Monday September 26, 2022
SNc Channels:



Aug-09-2012 20:09printcomments

Ten Swing States Could Decide the 2012 Election; Obama Leads in Nine of Them

As a second-term president, Obama would be in a strong position to start terminating Israel’s control of the American government.

White House Photo by Pete Souza
White House Photo by Pete Souza

(CHICAGO) - With less than three months left before voters decide between President Barack Obama and his Republican opponent,  Mitt Romney, Obama has a strong lead in the latest Politico poll figures.

Politico identifies ten swing states that will most likely decide the 2012 election. Obama leads in nine of them: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Romney leads Obama by one percent in the swing state of North Carolina.

If these swing vote states hold up in an election that requires 270 out of 538 electoral votes to win a majority, Obama would gain 111 electoral votes to Romney’s 15.  States that appear solid or leaning for Obama give him an addiitional 221 electoral votes. Romney’s solid or leaning state electoral votes total 191. These figures add up to 332 for Obama and 206 for Romney, more than enough to give Obama the winning total.

A major reason we might safely assume these numbers will hold up can be found in an ABC-Washington Post poll which found that only 40 percent of voters “hold a favorable view of Romney”. In a late May poll, that number was 41, suggesting a downward trend.  Low favorability numbers this late in the campaign does not portend well for the challenger.

Romney’s unfavorable rating increased from May to August by four percentage points, an increase from 45% to 49%. Say what you will about their actions in office (and I would have many unfavorable things to say about the damage they did), Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were “liked” by a majority of the voting public, enough to help bring them to the White House.

Michael Tomasky, writing for Newsweek’s The Daily Beast, predicts a possible Obama landslide in November.  Tomansky points to a winning trend, beginning with Pennsylvania’s shift from a swing state to a strong or leaning Obama state.

    There’s a secret lurking behind everything you’re reading about the upcoming election, a secret that all political insiders know—or should—but few are talking about, most likely because it takes the drama out of the whole business. The secret is the electoral college, and the fact is that the more you look at it, the more you come to conclude that Mitt Romney has to draw an inside straight like you’ve never ever seen in a movie to win this thing. This is especially true now that it seems as if Pennsylvania isn’t really up for grabs. Romney’s paths to 270 are few.

    First, let’s discuss Pennsylvania. There has been good reason for Democrats to sweat this state. True, Obama won it handily in 2008, by 10 points. But it’s a state that is older and whiter and more working-class than most of America. Obama benefited from all the unique circumstances of 2008 that helped him across the country, but if ever there were a state where the “well, we gave the black guy a chance and he blew it” meme might catch on, it’s the Keystone State.

In Pennsylvania the incumbent Obama benefits from a jobless rate of 7.5 percent, well bellow the national average. In addition, the Republican national strategy to suppress voting by minorities has run into a judicial roadblock in Pennsyvlania.

    This odious voter ID law is facing meaningful challenges. A hearing on the law’s validity has just been concluded. A state judge says he’ll rule on the law’s constitutionality the week of Aug. 13. It sounds as if the law’s opponents made a stronger case at the hearing than its supporters. In any case, the losing side will appeal to the state Supreme Court.

The one thing that could seriously halt an Obama landslide would be interference by outside forces. That may well have been the case with the Iranian government in the Carter-Reagan election in 1980.  Whether Republican campaigners made a secret deal with Iran to hold American hostages until after the election, is still hotly debated.

But the fact that the hostage release was timed by Iran to fall on Reagan’s 1981 inauguration day offers strong circumstantial evidence that the Iranians did not want Carter to get any credit for negotiating the hostage release. A release of the hostages prior to the election would have greatly enhanced Carter’s chances of reelection.

Gary Sick’s book, October Surprise, offers strong support to the belief that Reagan’s campaign staff interfered in delicate international matters for their own partisan political reasons.

Is Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offering Mitt Romney another October surprise? His bellicose threats to attack Iran would impact the election, even as it set in motion a series of events destructive to the region.

Why would he put the lives of his own citizens in such danger?

One strong reason could be his belief that a Romney victory would return Israel to the glory days of George W. Bush. During his recent fund-raising speech in Jerusalem, Romney said Israel’s culture was “superior” to that of the Palestinians.

In what was received by many not at the luncheon at the King David Hotel as a racist statement, Romney was following the guidance of his foreign policy advisor, Dan Senor, a former Bush neo-conservative public affairs officer in Iraq.

Romney was so caught up in his culture pandering to his Israeli and American pro-Israel audience, that he completely ignored the impact of the occupation on the Palestinian economy.

Netanyahu enjoyed eight years of his relationship to Republican President George W. Bush, who essentially gave Israel a green light to carry out its plan to take control of what Netanyahu calls Judea and Samaria, but which the international community correctly identifies as the Occupied Territories of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Jeff Halper’s essay in the April-June issue of Link magazine, Is the Two State Solution Dead?  should bring an end to the fiction that Israel is sincere in its claim to support a “two state solution”.  Here are key paragraphs in Halper’s essay:

Jeff Halper of ICHAD

    Israel and its supporters also know full well that the two-state solution is dead, and good riddance because it gave too much land and sovereignty to a collection of people whose national rights Israel has always denied.

    But it nevertheless plays a key role in perpetuating Israeli control of the Occupied Territory, holding everything in place until the Occupation is normalized, the Palestinians pacified, and the world moves on to the next urgent conflict.

    By playing along with variations of a two-state solution that it knows are unacceptable to the Palestinians—for example, a “two-state solution” in which the Palestinians are locked into a non-viable, semi-sovereign Bantustan—Israel is able to avoid any genuine solution to the conflict, since any genuine solution would require either too large a concession of land or shared sovereignty with the Palestinians.

    But while Israel endeavors (with the U.S., Europe and, for its own reasons, the Palestinian Authority) to keep the two-state charade going on indefinitely, it has already moved on to the next stage: putting in place an apartheid regime or—its preferable solution—simply warehousing the Palestinians forever.

With US polls showing the strength of Obama’s lead three months before the election, would Netanyahu dare risk starting a war with Iran which he may think would guarantee a Romney victory?

If that is the thinking in the Netanyahu war cabinet, it is wrong.

Israel’s standing with the American public is not nearly as strong as the Congress, and Israel’s U.S. backers, think it is. Americans are tired of war and they do not like Romney. If Netanyahu attacks Iran over Obama’s objections, there is every reason to believe the American people would reject Israel’s action and stand behind their own president.

As a second-term president,  Obama would be in a strong position to start terminating Israel’s control of  the American government.

Please visit Jim's Website: Wall Writings

First published here:


Journalism was Jim Wall’s undergraduate college major at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. He has earned two MA degrees, one from Emory, and one from the University of Chicago, both in religion. An ordained United Methodist clergy person; he and his wife, Mary Eleanor, are the parents of three sons, and the grandparents of four grandchildren. They live in Elmhurst, Illinois.

Jim served for two years on active duty in the US Air Force, and three additional years in the USAF (inactive) reserve. While serving with the Alaskan Command, he reached the rank of first lieutenant. He has worked as a sports writer for both the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, was editor of the United Methodist magazine, Christian Advocate for ten years, and editor and publisher of the Christian Century magazine for 27 years, starting in 1972. Time magazine wrote about the new editor, who arrived at the Christian Century determined to turn the magazine into a hard-hitting news publication. The inspiration for Wall Writings comes from that mindset and from many other sources that have influenced Jim’s writings over the years, including politics, cinema, media, American culture, and the political struggles in the Middle East. Jim has made more than 20 trips to that region as a journalist, during which he covered such events as Anwar Sadat’s 1977 trip to Jerusalem, and the 2006 Palestinian legislative election. He has interviewed, and written about, journalists, religious leaders, political leaders and private citizens in the region. You can write to Jim Wall at




Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Anonymous August 10, 2012 3:28 pm (Pacific time)

optimism and hiding from the truth is what got us into this place...its time to stand up and look what is going on..
Optimism is why millions are being killed all over the planet..optimism is what collapsed our economy, and optimism is what is turning this country into a police state..And this article is not optimism, it is a blatant mis-representation in regards to what is going on. Obama has kissed israel's rear from day one. Does Libya and Syria ring a bell? Does billions of dollars ring a bell? And for anyone who thinks obama can make his own decisions is even crazier...Sorry, I try to be professional and respectful when I post, but it gets almost impossible sometimes with articles such as this. Remember "hope and change"? That optimism really helped didnt it? Bankers are fraudently robbing this country blind,attacking countries who are no threat to us, paying alCIAda to do it and they are killing Christians etc etc..DO I need to go on? You can keep your optimism, time for people to grow up and face the truth before things get even worse. Your optimism is what is causing the problems, and why you are losing readers. We have REAL problems here, and simply smiling and thinking they are going to go away is insanity.
With all due respect of course.

Editor: You don't see me standing up for Obama, but this article is about what might happen in the next four years, let people read it and gather their own opinions because the guy is going to be reelected and maybe if RP has switched parties he would have a ghost's chance, but the guy isn't even for women's rights, Obama kicks his ass on that detail, and probably many others.  You can stand for what you want, without optimism people have no reason to go on, so I reject your logic, with respect also.

Vic August 10, 2012 2:28 pm (Pacific time)

I think Romney is a "palooka"...a contestant that is supposed to "throw" the match. I think McCain was a palooka also, as was Dukakis. Polls have shown that Ron Paul would beat Obama even among Democrats, yet the GOP refuses to acknowledge his they do not want to really win..This is all nothing more than a charade designed to make us feel like we have a choice. If Romney makes gains on Obama, expect him to make a stupid statement or have some personal indiscretion revealed.. Obama will win no matter what.He has ignored the will of the American people and shown his aliegance to his masters in Tel Aviv..he cannot lose.

Anonymous August 10, 2012 11:09 am (Pacific time)

Great satire article...obama will take the israel grip away from the U.S. That is the funniest thing I have heard all day. Major lol....There is NO difference between romney and obama, they are both puppets to the bankers. Dear Lord, anyone who can not see this fact...well, this article was great satire, thanks for the laugh...:-)

Editor: I support the optimism, it is important, and your attitude takes hope from people.  This writer is very dialed in when it comes to this storyline, I refuse to dismiss optimistic possibility..

[Return to Top]
©2022 All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of

Articles for August 8, 2012 | Articles for August 9, 2012 | Articles for August 10, 2012
Use PayPal to

The NAACP of the Willamette Valley

Special Section: Truth telling news about marijuana related issues and events.


Tribute to Palestine and to the incredible courage, determination and struggle of the Palestinian People. ~Dom Martin

Donate to and help us keep the news flowing! Thank you.