Why can't Obama seal the deal in Dem primaries?

In what is becoming a post-West Virginia trend, Barack Obama is having trouble winning decisive primary victories against nominal (or nonexistent) opponents, barely pulling out wins in Kentucky and Arkansas last night. The Obama campaign is now in the rather embarrassing position of having to spend time and money competing in primaries that are generally a formality for an incumbent president.

So what gives?  Why can't Obama seal the deal?  Below I've outlined one potential reason, Obama's war on coal that is driving up electricity prices and costing jobs, many of which belong to Blue Dog union workers who may be turning out to the polls to tell Obama that he has gone too far.

###

SHOT:

Electoral implications of the Obama Administration’s War on Coal.

By Moe Lane

Tuesday, May 22nd

Will this be the 2012 election map?

If the Obama administration keeps up their War on Coal (literally: they consider coal more dangerous than terrorism), quite possibly. And it may be at least partially because of coal. 

The basic framework for this argument is this map:

…which shows the top sixteen coal-producing states in the USA. There’s a total of 182 Electoral Votes at stake, there – and in 2008 there were 180. Obama actually won coal-producing states in 2008, 100 to 80; and if no states flip in November, he’ll win them, 96 to 86. Except that… states are going to flip. Indiana’s already gone; and of the remaining six Obama states only New Mexico and Illinois are not considered toss-ups. The administration’s relentless hostility towards coal production and use may have already contributed to Democratic electoral disaster: since Obama took office the state governments and legislatures of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have all been taken over by Republicans; in Colorado we flipped the House of Representatives; and in New Mexico we captured the governorship. Heck, we even gained seats in the Illinois legislature, and came very close to winning the governorship.

The question is, is it fair to wonder whether coal will make things worse for the Democrats? I think so. In Virginia they’re worried about new EPA regulations on air quality. In Colorado people are noticing that President Obama and EPA chief Lisa Jackson are fighting the United Mine Workers. Pennsylvanian Republicans are already campaigning on the issue; so are Ohioan Republicans. All in all, this combination of stubborn refusal to budge from a radical Green agenda + an economy that can pretty specifically not support the inefficient luxury of a radical Green agenda = increased risk in a variety of Obama ’08 states.

Such a shame.

CHASER:

Last Night, Obama "Barely Ek[ed] Out Wins In Kentucky And Arkansas." "President Barack Obama continued to have trouble on Tuesday performing in Democratic primaries in traditionally conservative states, barely eking out wins in Kentucky and Arkansas." (Ginger Gibson, "Obama Struggles In Primaries,"Politico, 5/22/12)

Democrats In "Kentucky And Arkansas Are Taking A Swipe At President Barack Obama, Denying The Incumbent Nearly 4 Out Of Every 10 Votes Cast On The Democratic Side." "Some presidential primary voters in Kentucky and Arkansas are taking a swipe at President Barack Obama, denying the incumbent nearly 4 out of every 10 votes cast on the Democratic side." ("Primary Protest Votes Show Displeasure With Obama," The Associated Press, 5/22/12)

The Vote Was "A Bit Embarrassing For The Democratic Party And Highlights Obama's Political Weakness In Southern States." "The results in either state will not hamper Obama's effort to gain the party's nomination for a second term. Still, it's a bit embarrassing for the Democratic Party and highlights Obama's political weakness in Southern states." ("Primary Protest Votes Show Displeasure With Obama," The Associated Press, 5/22/12)

"In Kentucky's Closed Primary, About 42 Percent Of Registered Democrats Who Voted Selected 'Uncommitted.'" ("Primary Protest Votes Show Displeasure With Obama," The Associated Press, 5/22/12)

In Arkansas, "Where At Least He Was Running Against An Actual Human," Obama Lost 42 Percent Of The Vote To Lawyer And Occupy Wall Street Supporter John Wolfe. "Obama faced a similar threat in Arkansas, where at least he was running against an actual human. Lawyer and Occupy Wall Street supporter John Wolfe also came in around 42 percent, or right about where he was polling." (Dashiell Bennett, "'Uncommitted' Beats Obama In Half Of Kentucky," The Atlantic Wire, 5/23/12)

[via RNC Research]

The Feds Move to Silence Whistleblowing Agency

The feds appear to be making moves to silence a whistleblowing agency, the North Americans Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), “because NERC's position is that the EPA goal of mothballing many or most coal-fired power plants could endanger the security of the electric-power grid, with possible blackouts and much higher energy costs. In a follow-up report last year it found that ‘Environmental regulations are shown to be the number one risk to reliability over the next one to five years,’” according to the Wall Street Journal.

###

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304192704577406273583732622.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

Getting Even on Reliability

The feds retaliate against an advisory board for doing its job.

Imagine if some obscure trading desk within J.P. Morgan had tried to warn Jamie Dimon about corporate malfeasance—or perhaps a risky investment—and it turned out he tried to shut up the whistleblower. We'd never hear the end of it. Somehow the same norms don't apply in government, as shown by a federal energy regulator's reprisals against an independent advisory body.

The target is the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC, and its crime is scrutinizing the Obama Administration's anticarbon agenda. This highly respected nonprofit has monitored the power system since the 1960s and establishes best practices to keep the lights on. In 2005, Congress gave NERC a formal role as adviser. But now it may be defrocked for questioning the "pace and aggressiveness" of the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory wave in a 2010 report.

NERC's position is that the EPA goal of mothballing many or most coal-fired power plants could endanger the security of the electric-power grid, with possible blackouts and much higher energy costs. In a follow-up report last year it found that "Environmental regulations are shown to be the number one risk to reliability over the next one to five years."

Apparently that was too honest for Washington. Earlier this month the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission disclosed that it has spent months conducting a highly unusual audit of NERC. The commission oversees NERC under the 2005 law, so it has every right to check its practices. But this probe exceeded normal auditing standards and was a free-floating investigation into NERC's "economy and efficiency," whatever that means. It didn't find any rule-breaking.

Instead, the auditors question NERC's focus and statutory responsibilities, concluding that it "may have exceeded the functions" Congress intended for a reliability organization. Never mind that NERC has been doing the same job for decades and its integrity hasn't been questioned. The feds also complain about NERC's "periodic reliability assessments," otherwise considered the gold standard. They say this role "should be revisited."

In other words, the energy G-men think NERC should help protect reliability without studying the actual threats to reliability. This may be intimidation to get NERC to tone down its candor, or it could be a prelude to decertifying NERC to silence a troublesome critic. NERC tried to compromise on some of the audit's proposals while protecting its core duties, but the feds are now litigating to impose them.

The back story is that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff is an EPA wingman and President Obama ally. He has told the trade press that he has "some real, real, real serious issues with respect to the functioning of NERC," without details, and he launched the audit on his own personal authority as boss. It's especially notable that Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur—an Obama appointee—attacked the move as "inconsistent with Commission regulations" and said it should have been put to a vote.

Bureaucratic infighting is an eternal reality of government, but Congress should ask Mr. Wellinghoff what he has to fear from honest counsel.

NH House Leaders Blast EPA Decision to Raise Customer Electric Rate by $15 per Year through Regulation on Bow Plant

CONCORD – House Speaker William O’Brien and House Majority D.J. Bettencourt today offered the following statements in response to the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory decision to require a $112 million expense at the Public Service of New Hampshire Bow electricity plant.  An Associated Press report stated that this cost translated to a $1.25 increase in customers’ monthly bills, or $15 per year.

House Speaker William O’Brien

“At a time when we are doing everything we can to make New Hampshire more competitive and attractive to employers, the federal government is seeking to punish our residents and small businesses with higher electric rates through unnecessary regulation.  The Granite State already has among the highest energy costs in the nation, and this federal mandate will make these costs even higher and make it harder to expand our economy.  If President Obama is truly interested in helping create new jobs, he will stop his overzealous regulatory agency immediately.  We accept the fact that the Obama Administration will not be assisting our country in allowing businesses to create new jobs.  In New Hampshire, all we ask is that it not actively work to prevent job growth.  The working families of New Hampshire simply can’t afford a $15 a year hit in their wallets.”

House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt

“This is just one more example of government regulation running amok.  The Obama Administration, without any data to support their findings and 14 years late, decided that the electric ratepayers should be stuck with an additional cost of $15 each year.  This is a hidden federal tax increase through a heavy-handed mandate.  This is just the type of regulation that House Republicans have been fighting, as we passed 43 new laws this year to reduce bureaucracy and red tape.  While we are making it easier to grow the economy, Democrats in Washington are pushing job-killing regulations to knock our fragile economy back on its knees.  This crushing federal mandate needs to be lifted now, and we call on President Obama and Senator Shaheen, who is a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to stop this absurd and outrageous assault on New Hampshire electric ratepayers.”