US Liberal Politics

Delighted liberals likely presume that President Obama's newly revealed personal stance on gay marriage will boost his vote-getting in November.

Among most Democrats and in the bluest of Democratic-blue states, it will, of course. But Mr. Obama hardly needed a boost among those constituents; Romney was never their candidate, especially over the most progressive U.S. president in modern times.

Presidential elections are won by garnering electoral votes in crucial battleground states... those complex amalgams of Republican-red and Democratic-blue voters who combine into stews of purple indecisiveness and unpredictability. In 2012, fourteen battleground states are luring the lion's share of attention and spending by both President Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney.

How will Obama's profoundly progressive pro-gay marriage view play in those 14 key states? Here is my best prognostication...

• New Hampshire will be unaffected, or could even cause a new swell of support for President Obama. Gay marriage has been legal in the Granite State since January 1, 2010. And notoriously independent New Hampshire residents support most anything that deters government intrusion into personal lives.

• In Iowa, where same-sex marriage became legal on April 27, 2009, President Obama's reelection chances will be unaffected. Given a strong conservative Christian presence in Iowa, though, I doubt the issue will create new support for the President.
  
• In Nevada and New Mexico, Obama's pro-gay marriage views should have minimal impact on election results. Both states have extremely high Hispanic populations coupled with negligible political influence by conservative Christian groups. And both states are preoccupied with economic woes.

  Several reports even suggest that young Hispanic activists have been energized by President Obama's Obama's pro-gay marriage stance.

• In Arizona, Hispanics comprise nearly 30% of state residents. But their political influence has historically been offset by a sizable white, anti-immigrant, conservative Christian community that vehemently opposes all pro-gay rights. If Fox News is correct that "Obama's Gay Marriage Shift Energizes Immigration Activists," then the President's newly public stance can only help, not hurt, him in Arizona.

• Likewise in Colorado, pro-gay marriage support by the state's Hispanic community, 20.7% of Colorado residents, would be offset by powerful might of the large, adamantly anti-gay rights conservative Christian churches centered around Colorado Springs.

  Given that men comprise almost 51% of all Coloradans, my sense is that Obama's pro-gay marriage stance could hurt him slightly in November. Statistically, women are more inclined than men to support socially liberal causes.

• African-Americans are a huge and powerful portion of voters in four 2012 battleground states: North Carolina at 23%, Virginia at 20%, Florida at 16%, and Michigan at 14%. CBS News reported this week:

  "In a recent Pew poll, 65 percent of American blacks reported thinking of homosexuality as wrong, while only 48 percent of whites did... Also, black voters played a disproportionate role in getting the anti-gay-marriage Proposition 8 passed in California in 2008. The central role of Christianity in black America has much to do with this."

  In 2008, 95% of African-American voters nationally cast their ballots for Obama... as did 95% of African-American voters in North Carolina, 92% in Virginia, 96% in Florida, and 97% in Michigan. With such truly extraordinary support, Obama's campaign team is betting that the black community will again vote in admiring droves to reelect the President, regardless of this one issue. I believe that political calculation is spot-on correct.

Four Rust-Belt Battleground States

Which leaves four 2012 battleground states, each located in or near the economically beleaguered Rust Belt: Ohio, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Wisconsin citizens are hyper-focused on ongoing labor union spats with Tea Party Republicans in state government, and on economic and public education issues. My guess is that Obama's pro-gay marriage stance has no effect in Badger State voting on November. Domestic partnerships for same-sex couples have been legal in Wisconsin since 2009.

In Missouri, President Obama's approval ratings have hovered disastrously below 50% for most of his White House tenure. Missourians disapprove of ObamaCare, and they're plenty unhappy about federal spending, too. Show Me State residents don't like Republican Romney much more than Democrat Obama, though: polls consistently show Obama and Romney tied among Missouri voters. Gay marriage, pro or con, is among the least of Missouri's concerns about the 2012 presidential contest.

Which leaves only Ohio and Pennsylvania, both predominantly white, working-class states with massive economic anxieties, major labor union presences, and deeply held religious beliefs.

I can't hazard even a guess at to how gay marriage issues could sway Obama's 2012 electoral fortunes in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Both states are quintessential political blends of Republican red and Democratic blue voters, making murky business of election predictions. As always in presidential election in recent decades. Writes the Washington Post, "In Ohio, gay marriage debate may change few votes but inspires some, annoys others." Exactly. No one knows the impact.

In summary, it appears that President Obama's newly revealed personal pro-gay marriage beliefs may slightly boost his vote-getting in November in many of the fourteen 2012 battleground states, and is unlikely to hurt him in more than a couple of those states.

Trust me: the White House believed that well before President Obama "unexpectedly" shared the results of his personal evolution on gay marriage.

Hispanic voters, the fastest-growing demographic group per the 2010 Census, will play a decisive role in the 2012 presidential election. That is, if they don't stay away from the polls due to:

• Disappointment with President Obama's lack of political courage or action on long-promised reform of U.S. immigration regulations, or
• Intimidating new restrictive voter ID laws "enacted since the 2008 election may cause more than 5 million eligible voters to find it significantly harder or even impossible to cast ballots."

Citizens of Hispanic heritage comprise a huge, and hugely influential, portion of the population in five of the 14 battleground states:

• In Nevada, Hispanics are 26.5% of state population
• In Colorado, 20.7%
• In Arizona, 29.6%
• In Florida, 22.5%
• In New Mexico, 46.3%

Hispanic-Americans are also a sizable minority in battleground states North Carolina (8.4%) and Virginia (7.9%).

Which explains why Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villlaraigosa is Chair of the 2012 Democratic National Convention which will nominate Barack Obama to a second term in the White House...

Which explains why President Obama has traveled to Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona many, many times since the 2010 elections...

Which explains why, in late April, the Obama reelection campaign spent "about $145,000 on broadcast advertising aimed at Hispanics... according to data from the media tracking firm SMG Delta. The ads are running in Florida, Colorado and Nevada"...

Which explains why Obama campaign spokeswoman Gabriela Domenzain responded forcefully and quickly to Republican Mitt Romney's remarks two weeks ago that "The Obama administration has brought hard times to Hispanics in America. Under President Obama, more Hispanics have struggled to find work than at any other time on record"... Rebutted Ms. Domenzain:

"Once again Mitt Romney is not telling the truth about the President's record and it's no surprise why. He is not only on the wrong side of every Hispanic voter priority, but also Hispanics stand to lose the most from Romney's insistence on the same failed economic policies that created the economic crisis, including his plans to give massive tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires at the expensive of economic growth and the middle class, allow Wall Street write its own rules again, and even let foreclosures 'hit the bottom.'

"President Obama believes we should grow our economy and create jobs that reward hard work and responsibility, and we are seeing results. Under the President's leadership, we've seen 25 straight months of private-sector job growth, 2 million Hispanics have been kept out of poverty, taxes on small businesses have been cut 18 times and Hispanic unemployment has declined 2.1%."

In 2008, Hispanic votes in New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Florida caused Democrat Barack Obama to win those often-Republican states, all which voted to reelect President Bush in 2004. As a direct result, Obama won the 2008 White House race. (See Why Red States Turned Blue in 2008 for details.)

In 2010, Democrat Jerry Brown decisively won California's gubernatorial race over long-time Romney advisor and close business-community colleague, Republican billionaire Meg Whitman, because Brown attracted 63% of the Hispanic vote. In California, 37.6% of residents have Hispanic ancestors.

But in 2008, Barack Obama's soaring, bright promises of immigration reform energized Hispanics to support Obama over McCain by a margin of 67% to 21%. (See Obama Campaign Promises: Immigration Reform.) In 2012, those promises remain almost entirely unfulfilled.

And in 2010, Jerry Brown won Hispanic votes primarily because of his deep, decades-long record of actively supporting and caring about the needs of that community. President Obama has no similar track record.

Hispanics will, indeed, play a decisive role in the 2012 presidential election. But will it be by voting in droves for President Obama? By the Hispanic community believing in Mitt Romney's conservative-leaning economic prosperity agenda?

Or will it be by staying home... uninspired, disenchanted, unenergized, and fuming over feeling used in 2008, then forgotten by the White House?

My guess is that because of Republican Romney's unusually tough, inflexible rhetoric on immigration reform (self deportation?), Hispanic voters will turn-out to cast a very large majority of their ballots for President Obama in November.

But they will do so reluctantly. And they will rightfully expect Mr. Obama to firmly push the DREAM Act and other immigration reform measures with the new 113th Congress.

"Game On!" declares The Economist this week about the 2012 presidential election between President Obama and the presumptive Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

I disagree with this respected news weekly, though, when the editorial staff opines, "Barack Obama leads in the head-to-head polls. But there are still seven months to election day, and Mr Romney has a fair chance of victory in November."

Given the present state of issues and related political theater, I believe that incumbent Obama has scant chance of losing to national political office neophyte Romney for four main reasons:

• 1. Women. In 2008, women comprised 53% of presidential voters; 56% of those women cast their ballots for Democrat Obama. Recent 2012 polls of the "gender gap" give President Obama a 16-point lead over Romney with women voters.

• 2. African-Americans. In 2008, African-American voters comprised 13% of those who cast presidential ballots; 95% of ballots cast by African-Americans were for Obama. "African-American women were the demographic with the highest percentage of electoral participation in 2008," per a Rutgers University professor.

  By all accounts, African-American support for Obama remains sky-high and energized in 2012, despite dismal unemployment rates continuing within the community.

• 3. Hispanics. In 2008, Hispanic voters represented 9% of those who cast ballots for the presidency; 67% of those ballots were cast for Democrat Obama over Republican McCain.

  While the Hispanic community is universally disappointed with President Obama's failure to make inroads in reforming U.S. immigration laws, Mitt Romney is stunningly unpopular with this demographic group because of his rigid opposition to liberalizing immigration for 12 million undocumented workers and their families. "A recent Pew survey found less than a quarter of all Hispanic voters would back Romney in a general election," per NPR.

• Conservative evangelical voters. It's no secret that Rick Santorum's social-conservative followers are not enamored of Mitt Romney. They don't trust that flip-flopper Romney really, truly agrees with them on abortion, access to birth control, gay rights, gay marriage and the like. And they are wary of his religious allegiance to Mormonism, which they deem to be a non-Christian cult.

  In 2008, just 34% of all presidential election voters identified themselves as "conservative." Of those voters, 78% cast their ballots for Republican John McCain. Conservative evangelical voters certainly won't vote for Obama in 2012. But if an unenergized fraction of socially conservative Republicans... say 25%... don't vote in 2012, that would radically erode Mr. Romney's chances of winning the White House race.

Do the math. As is in April 2012, the numbers just don't add up for a Romney victory in November.

The game may be on, but the Democratic side has an ace pitcher in President Obama and crucial demographic advantages that make likely a lopsided victory in November. Barring a national catastrophe, I don't see this changing.

In 2012, Wisconsin is the new political bellweather state. And despite having voted for every Democratic presidential candidate for nearly 30 years, Wisconsin is a crucial battleground state in 2012.

The first sign that Wisconsin had changed from solidly liberal to rife with Republican rivalry was when three-term incumbent Sen. Russ Feingold, a nationally respected progressive Democrat, was shockingly defeated in his 2010 reelection bid by Tea Party-affiliated, Libertarian-leaning Republican Ron Johnson, a political neophyte.

Also elected to Wisconsin office in 2010 was Tea Party gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker. Mere weeks after Gov. Walker, the son of a Baptist preacher, took office in January 2011, he pushed the newly conservative Wisconsin legislature to pass severe budget-cutting bills that also sharply curtailed basic labor union rights.

And Wisconsin progressives... who apparently took their state domination for granted in 2010 elections... reawakened with a ferocious political roar. A recall election for prickly Gov. Walker will be held on June 5, 2012, after more than 900,000 citizens petitioned to dump him from the state capitol. Recall of Walker was spearheaded by a passionate coalition of infuriated Wisconsinites, including:

• Labor union members, including teachers, police officers, and firefighters. 422,000 Wisconsin workers, representing 16% all workers in the state, belong to labor unions.
• Women, who comprise 50.4% of Wisconsin's population.
• Senior citizens, who comprise 13.7% of Wisconsin's population.

Wisconsin is unique among 2012 presidential battleground states, though, for two reasons.

In 2012, Can Obama Win Wisconsin Again?
Wisconsin voters are largely white (86% per 2010 Census), and Christian (80%). Among state residents, only 5.9% are of Hispanic heritage, and only 6% are African-Americans.

Most hotly contested 2012 battleground states host an amalgam of ethnic heritages and religious faiths. Think Florida, with its highly diverse and active voter base, for example, or North Carolina, with its uneasy blend of religious conservatives and a sizable African-American population.

In 2008, Barack Obama won only 43% of the white vote nationally, but won 54% of Wisconsin's white vote, which represented 89% of all Wisconsin ballots. Can Obama win Wisconsin again in 2012, after the new rise of Badger State Republicans?

Will Wisconsin Republicans Continue to be Led by Extremists?
Have Wisconsin Republicans learned lessons from the failure of Gov. Scott Walker's ultra-conservative ideology and his stubbornly tin-ear to the Wisconsin electorate? Or will Wisconsin Republicans continue to be dominated by Tea Party extremists?

If socially conservative, Tea-Partiers continue to lead Wisconsin Republicans, then extremist Rick Santorum should fare well in tomorrow's presidential primary election. The Obama White House would be delighted, of course.

But, if, as polls predict, more moderate Mitt Romney easily prevails in Wisconsin's presidential primary race, then Obama's reelection campaign team should be forewarned about 2012: Wisconsin Republicans have backed away from political extremism, and are ready to support a more moderate candidate with a bona-fide chance to beat President Obama.

Historically Democratic blue-state Wisconsin stunned the nation in 2010 by not reelecting deeply respected Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.

A big primary victory by moderate Republican Mitt Romney over Tea Party-aficionado Rick Santorum in Wisconsin will send a warning shot to the White House that must-win Wisconsin might vote Republican in 2012 for the first time since 1984.

In 2011, a top pollster reported Wisconsin's approval for President Obama at 47.4%, and his disapproval rating at 43.8%. To win Wisconsin over a moderate Republican, Obama will need to raise his approval ratings in 2012.

Dangerously missing from the Republican presidential conversation is any meaningful discussion of foreign policy.

In 2000, 2004, and 2008, Republican candidates George W. Bush and John McCain proudly (and endlessly!) touted muscular foreign policies and detailed national security agendas as central planks of their conservative platforms.

In 2012, Republican front-runners Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum rarely muster serious public analysis of foreign policy matters. Instead, they glibly repeat boilerplate gobbledygook as...

"A Romney foreign policy will proceed with clarity and resolve. Our friends and allies will not have doubts about where we stand and what we will do to safeguard our interests and theirs. Neither will our rivals, competitors, and adversaries. The best ally world peace has ever known is a strong America." (Source - Romney campaign website)

Or...

" Rick Santorum understands that those who wish to destroy America do so because they hate everything we are - a land of freedom, a land of prosperity, a land of equality. Rick knows that backing down to the Jihadists means that we are only putting our foundational principles at greater risk.

President Obama's is "an approach that views America not as an exceptional leader but, rather, as just one more country in the sea of nations, not intrinsically better or worse than any other nation, not intrinsically better prepared to lead than any other nation. It is an abdication." (Source - Santorum campaign website)

I believe that Romney and Santorum have largely excluded foreign policy and national security issues, formerly winning issues for conservatives, from the 2012 campaign for three reasons:

• 1. They don't truly know what the hell they're talking about, and they know it. Romney has precisely ZERO foreign policy experience. And as a U.S. senator, Santorum never served on the Foreign Relations Committee, and dabbled little in foreign policy matters. In truth, Santorum knows little more than Romney about the complexities of reality-based foreign policy matters.

• 2. The eight-year Republican tenure of the Bush/Cheney administration, from 2001 until Obama's 2009 inauguration, created a destructive mess of U.S. foreign policies, and left America's reputation and standing in the international community in sullied tatters.

• 3. President Obama has amassed a record of tremendous accomplishment in foreign policy matters and in keeping America and Americans safe.... a record that neither Romney nor Santorum want compared to their meager experience in and knowledge of foreign relations and national security policies and practices.

Take a few minutes to read President Obama's Middle East Victories and the 2012 Election.

Then ask yourself the obvious, common-sense question: in today's dangerous world, how could any rational U.S. citizen possibly vote in November for either Romney or Santorum for president... and believe that America and Americans are safer for their vote?

Related Reading

• The Obama Doctrine on Foreign Intervention and War
• President Obama's Foreign Policy Agenda

It makes good sense that Republicans will move a giant step closer on Super Tuesday to giving the presidential race nod to Mitt Romney.

Amid a weak field of conservative extremists, hysterics, and misogynists, former Massachusetts Gov. Romney is the only Republican candidate left standing with any chance to beat President Obama in November.

But Mitt "Corporations are people, too" Romney, astute founder of venture capitalist Bain Capital, has many political achilles heels that could prevent him from winning the 2012 election... none more potentially crippling than his vast wealth. Three aspects of Mr. Romney's $250 million personal fortune could handicap his pursuit of the presidency:

• Bain Capital's brass-knuckle business practices, or for that matter, the appalling business practices of all "vulture" capital firms.
• Tangled conflicts of interests posed by Romney's ongoing reliance on Bain Capital as a major source of his personal annual ncome.
• Mr. Romney's continual rich guy gaffes that gloriously display his insensitivity to how the other 99% lives.

I was stunned to recently read that in 2010 and early 2011, Romney still reaped "at least $9.6 million" in investment income as a retired Bain Capital partner, equal to more than one-third of the $27 million earned in 2010 by Mr. and Mrs. Romney.

I was stunned because nearly $10 million in annual investment income means that the Romneys directly depend on strong financial performance of hundreds of companies... creating hundreds of personal conflicts of interest should Mitt Romney be elected president.

Romney Profits from Limbaugh Slurs?
For one blaring example, one smart blogger did his homework, and realized that Bain Capital is joint owner of Clear Channel, owner of 850 radio stations as well as "Premiere Radio Networks, the company that syndicates the radio shows of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, among others."

Wonder why Mitt Romney long demurred commenting on Rush Limbaugh's crude smears of a Georgetown law student? Could be it because Romney earns more money when Rush's broadcast prospers?

The question could even be fairly asked: Is the apparently ideology-free, flip-flopping Mr. Romney newly spouting conservative stances in 2011-2012 to aid Bain portfolio investments in Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and other highly profitable conservative broadcasters?

Romney's Rich-Guy Gaffes
But Americans might be more swiftly and easily repelled by the myriad of Mitt Romney's rich-guy gaffes, which the Wall Street Journal hilariously lists at Romney's Top 10 Wealth Gaffes.

How hilarious, though, are Romney's elitist gaffes in the 14 battleground states in the 2012 presidential election? Will Romney's wealth-based insensitivity feel funny or deeply painful to residents...

• In Nevada, which has experienced the highest home foreclosure rate for several years?
• In Ohio, where 15.5% of all employees in the state are hard-working members of labor unions?
• In Florida, where 17.3% of the population are senior citizens, a huge portion of them heavily dependent on Social Security and Medicare?
• In New Mexico, where 21% of residents had no health care insurance from 2005 through 2011?
• In Wisconsin, where voters are furious over $2.6 billion in cuts to public education and vocational training made by Tea Partier Gov. Scott Walker?
• In Missouri, where 13.4% of residents live on incomes below the poverty level?
• In Michigan, where more than 801,000 residents, 19.6% of all state workers, are labor union members, most of them associated with the thriving, post-bailout auto industry... when he refused to support the bailout?

Yes, given the extremism of officially-declared 2012 Republican presidential wannabes, Mitt Romney is the most sensible choice in the field.

But Mr. Romney's elitist rich-guy gaffes, shock-and-awe business practices as a venture capitalist, and conflicts of interest (as of yet, largely unexplored by the media) very well may render him unacceptable to voters in the 14 battleground states that will decide the 2012 race for the White House.

Related Reading

• Top Repubs Realize that Santorum, Romney Can't Beat Obama
• Liberal Guide to Mitt Romney in 2012

If top Republican party insiders truly believe that they have a solid shot at defeating President Obama in November, they will not nominate a candidate now embroiled in the vitriolic Republican primary races and caucuses. Period.

If Republican insiders privately doubt their party's ability to beat Obama, Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum will be the Republican's 2012 presidential nominee.

It's only logical, given the self-destructive state of the 2012 Republican presidential race, to date. Smart Republican strategists obviously realize that the remaining top two conservative candidates have both rendered themselves unelectable to the White House, at least in this election cycle.

Rick Santorum, Social Conservative Extremist
Former Sen. Rick Santorum seems unimaginably extremist on women's issues, especially on birth control and abortion, issues that were settled in the U.S. four or more decades ago. Goofy, sweater-vested Santorum is apparently hellbent on on sacrificing broad appeal to women voters on the altar of his social conservative ideology.

Asks conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, "... does he realize that married women (men, too!) use birth control? The impression that Santorum finds the prevalent practice of birth control 'harmful to women' is, frankly, mind-numbing."

Women comprised 53% of voters in the 2008 presidential election, and Barack Obama won 56% of 2008 votes cast by women. Republican Santorum cannot win the 2012 presidential race because he will never best Democrat Obama in attracting women's ballots.

Mitt Romney, Spokesman for the 1%
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the wrong man for the wrong time, for several reasons.

If ever a presidential candidate represented the 1% of wealthiest Americans... the richest of the super-rich... it is Mitt Romney, he of patrician handsomeness, innately Ivy League speech, and Brooks Brothers-meets-Ralph Lauren sartorial style.

Millionaire Mitt is the wrong candidate at precisely the wrong time in U.S. history when...

• 46.2 million Americans live in poverty, the highest number in 52 years.

• 48 million American adults did not work one single week in 2011, almost entirely due to extremely high unemployment rates across the country.

• 49.9 million American adults and children had no health insurance coverage in 2011, the highest rate in U.S. history and 900,000 higher than in 2010.

• Four million American families lost their homes to bank foreclosures from 2007 and early 2012, and the foreclosure rate is projected to continue unabated in 2012. Mitt Romney, who owns three homes collectively valued at $20 million, believes that no special relief should be offered to these families."... don't try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom," tone-deaf Romney told a Nevada newspaper.

Another problem for Mitt Romney is his feet of political clay. Mr. Romney can't even fend off Rick Santorum, an extremist lightweight who lost his 2006 Senate reelection bid by a whopping 17 points.

If Mr. Romney can't counter the breathless, breathtaking arguments of creepy Rick Santorum, the former Massachusetts governor has little chance of effectively challenging the soaring rhetoric, genuine likability, survivalist political genius, and oh-so-deep campaign coffers of President Obama.

Two months ago, I quietly thought Romney could be victorious over Obama this November. Today, barring unknown national catastrophe, I believe that Mitt Romney can't possibly beat Barack Obama at the polls.

Nominate Jeb Bush or Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie instead?
Here's the deal: top Republican strategists fully realize, nine months before the presidential contest, that neither Santorum, nor Romney, nor Gingrich nor Paul nor anyone else presently in Republican race can or will beat Obama.

The burning question is... do top Republican party insiders believe that any conservative has a solid shot at defeating President Obama in November... say, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush or Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin? New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels?

If their confident answer to the burning question is YES, look for Santorum and Romney to be bypassed at the Republican National Convention (in Florida!)

If Republican party insiders privately believe that beating Obama in November 2012 is a lost cause, look for Santorum or Romney to win the Republican presidential nomination.

My prediction? President Obama, aided by a recovering U.S economy and populist rhetoric supporting the 99%, will cruise to easy, glorious victory in 2012 over either Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney.

Republican Mitt Romney's resounding victory across all demographic groups in the Nevada caucus vote this past weekend portends warning signs for President Obama's path to reelection:

• In contrast to historical patterns for Republican candidates, Romney attracted a full 52% of all votes cast by women. Women comprise 49.5% of all residents in 2012 battleground state Nevada.

• Romney easily edged out his opponents in all age groups of Nevada caucus goers, except for voters under 30 years old, who cast 41% of ballots for libertarian Ron Paul. But Mr. Romney attracted a respectable 36% of that vote, too, a tally far, far ahead of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

  Of all Nevada caucus age groups, Romney was strongest among senior citizen voters, winning 54% of their ballots. Voters 65 years old and over comprise 12% of Nevada's population.

• By a huge margin, Romney won the vote of every family-income level except the lowest-earning category, under $30,000 annually. Mr. Romney scored a whopping 53% of the vote by middle-class families earning $50,000 to $100.000.... a group deeply affected by Nevada's sky-high home foreclosure rate, the highest in the nation.

One promising Nevada take-away for the White House: Hispanic voters essentially ignored or boycotted the state Republican caucus vote. More than 26% of Nevadans are of Hispanic heritage, the nation's fifth highest state percentage, yet represented only 5% of caucus voters. The Hispanic vote will be key to winning swing state Nevada in 2012.

President Obama should be warned, however, by likely opponent Mitt Romney's startlingly massive victory in common-sense Nevada that Mr. Romney's bold message of holding a better plan for national economic prosperity is appealing to all age groups, to all educational levels, to both genders, and to almost all income groups.

To effectively answer Mr. Romney in the fall campaign, Democrat Obama absolutely must finally develop a smart, logical, believable plan to stem the national real-estate slump nightmare that caused tens of millions of home foreclosures.

President Obama's administration must also continue to preside over declining unemployment numbers throughout 2012, especially during the crucial summer months when employment data often slumps.

The Nevada Republican caucuses clearly demonstrated that Mitt Romney is rapidly developing into a formidable candidate to challenge President Obama, particularly on economic and prosperity issues. The President would be foolish to ignore the obvious warning signs that Mr. Romney's economic message is breaking through to Americans.

Next up this week: Republican caucuses in Maine, Minnesota, and key battleground state Colorado, and the Missouri primary election.

Just ahead of delivering the State of the Union Address, President Obama's reelection team revealed what they believe to be key 2012 battleground states. They did so by buying TV ad time and by strategically scheduling a handful of presidential appearances after this speech.

Interestingly, the six states that will see the first Obama reelection "limited duration" ads this week are:

• North Carolina, where Democrats have only won twice in North Carolina in 40 years, including Obama in 2008. Obama's saving electoral grace in the Tar Heel State was black voters, fully 23% of state voters, who cast 95% of their ballots for the President.
• Ohio, which boasts the sixth highest state population of labor union members. Obama won Ohio in 2008.
• Wisconsin, where livid Democrats just delivered over one million signatures to recall Tea Party-Republican Gov. Scott Walker
• Virginia, where Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate in 40 years to win. The President's 2008 victory in the Old Dominion State was largely thanks to voters under 30 years old, 22% of all Virginia voters, who cast 60% of their ballots for Obama.
• Iowa, where Obama clobbered Republican John McCain in 2008, due, remarkably, to capturing 54% of the baby boomer vote (voters aged 45 to 64)
• Michigan, which boasts more than 800,000 labor union members, nearly 20% of the state work force. Obama defeated McCain in 2008 in Michigan by drawing 68% of voters under 30 years old (20% of state voters), and 97% of black voters (12% of state voters).

After his State of the Union Address, which is expected to focus on economic measures to support middle-class Americans, President Obama will travel to Michigan and Iowa, as well as to three western states with very large Hispanic populations: Arizona, Colorado and Nevada. Obama was the 2008 victor in Nevada and Colorado, although Arizonans voted for favorite son John McCain.

Revelation of these nine states as 2012 battleground arenas means that Barack Obama clearly plans to rely on the same coalition that elected him in 2008 .... blacks, Hispanics, labor union members, under 30-year-old voters... to propel him back to the White House for four more years.

The burning question is: are the disparate segments of Obama's 2008 political coalition all sufficiently happy to vote for a second term for the President?

My guess today is that black and labor union voters will wholeheartedly support Obama in 2012, and that Hispanics will lukewarmly support the President.

But young voters, particularly college students, are uniformly beleaguered by high unemployment and the exorbitant cost of a college education. Two issues college students historically care about... war and immigration reform... remain largely unresolved by President Obama.

Can President Obama win reelection by relying on the very same coalition that brought him triumphant victory in 2008? Possibly not. It all depends on the appeal and strength of his Republican opponent.

I hate it when Mitt Romney exudes presidential-like competence and intelligence, as he clearly did in the New Hampshire debate a few days ago and throughout his campaign in New England.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney never seems more confident or leader-like than when he's amid a sea of moderate Republicans and business-friendly Democrats... which, of course, defines both New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

I cringe when when Mr. Romney speaks at a forum moderate enough to permit him to declare :

• "I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception." or...

• "... there's every right for people in this country to form long- term committed relationships with one another... There can be domestic partnership benefits or -- or a contractual relationship between two people, which would include... hospital visitation rights and the like." or...

• "We want to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can." or...

• "I find it extraordinary that -- that a very few number of families are paying the price of freedom in America. So the -- the hurdle to actually putting our troops in harm's way is very, very high." or...

• "Well, there are certain things that government can do to encourage an economy. And rebuilding an infrastructure that's aging is one of those." or...

• "We have to make sure they're preserved, our entitlements, that is, so we don't kill the future of the country... this election is about the soul of America." or especially...

• " We have the right in this country to pursue happiness as we choose and as people pursue education and work hard and take risks and build enterprises of all kinds, they lift themselves and don't make us poorer, they make us better off."

  (Note - All quotes are from the ABC News Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire, held on January 7, 2012)

I detest when Mitt Romney plays his familiar role of moderate Republican leader appeasing liberal-leaning voters because he sounds more like a caring, common-sense Democrat than does Barack Obama, the actual Democrat in the 2012 presidential race!

I'm loathe to admit it, but Romney's firmly spoken sentiments are soothing to my liberal ears. Seriously, Romney knows how to schmooze and smooth-talk Democrats...

Problem is, in his vaunted business career as a venture capitalist, Mitt Romney amply demonstrated that he is an enthusiastic pro-Wall Street, pro-corporation, anti-worker Republican who unabashedly supports:

• Outsourcing of U.S. jobs to outside the United States, the workers be damned
• Downsizing of businesses to increase profitability and executive pay, the workers be damned
• Privatizing of government services, the workers be damned
• Avoidance of labor unions at all costs, the workers be damned

Mitt Romney is part of the 1% of wealthiest Americans. Romney's actions and deeds illustrate that he believes that whatever is good for the 1% is good for America. And that "Corporations are people too!"

Mitt Romney is decidedly not a Democrat, but his campaign rhetoric rings Democratic... which explains his success as a Republican in blue-state Massachusetts.

My political fear is that pro-business Democrats, also known as Reagan Democrats, might vote for Romney over Obama in 2012.... which would be a terrible economic blow to the 99% of hard-working Americans who have suffered mightily through this recession.

Potential Democratic crossovers to Republican Romney need to remember that what is good for the 1% of wealthiest Americans is NOT good for America.