Democrat Campaign Expert Joe Trippi Says That Republican Online Registration DOUBLED 20 Minutes Into Debate And Is STILL GOING STRONG

Joe Trippi is a career Democrat campaign adviser.  Here’s a surprising tweet from him:

Now, you need to understand these guys.  They are on contract with networks for their expertise and analysis.  And so conservative commentators may well say, “Romney is in trouble because” or “If Romney doesn’t do X he’s done” and liberal commentators will do the same thing with Obama.  That’s their job and it’s what they’re paid to do.  On top of that, if news like this is true, and your side buries its head in the sand and refuses to acknowledge it, how many of you think that that will  help your side?  In other words, somebody’s got to point this out from the other side and admit it or that side just loses because they refuse to recognize reality and try to come up with a strategy.

The mainstream media has shown that they are SO ideologically in the tank for Obama that just a week ago the narrative was, “This race is done and Obama is going to win.”  It was as overwhelming as it was amazing and dishonest.

Now, Rasmussen (THE most accurate national pollster in 2004, 2008 and again in 2010) has three swing state polls out.  In its first poll that includes post-debate results, Romney is only down by one in Ohio and he is ahead by one in Virginia.  And he is ahead by two in Florida.  And you can expect the numbers to improve for Romney at least until Sunday, which will be the first poll to include only post-debate results.

Romney is coming back.  Republicans are surging.

And Obama looked like a complete loser who could only look down and smirk in his debate:

Also in – and I have the article here – this: THE most accurate presidential predicting model that has picked eight straight winners and never a loser just updated it’s model.  And Romney wins 330-208 in the electoral college on November 6.

And that debate Wednesday night – in which more than 70 million people saw Obama as an empty chair while Mitt Romney looked every bit like the president this nation needs – was absolutely huge.

Will it matter if the most dishonest media since Joseph Goebbel’s Ministry of Propaganda tries to distort the narrative from “Romney is the winner” to “Romney is a liar”???  Time will tell.

Tags: , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Democrat Campaign Expert Joe Trippi Says That Republican Online Registration DOUBLED 20 Minutes Into Debate And Is STILL GOING STRONG”

  1. HL Says:

    Michael, I wanted you to see this compilation. It is staggering.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/

  2. D. Vargas Says:

    In 2008, Obama won 53/46.
    Rasmussen predicted 52/46.
    CNN/ORC and Ipsos/McClatchy nailed it with their predictions of 53/46.
    Yet conservative Rasmussen is touted as the “most accurate” pollster. LOL!

    Rasmussen has never been the most accurate pollster. He got that reputation because of a few reports on pollster accuracy that were done using PRELIMINARY data from immediately after the 2008 Presidential election. One such report, which was done by a Fordham professor, had Obama winning by 6.2 percent. But Obama actually won by 7.2 percent. After the FINAL election results were known, the professor released another report which showed that Rasmussen’s ranking was just mediocre.

    The final Fordham report can be found here:

    http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    D. Vargas,

    You are wrong.

    Rasmussen was both the most consistent AND tied for being the most accurate in its final prediction.

    That “consistency” thing is important: because liberal polls invariably give the Democrat HUGE advantages in an ideological attempt to de-energize Republicans and then they tighten up the results right near the end to salvage their reputations. They do this on a routine basis. Rasmussen doesn’t. Which is why people like you hate them and try to discredit them.

    As we consider swing states like Ohio, let’s think right now which polls have been more accurate than Rasmussen. EVERYBODY ELSE HAD OBAMA WINNING HUGE. And now here we are finding out that Rasmussen pretty much stands alone as the best pollster as usual.

    Here’s an example of what I’m saying: Rasmussen has had Ohio CLOSE. Most of YOUR polls have had Obama blowing Romhey away by as much as 11 points. The truth is now starting to look completely different than what liberal polls said over and over and over and over. And here’s another example that your stupid polls in Ohio were so far off it is beyond unreal.

    So you cite whatever crap you want, but we’ll see what happens, won’t we?

    In the 2004 presidential election, “Rasmussen…beat most of their human competitors in the battleground states, often by large margins,” according to Slate magazine. Rasmussen projected the 2004 presidential results within one percentage point of the actual vote totals earned by both George W. Bush and John Kerry.

    In 2008, Rasmussen again nailed it.

    In the 2009 New Jersey gubernatorial race, Rasmussen Reports’ final poll predicted that Chris Christie would beat Jon Corzine by a margin of 3 points. Christie won the race with a spread of 4.3 points.

    In December 2009, Alan Abramowitz wrote that if Rasmussen’s data was accurate, Republicans would gain 62 seats in the House during the 2010 midterm elections. In a column written the week before the 2010 midterm elections, Rasmussen stated his belief that Republicans would gain at least 55 seats in the House and end up with 48 or 49 Senate seats. Republicans ended up gaining 63 seats in the House, and coming away with 47 Senate seats. Rasmussen REALLY nailed that one.

    In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race. Just after Brown’s upset win, Ben Smith at Politico reported, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties until a Rasmussen poll showed the race in single digits in early January was that Martha Coakley was a lock. (It’s hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically.)” A study by Boston University and the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded, “…Rasmussen Report’s poll that showed the overwhelming Republican underdog, Scott Brown, climbing to within single digits (nine points) of Martha Coakley. That poll, perhaps more than anything else, signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media and political worlds.”

    To say Rasmussen isn’t an incredibly accurate pollster is jut a complete lie, even given the Fordham study (which for the record wasn’t the only study done). Because Rasmussen has been reliable over the course of several elections now.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Obama EARNED that 100% NARAL voting record, didn’t he?

    This is a demon-possessed man who literally has been on the official record voting to murder babies who SURVIVED abortions and were actually living outside of their mothers’ wombs.

    You want God damn America? You want Obama. That’s the bottom line.

  5. D. Vargas Says:

    Michael Eden,

    Rasmussen did NOT nail it in 2008. Analyses that make such claims were done in November 2008 using PRELIMINARY election results showing a spread of 6.5% or less with Obama winning 52/46. However when the FINAL official numbers were released by the FEC, it became clear that the spread was ACTUALLY 7.28%, and Obama had won 53/46.

    http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/federalelections2008.pdf

    FACT: In 2008, Obama won 53/46. (52.93/45.65)
    FACT: Rasmussen missed it 52/46.
    FACT: CNN/ORC & McClatchy/Ipsos nailed it 53/46.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    I note that you don’t bother to a) deal with the fact that Rasmussen was THE MOST CONSISTENT all along in 2008, whereas your beloved pollsters had wild swings showing huge Obama leads at this point. I documented that for you and you refused to acknowledge it or deal with it, which means you are a waste of time. I note that you don’t bother to deal with the fact that b) in the 2004, 2006 and 2010 elections Rasmussen was similarly spot on. Again I documented that, and you refused to deal with it or acknowledge it, which means you are a waste of time. And I notice that you don’t bother to c) deal with the facts that I presented to you to show how your liberal polls are playing the same stupid games now (particularly in critical swing states like Ohio) by giving Obama huge illegitimate leads that nobody believed were true and that are now clearly proven to be false. Again, I documented that, and you refused to acknowledge it or deal with it, which means you are a waste of time.

    I’m not going to waste my time arguing with an idiot who refuses to deal with the points I make. I’d frankly rather go into the closet and talk to the wall.

    Get lost.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: