Tuesday, January 31, 2012

How Obama’s Eligibility Fiasco Poses Trouble For Dems

If Georgia’s Secretary of State says Obama is off the ballot,it will set in motion a scary domino effect that will devastate down ballot Democrats.
It’s doubtful that the media will explain what is likely to happen if there is a blank space at the top of the Democrat slate in Georgia next November,but here’s a likely scenario.
The results the latest IBD/TIPP survey hold nothing but bad news for Obama and his Democrats. Almost 2 /3 of the respondents agreed that we are preparing for the most important election since 1860.  Even in the absence of hard evidence,can there be any doubt that those who are disinterested and feel no sense of urgency about this election probably have very little connection to our America except as a place to demand from to pay for their America?
“Voter Interest” in this election can rightly be used interchangeably with “voter intensity”,which in turn translates to “voter enthusiasm” to vote.
Last March,Republican enthusiasm was 5 points higher than Democrat enthusiasm,but that difference had grown to a 21 point edge in an October CNN survey.
CNN found that 64% of Republicans are either extremely or very enthusiastic about voting in November which was up 3 points from June. Democrats by contrast had just a 43% enthusiasm level as they looked forward to voting in November.
These kinds of numbers are the stuff of titanic defeats for Democrats.
A 2010 enthusiasm edge of 19 points at 63/44 for Republicans gave them pickups of  680 state level legislative seats and 64 Congressional seats.
Today’s IBD/TIPP survey shows that Republicans are 26 points more enthusiastic than Democrats with no telling how far the gap will grow.  Clearly getting rank and file Democrats out to vote for Barack Obama or anyone other Democrat  will be an uphill battle.
Very dangerous territory for Democrats
A December Gallup mega survey of 5000 voters in 12 swing states revealed non-white enthusiasm was 32%. Compared to  2008 when 65% of blacks voted  97% for Obama,this is a stunning number.
If black enthusiasm to vote is already less than half 2008 levels, one has to wonder how many blacks will turn out to vote for ANY Democrat without Obama at the top of their ticket.
If the Obama Citizenship cases in other states are successful,it will  be a disaster for down ballot Democrats like never before.


  1. It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.

    Obama is in it deep Chit, and the DNC has…a LOT…of explaining to do.

  2. Dr. Conspiracy put it this way:

    "In terms of the evidence presented, there was a long-form birth certificate showing Barack Obama was born in the United States, one Indonesian school document showing Barack Obama was born in the United States, one State Department internal memo from the 1970’s stating Barack Obama was born in the United States and a copy of the President’s passport showing that he is a citizen of the United States. At no time did any attorney mention any evidence to indicate that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Orly Taitz only offered suspicions that various documents were fraudulent, but no alternate theory that would make the President ineligible. "

    So, since the evidence shows that Obama was born in the USA, birthers are pinning their hopes on the absurd legal theory that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the parents of the citizen. It doesn't. It refers to the PLACE OF BIRTH.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    “If allowing the recognition of citizenship under the law of foreign nations were determinative of natural born citizenship in the United States—as now argued by some advocates—then the operation of foreign law would, in effect, impact and be determinative of who is eligible to be President of the United States, a result wholly at odds with U.S. national sovereignty, that is, the“inherent right of every independent nation” to determine what classes of persons are to be its citizens.”---
    Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, Jack Maskell, Congressional Research Service, November 2011.

    “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”--- Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.