Is America in trouble no matter who wins the presidency?

Last Friday, I spoke to a local chapter of the Optimist Club. This Friday, I’m going to make sure no one who reads my blog can possibly have any shred of optimism remaining.

Just kidding. Sort of.

In an election season in which the presidential campaigns take turns making mistakes, making one wonder if either candidate really wants to win this thing, Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics lays out a case that neither side should want to win.

It’s the third in a three-part series; the first two installments were an argument for why Barack Obama will be re-elected, and an argument for why Mitt Romney will unseat him. The third piece boils down to: Be careful what you wish for.

Trende cites four factors that, at this point in time, suggest the winner of this election will see his party (or, in Romney’s case, himself) get rocked in the 2014 midterms and 2016 presidential election.

1. The economy. After reviewing the way we have not sprung back from the most recent recession the way we have from previous downturns, Trende notes:

Now consider that the average post-war business cycle lasts about six years from trough to trough. We hit our last trough in mid-2009, which means we should be due for another recession in the next few years.

We could easily begin to contract before we have fully recovered from the last recession. There are already signs that slowdowns in Europe and China are spilling over to our shores. This is probably too late to affect Obama’s re-election chances, but if it turns into a full-blown recession, it would greatly impact 2014 (when 11 Democrats are facing re-election in states that went for George W. Bush).

2. Debt. Here, Trende writes:

The current CBO projection assumes that we will add $3 trillion in debt over the next decade. But the reality is actually much, much worse than that. This assumes that we go off the famous “fiscal cliff” in December and allow all of the Bush tax cuts to expire, allow the full force of the alternative minimum tax to kick in, allow all of the spending cuts agreed to earlier this Congress to kick in, and greatly slash money paid to Medicare providers. Needless to say, if people see their taxes raised, their doctors stop accepting them for care, and we go into a recession, none of this will be popular.

If we assume Congress won’t allow this to occur, then we are looking at the CBO’s “alternate scenario.” It involves an additional $11 trillion in debt over the next few decades.

Even this latter scenario, he notes, is dependent on CBO’s rosy economic growth projections coming true — even though the economy has consistently underperformed CBO forecasts in recent years.

3. Health care. Trende notes that Obamacare is set to get cranked up in earnest in 2014. He imagines two scenarios:

If Obamacare doesn’t work — if seniors really suffer as a result of the benefit cuts to Medicare; if more people get thrown off their employer-sponsored insurance than expected; if insurers get put out of business because people opt to pay the tax rather than get insurance — it will not be a pretty political situation for Democrats.

Even if it works well, there will be problems. Unlike Medicare and Social Security, Obamacare creates obvious winners and losers. We then get to issues of salience: If people who are tossed onto the exchanges are angrier than people who are no longer denied care for pre-existing conditions are happy, there is a political problem for Democrats. If seniors strongly perceive the cuts to Medicare Advantage, but quickly forget about the “donut hole” being closed, there is a political problem for Democrats. There are dozens of such examples. Maybe they cancel each other out, but I wouldn’t bet the proverbial farm on it.

As for Republicans, Trende only maps out a scenario in which a President Romney and Congress repeal the law but don’t replace it with other reforms. Personally, I don’t think that’s the most realistic GOP scenario. But either way, he is probably right that Democrats will claim any shortcomings would have been better under Obamacare and will swing that club against Republicans early and often.

4. Iran. This, Trende says, doesn’t require a lot of theorizing:

In the next few years, one of two things will happen. Either Iran will develop a nuclear weapon, or Israel and the United States will forcibly stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

No American president wants to be the one who oversees the former. And the disruptions that could ensue from the latter would be massive, especially in combination with any of the other factors listed above. Add in the continued difficulties we face in the region in general (as we saw last week), and the problems there are similarly insurmountable.

***

What does all this mean? Is Trende right that either Democrats or Republicans could “win by losing”?

From a purely electoral-politics perspective, maybe. Of course, that would mean neither man is up to the task of creating better outcomes to these challenges. Which is a pretty depressing thought.

But is it a correct thought? Should we really believe America is doomed for the next four years no matter what happens in November?

Let’s hear your arguments why Obama or Romney would avoid disaster on any or all of these four issues. Think of it as a Poll Position without the poll. Just answer in the thread below.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

798 comments Add your comment

Michael H. Smith

September 21st, 2012
4:47 pm

Linda

September 21st, 2012
4:35 pm

Exactly right and we both have cited very creditable – even liberal – sources that clearly show blame and fault exists on the part of both parties and I personally find democrats with their hands in the fiasco as far back as FDR who was first to get the federal govrnment involved in the housing market -beyond the scope of the Constitution – which has led to the opening of today’s financial pandora’s box so to speak, as each generation thereafter pushed things to the next extreme to out do the former in order to keep their power.

Gravy Train

September 21st, 2012
4:47 pm

Also, anyone else notice that Kyle only quotes “Real Clear Politics” when it’s convenient for whatever crap he’s trying to peddle? When it comes to their polls showing Willard as a clear loser, then Real Clear Politics isn’t such a good source because “those polls don’t matter.” LOL, the best writers in the land couldn’t make this stuff up.

Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American

September 21st, 2012
4:49 pm

Gravy Train: That’s all you’re going to get from the ditto heads. Other than defense of cults…
——————-

Cults? Like Obozo’s, which believes in creating a woman from a man’s rib, faith healing, bread and loaves appearing from nowhere, and a dead guy coming back to life? How do Obozo’s beliefs square with science?

kayaker 71

September 21st, 2012
4:49 pm

Michael Smity, 4:47,

You might start with Bozo’s jobs czar, that dude that is the head of GE. Moved the entire GE x-ray manufacturing plant from WI to China. Spend over 3B and change in infrastructure and hired nearly 65 mechanical engineers to run the plant. Said to supply the Chinese with hundreds of high paying jobs. That’s Bozo’s JOBS CZAR.

Streetracer

September 21st, 2012
4:50 pm

A black Morman in person, no. But have you ever seen a picture of Mia Love?

Bruno

September 21st, 2012
4:52 pm

Nobody’s gonna get rich selling our USofA short.

This isn’t our first bump in the road. It won’t be our last.

Dr. Spinks–Like you, I have great faith in America and American ingenuity. But what has made us great through the years is the power of the individual, not the power of the nanny state. With some decent leadership in place, I fully believe that we can shake the victim mentality fostered by Obama and the Dems and once again get on the road to prosperity.

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

September 21st, 2012
4:52 pm

“If Willard had such a sterling record as governor, then tell me why he is running and flip flopping away from the record for the last four years.”

He isn’t and he hasn’t. It just never gets asked of him very much.

“I guess you all didn’t listen to the current governor of Mass. completely eviscerate Willard’s claims as to his record.”

Yeah, good ‘ol “Coupe” Deval Patrick, the governor who buys new security vehicles for himself even though the old ones are less than a year old. The guy who defends his Lt. Governor for wrecking his state-supplied vehicle even though he was traveling over 100 mph at 1:30 in the morning. The governor who doesn’t check off the higher taxes box on his state return.

The guy who is sucking up to Obama to become the next AG in case Holder leaves..

Do you mean THAT current governor of Massachusetts, Gravy Train?

HDB

September 21st, 2012
4:54 pm

Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 21st, 2012
4:12 pm

Actually, Tibbi, that’s 4M more jobs than there would be if Obama HADN’T acted………
Corporate America has to release the over $5TRILLION they’re sitting on…..and America needs to re-educate the work force to fill the jobs that are open now…….

Michael H. Smith
September 21st, 2012
4:37 pm

Do YOU realize that redistribution occurs in EVERY aspect of the American economy?? Problem is when redistribution only goes ONE WAY….from the poor to the wealthy, it depresses the economy and only the wealthy are advantaged. When redistribution is CIRCULAR…ALL parties advance…rich AND poor!! THAT’S what needed……

Matz

September 21st, 2012
4:56 pm

Bruno, you’re still at it, I see:

And a vote for Obama is a vote for a Lying Lib. Libs talk a mean game about compassion, but can’t seem to put their money where their mouths are. In addition to contributing little to charity, Libs are also much more likely to cheat on their taxes.

Let’s toss everybody into one of two categories and make sweeping generalizations as proof that we’re always right. **insert eye rollie icon**

Newsflash for anyone who actually cares: A person’s party or “left-right” affiliation is NOT an indicator of whether he or she is a nice person, is honest, compassionate, generous, religious, or smart. There are crooks, liars, cheats, and sociopaths on both sides of the fence to which some of you insist on adding barbed wire. There are warm, caring, hardworking, honest people on both sides too. CLUE: If you really want to get to know somebody and what kind of person he or she is, don’t ask what party they like better; ask WHY.

You’re welcome.

Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American

September 21st, 2012
4:56 pm

“I have great faith in America and American ingenuity”
———————

The same “America” that elected Obozo? Perhaps–we are a country always in search of the new. Now, if we’re stupid enough to re-elect this loser, then we’re no longer America.

Don’t be an idiot. Vote American.

Matz

September 21st, 2012
4:57 pm

Oooops. Sorry about the close italic error.

Bruno

September 21st, 2012
5:00 pm

Problem is when redistribution only goes ONE WAY….from the poor to the wealthy

HDB–Can you provide even one example in which wealth is transferred from poor people to wealthy people??

HDB

September 21st, 2012
5:00 pm

iberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 21st, 2012
4:12 pm

“Actually, Tibbi, I’d say it’s the contraction of the labor force and the stagnation of wages that has stymied DEMAND..which would generate economic activity!!”

Almost forgot, Tibbi, the wage stagnation was greatest during the BUSH years………but wage stagnation was key during the Reagan and GHWB years. Republican policies led to that……..

Bruno

September 21st, 2012
5:03 pm

Let’s toss everybody into one of two categories and make sweeping generalizations as proof that we’re always right. **insert eye rollie icon**

Hey Matz–You know I’m just stirring the pot. All my friends are deadbeat hippies. ;-)

Drop by later if you can for some music.

Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American

September 21st, 2012
5:05 pm

the wage stagnation was greatest during the BUSH years
————-

Wrong. Wages are down more under Obozo than Our President Bush.

Obozo: Inferior to Our President Bush on wages.

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

September 21st, 2012
5:05 pm

“Almost forgot, Tibbi, the wage stagnation was greatest during the BUSH years”

It’s all Bush’s fault. We got it, HDB.

We know there will be no backing up that claim with facts, just more hyperbole, but we get it nevertheless.

HDB

September 21st, 2012
5:07 pm

Bruno
September 21st, 2012
5:00 pm

That’s easy…let someone purchase a computer. Part of that cost is sent to the manufacturer (Dell, HP, Gateway)…..where it is distributed to the employees and stockholders; part is distributed to Microsoft…it’s stockholders and employees. Add the number sold…..and part of the cost of a computer goes to Bill Gates as CEO and stockholder!! Upward redistribution!! Another….pay a utility bill!! Part of that cost goes to employees, stockholders…..and the CEO!! Same idiom!! That’s also redistribution! How many POOR PEOPLE have to pay a utility bill??? When a poor person has to pay a greater portion of income to cover even basic needs, that’s redistribution…and ultimately, it arrives at a rich person’s pockets (CEO, entrepreneurs…..)……

MrLiberty

September 21st, 2012
5:08 pm

There are few if any differences between the two major party candidates. Neither is going to do anything SERIOUS about spending. Romney cannot even cut a single bullet from the ginormous military/empire building budget. He is willing to cut off the poor, but not the filthy rich killing machine contractors. Obviously Obama certainly isn’t going to scale back a single thing. The “great” Ryan plan only cuts proposed increases, but not actual spening itself.

Ron Paul had the plan, but the general bloodthirsty warmonger in the GOP was too afraid of made up “terrists” to vote for common sense foreign policy and actual defense spending.

bluecoat

September 21st, 2012
5:10 pm

Where is my post?

HDB

September 21st, 2012
5:10 pm

iberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 21st, 2012
5:05 pm

“Almost forgot, Tibbi, the wage stagnation was greatest during the BUSH years”

It’s all Bush’s fault. We got it, HDB.

Not JUST Bush, Tibbi….he’s just the latest in the Republican manifest!! The best GOP President has been Eisenhower……THAT was the greatest economic expansion in US history prior to Clinton…..

Gravy Train

September 21st, 2012
5:10 pm

Here are some more polls for the ditto-heads to ignore:

http://www.thedailydolt.com/2012/09/21/people-really-dont-like-mitt-romney/

Looks like Willard is doing even worse than originally thought (by the ditto-heads, anyway)

What I don’t understand is that if “Obama is the worst president in history,” how can Willard be posting such abysmal ratings in every poll available? Even Fox News can’t fudge a poll to show otherwise.

Squirm, ditto-heads, squirm

Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American

September 21st, 2012
5:13 pm

if “Obama is the worst president in history,” how can Willard be posting such abysmal ratings in every poll
———————-

Because Obozo is promising the parasites more of other people’s money than Romney.

Welcome to Handout Nation, a Barack Hussein Obozo Joint.

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

September 21st, 2012
5:16 pm

“What I don’t understand is that if “Obama is the worst president in history,” how can Willard be posting such abysmal ratings in every poll available? ”

Because Romney has the fawning sycophants of the Obama media entirely against him. Virtually every opinion column and every half hour on national news is an infomercial for Obama and a negative campaign ad against Romney.

yuzeyurbrane

September 21st, 2012
5:16 pm

Linda–I am getting to the point where one is repeating himself. But in response to your last directed to my last directed to whatever, the budgets that were slashed were for regulatory agencies such as SEC and EPA, not the Defense Dept. I thought the subject was the cost on businesses of complying with new regulations under Obama and it is regulatory agencies that. . .uh . . . regulate. I think that is part of their mission statements. And the political appointee levels were stuffed with govt. hating conservatives. Now, you have an ideal situation to attack incompetent Federal agencies and slash them even more or eliminate them as some righties have suggested. Now, you may not like Dodd-Frank but it is the law and it requires certain agencies to promulgate regulations implementing the law. As far as EPA and its regulation of greenhouse emissions goes, if they passed regulations exceeding their authority under the laws passed by Congress then you have the right to sue EPA and have the regulations declared illegal. Or you could ask Congress to change the law. You can argue either way on greenhouse gas or the wisdom of more financial regulations, but you are simply incorrect to say that the regulations are illegal only because you don’t think they are good policy. Finally, as to the NAM, what do you expect them to say. Personally, I doubt their numbers but I am sure they have some study to back them up as do opponents have studies to back them up. I would be interested in seeing citations to studies on both sides of that issue.

HDB

September 21st, 2012
5:16 pm

Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American

September 21st, 2012
5:17 pm

Gravy, did the pollsters talk to Democrats, or to Americans? It makes a difference.

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

September 21st, 2012
5:18 pm

HDB, income redistribution is when someone takes from another who is unwilling to part with it.

That means that taking from the rich and giving to the poor is income redistribution.

What you described above is commerce. Done willingly.

I know this is a foreign concept to you, but it is true nevertheless.

Ima Obama Freeloader

September 21st, 2012
5:18 pm

We know that only the dumbest of the dumb parasites,freeloaders, marxists and commies voted for this loser and still support him. Of all papers, this writer from the W. Post gives all intelligent people his take on the commie Obama:

The real truth!!
Matt Patterson (columnist for the Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

Government & Society

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.

How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”) ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass – held to a lower standard – because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest? Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin – that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama.. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people – conservatives included – ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of cliches, and that’s when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all.

Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence.

But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.

When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American

September 21st, 2012
5:20 pm

Funny how HDB’s link doesn’t show the data from the failed Obozo regime. It must be pretty bad.

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

September 21st, 2012
5:22 pm

“In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. ”

Knew that watching him in 2008. Not exactly a revelation now.

Fourscore

September 21st, 2012
5:23 pm

excuses are falling out of the sky

We have some folks who are not too confident in the challenger………

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

September 21st, 2012
5:25 pm

“We have some folks who are not too confident in the challenger…”

I’m very confident in the challenger.

It’s the stupid electorate I’m worried about.

Fourscore

September 21st, 2012
5:26 pm

You win or you don’t.

No excuses

Rightwing Troll

September 21st, 2012
5:27 pm

“In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.”

Says the wingnut who put W in the oval office not once… but twice…

Matz

September 21st, 2012
5:27 pm

Bruno,

WHY would you want to stir this pot of noodles?

Gravy Train

September 21st, 2012
5:28 pm

Lil’ Brain, Willard has uber-billions to spend on his own media (commercials, advertising, etc.) plus he has his own “super pacs,” Fox News, talk radio bloviators, hundreds of wing-nut websites and magazines, plus lap dogs like Kyle all across the country spinning away every day. What’s your point? It must be that the average person is smart enough to avoid all of the media I just listed, or, more likely it’s the fact that Willard plain sucks. Deep down you know it too, Lil’ Brain. That’s what makes this so much fun. Keep on squirming!

HDB

September 21st, 2012
5:29 pm

Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
September 21st, 2012
5:18 pm

Tibbi, it’s still redistribution!!! No matter what guise it’s under!

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

September 21st, 2012
5:34 pm

Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American

September 21st, 2012
5:35 pm

Gravy Train: What’s your point?
——————-

My point was that it makes a difference whether the pollsters you referred to surveyed Democrats or Americans. You’ll get distinctly different results depending on who got asked.

What is YOUR point?

nelson

September 21st, 2012
5:35 pm

What is happening to the U.S. is in direct relation to who the Prez is. It is a personality contest, who looks the best,nothing to do with capability. The greatest presidents were not all that much to look at, Lincoln,FDR, Truman. Now it is movie actors, smooooth talkers like Bill C. and Prez O. Is it any woindere we are where we are.

HDB

September 21st, 2012
5:35 pm

Lil’ Barry Bailout – Vote American
September 21st, 2012
5:05 pm

the wage stagnation was greatest during the BUSH years
————-

Wrong. Wages are down more under Obozo than Our President Bush.

I know a lot who would disagree with you, LBB……I, for one!!
There are many that went from &70K to unemployed under Bush…..then had to take employment for $10/hr because that was the only thing available…..that would be a 62% REDUCTION in wages under Bush……….

Fourscore

September 21st, 2012
5:36 pm

Lil Barry

You win or you don’t

Gravy Train

September 21st, 2012
5:36 pm

Chicken Little, err I mean the “Charitable Mormon,” err I mean Willard…no I meant “Mitt,” who was for healthcare reform before he was against it, I mean the 4 time draft dodger, who is also the most “patriotic” plutocrat to ever evade taxes, dang, what I want to say is the “oppressed job creator,” who kills American jobs and gives them to China instead, wants your vote. I just don’t understand why more people don’t like this guy…

Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American

September 21st, 2012
5:37 pm

HDB: Tibbi, it’s still redistribution!
——————

How is it “redistribution”? The purchaser got the computer!

It’s amazing how economically retarded so many Obozo voters are.

Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American

September 21st, 2012
5:39 pm

Fourscore: You win or you don’t
————————-

I usually win. It’s not me I’m worried about.

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

September 21st, 2012
5:39 pm

HDB, redistribution is involuntary.

Commerce is voluntary.

Huge difference.

Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American

September 21st, 2012
5:40 pm

There are many that went from &70K to unemployed under Bush
—————–

Anecdotal evidence is worth zip. There are plenty who did the opposite during Our President Bush’s eight years. What are the income numbers during the Obozo regime, and why did you not provide them in the first place?

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

September 21st, 2012
5:40 pm

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx

Despite their record-low trust in media, Republicans are the partisan group most likely to be paying close attention to news about national politics, with the 48% who are doing so similar to the 50% in 2008 and up significantly from 38% in 2004. Independents and Democrats are less likely than Republicans to be paying close attention, with their levels of attention similar to 2008 and 2004.

Chart shows 48% of GOP, 37% independents, and 33% Dems closely following political news.

Kinda explains why Obama is doing so well, and why my Dem friends are usually two days behind on the news of the day. Hard to get disenchanted with your leader, when you have no idea of many of his failures.

Fourscore

September 21st, 2012
5:41 pm

Lil Barry

Good for you. Vegas offering up some great odds. You can make some good money if you put down on Romney.

HDB

September 21st, 2012
5:41 pm

Lil’ Barry Bailout – Vote American
September 21st, 2012
5:35 pm

The key right now are the polls from the swing states….the national polls aren’t the true measure…..
So far, Obama has the lead in key swing states…..and I’m focusing on Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Colorado……..

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/swing-state-polls