Why 2012 Must be a Referendum on Obama’s Policies

When CNN’s John King asked Former Obama advisor David Axelrod about the 2012 election, Axelrod answered that that the election would not be a referendum on Obama, but a choice between Obama and his opponents.

Part of his statement is correct, the part of the election being a choice. As far as a referendum – you, Mr. Axelrod, are delusional.

First, we have to understand what is meant by “referendum”.

referendum /ˌrɛfəˈrɛndəm/

▶noun (pl. referendums or referenda /-də/)a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision.[1]

How is any election not a referendum? Does Axelrod not believe that the choice of our leaders is not a political question referred to the electorate for a decision? Of course he does. What he is trying to do is change the political question from being about Obama, to being about the policies of Conservative Republicans.

Moderates and Conservatives are starting to believe that the choice is already made. President Obama needs to be replaced, now we just need to decide who his replacement should be. Axelrod knows that if the election is kept on that footing Obama is toast. In Rasmussen’s latest presidential tracking poll, 23% strongly approve of Obama’s performance while 38% strong disapprove.

Soon, the phraseology will be how Republicans caused the current economic mess. Nancy Pelosi has already tried to blame the massive mess the House of Representatives created under her leadership on John Boehner.

What Conservatives must do is realize the goal. Ultimately, we must not repeat the mistake of the 1992 and 1996 elections where H. Ross Perot was allowed to split the GOP vote and put a Republican loss in motion. In the 1992 Presidential election it is well-known that the independent candidate caused the election of the otherwise unknown governor of Arkansas: Bill Clinton. Clinton got 43%, Bush got 37.4% and Perot took 18.9%. Not only that, but many states that gave electoral votes to Clinton would have shifted to Bush had the vote not been split. Whether gauging it on popular vote or electoral college, a split right is a win for the left.

Could it happen again? Unequivocally YES! A separate poll from Rasmussen shows that a split vote will be an advantage to the left-wing of the American political spectrum.

..in a three-way congressional contest with a Tea Party candidate on the ballot, the Democrat picks up 40% of the vote. The Republican earns 21% support, while nearly as many (18%) favor the Tea Party candidate. Twenty-one percent (21%), however, remain undecided.

If Conservatives are split or confused, the election is lost. If instead, we realize that getting a president with extreme left-wing ideas out of the White House is the highest goal, we have a chance. According to this poll, if the Tea Party Conservatives and Republican voters ban together, we have to only inform slightly more than half of the undecided voters that this is a vote on Obama’s failures. If we split the vote, it doesn’t matter how convincing we are – we get another four years of government over-reach. Obamacare will be full implemented, a balanced budget will never happen, business will continue to leave in the face of centrally-managed oppression and American may well become unrecognizable as the leader of the free world.

We may see Trump come out of the shadows. Maybe some other candidate, once defeated in the primary, pulls a Murkowski and comes back as an independent. Both show selfishness and greed for power – not a heart to do the will of the people. If that happens, we must not fall into the trap the Alaskan voters did. Conservatives must rally around the winner of the primaries in order to defeat the most dangerous president in American history.

“Perfect is the enemy of good” – Francois-Marie Arouet (a.k.a. Voltaire)

Sources:
1 –  Wordreference.com: https://www.wordreference.com/definition/referendum