June 18, 2012
From the start of the 2008 primary, young voters offered enthusiastic and historic support to Obama’s presidential campaign. Youth turnout likely made the difference between victory and defeat for Obama in the Democratic primary, and young voters provided most of Obama’s 2008 margin of victory: While Obama won 66 percent of 18-29 year old voters, he won just 50 percent of those 30 and older. Although youth turnout is understandably cited as a challenge facing the Obama campaign, Obama’s actual support among young voters receives less attention.
‘What New Law?’
SEWANEE, Tenn. — As Robin Layman, a mother of two who has major health troubles but no insurance, arrived at a free clinic here, she had a big personal stake in the Supreme Court’s imminent decision on the new national health care law. Not that she realized that. “What new law?” she said. “I’ve not heard anything about that.” Layman was one of 600 people who on a recent weekend came from across southeastern Tennessee for the clinic held by Remote Area Medical, a Knoxville-based organization that for two decades has been providing free medical, dental and vision care in underserved areas.
June 15, 2012
Mitt Romney officially declared his candidacy last June on a farm in Stratham, New Hampshire. One year later he returned, triumphant and ready to kick off his cross-country bus tour, eat ice cream with potential voters, and bash Obama’s record on the economy. Romney’s speech in Stratham this morning was the first event of his “Every Town Counts” bus tour, an attempt to spread his campaign’s message to small town voters in swing states. And if today was any indication, that message consists mostly of criticisms of Obama’s management of the economy.
Jonathan Cohn is right that Obama’s much-touted June 14 economic speech presented a devastating but truthful and fair critique of Mitt Romney’s economic plan. Noam Scheiber is right that political commentators who fault the speech for lacking poetry or novelty are missing the point: This speech was intended to delineate, in simple, direct terms, the differences between Obama’s approach to the economy and Romney’s.
This morning brought the biggest immigration news of Barack Obama’s presidency: Effective immediately, hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children will be granted relief from the threat of deportation and will be able to obtain work authorization. To quote Joe Biden, this is a big f-ing deal. Immigration reform advocates, whose mounting discontent over the administration’s policy dysfunction has become a serious political dilemma for the White House, are ecstatic.
It’s small consolation for the pain and havoc being experienced across much of Europe, and for the economic fallout that is hitting us over on this side of the Atlantic, but there is a bit of amusement to be had these days in the confusion that the European crisis is causing on the American right.
Not So Fast on Obama's Speech
The verdict on Obama's Cleveland speech is in, and it's not pretty.
It’s clear that the conflict in Syria is now an issue in the American presidential campaign, largely at the insistence of Mitt Romney’s Republican supporters. Most notable among the interjections was an emotional speech recently delivered on the Senate floor by Senator John McCain, in which he demanded to know why the White House was abetting Bashar al Assad’s murdering of innocents. There is, of course, much to quibble with in this characterization: Far from doing nothing to oppose Bashar, the Obama administration has supported the U.N.
This morning, the Obama administration announced its intention to halt deportation and allow work authorization for nearly one million undocumented immigrants: those who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16, are younger than 30 years old, and have graduated from high school or have military service.
The ultimate goal of the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran, the next round of which commences in Moscow on June 18, has always been the same: Determining whether Iran is willing to accept that its nuclear program must be credibly limited in a way that precludes it from being able to turn civil nuclear power into nuclear weapons. The collective approach of the 5+1—the five permanent members of the U.N.