Newsmax - Single Women Becoming Democrats’ ‘Core Constituency’

A huge political rift has developed over the last few decades between married and single Americans and people with children and those without them.

And except for African-Americans, there may be no constituency more loyal to President Obama and his party “than the growing ranks of childless and single voters,” according to Joel Kotkin, executive editor of NewGeography.com.

He points to these figures:

Since 1960, the percentage of Americans over age 15 who are unmarried rose from 32 percent to 45 percent.

Since 1976, the percentage of women in the United States who did not have children by their 40s doubled to nearly 20 percent.

The number of adults who believe children are very important for a successful marriage dropped from 65 percent in 1990 to 41 percent in 2010, according to the Pew Research Center.

The number of households with children today is 38 million, about the same number as 10 years ago, although the total number of households has risen by nearly 10 million. There are now more houses with dogs than with children.

The “Single Nation,” as Kotkin calls it, has lined up solidly behind Obama. Single women prefer Obama by nearly 20 percentage points, according to Gallup, while married voters prefer Mitt Romney by a similar margin.

“Unmarried women (along with ethnic minorities, the poor and the workers in the public bureaucracy) are rapidly becoming a core constituency of the Democratic Party, in a sense replacing the ethnic white working class,” writes Kotkin, who is also a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University and a contributing editor to the City Journal. His article first appeared in The Daily Beast, and his latest book is “The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050.”

Democratic strategist Stanley Greenberg is urging the party to target singles, in particular single women, who he calls “the largest progressive voting bloc in the country.”

But Kotkin adds that the Single Nation’s influence on politics may not persist for more than a generation, because “after all they, by definition, will have no heirs,” while “generally conservative family-oriented households often have two or more children.”

Why can't Obama seal the deal in Dem primaries?

In what is becoming a post-West Virginia trend, Barack Obama is having trouble winning decisive primary victories against nominal (or nonexistent) opponents, barely pulling out wins in Kentucky and Arkansas last night. The Obama campaign is now in the rather embarrassing position of having to spend time and money competing in primaries that are generally a formality for an incumbent president.

So what gives?  Why can't Obama seal the deal?  Below I've outlined one potential reason, Obama's war on coal that is driving up electricity prices and costing jobs, many of which belong to Blue Dog union workers who may be turning out to the polls to tell Obama that he has gone too far.

###

SHOT:

Electoral implications of the Obama Administration’s War on Coal.

By Moe Lane

Tuesday, May 22nd

Will this be the 2012 election map?

If the Obama administration keeps up their War on Coal (literally: they consider coal more dangerous than terrorism), quite possibly. And it may be at least partially because of coal. 

The basic framework for this argument is this map:

…which shows the top sixteen coal-producing states in the USA. There’s a total of 182 Electoral Votes at stake, there – and in 2008 there were 180. Obama actually won coal-producing states in 2008, 100 to 80; and if no states flip in November, he’ll win them, 96 to 86. Except that… states are going to flip. Indiana’s already gone; and of the remaining six Obama states only New Mexico and Illinois are not considered toss-ups. The administration’s relentless hostility towards coal production and use may have already contributed to Democratic electoral disaster: since Obama took office the state governments and legislatures of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have all been taken over by Republicans; in Colorado we flipped the House of Representatives; and in New Mexico we captured the governorship. Heck, we even gained seats in the Illinois legislature, and came very close to winning the governorship.

The question is, is it fair to wonder whether coal will make things worse for the Democrats? I think so. In Virginia they’re worried about new EPA regulations on air quality. In Colorado people are noticing that President Obama and EPA chief Lisa Jackson are fighting the United Mine Workers. Pennsylvanian Republicans are already campaigning on the issue; so are Ohioan Republicans. All in all, this combination of stubborn refusal to budge from a radical Green agenda + an economy that can pretty specifically not support the inefficient luxury of a radical Green agenda = increased risk in a variety of Obama ’08 states.

Such a shame.

CHASER:

Last Night, Obama "Barely Ek[ed] Out Wins In Kentucky And Arkansas." "President Barack Obama continued to have trouble on Tuesday performing in Democratic primaries in traditionally conservative states, barely eking out wins in Kentucky and Arkansas." (Ginger Gibson, "Obama Struggles In Primaries,"Politico, 5/22/12)

Democrats In "Kentucky And Arkansas Are Taking A Swipe At President Barack Obama, Denying The Incumbent Nearly 4 Out Of Every 10 Votes Cast On The Democratic Side." "Some presidential primary voters in Kentucky and Arkansas are taking a swipe at President Barack Obama, denying the incumbent nearly 4 out of every 10 votes cast on the Democratic side." ("Primary Protest Votes Show Displeasure With Obama," The Associated Press, 5/22/12)

The Vote Was "A Bit Embarrassing For The Democratic Party And Highlights Obama's Political Weakness In Southern States." "The results in either state will not hamper Obama's effort to gain the party's nomination for a second term. Still, it's a bit embarrassing for the Democratic Party and highlights Obama's political weakness in Southern states." ("Primary Protest Votes Show Displeasure With Obama," The Associated Press, 5/22/12)

"In Kentucky's Closed Primary, About 42 Percent Of Registered Democrats Who Voted Selected 'Uncommitted.'" ("Primary Protest Votes Show Displeasure With Obama," The Associated Press, 5/22/12)

In Arkansas, "Where At Least He Was Running Against An Actual Human," Obama Lost 42 Percent Of The Vote To Lawyer And Occupy Wall Street Supporter John Wolfe. "Obama faced a similar threat in Arkansas, where at least he was running against an actual human. Lawyer and Occupy Wall Street supporter John Wolfe also came in around 42 percent, or right about where he was polling." (Dashiell Bennett, "'Uncommitted' Beats Obama In Half Of Kentucky," The Atlantic Wire, 5/23/12)

[via RNC Research]

Death By Fairy Tale: After Occupy, "The 99% Spring" Fizzle

Dear Monetary Policy Observer

It seems somehow appropriate that this latest article is being sent out on Mayday, which it addresses in detail.  It goes over some planned "Occupy" protests for the day (and so far seems fairly prophetic in predicting their turnout...) as well as some of the harsh economic realities undermining arguments  by some elite leaders of the movement.  We hope you find this material of interest.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Arnold
American Principles In Action
www.americanprinciplesinaction.org

_______________________________________________



Ralph Benko, Contributor

4/30/2012 @ 3:25PM

Death By Fairy Tale: After Occupy, "The 99% Spring" Fizzle

Occupy Wall Street (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

May 1, International Workers Day, has been designated by the left for the “first General Strike in American History:” A Day Without the 99%.  No Work—No School—No Housework–No Shopping.  Take the streets on Tuesday!  But … the call for the General Strike is not getting traction from us — the 99%.  We whose interests it purports to represent and from whom it seeks to draw legitimacy, are decisively spurning the call.

The Occupy May Day — General Strike Facebook page shows, as of this writing, 22,998 going, out of 186,059 invitees. Even if ten times as many show up that’s a terrible fizzle.  The uprising which the left is determinedly promoting is not catching on. By comparison, Lady Gaga has over 50 million Likes (including this columnist’s, himself a little monster, Hi Stefani! Edge of Glory!).

The problem the post-Occupiers are addressing is real.  The left leadership of what it styles The 99% Spring is whip smart, disciplined, capable and elegant.  So why is their attempted movement stillborn?  The left, however noble its intentions, is flailing.  Why?  Because its proposed solution — central planning — is discredited.   The leaders of the left are trapped inside a dead fairy tale.

International Workers Day is a toxic symbol in America … and worldwide. Remember the images of missiles and soldiers beamed from Red Square with the oppressive Soviet Gerontocracy on top of Lenin’s Tomb?  The May Day celebration was the High Holy Day of Communism.  How tone deaf of the left to have chosen it.

We, the workers of the world, remember International Workers Day as synonymous with economic impoverishment, political oppression, and the suppression of civil liberties, civil rights, and human dignity. Even the nominally communist Chinese leadership recently purged Bo Xilai for attempting to revive and exalt Maoism.  Choosing May Day implies that those who are aspiring to lead the 99% are badly out of touch with us.  The choice of date presents the left’s leadership as a would-be nomenklatura, or new ruling class, rather than as in sympathy and solidarity with the masses.

Read Full Article Here http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2012/04/30/death-by-fairy-tale-after-occupy-the-99-spring-fizzle/

NATIONAL REVIEW: editorial pins Supercommittee failure on Dem tax donkey

The text of the editorial follows. It can be found on the National Review website at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283743/marines-over-medicaid-editors.

Marines Over Medicaid

To the great surprise of nobody, another blue-ribbon panel of Washington’s A-list nabobs has failed at its task: In this case, it is the so-called supercommittee charged with nudging the federal government away from the edge of the debt abyss. Investors despaired at the news, and there was talk of a second downgrade of U.S. Treasury debt.

The failure of the supercommittee is a testament to Democrats’ tax obsession. With the supercommittee having fizzled, the next step is the automatic sequestration process, which imposes 50 percent of the cuts on a program that accounts for only 20 percent of spending (national defense) while leaving the entitlements largely untouched. But the country needs the Marines more than it needs Medicaid.

The talks broke down because Democrats demanded $1 trillion in tax increases as the price of doing any deal that included entitlement savings — which is to say, as the price of doing any deal that begins to address the major drivers of spending going forward. Republicans have never quite owned up to being open to a tax increase, but that is what they are talking about when they talk about “pro-growth tax reform,” which includes broadening the tax base and eliminating some deductions and exemptions, producing a net tax increase even if tax rates stay the same or go down. But even that isn’t good enough for the Democrats, who insist that any tax increase be enacted through a relatively narrow range of options, mostly through raising tax rates on individuals with above-average incomes and on businesses that do not fall within the protective circle of Democrats’ political favoritism. (Don’t expect General Electric or the next Solyndra to start paying 35 percent, whatever else happens.) Because Republicans rightly declined to go along with this class-warfare program and insisted upon savings in entitlements, the supercommittee failed.

The sobering thing is that even the massive tax increases the Democrats wish to inflict upon the nation would not close the deficit that our entitlement programs will produce if left unreformed. A study by the International Monetary Fund estimates that, in order to keep entitlement spending at current levels while stabilizing the debt, every federal tax on the books — income tax, payroll taxes, excise taxes, etc. — would have to be raised by 88 percent. Democrats will be happy to run against entitlement reform, and they will wallpaper the airwaves with vulgar advertisements that show Paul Ryan running granny off a cliff in her wheelchair. But they are really running on an 88 percent tax hike — that or massive, unsustainable deficits.

Voters are beginning to understand as much, and that means that Republicans have a two-fold task ahead of them: The first is to overturn the automatic defense-spending cuts, locating savings elsewhere in the federal budget to offset them. Unlike most of what the federal government does, national defense is a real, pressing, national priority that is unquestionably a government responsibility. The range of threats facing the United States is broad and deep, and a single 9/11-scale attack could in financial terms alone cost the nation far more than we would save through defense cutbacks, to say nothing of the loss of life. Defense is one of the few federal functions in which budgetary concerns must perforce take a backseat to global political realities.

The same is not true of the entitlement programs, and so the second part of the Republicans’ task is to take that case to the voters in November. Most of the Republican presidential hopefuls have developed thoughtful, credible, long-term solutions to the financial imbalances of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The reforms they are proposing — means testing, gradually raising the retirement age, changing the indexing formulae — are far short of the radical changes that have been contemplated by some on the right. But properly executed they would bring the programs back into balance, a goal that is of critical importance as our population ages and the financial stress on the entitlements becomes more acute. Changing the terms of Social Security for a well-off 35-year-old decades away from collecting any benefits is not relegating granny to a cat-food diet, and Republicans should be willing to make that case.  

Meanwhile, another opportunity to control spending and rationalize the tax code has come and gone. Our supply of such opportunities is not unlimited.

House Republican Office - Statement on House Vote to Kill Bill to Stop Cell Phones in Cars

CONCORD – House Speaker William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon) and House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt (R-Salem) offered the following statement following the House of Representatives vote to kill legislation (HB 546, sponsored by Rep. Laura Pantelakos [D-Portsmouth]) that would have outlawed cell phone use while driving.  New Hampshire currently has an existing law governing distracted drivers.

House Speaker William O’Brien

“We are the ‘Live Free of Die’ state for a reason.  New Hampshire citizens have consistently opposed these types of Nanny State laws that suggest that the state knows better than the people how they can run their lives.  The House has rightly rejected this intrusion into the lives of our residents.  We know how to drive responsibly without government telling us not to use a cell phone.”

House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt

“Once again, the Democrats have tried to take away our freedoms with a law to tell how we can or can’t drive.  That’s why the voters demanded change and gave Republicans a supermajority last November.  The House Republicans are making sure that we protect the liberties of New Hampshire residents and we will continue to stop these assaults when the Democrats bring them forward.”