I was watching the Kentucky/Kansas final last night when during halftime Clark Kellogg interviewed President Obama. It wasn’t a bad interview– he mentioned his love of watching his daughter Sasha play basketball. When Clark Kellogg asked President Obama to shoot a game of HORSE (POTUS is actually the game Kellogg wanted to play), the President, who won the last game between the two, denied Kellogg a rematch and talked about wanting to retire a champion as he did not want to overstay his welcome– which I’m certain gave Mitt Romney a laugh. But then he said something curious, that he would give Kellogg his rematch in his second term, when Kellogg’s knees would be a little worse for the wear.
When the President mentioned his second term he certainly did not say "if" he said "when."
Did I miss the Presidential election? Was He reelected?
I understand telling the Russian President of his need for a little patience on negotiation until after a presidential election. I’m not going to get up in arms about a frank discussion on what a sitting president can do while he’s in campaign mode versus after he wins his last election. And more importantly, his Russian counterparts also understand.
But Obama’s certainty about shooting hoops with Clark Kellogg in three years seemed as certain as the sun rising tomorrow morning.
I wish I could be as certain that my house will sell. I wish I could be as certain that I can fill up my gas tank for less than $60.00.
And considering I am not certain I can do either– should President Obama be this certain he’s going to be shooting hoops at the White House in three years without an invitation?
Unfortunately for us, Obama is certain because of the chumps GOP has pitted against him. The GOP keeps comparing Obama’s presidency to Jimmy Carter’s one term presidency, but the problem is none of the GOP’s primary candidates could beat Jimmy Carter (maybe Newt could– because back in 1980 he was only cheating on his first wife rather than being thrice married).
Obama’s reelection certainty could also come from a new USA Today/Gallup poll showing the president has a 18% point lead over Romney in the top 12 swing states with a key electorate: women. Any jackass (or donkey) could see the GOP significantly tarnishing its brand with women over the last three months over something as uncontroversial as birth control. Creating controversy on birth control will get you the Duggars’ family vote, but other than winning the Arkansas vote, you lose the election because women in other states may find it troubling to have children younger than their own grandchildren.
This is reflected in the poll numbers. According to the USA Today:
The biggest change came among women under 50. In mid-February, just under half of those voters supported Obama. Now more than six in 10 do while Romney's support among them has dropped by 14 points, to 30%. The president leads him 2-1 in this group.
This is the GOP’s own doing. Last year party leaders decided on an uninspiring candidate to run against Obama. A relatively vulnerable incumbent is almost guaranteed a victory because voters do not have a good alternative. Just like 2004, when voters went to the polls voting against someone rather than voting for a President.
Filed under: National Politics