The Washington Post is reporting it as one of the most painful 40 seconds of this election cycle. Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) was asked a simple question: did you vote for President Obama. What followed in the clip below was one of the most revealing 40 seconds of how bad this election is becoming for Democrats and how radioactive the President has become. Grimes refuses to answer. She is trying to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) and these mid-term elections tend to reflect the view of the incumbent president as some voters try to either add support or resistance to a president in Congress. Obama’s popularity stands at a dismal 30 percent in Kentucky. The clip is particularly interesting given the recent public statements of the President that this election is about his policies. It was an effort to rally Democrats but candidates who have been increasingly fleeing associations with the unpopular president cringed across the country. Given Obama’s national polling, an election based his policies and Administration would magnify the already great expected losses in November, including the possible loss of both houses. Even long-time ally and former campaign manager David Axelrod said that the President’s framing of the election as a vote on his policies was a huge mistake. The deer in the headlights look of Grimes reflects that point vividly.
The President’s words actually started out reflecting the national strategy of the Democratic National Committee to minimize his profile and policies in this election but he then veered directly into the wall that the Democrats are trying desperately (and unsuccessfully) to avoid:
“I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.”
You could hear Democratic candidates collectively moaning with the last part of the message. Grimes vividly illustrates the fear of association with Obama. Grimes repeatedly refuses to even admit that she voted for the leader of her party in 2008 and 2012. It was, as the Post notes, an easy question to address. Just say that you voted for him but you are disappointed in him. Instead, Grimes refuses repeatedly to answer the question from the Louisville Courier-Journal editorial board.
She then takes an equally curious spin by insisting that she is a Hillary Clinton supporter, something that is only marginally better in Kentucky.
I continually find such transformations among politicians fascinating. They will flock around a popular president as they once did with Obama but have no hesitation to treat him like a pariah once his polling numbers fall. It does not play well, as shown on this video, but they assume it is worse to admit even the slightest level of prior support for an unpopular president.
Civil libertarians have long been opposed to Obama, who quickly shredded his promised reforms from the first election and launched comprehensive attack on privacy, press rights, and other core values. However, civil libertarians remain a small part of the electorate, which is why they were the first to be jettisoned by the Obama Administration. Now there is a far broader level of opposition building around policies like immigration, health care, and international relations — the very policies that Obama highlighted as the real issue for races like that of Grimes.
Grimes is the daughter of Charlotte and Jerry Lundergan, a former Kentucky Democratic chairman and state representative. She is also a law graduate of American University. Grimes was viewed as serious challenge to McConnell who could be attacked as the classic Washington insider. However, she has been criticized for a lackluster campaign. What is fascinating is that her lead among women is only one percent, according to an article in The Week.
There is still a possibility of the classic “October surprise” factor in shifting such polls and prospects. At the moment, Obama could be looking at the lamest of lame duck terms if both houses go to the GOP. He is not alone. Democratic candidates are even turning on Nancy Pelosi on the campaign trail. The wedge political issues advanced by Pelosi over things like immigration have not panned out. Instead there has been a back lash that led Obama to promise Democrats that he would not act on immigration until after voters went to the polls. Gwen Graham, one of the Democratic Party’s candidates in Florida ran an ad saying “Here’s what I believe: Congress is broken” — it showed a picture of Pelosi as well as John Boehner. Other candidates are doing the same — running against their own leader in the house. These are strange times indeed.
Thank you Darren your post at 10-11 12:52
“Pete brings up a duality with the situation. He is correct in that the right to vote should be private, however there is another point to be made in the voters vetting a political candidate for office to have an understanding of the future decisions they might make while in office. That is why roll call votes are made in the various legislatures, so that the public can know what the representatives are doing in office.”
Exactly restates my position. My vote as a private citizen is just that…..private.
If it isn’t mandatory to know how a prospective candidate voted; it should be. We are trying to pick the candidate to represent our views. If they can hide their own past views and actions, how are we to know who the candidate actually is and what he/she might do in the future. If you as a candidate are ashamed of your past votes or have changed your positions, we need to know. It is easy to explain if you have changed your mind. People do change from their early years to their later years with their life experiences. We as voters need to KNOW.
Grimes could be misstating all of her current positions and be in 180 degrees opposition of her previous positions. And then when elected revert. Disingenuous at the least.
When you are running for a public office, you are no longer a private citizen. You are the representative of those who vote for you. If you can’t handle this…..don’t run for office.
SWM, Sorry, I use Gallup as my source, as do most objective people. They are the gold standard. Gallup has Obama tracked 38-40. But, keep raising that flag out there, some cultists will salute it as a ray of hope..and change!
rafflaw, I asked you a question over on your good post from last week on prisons. and rafflaw, if you took the time to read my comments this is ham n’ egger v ham n’ egger. I dislike McConnell as much as Reid. I use both sides of my brain.
paul, Exactly! And that is the point I have been unable to convey to these clinically depressed cultists. They have a President who Democrats are ASHAMED to admit they voted for! ASHAMED. I am just fine w/ the way this lightweight candidate answered the question. She took the fifth on whether she voted for her parties President. You can’t make this stuff up. She wasn’t a Mafioso in front of the McClellan Commission, she was a US Senate candidate being interviewed by a newspaper editorial board. I have bookmarked this thread and labeled it surreal. Cultists support their lightweight candidate pleading the 5th on her Presidential vote. As Chubby Checker asked, “How low can you go?”
http://www.wdrb.com/story/23336805/grimes-calls-for-raising-minimum-wage-to-1010 She wants to raise the minimum wage. He does not. He is the go to guy for bankers and K street lobbyists. She would advocate more for the middle class. That is what she needs to emphasis.
http://time.com/3062886/how-kentucky-got-obamacare-right/
Saturday, October 11, 2014
“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama’s job performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove (see trends)” Republican pollster. Not that low……. Kentucky has had success with obamacare. She really needs to show how different she is from McConnell. I thought he was her opponent.
The salient question for her to answer is how is she different from Obama, who now has approval ratings that are quite low. She will have been on the record for her support of Obamacare, etc. So she’s got to count on voters having amnesia, which does happen more often than one would think.
This politician was not legally required to disclose who she voted for, personally. But it was a legitimate and predictable question. It is a reminder to voters that the current disaster in office is mainly a failure of policy, not just of one man. Obama is a lame duck, but there is a long line of people behind him ready and willing to make exactly the same mistakes.
No Nick,
It is not required. No matter how you capitalize the letters. and a Ham and Egger candidate? McConnell’s campaign doesn’t think so. Check the polls.
you missed the point, nick. it was the same argument paul had used once before, i wanted to see if he remembered it.
Pete brings up a duality with the situation. He is correct in that the right to vote should be private, however there is another point to be made in the voters vetting a political candidate for office to have an understanding of the future decisions they might make while in office. That is why roll call votes are made in the various legislatures, so that the public can know what the representatives are doing in office. Voting for a particular issue in the past can provide the voters with an insight to how they might vote while in office on issues important to the voters so in that sense it is pertinent how the candidate voted in the past.
It could be that these two issues are not easily resolved either one way or another because both are correct from differing points of view.
Darren, pete and Nick – there is the legality of the situation and the reality of the situation. There is no law requiring her to say who she voted for and she is not obligated to say. However, her repeated non-answer is an answer that will be used against her. And is being used against her. She might just as well as declared herself a flaming heterosexual. The reality of the situation is that now she is going to have to come up with an answer that satisfies her supporters or lose them.
Double Prozac STAT for all the Obama cultists.
“Don’t let me teach.” I’m retired, Pedro. Collecting SS.
pete, It’s not “in the Constitution” that Congressional candidates have to disclose financial information, BUT IT IS REQUIRED. It is not “in the Constitution” that Presidential candidates disclose personal medical information, BUT IT IS REQUIRED. You’re missing the BLATANTLY obvious point here. It was a legit question and the candidate screwed the pooch. There is “no controlling legal authority”[quoting your hero, Fat Al Gore] that requires a Senate candidate to say for whom she voted. I tell you what petey, if given a do over do you think this ham n’ egger candidate would answer the question? She would pay a million bucks to have that question asked again and she would say, what I said earlier, “I voted for Obama as did the majority of voters.” And, she wishes all you folks defending her would STFU and hope this dies down. She knows she screwed the pooch, how the hell don’t you lemmings know? Chrissake, peter, what has happened to you? Let this go. This dog won’t hunt.
show me where in the constitution, or any state law or legal opinion that says anyone who runs for office has to state who they voted for in the last election or has to answer any question you wish to ask.
you have the right to not vote for them if they don’t answer, but you cannot force them to answer.
and nick, civics may be part of some history, but not all history is civics. maybe that’s why they don’t let you teach any more.
pete – there is a case where the judge did require some people to disclose who they voted for in a voter fraud case. However, I have only heard of this happening once. Other than that you are dead on correct.
The doc showed just how much Divine wanted to be a male actor. He had a good role in Trouble in Mind, a horrible film. Died in his sleep of a massive heart attack. He had a regular role written for him in the show, Married With Children, which was PERFECT for him. He did not show up for the first day of filming. They went to the hotel and found him dead. He was estranged from his family for years but reconciled before his death. It’s a very good documentary.
Paul, take heart, your Annie will be back one day. Here’s a hug and a cookie to help you cope.
Annie – if only.
Paul,
I know you must miss your dear sweet Annie.
Annie – you are clearly a legend in your own mind.
Hmm, just who was the commenter who created the huge controversy last January with his sockpuppet that a weekend blogger revealed had come from his IP address? Hmmmm, who was that person? I know who it was and so do most people here.
And yes, Rich is a superb reviewer. He’s just a red meat columnist. That’s why Imus would rip him.