Gallup: That electoral map for Obama in 2012 starting to look grim

By Ed Morrissey

That’s not quite what Gallup explicitly says in its analysis, but it’s a rather inevitable conclusion when one sees the graphic presentation of the results.  Barack Obama lost eleven points in his approval ratings on a state-by-state basis in 2010, and now the floor has Obama in danger of losing the next election.  Bear in mind when looking at the legend that the “average” approval rating for Obama was 47% — and that Obama had a 50% or better rating only in the dark-green states:

Obama’s overall average approval rating in 2010 was 47%, down 11 percentage points from the 58% he recorded in his first calendar year in office. For purposes of this state-by-state analysis, Obama’s average is calculated for the calendar year, and is therefore slightly different than the yearly average calculated beginning with his inauguration on January 20, 2009.
Broadly speaking, residents of 20 states gave Obama an approval rating within three percentage points of his national average (between 43.8% and 49.8%). Twelve states plus the District of Columbia had average approval ratings above that range, and in 18 states, approval fell below it.

The graphic is striking.  Obama only gets majority approval for his performance on the West Coast and the Northeast — and not even all of those areas.  He holds his home state of Illinois and his birth state of Hawaii, both unsurprisingly, but between the coasts there exists a vast land of either indifference or outright disapproval.  Traditional Democratic states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are wavering.  The entire interior West has become outright hostile.  More than half of the states have shown a double-digit decline in approval for Obama.
Presidents can win re-election with overall approval ratings below 50%, but that usually requires either a credible third-party challenge or an extraordinarily poor challenger.  The economy would have to significantly improve to move these numbers in the direction where Obama can feel safe, and that seems unlikely to happen while Obama continues to press for regulatory adventurism.
Obama has a year at best to turn this around.  He won the 2008 election at the peak of Bush fatigue by seven points nationwide.  Continuing erosion in his standing puts the White House within the grasp of the GOP, especially if they nominate a credible candidate who can attract a “big tent” of those discontented with Obama.

Source:  hotair.com

Middle Eastern media see end of Gaddafi

Arab media commentators hail what they see as the end of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's rule in Libya, although many fear that his latest speech shows he will not quit without further bloodshed.

Pan-Arab TV channels continue to lead on the story, with even usually reticent Syrian satellite TV noting international calls for Libya to halt attacks on its own people.
The pro-Libyan London newspaper a-Arab al-Alamiyah also reported on the disintegration of Colonel Gaddafi's regime. One Saudi paper criticizes the pan-Arab TV station al-Jazeera, which has led the critical coverage of the Libyan leader, accusing it of behaving unprofessionally.
Iranian comment from left and right sees no way out for Colonel Gaddafi, and one Turkish newspaper columnist said former African, British and US allies   cannot save him.
Some writers criticise Arab and other states for having tolerated the Libyan regime for so long, and one Israeli commentator calls for Colonel Gaddafi to be put on trial for genocide and shot.

Tariq al-Hamid in the Saudi-owned London newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat
The speech Gaddafi delivered yesterday suggests that the Libyan regime is living out its last moments and has actually lost control over many parts of the country... But it also betrays something that is absolutely terrifying. It implies that the Libyan people are in for some exceptionally difficult, if not downright horrifying, days and that God only knows the scale of the carnage awaiting them. The Colonel has openly threatened to fight his own people to the last drop of his blood, which means that he is going to resort to a scorched-earth policy.

Abd-al-Bari Atwan in the London Arab nationalist newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi
The speech delivered by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi last night is the most dangerous of its kind because every word or expression conveyed an infernal conspiracy. If it is successfully implemented then it would lead to the disintegration of Libya or turn it into a state similar to Somalia, or even an ocean of blood... He was like a blood-thirsty wounded wolf ready to burn the whole of Libya for the sake of maintaining his rule, his tribe's influence and the safety of his followers. We should not underestimate this speech or its author.

Samir Rajab in the Egyptian pro-government newspaper Al-Jumhuriyah
Libya in the last five days has turned into a field of fire. Its people, for the first time, came out and started hurling insults and cursing the "ruler", his sons and daughters! Even government representatives abroad could not stand what the world was seeing... and decided to urge Gaddafi to leave.

Muhammad Bin Suleiman al-Ahidib in the mainstream Saudi newspaper Ukaz
We ask the al-Jazeera TV channel to review all the interviews it has conducted with Gaddafi and it will see that it is part and parcel of the suffering that the Libyan people are currently enduring. Its work lacked professionalism, information and foresight.

Imad Sharif in the Iraqi Communist newspaper Tariq al-Sha'ab
The air is full of slogans such as "Scrap the regime!", "Reform the regime!" or "Down with the Colonel!" because many people in our part of the world want bread, freedom, jobs and equality as they can no longer stand being downtrodden and discriminated against by a few cliquish individuals who insist on monopolising wealth, power and influence even as the disenfranchised majority continue to live in intolerable squalor and destitution. The wonderful bug of change has already been caught by several Arab countries and will soon infect the rest, for our region is too infested with grievances to be immune to the fast-spreading contagion of change.

Pro-Fatah Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds
Arab countries need to take more serious steps to put an end to the adventures of Colonel Gaddafi and his irresponsible behaviour over his long years in power ... At a time when some European countries see him as a friend because of his country's oil, which makes them either keep silent in the face of his crimes or criticise him gently, international human rights organisations should take immediate action against him.

Smadar Peri in mainstream Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot
The world's silence in the face of the massacre is horrifying... Just give him the chance and Gaddafi will murder the entire six million. Does that remind you of something? ... If you really are siding with the Libyan people, put a quick end to the massacre and do not let Gaddafi escape. Give the colonel what he deserves: a court-martial and a bullet in the head.

Hardline Iranian newspaper Jomhuri-ye-Eslami
The Libyan dictator Gadaffi's massacre of innocent people in the country showed his brutal face and his criminal nature hidden behind the mask of a revolutionary figure. It proved he rightly deserves the title of 'mad politician'... In his calculations he expects the Westerners to help him... That is why in threatening the Libyans his criminal and corrupt son warned Westerners that if his father's regime collapses anti-Western movements will take power in the country.

Pro-reform Iranian newspaper Arman
The recent movement by the Libyan people proves that the people of the country are fed up with the hypocrisy of the system. Although Gaddafi and his agents have shown their real faces by suppressing people the dictator would have never thought that the children of Libya would rise against him. The dictator has no option but to bow to the demands of the people.

Ibrahim Karagul in the moderate Islamic Turkish newspaper Yeni Safak
The end of history has come for Colonel Muammar. He will now go to the graveyard of dictators. No power can protect him. And they do not have such power anyway. Neither the African countries, into which he has poured money for decades, nor Britain and the USA, with whom he had improved relations in the last few years, can or will protect him.

BBC Monitoring selects and translates news from radio, television, press, news agencies and the internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages. It is based in Caversham, UK, and has several bureaux abroad.

Jump in Oil Makes for Slippery Slope for Obama in 2012

Mark Whittington Mark Whittington –

Contribute content like this. Start here.

 

 

As Libya descends further into chaos and as unrest spreads throughout the Middle East, oil prices have begun to climb rapidly. Crude oil for April delivery has spiked to more than $96 a barrel in New York trading.

"In London, Brent crude for April delivery gained $1.65 to $107.43 a barrel on the ICE Futures exchange." Prospects of further increases, which will be felt at the gas pump, are almost certain. So far the fighting in Libya has taken 300,000 barrels a day offline. Further decreases, which would continue the upward trend in oil prices, are virtually certain.
A spike in oil prices, just as the summer driving season draws closer, would not be welcomed by the Obama administration as it struggles to find ways to jump start the ailing American economy before the 2012 election. A similar spike in the price of oil, in 2008, resulted in the hitherto unheard of price of $4 a gallon gasoline in most places in the U.S. California, whose strict environmental standards inflate the price of gas, is already at $4 a gallon.
The problem the Obama administration faces is partly of its own making. The White House has clamped down restrictions in the domestic petroleum, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of the BP oil leak disaster. The energy policy of the Obama administration depends on keeping the price of fossil fuels artificially high to make its favored green energy technologies, principally wind and solar, more appealing.
Unfortunately for President Barack Obama, the wide spread use of alternate energy is years or even decades away. In the meantime, most people put gasoline in the fuel tanks of their cars. As gas prices begin to climb, cash-strapped drivers are going to look for someone to blame. President Obama's political opponents will be only too happy to provide that person.
The pattern has happened before. In the late 1970s, when the Shah of Iran fell, oil prices spiked and shortages of gasoline spread across the U.S. These shortages were caused by artificial price controls on oil and gas left over from the Nixon administration and government blundering in distributing gasoline.
There is little prospect of gasoline shortages happening again since those price controls were lifted by President Ronald Reagan. However, the price of gasoline will rise to its market level, which may be very high indeed. $5 a gallon gas is not out of the question. That portends a big problem for President Obama as he gears up for re-election.

Note: This article was written by a Yahoo! contributor. Join the Yahoo! Contributor Network to start publishing your own articles.

Will Ron Paul Run in 2012?

Shane D'Aprile -
02/22/11 11:01 AM ET 

 

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has a two-day trip to New Hampshire on his schedule for next month — his first visit to the Granite State since his 2008 presidential bid.
Paul will be the headline speaker at the Dover Republican Committee's Lincoln-Reagan dinner on March 25, as he weighs a third run for the presidency next year.

Paul, who is fresh off his second-straight straw poll victory at the Conservative Political Action Conference, is also heading to Iowa to speak to a gathering of prominent social conservatives early next month.
On Monday, the libertarian-leaning Republican demonstrated he can still rake in the cash online — a hallmark of his last run for the White House. Paul's political action committee said it raised some $700,000 Monday.  

Source: 

thehill.com

Wisconsin Union Protests May have Impact on 2012 Elections

Protests over a Wisconsin plan to eliminate most public workers' union rights are being planned in other states this week as attention shifts to the debate's implications in the 2012 elections.

Demonstrators gathered for a sixth day Sunday in Madison, Wis., to object to Republican Gov. Scott Walker's proposed rollback of collective-bargaining rights. Democratic state senators, who left the state to prevent a vote, vowed to stay away until he is willing to negotiate; the governor said he won't compromise.

"We're willing to take this as long as it takes, because in the end we're doing the right thing," Walker said on Fox News Sunday.

State Sen. Jon Erpenbach, a Democrat, told the Associated Press that Democrats want "to slow this train down" until Walker comes "to his senses."

Mary Bell, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, said Sunday that members should return to schools. Many schools were forced to close last week when teachers called in sick to join the protests. Wisconsin state Sen. Randy Hopper says he and other Republicans will be at work Tuesday on other business. "We can't be held hostage by the Democratic minority, and we refuse to be," he says. "We're ground zero for leadership and government that are going to get their fiscal house in order."

Ohio Democrats are asking people to attend a Tuesday rally in Columbus to protest a bill that would end some public workers' collective-bargaining rights. Tennessee and Indiana are considering proposals that would weaken unions and Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey wants to overhaul teacher tenure rules.

Christie's "bombast and finger-pointing has encouraged politicians in other states to look for scapegoats," says Kerry Korpi, director of collective bargaining services at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

Walker's attempt to change a system once thought untouchable is "a tipping-point moment," says Dan DiSalvo, a political scientist at City College of New York who studies the labor movement. If it succeeds, other states "will seek to go further," he says.

Broad victories by the GOP last year and looming budget shortfalls are giving Republican governors new leverage. "Many Republican groups have wanted to see collective bargaining changes for a long time," says John Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron.

The debate comes as Congress and President Obama spar over ways to reduce federal deficits amid talk of a federal government shutdown March 4. Obama, who wants a freeze on federal wages, called Walker's plan "an assault on unions."

In last year's congressional elections, AFSCME, the largest public-employee union, gave $2.2 million to Democrats and $10,000 to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks money in politics. In 2008, AFSCME, founded in Wisconsin in 1932, spent $2.3 million opposing Sen. John McCain, Obama's Republican opponent.

Union support will be vital to Democrats next year, especially in battleground states such as Wisconsin, to offset the flow of corporate funds into campaigns allowed by a 2010 Supreme Court decision. Last year, 11.9% of U.S. workers were represented by unions, down from 20% in 1983, the Labor Department says.

"If Wisconsin legislators stand strong, it will embolden other state legislators. If they cave, it emboldens the unions," says Ned Ryun of American Majority, which trains candidates who espouse its limited government philosophy. "This is the opening salvo of the 2012 elections."

By Judy Keen and Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

Contributing: Fredreka Schouten in Washington, D.C.