will work for Romney against Santorum the way it did against Newt Gingrich in Florida. Whether or not Rick Santorum is most conservatives’ choice in the GOP presidential primary, he’s built up a lot of goodwill in a lot of corners of the Right. He hasn’t alienated as many by taping a television ad with Nancy Pelosi, or the triple marriage baggage, or the runaway ego, bombastic self-promotion, and tumultuous time leading the party. Whether or not people intend to vote for Santorum, a lot of Republicans like him, and won’t be eager to see him trashed, again and again, in every commercial break.
Romney’s going to have to beat Santorum in a more straightforward way: by arguing that nominating Santorum would mean four more years of Obama. But that’s a harder case to make when you’re this far into the primary season.
Party discipline is much weaker at PASOK, [the Greek ruling party,] whose support has dived to 8 percent in the latest opinion from the nearly 44 percent it commanded when Papandreou led it into power in 2009.
In two years, they’ve gone from ruling party to fringe party. We’ll probably see this sort of thing as America reckons with its own fiscal catastrophes in a few years.
The 1890s.
We RINO squishes are everywhere!
I’ve been suffering TV pains because of the lack of good new shows. But there’s now a Netflix-only show worth watching: Lilyhammer. Based on the pilot episode, I highly recommend it.
Mitt Romney’s path to victory in a general election is clear:
But what about a Santorum coalition to beat Obama? That’s doable, but harder:
But there are still nine months left until the general election. Any number of things could happen by then – a European financial implosion, Israel attacking Iran, American unemployment rising again, a SCOTUS decision on Obamacare… Santorum could still beat Obama, although I wouldn’t bet on it.
Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH)’s likely Republican challenger is now within 4 points of him.
Catholics are as much as part of the Democrat coalition as, say, Big Labor. They vote overwhelmingly Democrat in states where they dominate, like Massachusetts and Illinois.
The Catholic Church opposed the Iraq War, opposes the death penalty, and supports all manner of global wealth redistribution. In the United States, it is perhaps the most powerful supporter of amnesty for illegal aliens.
And, ironically, the Church lobbied strongly for Obamacare, the very program that tramples on the rights of all Americans, not just the Catholic Church.
Given how the Church is a key part of his coalition, Obama will fold like a cheap suit on the contraception issue. He needs Catholics to win re-election, just like he needs Big Labor and the econazis. And winning re-election is the one thing he wants most of all.
UPDATE: Hello, ballot stuffer! Dozens of automated votes for Rick Santorum, all from one AT&T connection in North Carolina.
If you take those out, the votes are Obama 36, Santorum 45. So even the generally conservative readers of this blog have little faith in Santorum’s ability to save us from four more years of Obama (gulp).
I’m closing this poll, since Romney-haters are cheaters too.
Who would win an Obama-Santorum general election?
Total Voters: 160
Loading ...Asian applicants to the University of Michigan in 2005 had a median SAT score that was “50 points higher than the median score of white students who were accepted, 140 points higher than that of Hispanics and 240 points higher than that of blacks.” That study also found that “among applicants with a 1240 SAT score and 3.2 grade point average in 2005, the university admitted 10% of Asian-Americans, 14% of whites, 88% of Hispanics and 92% of blacks.” Golden also reported that after California abolished racial preference the percentage of Asian-Americans accepted at Berkeley increased from 34.6% in 1997, the last year of legal affirmative action, to 42% entering in fall 2006.
Although it is widely thought, especially by defenders of affirmative action, that whites benefit when racial preferences are eliminated (indeed, those defenders frequently accuse critics of being racists whose purpose is to benefit whites), that is not the case. As I noted here, citing this data, the proportion of white freshmen entering the University of California system “fell from 40% in 1997 to 34% in 2005.”
Similar data abound. In 2005, for example, Thomas Espenshade, a Princeton sociologist (more on him below), and a colleague published an article demonstrating that if affirmative action were eliminated across the nation “Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent.”
[...]
[c]ompared to white applicants at selective private colleges and universities, black applicants receive an admission boost that is equivalent to 310 SAT points, measured on an all-other-things-equal basis. The boost for Hispanic candidates is equal on average to 130 SAT points. Asian applicants face a 140 point SAT disadvantage.
