“This election is going to create a stark and fundamental choice between two different economic philosophies,” Biden will say at an address in Youngstown, Ohio, according to prepared remarks released by the campaign.
“There’s Obama Economics, which values the role of workers in the success of a business, and values the middle class in the success of the economy. A philosophy that believes everyone deserves a fair shot and a fair shake, and everybody should play by the same rules,” Biden will say.
“There’s Romney Economics, which says as long as the government helps the guys at the very top do well, workers and small businesses and communities can be left to fend for themselves,” he continues.
Pennsylvania is also well-known as a state with a large number of working-class whites, particularly in northeastern (Scranton, Wilkes-Barre and Hazleton, for example) and western Pennsylvania (Erie, Johnstown and Pittsburgh) — the kind of people one GOP strategist says “have their names on their shirts when they are at work.”…
These voters don’t have an automatic cultural connection to Obama (or to presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney), and the president’s recent announcement supporting same-sex marriage isn’t likely to be a plus with them. Jobs, of course, remain a big issue with these voters, and whatever hope they had that Obama would turn the economy around has almost certainly evaporated…
These kinds of voters are likely to be conflicted in November. They often identify more with the Democratic Party’s working-class positioning and rhetoric, and Romney’s background and style isn’t appealing to them. But they have little in common with the president, have some differences with Democrats’ positions on cultural issues and are disappointed with the performance of the economy.
These voters were once loyal members of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Coalition. But will they back Obama? Will they support Democratic Senate candidate Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, or even Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts?
A new poll of Arkansas Democrats shows Barack Obama receiving support from only 45 percent of Democratic primary voters in Arkansas’s Fourth Congressional District, while 38 percent support his underfunded and relatively unknown primary challenger, Tennessee lawyer John Wolfe, Jr. Seventeen percent are undecided in the district poll.
In an interview with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Wolfe said the poll results were “unbelievable” and said a defeat for Obama in the Arkansas primary would be “politically cataclysmic.”…
Wolfe has criticized Obama for being too close to Wall Street and its interests (for example, Obama’s latest fundraiser with private equity lenders last night in New York City) and seeks to be a more principled Democrat than the 44th president.
Sabato sees other potential benefits [in Obama’s gay-marriage announcement], besides renewed enthusiasm, for Romney in his newfound status with social conservatives. “It probably gives him a little more flexibility, even with the ticket,” he observes.
And the issue isn’t likely to disappear. “It’s going to come up throughout the campaign. Both the president and the governor will be asked about it,” one Republican strategist predicts.
It’s an issue that will further define Obama as a candidate out of sync with many religious voters. Reed notes that support for same-sex marriage is just the latest in a series of decisions Obama has made that have rankled conservative religious voters, including his decisions to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act and to force religious employers to offer health-insurance plans covering contraceptives.
Despite generally favorable coverage from the MSM (something the Tea Party has never had), OWS has essentially fallen apart. It is not a significant presence on the streets; it is not a significant presence in Democratic Party politics; it is not a significant presence in the national conversation. Its vaunted strategy of shunning conventional politics in favor of self organizing groups making decisions from day to day more or less evanesced into space while the Tea Party, equally anarchic, did in fact spawn the kinds of movements and political changes that the OWS crowd did not.
To the extent that OWS had any influence at all, it was at the level of slogans: “one percenters,” “the 99 percent” and “occupy x” have entered our language. But as a populist left wing fight back against the biggest economic disaster since the 1930s, it was dismally lame. At its height it failed to match levels of popular mobilization and outreach that earlier movements achieved in past episodes in American history– and it fell quickly from that height.
To some degree, it was killed by its “friends.” The tiny left wing groups that exist in the country jumped all over the movement; between them and the deranged and occasionally dangerous homeless people and other rootless wanderers drawn to the movement’s increasingly disorderly campsites, OWS looked and sounded less and less like anything the 99 percent want anything to do with.
Lugar’s landslide loss is a sign of the maturation of the tea party, a loosely defined confederation of conservative activists in 2010 who have banded together and threaten to have a defining impact in 2012. Because they’re not conducting mass protests, Occupy Wall Street-style, many pundits naïvely presumed their strength had subsided. But in reality, the masses of disaffected conservatives are a sleeping giant…
Take a close look at the scoreboard: A well-respected senator suffering a historic primary loss, a once-popular former four-term governor being rebuked by party activists, a Republican establishment favorite losing despite a significant organizational advantage, and another one at serious risk of being defeated. If the tea party hasn’t already won, I don’t know what victory looks like.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Okay, David, you’re a journalist. I know you are an advocate but you’re also an journalist. Why do Tea Party crackpots keep winning elections out in the country?