Sunday, May 6, 2012

Sarkozy Loses, and Obama Will Lose--For the Same Reason: The Maverick Conservative Gets It Right, Without Polls

The major news today is that President Sarkozy, of France, has been defeated for re-election. The Maverick Conservative told you that, AND gave you the reason: EUROPE'S ECONOMY. Yu might remember that Obama, and so many others, want us to be MOE LIKE EUROPE. Sarkozy tried to avoid "balame" for France's economic problems, which resulted in a "credit downgrade" (just like the U.S under Obama), but he did so without moving France in a NEW DIRECTIN.  You can't avoid "blame" tghat way for REAL problems.

Obama has the same problem.  His policies, doubling down on OLD leftist ideology, have not worked.  He SAID he would move this country in a NEW DIRECTION, and he has not done so (unless you regard the OLD leftist ideology as "new", on the SCALE that Obama is atempting). You simply canno tavoid "blame" taht way, and Obama will not.  No, it does not matter that tghe "socialists" won in France, and that Obama is essentialkly just as "socialist" as they are.  The "socialists" did NOT "win" in France.  The person who FAILED lost.  Obama is in the process of FAILING.  That is why this blog has already told lyou, before Sarkozy even lost, that Obama is in the same position as Sarkozy, and will LOSE for the same reason.

Is this a 100% cretain prediction?  Of course not.  It assumes that the present "trend" (of being STALLED in a BAD PLACE) in the U.S . ecnomy continues, or even looks like it is getting wrose.  If, by some miracle, we manage to have a significant bump UP in the U.S. economy this summer, then Obama has a shot.  It is hard to imagine ENOUGH "improvement" to GUARANTEE Obama a victory, desite almsot four years of FAILURE, but Obama will have--already has--the mainstream media solidly behind him.  Any APPARENT "improvement", of any significance, in the U.S. economy will be "spun" as some sort of "accomplishment" of Obama, despite this being the WORST recovery since World War II (all under Obama). However, as this blog has told you, NO ONE IS LISTENING to Obama's WORDS anymore, and tghe same can be said about the minstream media.  Tryihng t simply use WORDS to SELL the American people on a "recovery" that is STALLED is not going to work.  The media can still "spin" things if they have something to work with. But the time is GONE when they can simpy say something, and have it accepted, even as peole can SEE what is happening (or not happenign).  Nope.  IF the econonmy is stil in the same shape, in the U.S., at the time of the election that it is in now, or worse, Obama is GOING TO LOSE.

Are there not other esternal EVENTS that could enable Obama to win?  Sure.  The media jsut looks like the DISHONEST BIGOTS that they are by trying to use things like Romney's Mormon religion to defeat Romney.  No chance.  If that is all they have, they might as well hang it up.  The media partisans then HAVE NO CHANCE.  But these are DISHOENST people, who are willing to do ANYTHING to re-elect Obama. Can they manufacture a "scandal", such as a Herman Cain type of thing?  It is a chance, although I don't thinks so (with Romney).; However, there is a small chance that Romney will IMPLODE.  He will be walking in a mine field the nentire electin, because the media people ARE HIS ENEMIES.  Every slip, or sometimes things that are not even 'slips", is going to be used AGAINStT Romney as if it disqualifies Romney from being Presdient.  Given that kind of pressure, it is always possible that Romney will either make a turly major mistake, or fail to handle a MINOR matter properly.  Even that will NOT help Obama, if the econymy looks bad enough. 

Still, there are eVENTS that can happen to completely change the race. Waht happens if we get into another WAR rightr beofre lthe eleciton.  That could cut either way, but if such a "Wag the Dog" moment occurs RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION, it could be a "game changer" jsut long enough to affect the result.  Polls are EViL, meaninglesss things, and hthis is one reason.  What difference does a poll NOW make, when there are eVENTS that can totally transform the whole ecltion.  As stated, BAD events on the economy will likely TRUMP all other events, and Obama will lsoe.  Ubt events can matter, and it si folly to pretend they don't, and that some "oll" now means ANYTIHING (when most people are not even yet paying attention).

No.  The Maverick Conservative does not base the JUDGEMENT that Obama will PROBABLY (subject to events) LOSE on any "poll"--jsut as The Maverick Conservative did not tell you Sarkozy looked like a loser lbased on any poll.   The ECONOMY doomed Sarkozy, and the ECONOMY will DOOM OBAMA--unless it looks BETTER than it looks now.  Remember, McCain was AHEAD (in at least some plls, even though "ahead" is a LAUGHABLE word to use in connectin with meaningless polls) in September of 2008, UNTAIL the economy IMPLODED.  Things like the tming of conventions makes all of those "early: (and those polls were only TWO months or so away) polls meaningless, and I quesitn whether McCain was really "ahead".  But he was certainly CLOSE, until the economy went south. 

Drudge ( ran this banner headline on Saturday:  "Obama Launches Campaign to Half-Empty Stadium?"  Drudge linked to a source thatt was eeven more emphatic:  "Obama Launches Campaingn to Empty Arena".  The Drudge headline was tallking about the campaign launch in Ohio, at--I believe--Ohio State University.  Now we are talking a big stadiumm here, and you probably can't make too much out of this.  But this bog has alreayd informed you, which makes it close to an absolute fact, that Obama's WORDS no longer have the effectg they had in 2008.  Obama has CAMPAIGNED non0-sop since he was elected Presdient.  He has made SPPECH after SPEECH--often contradicting himself the next daym, or within the same speech.  NO ONE really BELIEVES what Obama says anymore.  Oh, there are a lot of peole--incluidng virtually the whole mainstream media--who want Obama to be rel-elected.  But it is absurd to suggest taht Obama really CONNECTS to peole anymore.  People have been LECTURED, wiht "soaring" rhetoric, too much.  This blog has agreed that Romney fails to really CONNECT with peole.  But that is also true of Obama.  Even Obama supporters mainly now support Obama because he is NOT ROMNEY (or some ohter GOP candidate).  The "magic" of Obama is GONE.  He no longer gets the wildly enthusiastic crowds, UNLESS they are MANUFACTAURAED.  Sure, the UNINIS can alwlays bring out a crowd (where unions have influence).  The LEFT (the "Occupy Wall Street" type of peole) can always "whip up" some sort of crowd.  But Bama no longer provides REAL EXCITEMENT.  These are simly crowds of the usual kind,:  Partisan crowds not necessariy "enghusiastic" about Obama at all . Presdient Obama has exosed himseslf as an ORDINARY LEFTIST POLITICAN, of the usual kind.  But the "enthusiasm" of the left is mainly the same kind of enthusiasm Rush Limbaugh NOW has for Mitt Romney:  PARTISAN "enthusiasm" based on the fact that you want "your side" to win.  That was not really true in 2008.

Again, this means that Obama CANNOT get re-elected on the "magic" that has gone.  And the elecitn WILL be mainly about OBAMA.  Romney has NOT yet had an opportunity to "screw it up", as Obama had not had such an opportunity in 2008.  It doesn't matter whether Ropmney realy "connects".  IF the economy is bad, he is going to be given HIS CHANCE (just as Obama was ginve his chance in 208, despite an almost TOTAL lack of reaal "qualifications").  Obama has had FOUR YEARS to "fix" the eocnomy, and he has only made a "real recovery" impossible.  If that is how things still =look at the end of Octobvber, Obama WILL LOSE, and for the very same reason that Presdient Sarkozy lost.  Bribery (of "women", "students", unions, gays, Hispanics, and nay other group Obama can thingk of) will NOT help Obama, in that situation.  "Free contraception"....................................sorry, alughing/crying in that fetal positoni again......wil NOT help.  Womne--I hate to break it to you media people--are NOT stupid enough to SELL OUT the ountry for "free contgraceetpin" (which they mostly got anyway, if they needed it).  The election will be about the ECONOMY, as it was in France.  And the pesent sate of the economy is NOAT GOOD ENOUGH.  For Obama to win, the economy MUST look like it is really "improving"--and not jsut by trying to overhype ambiguous "straws in the wind".  Real progress HAS to be made this summer, for Obama to win.  The OPPOSITE is likely, although yu can expect Obama, Bernanke and the rest to THROW EVEN MORE MONEY at the econmy n oer to simulate a real "recovery".  Can it "work" for Obama?  It is not likely, but barely possible IF Obama gets lucky with this ARTIFICIAL "stimulus" that has consistenty FAiLED to produce a real recovery. 

P.S.  No proofreading or sepll checking (bad eyesight).  Nope.  This, and similar, aarticles do NOT represent an "endorsement" of Romney by The Maverick Conservative.  This lbog still remainss NEUTRAL on who SHOULD win.  But this blog calls tthem as I sse them.  Thus, thhis blog predicted Sarkozy would lose, even though you might thing this blog would oppose the "Socialist" party.  I do, of course, oppose the Socialist Party, as I oppose Obama, but Sarkozy was hardly my idea of a "conservative", as Romney is not.  I sympathize with my borthers, who believe that four more years of Obama will DESTROY this country.  I tend to agree.  However, I also tened to thing that four years of Romney will ALSO destroy this country, although perhaps solower (good or bad?)).  It may eventually give me an ulecer, but I just can't vote again for a gOP "estalbishment" person.  That would CERTAINLY give me an ulcer, and make me hate myself forever.  Thus, I dend up NEUTRALL.  I will not vote for Romney (absent one of those"events" that changes my mind, which never happpened with McCai, although Sarah Palin ALMOST--but only almost--did it).

No comments: