Have Democrats Learned That Voters Want A Moderate?

More than six months after what many pundits predicted would be a flash in the pan, Joe Biden still sits atop Democratic primary polls. The reason for Biden’s preeminence is simple: He is the dominant moderate in a race filled with progressives. Even though moderates do not represent a majority of Democratic primary voters, the moderate niche is large enough to allow Biden to sit atop the cluster of progressives competing for votes among a divided group of leftists. The situation is very similar to how Donald Trump’s plurality allowed him to win the Republican nomination in 2016 amid thanks to Republican primary voters divided between Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich.

Now, after months of watching Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders vie for second place, another Democrat is contesting Biden for the moderate lane. Pete Buttigieg has exhibited a rise in the polls, doubling his share of voters since the beginning of October, per the Real Clear Politics average. Buttigieg now stands at 11 percent, which earns him an increasingly close fourth place. Aside from the Big Three, Mayor Pete is the only candidate to poll at more than 10 percent.

Whether Buttigieg is a moderate depends on how you define “moderate.” Jill Lawrence noted in USA Today that “his résumé includes service as a Navy intelligence officer in Afghanistan and three years at the management consulting firm McKinsey & Co.” and adds, “He’s religious and married (and also, by the way, gay).” Lawrence also notes that his public option health plan “for all who want it” is less radical than the Medicare-for-all plans of many of his opponents.

On the subject of health, it is also relevant to note that Elizabeth Warren’s Icarus-like journey to tie Joe Biden at the top of the polls only to fall apart and begin a long, slow crash back to ignominy can be traced to her radical health care reform plan. When Warren released her much-vaunted Medicare-for-all plan, even Democrats blanched at her sweeping plan to remake America’s health care system as well as its associated price tag.

Elizabeth Warren wasn’t the only candidate whose campaign flamed out over an overly radical platform. Beto O’Rourke, who got off to a quick start by raising more than six million dollars (enough to build a bionic man in 1973), failed to energize his flagging campaign by promising to confiscate assault rifles and tax churches. Progressives failed to rally to Beto’s liberal Christmas list, perhaps recognizing that these positions were too far out of the mainstream to be accepted by a majority of voters.

A third Democrat who succumbed to progressive preferences was Kamala Harris. There is more than one reason for Harris’ failure to launch, but one factor was that she catered her campaign to “woke” Twitter. In so doing, she failed to attract enough mainstream Democrats to keep her campaign going.  

But the fact that Buttigieg is appealing to moderate Democrats doesn’t mean that he is a moderate, especially in Republican terms. “Moderate” to Democrats means something different than it does to Republicans. Even a moderate Democrat is going to hold positions that most conservatives would consider to be deal-breakers. For conservatives, a voluntary public option is scarcely better than Medicaid-for-all and even though Buttigieg is a Christian, his religious views are far from harmonized with conservative evangelicals, especially when it comes to abortion. Mayor Pete may not be a true moderate but he does seem to appeal to moderate Democrats who aren’t sold on Joe Biden.

In fact, it’s difficult to say exactly what Buttigieg really is. As a city mayor, he doesn’t have much of a track record on national issues. As with other recent candidates such as Barack Obama and Donald Trump, his scant history makes Buttigieg a blank slate onto which supporters and opponents can project what they want to see.

Whether Buttigieg continues to surge or becomes another also-ran, it seems that Democratic voters are increasingly looking towards the moderates for their candidate. If Buttigieg falters, Andrew Yang and Amy Klobuchar seem likely to inherit the moderate-but-not-Biden niche.

However, in the end, Joe Biden is the heavy favorite to win the Democratic nomination. His victory will be in no small part due to the support of the largest moderate segment of the Democratic coalition, a demographic that is both staunchly Democrat and heavily Christian. It is a core group with which other Democrats, such as Buttigieg, have been able to make little headway against Biden.

Black voters will be the moderate kingmakers who propel Biden to the nomination.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Black Voters Not Sold On Biden

So far, Joe Biden holds the lead among black Democratic voters, but there are signs that members of the demographic, which makes up a large share of Democratic primary voters, are not thrilled with the candidacy of Barack Obama’s vice president. However, the several minority candidates in the Democratic field have nonetheless failed to catch fire with voters.

In a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 39 percent of black Democrats favored Biden. Elizabeth Warren, another white candidate, ran a distant second in the poll at 22 percent. The other candidates, including Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg as well as the minority candidates, all polled at less than 10 percent.

Still, there are concerns about Biden, especially regarding his propensity for gaffes. For example, in last week’s debate, Biden claimed, “I come out of the black community in terms of my support” and said that he had the support of “the only black African American woman who had ever been elected to the United States Senate,” referring to Carol Mosely Braun.

That was news to Kamala Harris, who laughed back, “Nope. That's not true. The other one is here.”

Biden quickly corrected himself, saying, “I said the first.”

Another source of uncertainty surrounding Biden is his age. The 76-year-old candidate is viewed as healthy by almost as many voters (74 percent) as the 70-year-old Warren (80 percent) and more than Bernie Sanders (48 percent), age 78 and the victim of a recent heart attack. That doesn’t mean that voters are not concerned, however.

"Well, I was sort of leaning toward Joe Biden," said Elsie Just-Buddy, member of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in downtown Atlanta when asked by ABC News about her candidate preference. When asked about her hesitation, the member of the church once pastored by Martin Luther King, Jr. cited Biden’s age.

ABC reported that, after interviewing dozens of congregants at Ebenezer, black voters trusted and liked Biden due to familiarity with him from his years in the Obama Administration but weren’t very excited about his candidacy. They were open to a more exciting candidate, but, so far, that candidate has not emerged.

Another member of Ebenezer, Ernest Fry, said, “I think that he’d be a good candidate as well as the rest of them. But, you know, I don’t think anyone got it locked unless you got a good program for the people.”

Nevertheless, Elizabeth Warren, once renowned for her plans and currently smarting from a health plan so unrealistic that it was even mocked by Democrats, fares much worse than Biden. The very white woman from Massachusetts pleaded her case to minority voters in the Atlanta debate, saying, “As a white woman, I will never fully understand the discrimination, pain, and harm that black Americans have experienced just because of the color of their skin. When I am president of the United States, the lessons of black history will not be lost.”

Black Democratic candidates Corey Booker and Kamala Harris were critical of the fact that white Democrats top the polls. Both glossed over their own dearth of support from black voters when they made their complaints, however.  

Booker warned that black voters are “p-ss-d off because the only time our issues seem to be really paid attention to by politicians is when people are looking for their vote. And they're worried because, in the Democratic Party, we don't want to see people miss this opportunity and lose because we are nominating someone that … isn't trusted, doesn't have authentic connection.”

In a speech to the NAACP in Detroit last May, Harris complained that the notion of electability to Midwest voters led to prejudice against minority candidates, saying, “Too often, the definition of the Midwest leaves people out.” However, during Harris’ brief flirtation with frontrunner status, it was white voters and not blacks who rallied behind her.

Black support for Biden also comes as a surprise to many on the right who predicted that the Democratic Party would rally behind an intersectional candidate rather than another old white man. The fact that the top two choices of black voters are a white man and a white woman, even though there are prominent black candidates in the running, has exploded stereotypes on both sides.

For all the uneasiness and lack of excitement surrounding his campaign, Steady Joe Biden remains the candidate to beat. While others, including Kamala Harris, have flashed in the pan and quickly burned out, Biden’s position atop the polls with the support of a quarter to a third of Democratic voters has been very consistent since he entered the race.

Elizabeth Warren, who is currently plummeting in the polls, is the only other candidate with any significant support in the black community, and other potential frontrunners such as Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg have shown almost no minority appeal. Due to the lack of exciting alternatives, it seems almost certain that, barring a major gaffe or health problem, Joe Biden will emerge as the Democratic candidate at the end of the day. If so, he will have black voters to thank.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Republicans are be divided with or without Trump

(Michael Vadon/Wikimedia)

As Republican delegates get ready to head to Cleveland for the party’s convention next week, the debate has shifted to whether party members should follow the will of Republican voters and anoint Donald Trump as the Republican nominee or whether they should act as a failsafe device and reject the unpopular choice of the voters for another candidate. Trump supporters argue that such a move would divide the GOP and make a Hillary victory inevitable. In reality, Donald Trump has already divided the Republican Party and almost definitely assured a Hillary win.

Donald Trump’s candidacy in and of itself has divided the Republican Party as no (other) Democrat could ever hope to do. Trump’s unpopularity is no longer news. The businessman’s most notable political accomplishment, aside from becoming the presumptive nominee, is making Hillary Clinton look good by comparison.

Trump’s unfavorable rating has consistently hovered in the 60 percent range according to Real Clear Politics, worse than Hillary’s approval, which itself is nothing to brag about. A New York Times poll found that Trump is considered less trustworthy than Hillary, again no mean feat, and his values are shared by fewer voters than are Hillary’s values.  

Fundamental problems with Trump’s character are causing his base to splinter. The same Times poll reports that “three in ten voters who supported other Republican candidates” say that they will not support Trump in November. A more recent CNN poll found that 48 percent of Republicans would prefer that the GOP choose someone else as its nominee. NBC News and the Wall St. Journal found even more Republicans dissatisfied with Trump at 52 percent.

Prominent Republicans such as George Will, Max Boot and Hank Paulson have announced their intention to support Hillary over Trump. CNN recently reported on a grassroots “Republican Women for Hillary” movement. Even former First Lady Laura Bush has hinted that she may support Clinton over Trump.

The Republican Party is clearly divided over Donald Trump. In contrast to Trumps -30 percent net approval rating, by July 2012 Mitt Romney, another unpopular candidate, had an approval rating that broke even on average. Romney also worked hard to unify the party against President Obama and the Democrats. Trump’s attitude has been one of “my way or the highway.” Trump backer Sarah Palin has even taken to calling Trump opponents “R.A.T.’s,” an acronym for “Republicans against Trump.”

Perhaps related to Trump’s personality problems are his strategic problems. Traditional GOP donors are not rallying behind Trump. USA Today reports that the Team Trump has only $1.3 million on hand compared to $42 million for the Hillary campaign. Hillary’s campaign staff is 10 times larger than Trump’s and, according to Politico, Trump campaign staff in battleground states is almost nonexistent. 

All of the above has contributed to a growing revolt against Trump. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that anti-Trump activists were close to gaining enough votes at the convention to unbind delegates. A federal ruling on Monday held that Virginia delegates could not be required by state law to vote for the winner of their state primary. As Trump’s erratic behavior continues, it seems that struggle for the nomination will be completed on the convention floor.

The bottom line for Republican delegates as they get ready to make their way to Cleveland is that they are caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place. If Donald Trump emerges from the convention as the nominee, a large number of Republicans are likely to sit out the election or vote against Trump. With a fragmented base and support cratering among Hispanics, blacks and women (where he trails by 17 percent), Trump seems to destined to lose if he is formally nominated. There simply aren’t enough Republican voters in the white male demographic, the only segment of the electorate that seems to favor him, to allow Trump to win.

On the other hand, if convention delegates are able dump Trump, the party will be split along different fault lines. Trump’s core supporters will likely desert the GOP. They may well take with them moderate Republicans who feel that the party should honor the outcome of the popular vote, even if they don’t agree with the majority’s choice of Trump. Once again, this scenario would probably end in a Clinton victory.

Republican delegates are left with an unenviable choice. Either course will, in all probability, split the party and result in Clinton presidency. 

Read it on Conservative Firing Line

Minority voters put GOP over the top

Exit polls reveal the surprising statistic that shows the source of the Republican surge.

The Republican sweep of the battleground Senate seats left conservatives both elated and shocked. No one had predicted the enormity of the Democratic rout that left pundits and politicians scrambling for explanations. An analysis of exit polls from around the country reveals the answer.

Practical Politicking compared CNN exit polls from 2014 to three previous elections, the 2008 and 2012 presidential races as well as the 2010 midterm elections in which the Tea Party revolution reached its zenith as the GOP captured the House, but fell short of taking control of the Senate. The result shows why the Republican Party performed so well this year when compared to previous elections and also provides clues about the upcoming presidential election of 2016.

“Older, whiter and richer” is true… as far as it goes

It has been said that the 2014 electorate was “older, whiter and richer” than the 2012 electorate that returned President Obama to the White House for a second term. This explanation, often made by liberal pundits such as those at Think Progress, ignores the fact that President Obama almost split the vote of people who earned more than $100,000 with Mitt Romney (44-54 percent). In 2008, Obama tied this segment 49-49 with John McCain. Democrats have done well with the wealthy in the recent past. This year the Democrats lost this group by 16 points, which was less than their 18 point deficit from 2010.

Voting statistics show that the old stereotype about young people trending liberal and becoming more conservative as they grow older is true. Nevertheless, President Obama did well among older voters, losing the demographic by only eight points in both 2008 and 2012. The Republicans did better among older voters in 2010 when they won seniors by 21 points as opposed to this year’s 16 points.

Likewise, Obama lost white voters by 12 points in 2008 and 20 points in 2012. This year’s margin (22 points) was not markedly different from 2012 and was almost identical to 2010 (23 points). It is also interesting to note that the share of white voters actually declined this year from 2010 by two points.

The “older, whiter and richer” explanation is true as far as it goes. While it underscores the well-established fact that the electorate in a midterm election is almost totally different from the voters who come out to vote for a president in the highest profile election, it falls short of convincingly explaining this year’s Democratic debacle. Nevertheless, this myth, like that of 2012’s “missing Republicans” seems destined to live as a salve to soothe liberal disappointment and channel anger toward whites and rich people, two common Democratic bogeymen.

No gender bender

There was also no appreciable shift in gender voting patterns. Women traditionally favor the Democrats and that was true this year as well. Democrats won 51 percent of the female vote, less than the 55 percent of 2012, but more than 2010 when Republicans won women by one point. The peak was in 2008 when 56 percent of women voted for Barack Obama.

Obama won men in 2008 by one point, but the Democrats lost the male vote in the other three elections. Fifty-five percent of men voted Republican in 2010 and 52 percent in 2012. The male vote peaked this year with a whopping 57 percent of men voting GOP and only 41 percent voting Democrat. While men seemed to be responding to a Democratic “war on men,” the bottom line is very similar to 2010 and is not enough to explain this year’s landslide.

“Look to the cookie.”

The key to understanding the shift in the electorate from 2010 to 2014 is with the racial demographics of voters. It is true that the electorate was whiter than 2012, but that is only part of the story. As Jerry Seinfeld said, we must “look to the cookie” of race relations for the true answer.

The following table shows the percentage of each demographic group voting Republican:

Year	White	Black	Latino	Asian
2008	55	4	31	35
2010	60	9	38	40
2012	59	6	27	26
2014	60	10	36	50

The following table shows the percentage of each demographic group as a percentage of the electorate:

Year	White	Black	Latino	Asian
2008	74	13	9	2
2010	77	11	8	2
2012	72	13	10	3
2014	75	12	8	3

The nearby charts show the percentage of each ethnic group voting Republican in each election along with each group's share of the electorate. When all the information is examined, we find that the “white” part of the “old, white and rich” explanation is not true in several important ways. There were more white voters than in 2012, but, as noted earlier, the share of white voters declined from 2010 to 2014. The share of black voters increased one point between the midterm elections, but was one point lower than in 2012 and 2008. Black voters didn’t stay home, but came out as a greater share of the electorate than in the previous midterm election.

The liberal pundits totally fail to take into account that this year saw Republicans do much better among minority voters than in any election of the Obama era. Republican candidates faired marginally better this year than four years ago in the last midterm and dramatically better than the pathetic performances of both John McCain and Mitt Romney. It was this improved performance with nonwhite voters that put the GOP contenders over the top.

What does this mean for 2016?

The lesson for 2016 is that the coalition of minorities, women, and young people that elected Obama both times won’t necessarily turn out to elect other Democrats. While these groups all voted Democrat this year, the margins were far narrower than in 2008 when Obama was seen as a hip, new, “post-partisan” politician and hope was in the air. Six years later, many minorities and young people are still jobless and the “war on women” has worn thin.

This year also saw the election of several new minority Republicans. Tim Scott is the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction. Mia Love is the first ever black Republican woman in the House. As more and more minorities “come out” as conservatives, it will be easier for others to do so in the future.

Likely Democratic contenders for 2016 such as Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren lack Barack Obama’s minority connections as well as his hipness and charisma. If Republican solutions resonate with voters over the next two years, the next wave of candidates may find that even more minority members are willing to pull the lever for a Republican.

Originally published on Examiner.com

President Obama admits that Voter ID is not voter suppression

President Obama admitted to the nation on Tuesday that controversial voter ID laws do not suppress the minority vote. The president, speaking in a radio interview, said that the primary reason that minority voters stay away from the polls was apathy.

Speaking on “Keeping It Real” with Al Sharpton, President Obama admitted, “Most of these laws are not preventing the overwhelming majority of folks who don't vote from voting. Most people do have an ID. Most people do have a driver's license. Most people can get to the polls. It may not be as convenient; it may be a little more difficult. There may be a few people who are impeded.”

The Justice Department, led by Obama appointee Eric Holder, had argued precisely the opposite. In challenges to numerous state voter ID laws, the government had argued that the laws were unfair to minority voters and liberals charged that they were an attempt to suppress black voters, who traditionally support Democrats.

Obama’s admission comes in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the new Texas voter ID law for this year’s midterm elections. In addition to a battle for control of the U.S. Senate, the election in Texas features a heated gubernatorial race between Republican Greg Abbott and Wendy Davis, a rising star of the Democratic Party.

In the same interview, Obama answered Sharpton’s query about people who were worried about the reliability of vulnerable Democrats. “Here’s the bottom line,” Obama said, “We’ve got a tough map. A lot of the states that are contested this time are states that I didn’t win. So some of the candidates there, it’s difficult for them to have me in the state because the Republicans will use that to try to fan Republican turnout. The bottom line though is these are all folks who vote with me, they have supported my agenda in Congress….” The president continued, “They are the right side of minimum wage, they are on the right side of fair pay, they are on the right side of rebuilding our infrastructure, they are on the right side of early childhood education. So this isn’t about my feelings being hurt. These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me and I tell them, you do what you need to win….”

Voter ID laws have generally been upheld by the Supreme Court. According to Ballotpedia, 19 states, including Georgia, now have laws on the books requiring voters to present photo identification.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

How to solve the GOP problem with minorities and millennnials

Barack Obama’s two presidential election victories were built on the backs of three groups in which he received landslide victories. Obama won with margins on the order of two-to-one with black, Hispanic and young voters both times he ran. These lopsided numbers provided him with the slim margin that he needed to eke out a victory over Mitt Romney in spite of a strong showing by Romney among white voters. If any Republican hopes to win a national election in the future, it is axiomatic that he must slice deeply into the Democratic advantage with minority and millennial voters.

 The Democratic plan has been one of targeting their message to individual demographic groups in a divide-and-conquer strategy. Black voters are told that Republicans are racist and want to suppress them at the polls and repeal the Voting Rights Act. Hispanics are told that Republicans are racist and want to deport them. Millennials are swayed by Obama’s “cool” factor. The razor thin rationales targeting the various demographic groups should be permeable to Republican attacks.

President Obama’s unpopularity and the failure of his agenda present a unique opportunity for Republicans. Voters who were firmly in the Obama camp may now be willing to listen to alternative viewpoints. Charles Ellison recently wrote in The Root that dissatisfaction with the president and high black unemployment are resulting in tempered black support for Democratic candidates. Likewise, high unemployment among millennials may hurt their support for Democrats as well. With respect to Hispanics, Democrats have promised immigration reform for six years and failed to deliver.

The necessary first step for Republicans is to remove the stumbling blocks that prevent minorities from voting for Republican candidates. Republican candidates should put themselves in the shoes of minority voters and acknowledge that black and Hispanic Americans do have a different experience than white Americans. Republicans should take this into account and consider how certain messages will sound to minority voters.

Guilt by association is real. Conservatives should temper their enthusiasm for the defense of people like George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson. Springing to the defense of alleged murderers, especially before all the facts are known, is just as wrong as calling for their heads. Conservatives should also distance themselves from racists such as Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling. These people have the freedom to spout racist nonsense, but they don’t have the freedom to duck the consequences.

Conservatives should also refrain from pointing out that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the other race baiters are the real racists. It’s obvious, but also irrelevant, that there is a double standard.
The biggest stumbling block for Hispanics is immigration. The Tea Party fringe that insists on deportation and no “amnesty,” by which they mean any immigration reform, seems bent on driving Latinos permanently into the Democratic camp. These opponents of “amnesty” claim not to the see the problems in the current system in which businesses and farms depend on immigrant labor, but under which legal immigration can take decades.

The next step for Republicans is to show up. Republican candidates should make frequent visits to ethnic neighborhoods and listen to the voters there. This should not merely be an election year exercise. They should forge long-term relationships with community leaders. It is harder to paint a Republican as an evil racist if the people already know and trust him. Minority voters won’t vote for Republicans if Republican candidates don’t show up to ask for their votes.

Finally, Republicans should find out where a majority Americans agree with them and oppose the Democrats. An October 2014 Gallup poll found that the top three issues for voters were the economy (17 percent), dissatisfaction with government (16 percent) and unemployment/jobs (10 percent). These were the only issues to rank in double-digits and, coincidentally, a separate Gallup poll found that voters favor Republicans on these issues. These are the issues that Republicans should be talking about.

While Republicans should not mimic the Democratic ploy of making separate promises to different demographic groups, they should target campaign messages to different groups. While it is true that a rising tide lifts all boats and that conservative principles would benefit the nation as a whole, Republicans can no longer simply spin out a generic message and wait for minority voters to flock to their banner.

The best strategy may be to take the advice of economist Arthur Brooks, who wrote in the Wall St. Journal that conservatives must make their policies personal to voters instead of railing against abstract ideas and things. By connecting with voters on a personal level and explaining how conservative ideas can help the poor, Brooks says, “Conservative leaders will be able to stand before Americans who are struggling and feel marginalized and say, ‘We will fight for you and your family, whether you vote for us or not’—and truly mean it.”

This means that conservatives should spend less time talking about abstract ideas and social issues. Republicans must deemphasize issues like abortion, marriage and even the repeal of ObamaCare. They should completely stop talking about things like amnesty, impeachment, and birth certificates. At best these issues are divisive. At worst, they alienate voters.

What Republicans should spend more time talking about how is Democratic policies hurt real people and their families, playing to their advantage on the economy and jobs. Republican candidates should stand with the unemployed who have been unable to find jobs in the Obama economy, the family breadwinner struggling to support a family on less than he made in 2008, the college graduate with no employment prospects and the cancer patient whose health insurance policy was canceled due to the Affordable Care Act. Republicans should make an emotional connection with voters by putting names and faces to real effects of the Obama agenda.

When the Republicans win control of the Senate, passing immigration reform unilaterally should be a top priority. If President Obama chooses to veto Republican immigration reform, the Democrats might well incur the wrath of Hispanic voters, while the Republicans could, for once, be the party of “si’.” Democrats promised immigration reform for six years, but didn’t deliver. This leaves the GOP with an opportunity. One need look back no further than 2004, or even more recently to Chris Christie in New Jersey and Rick Perry in Texas, to see that a conservative can win Hispanic votes.

With respect to millennials, emphasizing jobs and playing down social issues may help the GOP since younger voters tend to be more liberal on social issues, but may lean conservative on size and role of government. Removing Obama from the ballot may help as well. Potential Democratic candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren lack the president’s hipness and youth appeal. In the pre-Obama elections, young voters were more closely divided. George W. Bush even tied the demographic with Al Gore in 2000.

Republicans don’t have to change their principles or write off entire demographics to the Democrats, but neither will these groups simply fall into the GOP camp by default. To win these voters, Republicans must show up, listen to their concerns, and convince them that conservative ideas will make their lives better. Read the rest on Examiner.com

Who killed Trayvon Martin? An honest discussion of race and crime

Earlier this week on July 16, Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the NAACP convention in Orlando in the wake of the George Zimmerman verdict. In the speech, Holder said that the “tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honestly – and openly – about the complicated and emotionally-charged issues that this case has raised.” In truth, the national conversation about the killing of Trayvon Martin has been anything but honest. 

George Zimmerman admits that he shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Even though Zimmerman pulled the trigger to fire the shot that ultimately killed Martin, he was not the only cause of Martin’s death. There seems to be plenty of blame to go around.

As noted in Examiner, Zimmerman, a registered Democrat, lived in a racially mixed neighborhood. In fact, Martin’s father’s girlfriend lived in the same neighborhood. It is unlikely that Zimmerman would have thought the mere presence of a black teenager would be alarming unless he was acting suspiciously. The Daily Caller reported in April 2012 that Zimmerman was one of few people in Sanford who pushed for justice in 2010 when the son of a white police officer beat a black man.

It seems likely that there is more to the case than the media narrative of a racist neighborhood watch captain killing an innocent black teenager. In many accidents, investigators point to a chain of events that lead up to the final incident. If any of the events that link together to cause the accident had not occurred the accident chain might have been broken. In the case of Trayvon Martin, there are several links in the chain.

The most obvious link in the chain is the string of burglaries that occurred in George Zimmerman’s neighborhood prior to his encounter with Trayvon Martin. According to CNN, there were at least eight burglaries within the previous 14 months. CNN notes that witnesses reported black males were responsible in three to four of the incidents while the other four had no witnesses or suspects. One resident said that George Zimmerman had called to alert police to a burglary in progress at his home on Feb. 2. Zimmerman’s call noted that the burglar in this case was also a black man.

According to the FBI, blacks represent 28 percent of arrests in the United States even though they make up only 13 percent of the population according to the Census Bureau. This means that they commit a disproportionate number of crimes compared to other demographic groups. Half of all murder arrests and more than half of robbery arrests are blacks. Thirty-one percent of burglary arrests are blacks. The statistics are even higher for juvenile arrests. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks are “disproportionately represented among both homicide victims and offenders.”

None of this means that every black person should be automatically suspected of criminal behavior. However, it does show that if a black teenager is acting strangely and looking into houses as Zimmerman alleges, investigating further is not unreasonable. The very purpose for the existence of a neighborhood watch is to be alert for suspicious activity regardless of race.

The question is why crime and incarceration rates among blacks are so much higher than their share of the total population. The answer can likely be found in the destruction of the black family. Data from the Annie E. Casey Foundation shows that 67 percent of black children live in single-parent households. This is a far greater rate than for other races. Seventy-two percent of black children are born to unwed mothers according to NBC News.

The link between single-parent families and risky behaviors of children is well established. According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, especially when the absent parent is the father, children are much more likely to become sexually active, use drugs, and have increased risk of juvenile delinquency.

The underlying truths represented by these statistics may have shaped Trayvon Martin’s young life. Martin’s step-mother, Alicia Stanley, raised him for 14 years until she and Trayvon’s father, Tracy Martin, divorced. Trayvon apparently changed after the divorce. In a CNN interview, Stanley said that he wasn’t a “thug” and that language like “creepy-ass cracker” was not used their home. Stanley said that she did not believe that race was a factor in the shooting.

Nevertheless, New York Times reported that, after the shooting, pictures and text messages found on Trayvon’s cell phone included guns, drugs, fighting and the fact that he had been kicked out of his mother’s house. One picture apparently shows Martin smoking marijuana, which has been shown to cause aggression, anxiety and paranoia. The Daily Mail reports that Trayvon was suspended from school three times in the months before his death. Reasons for the suspensions were possession of a burglary tool and jewelry, truancy, and possession of marijuana paraphernalia. Twitter messages refer to Trayvon hitting a bus driver. (Martin’s complete tweets can be viewed here.) ABC News also reported that Martin’s autopsy showed THC, the drug found in marijuana, in his blood.

In one eerily prescient exchange of text messages, reported in the Miami Herald, a friend asked Trayvon “so you just turning into a lil hoodlum [?]” and then warned “Boy don’t get one planted in ya chest.” Three months later, Trayvon was dead.

There were many links in the chain that led to Trayvon Martin’s death. George Zimmerman’s ill-considered decision to follow the teen is only the most obvious. Directly related to Zimmerman’s paranoia was the spate of burglaries that local police either could not or would not solve. The “broken windows” theory of policing holds that prosecution of small crimes can prevent larger, more violent crimes. In this case, if the police had solved the string of burglaries, they might have prevented an assault and killing. Likewise, if Trayvon’s parents and school administrators had reacted more strongly to the warning signs in his academic career, he might have been “scared straight.”

The biggest and most difficult link to break is the destruction of the black family. Trayvon Martin’s problems may have stemmed from the divorce of his father and step-mother. Like many children of divorce, Martin seems to have begun having trouble at school, become involved with drugs, and finally graduated to violence. Eyewitness testimony, reported by ABC News, supports Zimmerman’s story that he was pinned by Martin and screamed for help. If Martin had returned to his father’s girlfriend’s home rather than turning to confront Zimmerman, regardless of who threw the first punch, he would be alive today. His anger, resulting from anger at his parents’ divorce and compounded by drug use, may have played a role in his decision not to walk away.

Bill Cosby is one of the few black leaders who is willing to speak frankly about the problems facing the black community. In a 2011 interview with the Christian Post, Cosby decried the rise in single-parent families and the “media that romanticizes criminal behavior, things that a person will say against women, profanity, being gangster, having multiple children with multiple men and women and not wanting to is prevalent.”

The way to prevent more Trayvon Martins is not banning stand-your-ground laws, guns or hoodies. Preventing the deaths of more young black men and women starts with repairing the damage to the black family, a much more difficult task than demonizing George Zimmerman. Perhaps that is why so many choose to ignore the problem.

Originally published as Atlanta Conservative Examiner

The system worked for George Zimmerman

Although many Americans are upset about the not guilty verdict handed down by the jury for George Zimmerman, the case is actually proof that the judicial system still works and is not controlled by politicians and interest groups. George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old black man, on February 26, 2012. Although the circumstances of the killing were uncertain, many in the media rushed to judgment and fanned the flames of race almost immediately.

Media reports immediately claimed that Zimmerman was a racist who shot Martin because he was a black man who was walking in Zimmerman’s neighborhood. As Examiner reported at the time, Zimmerman’s neighborhood was racially mixed and had suffered a large number of burglaries in the months leading up to the shooting. Martin was staying at his father’s girlfriend’s house, which was in the same gated community where Zimmerman lived. Logically, Zimmerman would not have been shocked to see a black man in his neighborhood.

The only evidence that the shooting was racially motivated seems to be the color of the men’s skin and a telephone call that Zimmerman made to the Sanford police while he was following Martin. Originally described as a 911 call, Zimmerman actually called the police department’s nonemergency line. A recording of the call was edited by NBC’s Today Show to make Zimmerman appear racist.

According to Reuters, NBC deleted several seconds of the call to make it appear that Zimmerman initially volunteered information about Martin’s race. In reality, Zimmerman only mentioned that Martin was black when queried by police. An NBC producer was fired over the incident and George Zimmerman is suing the company. The complete transcript of the call is available on Document Cloud.

Zimmerman does not dispute that he followed Martin, but says that Martin confronted him and began assaulting him after he began to return to his truck after getting out to look for a street sign. No one knows for sure what happened because there were no witnesses to the start of the fight.

In a July 2013 CNN interview, Sanford police chief Bill Lee said that there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman on the night of the shooting because the evidence supported Zimmerman’s story. One investigator did favor arresting Zimmerman for manslaughter, but Lee says that the evidence did not even support that charge and that an arrest would have violated Zimmerman’s Fourth Amendment rights. Lee said that the investigation was “taken away from us.” The mayor released the telephone tapes before the investigation was completed and Gov. Rick Scott appointed a special prosecutor in the case less than a month after the killing. Lee said that he was pressured by city officials to arrest Zimmerman, even without evidence of a crime, to placate the public. Around the same time, President Obama made a statement that, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Lee’s department presented a capias request to the state attorney to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to arrest Zimmerman, but was removed from the investigation before the request was answered.

The facts in the case must be judged on their own merit. The facts do not include sensational, and often erroneous, media reports. The skin color of the victim and his accused murderer are not relevant to the question of whether Trayvon Martin’s killing was justified. There is an old saying that “justice is blind.” Justice should also be colorblind.

The accumulated weight of hundreds of years of repression and discrimination of blacks cannot be placed upon George Zimmerman’s shoulders. Zimmerman is responsible for his own behavior and no one else’s. The banished institution of slavery was not on trial in Florida. Neither was the separate-but-(not quite) equal system of “Jim Crow” laws. In 1923, white mobs killed at least six blacks and destroyed most of the black town of Rosewood, Florida. George Zimmerman was not part of that mob. America has checkered past when it comes to race relations, but America was not on trial.

Many of Zimmerman’s critics are angry about the fact that he shot an unarmed man. Florida’s self-defense law does not require that an assailant be armed for someone to defend themselves with a gun. According to a survey by CNN, “nearly all states allow use of deadly force to protect yourself inside your home, based on the Castle doctrine,” a concept that dates back to Roman times. At least 33 other states have expanded the right self-defense to homes, offices and other areas as well. Zimmerman’s defense did not hinge on the Castle Doctrine according to Bill Lee. According to his testimony, Zimmerman could not retreat since he was pinned by Martin.

Florida law provides that a person is justified when they “reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.” George Zimmerman told police that Martin attacked him and told him, “You’re gonna die tonight, mothaf____!” according to Business Insider. At that point, Zimmerman said that his gun became exposed and both men reached for it. Zimmerman was able to get the gun and shoot Martin. Zimmerman’s critics may disagree with the law as it is written, but the jury was required to decide the case based on current law, not what pundits believe the law should be.

In American jurisprudence, criminal defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Jurors should not enter the trial with preconceived notions about the defendant’s guilt or innocence. It is up to the prosecutor to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that it is “beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible” and “that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts” according to West’s law encyclopedia. In practice, this means that the American justice system defaults to a position where guilty men sometimes go free so that fewer innocent men will go to jail.

In the end, for both Bill Lee’s police investigators and the jury, there was simply not enough evidence to charge or convict George Zimmerman. The prosecution seems to have been pushed for political reasons to answer the media and public calls for Zimmerman’s arrest. The pressure may have emanated from as high as President Obama’s Department of Justice. The prosecution of George Zimmerman was an attempt to subvert justice for political reasons. In the end, in spite of the pressure, the system worked.

Originally published by Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Racial divide may shore up Obama approval

A new poll by Gallup illustrates the large opinion divide between whites and minorities and may help explain why President Obama’s job approval remains high in spite of a spate of recent scandals. Even though his administration has been buffeted by a series of scandals over the past few months including questions about Benghazi, IRS abuse of conservative groups, spying on reporters, telephone and computer surveillance of Americans, and the revelation that the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature piece of legislation, is driving up insurance prices. In spite of the scandals, President Obama still has a 47 percent approval rating according to Gallup (44 percent disapprove).

A new Gallup poll released today shows that the president’s support is concentrated among minorities, who are also more confident in most American institutions. The poll compares the confidence of non-Hispanic white adults with those of Hispanics and blacks. The sharpest difference between the two groups was their confidence in the presidency. Fifty-four percent of nonwhites had confidence in the presidency compared with 29 percent of whites, a difference of 25 percentage points.

By double-digit margins, nonwhites also had more confidence in television news, Congress and newspapers. By smaller margins, they also were more confident in nine other categories that ranged from the church to unions to banks and “big business.”

There were three categories in which the confidence of whites exceeded that of minorities. These categories included small business (69-52 percent) and the police (60-48 percent). There was also strong support for the military (79-72 percent) from a broad cross section of Americans.

The poll notes that much minority confidence in the presidency is likely due to the fact that Barack Obama is the nation’s first black president. This is borne out when Hispanic and black attitudes are compared. Seventy-one percent of blacks were confident in the presidency compared to only 44 percent of Hispanics. While President Obama’s support among blacks remains high, it is sharply lower than the 93 percent he received in the 2012 election according to an Examiner analysis of exit polls. Obama received 73 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012.

Over the past few years, nonwhites have become more confident in many institutions of government while whites have lost confidence. In a 2004-2006 poll, whites were more confident in the presidency by a margin of 47-32 percent. Gallup points out that part of the disparity can be explained by the fact that Obama is Democrat and minorities tend to favor Democrats.

There is some good news for Republicans in the poll in the decline in confidence in the presidency over Obama’s 2012 vote share. The problem for Republicans is how a party that is perceived to be dominated by whites can appeal to disaffected minorities.

The poll is an aggregate of interviews conducted in June 2011, 2012, and 2013 so the full impact of the recent scandals may not be taken into account.

Originally published on Examiner.com

Polling predicts Romney landslide

As the presidential election enters the home stretch, the race is still tight according to the polls. Most recent national polls now give Mitt Romney the edge. Gallup shows Obama trailing by five points nationally. According to a new Rasmussen poll released today, Romney leads 49-47 percent.

In the swing states, many races are trending towards Romney as well. In Florida (29 electoral votes), the majority of polls show Romney in the lead. This is also true in North Carolina (15 votes).

The swing states of Virginia and Ohio remain a statistical tie. In both states, however, President Obama is polling at less than 50 percent, a bad sign for an incumbent. In Virginia (13 votes), Real Clear Politics average of polls shows the president with an average of 47 percent. In Ohio (18 votes), President Obama gets 48 percent. The most recent poll in Ohio is a Rasmussen sample that shows Mitt Romney leading 50-48.

Historical precedent shows that undecided voters usually vote against the incumbent. Polling Report studies found that over 80 percent of the time, undecided voters chose the challenger. The Incumbent Rule holds that incumbents rarely get a higher percentage of the vote than they receive in pre-election polls. This means that Mitt Romney will probably win in both Ohio and Virginia. These victories would give Romney 266 electoral votes, four short of the 270 required to win the White House.

There are many opportunities to win the extra four votes. In six states, President Obama leads in the polling, but with less than 50 percent. These states include Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. A win in any of these states along with victories in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia would seal Mitt Romney’s victory. Current polling suggests that he may win all of them. Currently polling also suggests that Oregon, where the president is polling at 48 percent, may be in play.

The situation is discouraging for Obama because the states in play are all states that he won in 2008. There are no states that voted for McCain in 2008 that are trending toward Obama this year. Several possible swing states (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) are normally solidly Democratic.

The only swing state in which President Obama is polling at 50 percent or more is Nevada. Polls there have showed the president with 50 to 51 percent according to Real Clear Politics. This suggests a one to two point victory over Mitt Romney.

If the Incumbent Rule holds true, Mitt Romney will win the election with 331 electoral votes to Barack Obama’s 207. You can view the Atlanta Conservative Examiner’s prediction of the election’s outcome in detail on 270towin.com. You can also create your own electoral map.

Mitt Romney will also win the popular vote, avoiding a repeat of the divisive aftermath of the 2000 election in which George W. Bush won the electoral vote by winning Florida, but lost the popular vote to Vice President Al Gore. Based on current polls, Romney should win approximately 53 percent of the popular vote.

The idea of a Republican landslide in the presidential election is also supported by Gallup’s party identification poll. At this point in 2008, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 34 to 33 percent with 32 percent considering themselves independent. In 2010, Democrats still outnumbered Republicans, this time by 32 to 29 percent. Independents had increased to 36 percent. The most recent data, from September 2012, shows 28 percent Republican, 32 percent Democrat, and 38 percent independent. This is almost identical to 2010, when the Republicans won a congressional landslide.

Additionally, the Associated Press reported last week that Mitt Romney had closed the gender gap with President Obama as well. At one time, Obama had a 16 point advantage among women. The recent AP-Gfk poll now shows the two candidates tied at 47-47 among women. Previous polls have shown the president losing support among black voters and young voters, two core constituencies from 2008.

Barring a successful last-minute October surprise, it seems almost certain that Mitt Romney will not only win the presidential election, but that he will do so handily. What was a close race throughout the summer now seems to be trending toward a landslide.

Originally published on Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/article/polling-points-to-romney-landslide?cid=db_articles

The Obama convention bounce is a myth

The supposed post-convention bounce in the polls that President Obama enjoyed briefly seems to have evaporated. Of the three most recent polls, all of likely voters, two show the race as a statistical dead heat. The outlier poll shows Obama with a six point lead.

Rasmussen’s daily presidential tracking poll now shows Obama leading Romney 46-45 percent. Five percent are still undecided while four percent prefer another candidate. Rasmussen notes that when “leaners” are included, Romney leads 48-47. A Washington Post/ABC News poll found similar results. President Obama led Mitt Romney 49-48 among likely voters in that poll. The outlier was the CNN/ORC poll in which 52 percent preferred Obama to Romney’s 46 percent.

In all cases the polls do not reflect the disturbing events of the past few days. On September 11, rioters stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo, an event which first prompted the Obama Administration to condemn “those who abuse the universal right of free speech” according to Politico. Yesterday, the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Domestically, the September jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was disappointing even though the unemployment rate edged down slightly to 8.1 percent as many people stopped looking for work. The 96,000 jobs added in August were below the average for the year and below the number needed to account for population growth. The BLS also revised downward the job estimates for July.

The president may also be potentially embarrassed the teacher strike in Chicago, part of which he represented in the Illinois state senate. Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama’s former chief of staff, is now the mayor of Chicago. The strike returns the issue of public employee unions to the forefront. The Chicago teachers are demanding pay raises even though Chicago Public Schools are currently operating at a $665 million deficit. If the raises are granted, the school system deficit would rise to $1 billion according to the Chicago Sun Times. Pay raises would likely mean that tax increases in a city that already has some of the highest taxes in the nation.

It was also revealed last week that the Department of Justice is suing Gallup, a prominent polling organization. According to the DOJ, the suit relates to whistleblower claims that Gallup overcharged the government for federal contracts. Critics point out that the federal government joined the suit after Obama campaign advisor David Axelrod criticized Gallup’s polling methodology in the wake of a poll unfavorable to Obama. Emails published by the Daily Caller suggest that Axelrod pressured Gallup to change its methodology.

The biggest problem for President Obama in the polls may be one that is totally unseen. In an article on The Hill, Dick Morris points out that pollsters are using a flawed sample. According to Morris, all pollsters are using models based on 2008 turnout. The problem is that the electorate has changed dramatically in the past four years.

For example, in Gallup’s party affiliation poll, Democrats outnumbered Republicans in November 2008 by a margin of 51-40 percent when leaners were included. Since then, however, Democratic Party identification has dropped precipitously. The most current poll shows the two parties almost tied at 49-46 percent favoring the Democrats. This is almost identical to the numbers in November 2010 (44-47 percent favoring Democrats) when the GOP won a landslide congressional victory.

Similarly, the demographic groups that propelled President Obama to power in 2008 do not support him nearly as strongly now. A Gallup poll from 2008 showed that 99 percent of black voters favored Obama. According to Examiner, it is likely that his support among blacks is now far lower due to high unemployment among blacks and the president’s “evolution” on same-sex marriage. Likewise, other polling data suggests that the president’s support among Latinos and young voters may be much lower than it was in 2008. While these groups still support the president, it is by smaller margins and with less enthusiasm than 2008.

In his Hill article, Morris also points out that voters favor the Republican idea that government should “leave me alone” over the Democratic idea that it should “lend me a hand” by a margin of 54 to 35 percent. Most also believe that the country is worse off today than in 2008. Together with President Obama’s low job approval rating, which was recently as low as 29 percent among independents according to Rasmussen, these factors indicate trouble for the president that is not accurately reflected in the polls.

Black voters look beyond Obama

Recently my wife and I were eating an Atlanta-area fast food restaurant when my wife struck up a conversation with a black lady sitting next to us. As the conversation turned to politics, I braced myself, assuming the woman to be an Obama supporter. However, as she spoke, my admittedly stereotypical view was shattered.

The woman, who I’ll call Julia, was very disenchanted with current state of the economy. She told us how she was a teacher with advanced degrees in mathematics. Because of cutbacks in the school systems, she was unable to find a suitable job and was working as a preschool teacher for small children, a job that she clearly disliked.

Economic data tells us that there are likely many more Julias out there. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics report for August, the national unemployment rate remained steady at 8.3 percent. The unemployment rate for blacks was significantly higher at 14.1 percent. According to historical data from the Labor Center at UC Berkeley , black unemployment has chronically been significantly higher than the nation as a whole or other ethnic groups.

The Center for Responsible Lending found that black homeowners were disproportionately affected by the foreclosure crisis. Black and Latino homeowners were more likely to be at risk of foreclosure than other whites. Among recent borrowers, blacks and Hispanics were almost twice as likely as non-Hispanic whites to lose their homes.

Additionally, President Obama disappointed many black leaders with his declaration of support for same-sex marriage several months ago. According to a Pew Poll, only 36 percent of black voters approve of same-sex marriage. The Coalition of African-American Pastors, a nonpartisan group, recently launched an online petition drive supporting traditional marriage.

“The hijacking of the civil rights movement by homosexuals, bisexuals and gender-confused people must and will stop,” Rev. William Owens, the group’s founder, said in a joint press release. “We will stand in our pulpits, stand in the streets, stand in the chambers of policymaking and stand at the ballot box for those who are for God’s design of marriage and family.”

Some black voters might also be disappointed with the president’s snub of the NAACP at this year’s convention. Mitt Romney addressed the conventioneers in a speech that drew both boos and cheers. President Obama, however, did not attend the convention, appearing only in a brief video message. Vice President Joe Biden did speak at the convention.

Black voters still overwhelmingly approve of President Obama’s job performance. Gallup recently polled 85 percent support for the president among blacks. Nevertheless, even though Obama’s support among blacks is still significant, it marks a large drop since 2008 when the Obama won 95 percent of the black vote according to CNN exit polls. A 10 percent decline could make the difference in swing states, especially those with large populations of black voters.

In Georgia, the loss of black support has been even more dramatic. CNN reports that 98 percent of Georgia’s black voters cast their ballot for Obama in 2008. A July poll from Insider Advantage shows the president with only 76 percent of the black vote. Tellingly, only six percent favored Romney while almost 18 percent remained undecided.

In one of the most recent state polls, an August 12 Survey USA poll of 585 likely voters in Missouri, 85 percent of black voters indicated that they will vote for President Obama. According to CNN, Obama won 93 percent of black voters in Missouri in 2008. At eight percent, Mitt Romney’s share of black voters was almost identical to John McCain’s seven percent. The remaining seven percent of black voters are undecided.

In the Missouri poll, Romney wins 45 percent of all voters to Barack Obama’s 44 percent. Five percent are undecided. This illustrates how even a small movement of black voters away from the president can cause a battleground state to swing toward Romney. This is true even if they simply stay away from the polls and don’t vote for either candidate.

Like many other black voters, Julia, while disenchanted with Barack Obama, is not completely sold on Mitt Romney. However, for what may be the first time in many years, large numbers of black voters are open to an appeal from Republican candidates. President Obama’s economic policies have not helped black voters find jobs or keep their homes. If Republicans continue to reach out to minorities and point to the growing number of black Republican candidates and elected officials such as Allen West and Artur Davis, the minority flight from the Democratic Party may increase.

Originally published on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/article/black-voters-look-beyond-obama

Marriage evolution may cost Obama votes

President Obama’s evolution on marriage in which he returned to his previously stated position of supporting a right for same-sex couples to marry may hurt the president with black and independent voters in November. The president, who was widely believed to be a closeted supporter of same-sex marriage, removed all doubt in a statement last week in which he said that he personally believed that “it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married” according to ABC News.

The president did say that the issue belonged to the states, but his administration is not defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The act, passed with broad bipartisan support in 1996 prevents states from being required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and defines marriage as between a man and woman for the purposes of federal law.

Obama’s decision to endorse same-sex marriage is widely believed to have a positive effect on his re-election campaign. Gay marriage supporters typically point to polls that show that gay marriage has gained acceptance in the past decade. Some recent polls even show that gay marriage support outstripping opposition by small margins.

The vote on a definition of marriage amendment to North Carolina’s constitution should serve as a warning to those who believe that same-sex marriage is a winning issue for the president. Before the election, polling in North Carolina had indicated that voters in the Tar Heel State were poised to reject the amendment. In a Public Policy poll from September 2011 North Carolina voters opposed the amendment by a margin of 55-30 percent. Fifty-four percent of respondents favored legalizing gay marriage or civil unions. The results cut across party lines.

More recently, in April 2012, another Public Policy poll found that 53 percent of North Carolina voters supported either gay marriage or civil unions, while 54 percent of voters supported the marriage amendment. In the final analysis, the North Carolina marriage amendment passed by a margin of 61-39 percent according to CBS News, an even larger margin that polling had predicted especially given that the trend was in the direction of rejecting the amendment.

The potential problem for President Obama is that polls on same-sex marriage seem to consistently overstate its support in the electorate. Even though same-sex marriage has gained approval in opinion polls, it has never won at the ballot box. When Georgians voted on marriage in 2004, 76 percent favored traditional marriage according to results from the Secretary of State. Even in the bluest of the blue states, traditional marriage always wins out when the voters have a chance to decide. The logical conclusion is that polling about same-sex marriage errs on the side of gay marriage advocates.

The question is whether opposition to gay marriage will translate into opposition to President Obama now that he has publicly and irrevocably identified himself with the issue. Even a small number of voters who desert the president because of his stance on marriage may be enough to sway the election. In the swing states, the defection of voters over the marriage issue could prove decisive.

Just before the president’s announcement, Politico recently analyzed polls about same-sex marriage from several of the battleground states. In addition to North Carolina, a plurality of voters in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa oppose same-sex marriage. The results from Pennsylvania were mixed. Since almost all of the swing states clearly support traditional marriage by large margins, President Obama runs the risk of alienating independent voters with his newfound support of gay marriage.

Black voters in particular represent a vulnerable constituency for the president. President Obama won 95 percent of black voters in 2008 according to the Roper Center. Yet according to a Pew poll, only 36 percent of black voters approve of same-sex marriage. Compounding the problem for Obama is that his economic policies have not been kind to blacks. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the unemployment rate for blacks is at 13 percent, significantly above the national average. The question for 2012 is whether black voters will put ethnicity ahead of their social values and economic interests.

Until Election Day there is no way to know for certain the impact of President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage. Early indications are that there are a wide range of reactions in the black community ranging from condemnation to cautious support. Often there seemed to be support and admiration for the president in spite of opposition to his stance. An Atlanta pastor, Rev. Tim McDonald, told CBS Atlanta, “You can say I'm opposed to it (same-sex marriage), but that doesn't mean I'm against the president.”

Precedent for this perception can be found in California in 2008 when Californians voted against same-sex marriage and for the Democratic Party, the pro-same-sex marriage party, at the same time. CBS Atlanta notes that 70 percent of blacks voted to preserve traditional marriage while 94 percent voted for then-Senator Obama. The difference is that, at the time, Obama supported traditional marriage as well even though many in his party did not.

In the final analysis, it is likely that President Obama’s position on same-sex will cost him votes, the question is how many. Even a relatively small percentage of defections from black and independent voters could radically alter the outcome of the election.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s-evolution-on-marriage-could-cost-votes-from-blacks-independents

DeWitt Rucker: Buffalo Soldier of the M.P.E.

It was around Memorial Day 2011 that a high school friend posted a message on her Facebook page. In my hometown, there was a display on the town square honoring the veterans from Hart County who were killed in action. Predictably, there were veterans from the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, but one memorial was a mystery.

This memorial honored Private DeWitt Rucker. The conflict listed under his name was simply “M.P.E.” Since the memorial did not give the date of Pvt. Rucker’s death, my friend wondered what conflict the M.P.E was. After trying unsuccessfully to determine how and when Rucker died, she described the experience on Facebook to see if anyone else knew. Searches of the military and history websites for some clue to Rucker’s story yielded nothing. Googling “M.P.E.” did not turn up any relevant results. Eventually, with a handful of people scouring the internet, some details of how DeWitt Rucker died for his country became known.

The break came when Pvt. Rucker’s name was found listed on a memorial to Buffalo Soldiers at Ft. Bliss, Tx. The Buffalo Soldiers were black soldiers in the U.S. Army. The nickname was acquired during the Indian Wars, but all-black units of Buffalo Soldiers fought in several American wars until the armed forces were desegregated.

The key to decoding the “M.P.E.” reference was also on the website describing the Buffalo Soldiers memorial. Pvt. Rucker was among the casualties of the Battle of Carrizal, Mexico on June 21, 1916. The battle was part of a campaign known as the Mexico Punitive Expedition, the M.P.E.

The adventure into Mexico began on March 9, 1916 when Mexican bandits under Francisco “Pancho” Villa, who led one of the factions vying for control of Mexico, raided the border town of Columbus, N.M. according to the National Archives. The raid killed 10 American soldiers and eight civilians with another seven soldiers and two civilians wounded. An estimated 100 bandits were killed, seven wounded, and one captured before the remainder escaped back into Mexico. The Americans pursued the bandits several miles into Mexico, but were forced to turn back due to a shortage of ammunition and supplies.

As a result of the raid, President Woodrow Wilson, apparently without congressional authorization, ordered a U.S. force that eventually numbered 11,000 men under Gen. John “Black Jack” Pershing to capture Villa. With tacit approval, but very little in the way of cooperation, from Mexican president Venustiano Carranza, the U.S. Army set out into the Mexican state of Chihuahua, south of New Mexico and west Texas. For the first time, trucks and airplanes were used in a military expedition (with less than stellar results).

Pancho Villa and his men retreated before the American onslaught, hiding in the rugged mountains of Mexico. Although the local Mexicans hated Villa, they like the Americans even less and offered little help. There were a few skirmishes with Villa’s men, but the bandit chief eluded capture.

To make matters worse, there were also skirmishes with the Mexican army. On April 13, 1916, the Mexican army attacked Americans of the 13^th Cavalry at Parral. One American was killed and one was wounded, while the Mexicans lost at least 14 men.

Other skirmishes were fought against the bandits as well. Dozens of bandit were killed or captured with few American losses, but Villa remained at large. At the same time, Mexican raiders continued to raid border towns in Texas. In May and June 1916, Congress approved activation of National Guard units to patrol the U.S. side of the border.

On June 21, American soldiers again clashed with the Mexican army at Carrizal. Acting on intelligence that Pancho Villa was in the town, Pershing dispatched the Buffalo Soldiers of C and K Troops of the 10^th Cavalry under Capt. Charles Boyd with orders “to avoid a fight if possible.” Instead of Villa, the cavalrymen ran into Mexican government soldiers who were guarding the town. Max Boot describes what happened next in his excellent book, “The Savage Wars of Peace:”

There was no good reason not to bypass the town, and that is precisely what Boyd’s civilian guides advised, but for some mysterious reason Boyd insisted on going through with it. He was not deterred even when the Mexican general commanding the Carrizal garrison informed him that if he advanced “he would have to walk over the dead bodies of Mexican soldiers.” Boyd was said to have instructed a messenger, “Tell the son of a bitch that we’re going through!” Boyd dismounted his cavalry and ordered them to advance across a grassy field toward an irrigation ditch where the vastly superior Mexican force was dug in. When the Americans were about 250 yards from their position, the Carrancistas opened fire with rifles and machine gun. Nearly all the men in Troop C were wounded. The Buffalo Soldiers fought bravely, but with bullets “falling like rain,” and their own ammunition running out, they had no chance of prevailing. All the officers, including Captain Boyd, were killed quickly. The troopers, left leaderless, were routed by Mexican cavalry. Twelve Americans were killed that day, 10 wounded, and 24 captured. The rest ran away. The Mexicans lost more men – at least 30 killed, 40 wounded – but the battle of Carrizal was an unmitigated disaster for the U.S. Army.

Pvt. DeWitt Rucker, native of Hart County and U.S. Army Buffalo Soldier, was among the dead. It was rumored that Pancho Villa watched with amusement from a hideout in the mountains as his two enemies battled, but in reality he is believed to have been wounded at the time.

At this point, the U.S. and Mexico were on the brink of war. Leaders of both countries paused. Carranza agreed to release the U.S. prisoners who had survived the battle. According to Boot, these men blamed Boyd for provoking the battle in violation of his orders from Pershing, which helped calm the situation. Eventually, the U.S. agreed to withdraw its forces from Mexico if Carranza could control Villa. The American forces in Mexico began to return home in January 1917. The conflict officially ended on February 5. The National Guard was demobilized and the troops returned home.
Army units remained along the border to protect against further raids.

In spite of the failure to capture Pancho Villa, the expedition was officially considered a success. The National Archives records the words of Secretary of War Newton Baker: “[the] objective, of course was the capture of Villa, if that could be accomplished, but its real purpose was a display of the power of the United States into a country disturbed beyond control of the constituted authorities of the Republic of Mexico as a means of controlling lawless aggregations of bandits and preventing attacks by them across the international frontier.  This purpose is fully and finally accomplished."

Only a few months after the end of the American incursion into Mexico, President Wilson and General Pershing were fighting a new enemy as the United States entered WWI. Memory of the Mexico Punitive Expedition was overshadowed by the epic struggle against the Kaiser in Europe. A 1917 silent movie, “A Trooper of Troop K,” was based on Buffalo Soldiers at the Battle of Carrizal.

Fighting continued in Mexico as it had before the Americans had arrived. Carranza fought for control of Mexico against Villa and Emiliano Zapata. Carranza was assassinated in 1920 while fleeing a coup attempt. Pancho Villa was given amnesty by the new government, but was assassinated himself in 1923. Another rumor has him saying as he died, “Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something.” In reality, he is reported to have died instantly.

There are many similarities between current Mexican-American relations those of 100 years ago. Violence along the border is increasing and threatens to spill over into the United States. The National Guard has been called upon to patrol border areas. Tensions are running high between the two nations over illegal immigration and the Obama Administration’s policy of allowing guns to be smuggled to Mexican drug cartels. Perhaps, the lessons of the past can teach us to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

Originally published on Examiner.com":
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/dewitt-rucker-buffalo-soldier-of-the-m-p-e