Bad Night for Barack

YouTube Preview Image

In a Presidential election year, primaries become much less newsworthy after the presidential nominees for each party are decided.  However, last night’s elections were of interest, and the results are bad news for President Obama:

1.  President Obama won the West Virginia primary with approximately 60% of the vote.  His opponent, who got approximately 40% of the vote, was Keith Judd, or as he is also known, Inmate No. 11593-051.  Judd is serving a 14 year term for extortion in a Federal prison in Texas.   Democrat Senator, and former West Virginia Governor, Joe Manchin refuses to say if he voted for Obama in the primary.

2.  There is a strong push in the Democrat party to have the President come out in favor of gay marriage.  Biden recently came out in favor of it, citing the old sitcom Will and Grace, which I am sure played a huge role in his decision to support changing an institution as old as Man.  There is a move afoot in the Democrat party to have a plank put in their party platform calling for gay marriage.  The party convention will be held in North Carolina.  Last night the voters of the Tarheel State approved a constitutional amendment, 60-40, banning gay marriage and the fake gay marriages called civil unions.  The Democrat party in North Carolina is in chaos as a result of the party chairman of the state party being accused of gay sexual harassment.  It is rare for a party to wish to raise a social issue that will harm them in the general election, especially in the key swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, but that is apparently what the Democrats are in the process of doing.  Pass the popcorn!

3.  In the Wisconsin recall primary, Scott Walker, although facing only token opposition in the Republican primary, drew about about as many votes as all the Democrats combined running in a hotly contested primary.  This bodes well for Walker in the special recall election in June, and points to a strong Republican vote in the Fall.  It would be ironic if the attempt  by Unions to oust Walker leads to Wisconsin falling to Romney in November.

4.  President Obama’s favorite Republican Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, a six term incumbent, was toppled 60-40 by Richard Mourdock, Indiana State Treasurer and Tea Party favorite.  Obama will not be repeating his win in Indiana in 2012, and this primary result indicates that in the crucial Midwest the Tea Party remains a force to be reckoned with.

22 Responses to Bad Night for Barack

  • In elections Joe, 60-40 is always overwhelming. Gay thugs demonstrating against the GOP will drive up the Republican vote in the Fall. Gay thugs demonstrating against the Democrats will drive down the Democrat vote in the Fall. Where the homosexual activists are strong, icy blue states, they will produce wasted votes for Obama. Where they are weak, the swing states, they will drive up votes for Romney. The politics of this issue are crystal clear on the national level.

  • Jonathan says:

    I was happy to see a Mourdock win in Indiana. Now, as long as Pres. Obama comes out strongly for Joe Donnelly, and pushes the gay marriage issue hard, Indiana will go Republican.

  • Joe Green says:

    I dunno, Don. 40% is a high number. 4 out of 10 voters in secret favor GM; when polled publicly its 50-50, according to Gallup. How does 1 percent of the population get 40% support? That’s hardly proportional.

  • WK Aiken says:

    As a Hoosier, and one who worked on Lugar’s first campaign back in high school, seeing him not slaughter his primary opponent is something that recent memory cannot offer. So, a 60-40 loss – yea, verily, a loss at all – is quite remarkable.

  • Paul Primavera says:

    Sadly, the distribution of votes in Mecklenburg County was 45.82% for Amendment One and 54.18% against. Thankfully, the rest of the State is smarter! And even more thankfully, Bishops Burbidge and Jugis spoke out publicly in favor of Amendment One. That, I think, was critical – two Bishops lending their names to this very important State Constitutional Amendment. Praise God!

  • Foxfier says:

    it’s a very emotional issue, easy to build sympathetic stories around the support of; I wouldn’t call it “secretly” supporting gay marriage– quite the opposite. I remember what I went through being the token conservative in school. Between the people who go along to get along, the folks who don’t think about what they believe on this or that issue that doesn’t directly touch them and the people who refuse to set themselves up as targets…. Ugh.

    One problem with surveys is that if someone calls me up and says they’re asking about gay marriage, I’m going to hang up. I already know what happens then.

  • Art Deco says:

    If my own experience of working in politics at that level is representative, you cannot very well keep the body of signatures on nominating petitions wholly confidential. You might be able to contrive a system where an aspirant challenger posts a bond to be able to examine the petitions (in lieu of publishing the names). The risk of systematic forgery is too much to allow the petitions to be submitted and propositions approved for the ballot without vetting.

    I am as disgusted as anyone at the mixture of harrassment and defamation heaped on some people who have contributed funds or provided court testimony (Maureen Mullarkey, to name one), but for the most part these perps are not dangerous, merely disgusting, and no one can make you feel inferior without your consent. It is something that can be borne and it is not edifying to have attorneys effectively conceding the public square.

  • Art Deco says:

    How does 1 percent of the population get 40% support? That’s hardly proportional.

    I think 2% of the population is closer to the mark.

    1. Fashion

    2. An extension of the phenomenon you see both in domestic life and political life generally which has an occult origin: a tendency to give bon bons to clamoring constituencies.

    3. A loss of a sense of fixed standards in all realms of the common life (a corollary of which is referred to in point 2).

    4. A conceptualization of marriage which has it as a ratification of desire among expressive agents acting against their surrounding society rather than taking their place within it. Plays like West Side Story and The Fantastiks made the case for this sort of romantic attachment fifty years ago.

  • Joe Green says:

    Another sign of the Apocalypse. I never thought I’d see the day when the President of the United States would endorse so-called “gay marriage.” What has America come to?

  • Art Deco says:

    Art, where do you get the 2% figure? That would be 6 million, which even counting a big chunk in San Francisco, seems excessive.

    IIRC, Edward Laumann’s estimate was 2.8% of the adult population, of which 2/3 were male. The figures propagated by the Kinsey Institute which you used to see quoted a generation ago you do not see much anymore.

    Just shy of 20% of the population is prepubescent and (among the homosexual population) a small percentage of men (and larger percentage of women) are of sufficient age that it hardly matters on a day-to-day basis. So, you would be talking about somewhere north of 4 million men and 2 million women. The male population would be divided into a core of about 2 million and a periphery of about 2 million. Unadulterated lesbianism is rare; the bulk of the female set would be in the periphery (think Susan Sontag or Camille Paglia). So, yes, the core population would likely not exceed about 1% of the total population of the U.S.

  • Art Deco says:

    there is a difference between fraud prevention and the argument that signing a petition is public speech which should be published.

    There is a difference. The implication of either argument is that the list of signatories cannot be confidential (even if you do not publish the names).

  • Foxfier says:

    I’m no lawyer, Art, but I was under the impression there was a lot of daylight between “force the bigots to be publicly known” (which I recall from the radio coverage at the time) and “can be accessed by those investigating to see if there’s fraud.”

  • Anzlyne says:

    I think the 40 percent comes from family and friends who love their “gay” children, and want to “support” them. There are lots and lots of families in that situation– trying to decide what to do when he says he wants to marry him….

  • Foxfier says:

    from my facebook, the folks without that reason are the same ones that want more social programs that won’t directly help themselves.

    I can assure you, as a mom, saying “no” is hard. Especially if someone is willing to be emotionally manipulative. (Like a dear family friend’s nephew, who disowned them when they said “dear, we love you, we wish you well– but we believe what you are doing is wrong. We won’t lie about that. It’s wrong.”)

  • T. Shaw says:

    They disregard the Gospels and St. Paul’s Epistles which are the Truth about eternal life.

    It’s unlikely that the 40 percent that love their gay children and their gays will be getting into Heaven.

    But, it’s okay!

    They’re happy here. The Hereafter is not a consideration.

    The same goes for anybody voting democrat.

  • Art Deco says:

    I’m no lawyer, Art, but I was under the impression there was a lot of daylight between “force the bigots to be publicly known” (which I recall from the radio coverage at the time) and “can be accessed by those investigating to see if there’s fraud.”

    There is daylight as to the motivation. There is less daylight as to practical implications. (And no, we should not give a rip if the likes of Dan Savage, et al call us ‘bigots’).

  • Foxfier says:

    Not motivation-daylight, but legal restrictions type.
    I know some things are absolutely confidential, while some things are limited access, and some things are on-request, and some are if-you-request-it-you-can-publish-it. Those are just the ones I know from the military– different levels of classified.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .