Posts Tagged ‘polls’

Democrats Screaming About ‘Fake News’ CREATED ‘Fake News’, And Ran ‘Fake News’ Non-Stop Throughout Election Cycle And Obama Years.

December 20, 2016

So where is all this “fake news” about that I’m hearing about all the damn time now as Democrats try to explain why their candidate won 487 counties out of the 3, 141 counties in the United States???  And SERIOUSLY, the “fake news” angle is that somebody somewhere looked a map and stated she only won 57?

What about the “fake news” angle that Hillary Clinton laughingly represented “the people” when those few counties she won were only and all the damn BIG MONEY counties???

According to the Brookings Institution analysis, the less-than-500 counties Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America’s economic activity in 2015, the Washington Post reported.

The more-than-2,600 counties President-elect Donald Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country’s economic activity last year.

When you look at a map of the counties, look at the not sea but OCEAN of Trump victories versus the tiny number of Hillary county wins:

2016-election-map-by-county

Consider the fact that the states where Clinton won decisively were “port states” that feature by mere factoid of geography the largest and most economically powerful ports on planet earth where all the commerce in the world must pass through to get to or from the American people.  Consider that that is more than a damn gold mine; it is guaranteed money and with that kind of institutional wealth a man or a party can be complete and total morons and STILL be rich beyond imagination.

Just imagine California, with the Ports of Los Angeles, San Diego, Long Beach, San Francisco, Oakland.  Do you have any idea how powerful these ports are in global trade?  And its the same back east where Clinton also did well.  Do you have any idea how much of a total, utterly-divorced-from-reality MORON and FOOL you can be and STILL MAKE BILLIONS when you have these assets in your pocket???  When you have a major port under your control, you can impose ANYTHING and still make money – especially if all the OTHER major port cities are as irrationally leftist as you are.  And that is the case in California.  It is a LIE that the Democrats represent “the people” who are oppressed and harassed by wealthy Republicans; the reality IS JUST THE DAMN OPPOSITE.  As I just easily demonstrated in the article above and the election-by-county above.

How is it not “fake news” to have not covered that fact that IS the Democratic Party, that they are and have been the party of the rich and the powerful who exploit the rest of us???  I hear that demonically untrue statement all the damn time.  To not cover the FACT that the Democratic Party is the Party of rabid sociopathic cockroaches who are living in some disconnected reality and can only do so because other people built wealth FOR them that they took over to fund their operations???

What about the “fake news” angle that Hillary was going to win this damn election to begin with, given all the damn hideously and embarrassingly wrong media polls that were so terrible skewed in her favor in a rather blatantly “fake news” manner if hindsight and factual reality have anything to say???  How about the fact that these fake news polls generated by our “legitimate news media” consistently hyped a fact racial angle disproven by the fact that Trump won more blacks than they said, more Hispanics than they said and more women than they said???

Why do these people who keep being so damn WRONG insist on our respect???  Especially when they’re so wrong because they are such intolerant, narrow-minded BIGOTS who despise everybody in what they call “flyover country” as they look down on them in every way one can look down on other people???

Harkening back to my last article, the hard-core racist angle that the media and the Democratic Party pimped is the worst “fake news” story of all.

Bill Clinton – in his excuse-making for his wife’s failure to put his adulterous woman-abusing ass back in the White House – said this of Donald Trump:

He doesn’t know much,” Clinton said when asked if Trump was smart. “One thing he does know is how to get angry, white men to vote for him.”

Do you want to know who the “angriest white man” of ALL is?  Look in the mirror, Slick Willy!!!

And this race-baiting angle again: Bill Clinton is the one who said that “a few years ago, this guy [Obama] would be getting us our coffee” to Ted Kennedy when he was a rival to his wife’s political aspirations.  And Bill Clinton is the one who said in eulogy of the last Senator to ever hold the titles of Ku Klux Klan “Exalted Cyclops” and “Grand Kleagle”:

“He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows from West Virginia. He was trying to get elected,” former President Bill Clinton said of Sen. Robert Byrd.

So hard-core, Klan racism is fine – as long as it helps a Democrat to get elected.

It’s only when “angry white men” vote REPUBLICAN that it’s somehow evil.  At least to Democrats like Bill Clinton who are the poster boys for “evil.”

But we’ve got so many stories of liberal Democrat “white shaming” going on it is beyond unreal.  In MANY of our universities, including the ones that WHITE PEOPLE are forced to pay for with their tax dollars.  And we just had MTV come out with a white shaming ad titled “2017 Advice for White Men”which is simply in-your-face-RACIST and MISANDRIST as Democrats target a group of people entirely based on their skin and their gender.

In a similar vein, you’ve got a leftist black lives matter turd named Tariq Nasheed who is going after Trump in the most hateful ways, calling him a racist, etc. ad nauseum.  The ONLY problem with this guy – okay, NOT the only problem, ’cause he’s got PROBLEMS – is that this self-righteous hypocrite wrote a book out of his profound hostility to women: how to lie to them, trick them, hell, RAPE them.  Whatever it takes for Tariq Nasheed to manipulate or coerce or force women to do the only thing he thinks they’re good for.

What about the “real news” angle that Democrats very much seem to composed of people who have no empathy whatsoever for anyone who is not directly like them???  What about the “real news” angle of the hypocrisy of these people who scream about the very things that they themselves do FAR MORE than the people they are always screaming at???

You tell me the major conservative media source – and I want the link that has the text or the video and if you show me the video include a transcript of what was said that was specifically in-your-face-offensive – in which we have black women being targeted for shame.  Because the right has nothing even CLOSE to this.  Just so you can see how blatantly hypocritical this is.

Where is the news media directing outrage the way they directed outrage when a two-bit nobody white supremacist endorsed Donald Trump and the media literally blamed Trump for a guy he’d never even heard of???  Where’s that kind of “righteous outrage” from the “journalists” when we publicly witness in your face, blatant racism???

What about the “fake news” angle of the electoral college vote yesterday.  The same media that generated so much hype with the intent of undermining and delegitimizing Donald Trump’s presidency before the man even takes office now acknowledges that there was absolutely no way in hell that 37 Republicans were going to vote against their president elect against the will of the people whose will they had sworn to represent.  In “fact,” since we talk about “fake news,” when that actual electoral college vote occurred, only two Republican electors voted against Trump versus FIVE who voted against Hillary Clinton.

What about the fact that the Clinton campaign (through campaign chairman John Podesta) was publicly trying to engineer an attempt to get electors to switch their votes???  Let’s understand this through the eyes of REAL news: if we have an election, and the people vote, and then ANYBODY gets the electors to switch their votes in a manner that contravenes the results of the election, you just contravened the will of the people.  Which is fascism.  Which from what even the left has led me to understand is supposed to be evil.

Kind of like the recount “fake news” where Donald Trump in the Clinton-endorsed recounts actually GAINED votes:

The recount, requested and paid for by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, produced a net gain of 131 votes for Trump out of nearly 3 million cast in the state.

It also ended any lingering uncertainty about the outcome of the presidential race, giving Trump a clear victory over his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton that the Electoral College is expected to affirm when it convenes next week.

Again, given hindsight and actual reality, it was “fake news” for the mainstream media to have covered this damn story the way they did, but they covered it in a blatantly “fake news” manner anyway.  Because they are CHEAP SHOT artists and that is ALL they are.

What about the “fake news” angle of Hillary winning the so-called “popular vote?  For one thing, to say that Trump not winning “popular vote” somehow makes him “illegitimate” is akin to claiming that Barack Obama taking the oath of office on a cloudy day made him illegitimate.  The popular vote doesn’t and never has had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM FOR ELECTING OUR PRESIDENTS.  But aside from that “fake news” bull crap, how about the REAL NEWS FACT that if you take out crazy whackjob California – which Californians and Oregonians (they have a major port too) now actually WANT so they can get the hell out of America now that Trump is the president of the American peopleit is Donald TRUMP who won the “popular vote” by near two million votes.

So, we’ve got the “fake news” meme that Hillary “won” the popular vote – even though that is entirely irrelevant to anything other than whiners’ whining.  But what about the REAL news fact that just three voting regions – California, New York and the District of Colombia – accounted for 13.6 million votes for Hillary Clinton versus 7.3 million for Donald Trump.  And that is a margin of 6.3 million votes.  Given that Democrats want to fascistically overturn our Constitution’s electoral college in favor of a “popular vote” that our founding fathers specifically rejected, and given that more than TWICE Hillary’s so-called “popular vote” victory came in less than six percent of our fifty-one electoral contests, is it not “real news” to point out the totalitarianism of the left???  But nope!  Instead the frame is of Trump “losing” the popular vote and therefore being undermined and delegitimized by “journalists” who have taken ideological sides and spin their stories in an incredibly and blatantly partisan manner.

Every single legitimate journalist is out there screaming in story after story about this shameful episode from Hillary Clinton and from the Democratic Party.  And since the silence is deafening, THERE ARE NO LEGITIMATE JOURNALISTS.

In addition to the wealthy coastal areas (due to PORTS not governance), Hillary dominated in the dense urban areas, the big cities, but did appallingly in the rural (less densely populated) areas.  You ought to soberly reflect what this means: Democrats want to be able to control where you live and how you live (because they own the buildings and dominate assisted housing projects); they want to control where you go and how you get there (because they are constantly working to undermine and delegitimize and ultimately criminalize private vehicles in favor of public transportation).  They want to crowd everyone into these dense urban cities where THEY control you.  And you compare that to the giant ocean of red that voted for Donald Trump who said, “Hell NO!”

If you favor totalitarianism, you voted for Hillary.  Otherwise you voted for Trump.

Have you ever seen that slant, that twist, that “spin” in ANY mainstream media presentation???  Of course you haven’t.  Because everything they write or say is framed through their partisan liberal ideological prisms.  It’s that Orwell line from Animal Farm:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

How about this, liberal: “White Lives Matter!”  “Men’s Lives Matter.”  “Rural Lives Matter.”  We are branded “intolerant” and “racist” and “misogynist” and hell, let’s just admit it, “racist” is their favorite word so it’s always their go-to play.  But they get to do the opposite and in their hypocrisy it’s fine.

Believe it or not, I’m actually STILL not done with the “fake news” from the mainstream media over the election!  What about what both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said about “rigging the election” prior to the election:

  • “Every expert, regardless of political party, regardless of ideology, conservative or liberal, who has ever examined these issues in a serious way, will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found,” Mr. Obama said. “There is no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time.” — Barack Obama
  • “There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they’re so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved,” Obama said.  “There’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time,” he continued. “And so, I ‘d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.”
  • President Barack Obama has a blunt message for Donald Trump: “Stop whining.”
  • “I’d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes,” Obama said. “And if he got the most votes, then it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that the American people benefit from an effective government, and it would be my job to welcome Mr. Trump, regardless of what he said about me, or my differences with him on my opinions, and escort him over to the Capitol, in which there would about peaceful transfer of power.”
    “That’s what Americans do,” Obama said.
  • Every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is is rigged against him.” — Hillary Clinton
  • “We know the difference between leadership and dictatorship, and the peaceful transition of power is one of the things that sets us apart,” Clinton told a rally in Cleveland, Ohio, one of the key swing states up for grabs on November 8.  “Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election.  By doing that, he’s threatening our democracy.”

What about the “real news” angle that Hillary Clinton is so demented and so in a fake reality that she actually called Donald Trump on election night and asked him to concede the race that he was about to win???

What about the fact that Hillary Clinton gave her “threat to democracy” speech in a state that Donald Trump won by the most lopsided damn victory in 28 years????

And then she has the elephant balls to join the scam recount that she herself said amounted to a threat to democracy???

What about all the crap about accepting the damn results and welcoming the incoming president???

What about the real news angle that WHO THE HELL IS THE BUTTHURT WHINING THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY NOW???

Why is the media not EXCORIATING Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for their abject and immoral hypocrisy in which they have condemned themselves as worthy of conviction of treason by their own damn previous words before the election they thought they had in the damn bag???

As SOON as the election was over, the Democrats IMMEDIATELY began to organize their “resistance” that during the Obama years amounted to racist treason when one Republican said his goal was to make Obama a one-term president.  As SOON as the election was over, Democrats began to try to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election win by suggesting that the election had been “hacked” by Russia.

For the “real news” angle, first let me say that the term “hacked” is a loaded and baked term of slander: NO ONE HAS EVER SUGGESTED that ANY of the Clinton or Podesta or DNC emails leaked to WikiLeaks had been “hacked.”  They were NOT CHANGED.  There has NEVER BEEN A SINGLE INSTANCE WHERE WIKILEAKS HAS EVER CHANGED THE CONTENTS OF ANY EMAIL OR SECRET THEY HAVE PUBLICIZED.

And in fact – for all the crap about Russia – the Washington Times has revealed that the source of the LEAKS of Hillary Clinton was a DEMOCRAT WHISTLEBLOWER who was disgusted of Hillary Clinton’s appalling dishonesty:

A WikiLeaks figure is claiming that he received leaked Clinton campaign emails from a “disgusted” Democratic whistleblower, while the White House continued to blame Russian hackers Wednesday for meddling in the presidential election and asserted that Donald Trump was “obviously aware” of Moscow’s efforts on his behalf.

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said in the report by the Daily Mail that he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff with one of the email sources in September.

He said he received a package in a wooded area near American University.
“Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,” Mr. Murray told the British newspaper. “The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”

WikiLeaks published thousands of emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, providing a steady stream of negative news coverage of the Democratic presidential nominee during the final weeks of the campaign. Mr. Murray said the leakers were motivated by “disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.”

On that one, we KNOW that Democrats are perfectly capable of “rigging” an election; because that is precisely what Hillary and the DNC and numerous “journalists” actually did to Bernie Sanders!!!

And while I’m asking these questions, let me ask just what kind of rabid, morally schizophrenic fool ARE you not to believe that the Democrats who were PROVEN to have rigged an election against Bernie Sanders would rig an election in a damn heartbeat against a man they despise far, FAR more than Bernie Sanders???

Amazingly, Kool-Aid-drinking, screaming, hysterical, rabid Democrats are now pointing to the very emails that prove they themselves rigged an election to claim that the election was somehow rigged.  Because apparently to tell the truth or to allow the truth to be revealed amounts to “rigging” for these lying slandering perverts.

To whatever the hell extent Russia was involved, they were GIVEN access first to Hillary Clinton, and then through her to her campaign manager John Podesta, and from them to the DNC, by Hilary Clinton’s illegal and immoral use of a secret private server that she didn’t bother to protect.

What about THAT “real news” angle about the avalanche of FAKE NEWS that the Democrats, that Barack Obama, that Hillary Clinton, that the DNC, had been falsely perpetuating for MONTHS regarding Hillary’s email scandal where they claimed over and over again that there was no way the Russians had “hacked” a CRIMINALLY and TREASONOUSLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND RECKLESS HILLARY CLINTON SECRET SERVER.  And now these same cynical, lying fascists are out there screaming as they try to exploit Hillary’s criminal, treasonous reckless irresponsibility as their primary mans to undermine the presidency of the man who won the election???

What about the “fake news” of reporting this story purely from the eyes of the leftist roach and NEVER from the vantage point of the TRUTH???

All this “fake news” crap about Russia being responsible for this and Obama and his handpicked “intelligence professionals” refusing to allow Congress to see any “evidence” of that – when we have credible reports that no, it was NOT Russia, but a whistleblowing DEMOCRAT – have another “real news” angle that in their zeal to publish “fake news” report after “fake news” report the mainstream media has completely omitted:

What traitor to America allowed this disgrace to HAPPEN in the FIRST PLACE???  His name is Barack Hussein Obama, and at best the man is so incompetent that he should have been removed from office for mental deficiency.

Do you have any damn idea how many times the Russians hacked the Obama regime???  And what did our Disgrace-in-Chief DO about it????

This Washington Times headline says it all:

Obama Shrugs Off Russian Hacking – Until Donald Trump Elected President

I mean, gosh, that makes Obama’s pathetic response sound rather blatantly political, doesn’t it???

Russia played Obama for a fool and Obama was the fool who got played.  What Russia did – again, if they actually even DID anything at all – was to take the candidate who was leading in all the mainstream media’s “fake news” polls and who was therefore supposed to win the election and tell the truth about this evil sociopathic witch to undermine her presidency.  And, of course, in the crazy chance that Trump could win, count on the Democratic Party to treasonously undermine the Trump presidency.  It was win-win.  Which is to say that all the Russians needed for their master plan to succeed was to count on two things that were safe bets: the wickedness and the incompetence of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Let me ask you a question, Democrat: if the next U.S. president is delegitimized – as you are so desperately trying to do with your every tactic since he won no matter how hypocritical or disgraceful by your own previous standards it is – do you or do you not realize that Russia benefits from a delegitimized American presidency???

You are HELPING Russia, you fools.  While screaming just the damn OPPOSITE.

And where is the reporting on THAT bit of “real news”???

I could go on and on and ON about “fake news.”  I could point out that Mark Zuckerberg of FaceBook is vowing to tackle fake news with “fact-checkers” notwithstanding the damn fact that Zuckerberg and his FaceBook were caught RED-DAMNED-HANDED creating “fake news” when it came to targeting and censoring pro-conservative news articles in favor of liberal ones.

Which makes it an amazing act of chutzpah that the primary generator of fake news would tackle “fake news.”

Why don’t we just allow the rapists and the child-molesters to police themselves, while we’re at it???  And as horrifying as that thought is, it still wouldn’t be as destructive to our democracy and to our very civilization as allowing “journalists” to police themselves given what they’ve been busted for doing.

I could talk about Obama and his “fake news” about his ObamaCare disaster that created giant increases in health care premiums amidst less actual health care even as Obama boasted about bogus “insurance” that meant NOTHING; about his failed economy that left millions and millions of middle-class Americans freezing in the mud even as Obama boasted about bogus economic statistics that had no connection to reality; about his failed strategy to cope with terrorism that will have increased by one-thousand, nine-hundred percent by the time he leaves office.

You want to avoid “fake news”?  Then disregard everything Obama says.  Disregard everything ANY Democrat says.  Disregard whatever the New York Times, or the network news stations, CNN, or pretty near anyone else, “report.”

To the extent that we have a problem with “fake news” misleading Americans, it comes down to this: the liberal, mainstream media destroyed all credibility in legitimate reporting due to their constant, over-the-top, partisan, ideological, biased “reporting.”

To the extent that you give liberals control over ANYTHING, they will destroy that thing.  And so we have the examples of health care, education, national security, and yes, most assuredly journalism.  I recall the George Orwell observation, “So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.”  And so in their “good intentions” they fail to understand that the road to hell is paved with their damned good intentions and they burn down everything they touch.

If you want to know why “fake news” has become so prominent, look no farther than Democrats and the propagandists who today staff the overwhelming majority of our “news” coverage.  Look at how outrageously dishonest and partisan they are as a matter of routine.

But the heart of liberalism is intolerance, fascism and totalitarianism: and so it’s not that Democrats who still celebrate the “Liar of the Year,” Barack Obama; it’s that THEY want to be in solitary control of all the “fake news” they pump out.  They want to rival voices to be heard.  Just as they don’t want rival STATES to be heard in the electoral college which they therefore want to abolish.

As Obama himself said at the beginning of his presidency, I now say: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, Donald Trump won.”

As Obama himself said – never realizing that his own words would apply to himself and his failed (bowel) movement – “Stop whining,” you pathetic losers.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

The Preference Cascade. How Close Is Romney To A Total Blowout Of Obama?

October 30, 2012

Just one of those pleasure-reading articles that are predicting that Obama will be blown right out of the White House.

The question is just how possible is it that the wheels will completely fall off the Obama campaign???

Watching the Collapse of the Obama Campaign
By Jack Kelly – October 29, 2012

The Navy needs more ships, Mitt Romney said in last Monday’s debate. It has fewer now than in 1916.

President Barack Obama pounced. “Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed,” he said, his voice dripping with sarcasm. “We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them … ”

In the spin room, some journalists laughed and applauded. Liberals imagine themselves to be intellectually and morally superior to conservatives. They love to put them down.

But “sarcasm and condescension only work if the speaker’s presumption of lofty superior knowledge is borne out by his command of actual facts,” said Pastor Donald Sensing, a retired Army colonel.

Mr. Obama was wrong on both the thrust of his argument, and on the examples he used. Aircraft carriers need smaller ships to protect them, lest they be sunk. The military has many more bayonets now than in 1916. Marines think so highly of them they’ve designed a new one, modeled on the famous KA-BAR fighting knife. Special Forces soldiers on horseback were critical to ousting the Taliban.

The facts matter little to liberals. Their assumption of intellectual superiority isn’t based on actual knowledge. Journalists declared the president the winner of the debate.

But facts and civility do matter to most Americans. A CBS panel of undecided voters in Ohio chose Mr. Romney, 6-2. A video of the dismay of CBS “This Morning” co-host Norah O’Donnell when this was reported is zipping across the Internet.

The Navy and shipbuilding are very important in southeast Virginia. With his wisecrack, the president may have kissed the state goodbye.

It isn’t just in Virginia where Mr. Obama’s fortunes are plummeting. When Missouri isn’t a swing state, but Minnesota is, Democrats are in big trouble. No challenger who’s cracked 50 percent in Gallup’s tracking poll has ever lost. Mr. Romney is polling better at this point in the campaign than did every victorious challenger from 1968 on.

It’s hard to see how the president can mount a comeback. His strategy of demonizing Mitt Romney collapsed when Americans saw in the first debate the GOP candidate has neither horns nor hooves. In an NBC/WSJ poll Monday, 62 percent of respondents said they want “significant change” from Mr. Obama’s policies, but he’s offered little in the way of an agenda for a second term. Instead he makes excuses, and ever more petty attacks. Voters now think Mr. Romney is just as “likeable” as Mr. Obama.

So the question may not be whether Mr. Romney will win, but by how much. When this dawns on Ms. O’Donnell, the video will be priceless.

Our politics are now so polarized I doubt that any candidate in either party — not even JFK or Ronald Reagan — could win much more than 52 percent of the popular vote. But law professor and blogger Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) thinks the odds of a preference cascade are rising.

Economist Timur Kuran coined the term to explain why totalitarian regimes usually collapse suddenly. A preference cascade happens when people discover millions of others share their doubts about the Great Leader. Massive media bias has made the term applicable here, Mr. Reynolds said. The Barack Obama that Americans saw in the debates bears little resemblance to the heroic figure portrayed by the news media.

The crowds have been enormous at Romney/Ryan events this past week. If this is the start of a preference cascade, many Democrats may drown in the undertow. The Obama campaign has vacuumed up so much Democratic money there’s little left for other candidates.

In yet another fund-raising appeal on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said he and Michelle would be fine if he loses. If the president’s friends are indeed buying him a $35 million mansion in Hawaii, as Chicago blogger Kevin Dujan (Hillbuzz) claims, that’s certainly true. But public employee unions, crony capitalists and others who feed at the public trough have reason to panic.

Underlings must wonder if there will be legal consequences for the laws they’ve broken. I predict an orgy of document shredding Nov. 7.

The biggest losers could be “mainstream” journalists. Their blatant bias has dropped trust in the news media to an all-time low. It’ll plunge further if more evidence of collusion with the administration emerges. Nobody trusts a liar. There will be bankruptcies.

//
Jack Kelly is a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/29/the_obama_presidency_is_about_to_be_swept_away.html at October 29, 2012 – 10:25:20 PM CDT

You first need to understand what has been going on: we have seen a GIANT collapse of Obama to the tune of a well-into-the-double-digits implosion of Obama’s reelection versus just a few weeks ago.  One question that emerges is was Obama’s pathetic debate performance alone really that damning of him as a leader?  Was it because Obama had spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to build a despicable straw man caricature of Mitt Romney that Romney obliterated in that debate?  Is it that the American people now largely realize they can no longer trust Obama as his demagogic hate ads were confronted by the reality that Mitt Romney is NOT the bogeyman that Obama so dishonestly claimed?  Or was it that Obama never really had the kind of lead that the media assured us over and over again that Obama had – and that it was merely the propaganda of the mainstream media propping Obama up all along?

I honestly don’t know that answer to that; but I do know that the collapse of Obama has been breathtaking right before the election and that all the momentum at this point belongs to Romney who is surging EVERYWHERE that matters.  And Romney’s surging to over fifty percent is significant because no candidate has EVER lost election with a lead over fifty percent at this point in the race.

The mainstream media polls that have had – and in a few cases still have – Obama up have relied on models that counted on a +8 Democrat turnout for Obama; which is stunning given that Obama only had a +4 Democrat turnout in that 2008 election in which absolutely everything turned Obama’s way.  Those models are simply downright false given what Gallup just found:

Gallup quietly published some stunning data this morning. Based on surveys conducted from October 1 through 24, Gallup finds that 36% of likely voters call themselves Republicans, compared with 35% who are Democrats. If leaners are included, the GOP advantage is 49%/46%.

How important is that? In 2008 the Democrats had a ten-point party ID advantage, 12 with leaners. If the data released today correctly reflect the voting population this year, you can throw away all of those polls that are D +9, D +7–or, for that matter, D +1. Substantially all polls show Mitt Romney with a wide lead over Barack Obama among independents. So if today’s party ID data are correct, not only will the presidential election not be close, but the Republicans will do better than currently expected in the Senate and House, too.

Now, you factor that surplus of Republican voters this year along with a sixteen point advantage in Republican enthusiasm over Democrats, and then you factor those two details along  with the nineteen-point Romney advantage with independent voters (52% to 33% for Obama), and you’ve got the very real possibility of an historic asskicking that the media simply would NOT examine.

ABC News just moved Pennsylvania and Minnesota – two blue states – into the tossup column.  Key battleground states are beginning a tectonic shift toward Romney.  And perhaps in an even more powerful signal, early voting has favored Romney by a 52% to 45% margin after early mainstream media reports that declared just the opposite.  One could compare this campaign to World War II: The Germans held all the advantages over Russia until Stalingrad in 1942 – and then the tide turned and suddenly the Germans found themselves fighting a losing battle across a huge front that went from Russian ground to German ground.  That’s what’s happened this election to Obama, with his first miserable debate performance serving as his Stalingrad.

That last is huge due to the sheer sample size: 15% of registered voters have already cast their ballots in the United States, and they have voted for Romney over Obama by a 52% to 45% margin.  That news is huge because historically Republicans prefer to vote by absentee ballot and Democrats heavily favor early voting.  So again Republicans are not only fighting but winning on a Democrat battlefield.  And that seven-point margin even beats the giant six-point advantage Romney has according to Gallup’s latest polling before Hurricane Sandy hit.

What is Obama’s only advantage?  Well, here’s an example:

PolitiChicks.tv has just received confirmation that a voter in Las Vegas tried voting for Governor Mitt Romney but the machine automatically checked “Obama” multiple times instead.

Our source said:

“Yesterday I went to an early voting site at Centennial Center in Las Vegas, NV. I went with my 19 year old son who was a first-time voter. I went to an open machine and inserted my card. When the selections came up, all of the candidate pairings were listed and I touched the box for Romney/Ryan. The checkmark appeared next to President Obama’s name. I touched the check mark removing it and touched the box next to Romney’s name again. Again, the checkmark appeared next to Obama. I motioned for an observer to come over and showed him. I touched the mark next to Obama, removing it and again touched Romney’s name. The checkmark appeared next to Obama. At this point, the gentleman next to me was looking over my partition to see. I touched the checkmark, again removing it from Obama’s name and selected Romney. The checkmark appeared next to Romney. I double-checked the paper ballot to ensure that Romney was indeed selected and cast my ballot. I didn’t make a fuss but have called our local election department only to get recordings. I also wrote an email to the Clark County Election Department about the incident. My son said that he had no issues casting his ballot.”

I called the Las Vegas GOP office but haven’t gotten a response from anyone about this yet.

Please folks, check and re-check your ballots before turning them in. A similar case was reported earlier today in North Carolina.

And here’s the story on North Carolina.

The only chance Obama has at this point is massive voter fraud.  You just can’t overcome the following disadvantages: the other party is larger than your party AND has more enthusiasm to get out and actually vote; plus independent voters support the other candidate by nineteen points more than they support you.  Democrats only “hope and change” is to cheat and to cheat massively.

[Update, 10/31/12]: Just to make it official, Obama is cheating in Ohio, too:

Voting machine swaps Obama for Romney
Incorrect inputs irritate voter
6:51 AM, Oct 31, 2012

MARION — Joan Stevens was one of several early voters at the polls on Monday. But when Stevens tried to cast her ballot for president, she noticed a problem.

Upon selecting “Mitt Romney” on the electronic touch screen, Barack Obama’s name lit up.

It took Stevens three tries before her selection was accurately recorded.

“You want to vote for who you want to vote for, and when you can’t it’s irritating,” Stevens said.

Stevens said she alerted Jackie Smith, a board of elections member who was present. Smith declined to comment, but Stevens says she mentioned that the machine had been having problems all day.

ddd

The Polls In Ohio Look A LOT Better For Mitt Romney Than The Media Is Telling You

October 22, 2012

On the traditional view that Ohio is THE critical state, this made me feel a LOT better about Romney’s chances in Ohio.

If you are a liberal, what can I say?  I hope this makes you feel sad:

Mittmentum: New Ohio Polls Better Than They Appear
By Josh Jordan
October 21, 2012 9:27 P.M.

Two new Ohio polls came out yesterday after my Ohio post, from from Gravis Marketing and PPP, both of which point to a razor-thin race in the most coveted swing state. A closer look at each poll shows just how much Romney has gained since the debates, and why he would be absolutely thrilled if these polls were accurate on Election Day.

The poll from Gravis Marketing shows Obama and Romney tied at 47 percent. But that’s as good as it gets for Obama. Among the most interesting tidbits from the poll:

Romney leads Obama by 19 percent among independents, 52–33, and holds 92 percent of his base compared to Obama’s 87 percent. Obama is underwater in job approval, 44–50, and independents disapprove of him overwhelmingly, 31–58. And the poll has a Democratic advantage of 9 percent, which is a 4 percent jump from 2008 — no one believes that Democrats can match their 2008 turnout advantage, let alone almost double it.

PPP (a Democratic firm) released their new poll yesterday showing Obama only up one point, 49 to 48. Just a week ago PPP had the race at 51–46 for Obama. But the four-point gain for Romney is even more impressive when you look at the poll’s findings:

This week’s poll has a Democrat sample advantage of 8 percent; last week’s advantage was 4. Romney gained four points on Obama in a week despite the sample’s having four percentage points more Democrats. Romney leads with independents by 7 percent, up from a 5 percent last week. Obama’s approval is underwater at 48–50, and independents disapprove of him by a 41–54 margin. Last week Obama was in positive approval ground at 50–48, and independents disapproved by a much smaller 45–50 margin. Romney’s favorability has gone from a minus-6 margin last week (45–51) to a plus-2 this week (49–47). Trust on the economy went from Obama plus-5 last week (51–46) to plus-4 in Romney’s direction this week (51–47). Independents jumped from Romney plus-5 last week to Romney plus-15 this week.

These two polls highlight what many saw in the second debate: Romney may have lost the overall debate, but he won handily on the issues of the economy, debt, and taxes. While Democrats were riding high this week after Obama narrowly won the face-off, Romney was quietly solidifying support from voters by commanding the issues that matter most. Based on these two polls, the only way Obama can win Ohio is if he finds a way to greatly surpass 2008 turnout with Democrats, which at the moment seems like an impossible task. If these polls hold, it won’t be long before the state Romney was declared dead in knocks down the last pillar of inevitability that Obama has left.

— Josh Jordan is a small-business market-research consultant. You can follow him on Twitter @Numbersmuncher.

It’s amazing that only a few weeks ago the (mostly liberal) talking heads said that Romney was dead in Ohio and should pull out.  Now Romney is surging ALL OVER THE COUNTRY and the liberal talking heads are saying Obama should pull out of Florida where again just a few weeks ago the polls said Obma had a six point lead.

Maybe if the polls give Obama a fifty point turnout advantage in their models Obama could look better.  Obama would have to do about twenty times better than he did in 2008 with Democrat turnout, but Chris Matthews is sure it’s possible for messiah given Obama’s power to make legs tingle.

Romney Now Up HUGE With Independent Voters (Even Enough To Overcome Mainstream Media’s Incredibly Deceitful Democrat Oversampling Models)

October 10, 2012

This is almost as short as it is incredibly sweet and delicious:

Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Romney up huge with independents
Posted by Christian Heinze at 3:53 PM

Fueling his current polling surge, Mitt Romney’s numbers with indies are just getting remarkably good.

a. IBD/ITP poll released today: Romney 52% Obama 34%.

b. Pew poll, released yesterday: Romney 46% Obama 42%.

c. Politico/GW poll, released yesterday: Romney 51% Obama 35%.

d. CNN, released last week: Romney 49% Obama 41%.

e. National Journal, released October 3: Romney 49% Obama 41%.

Now having said that, Romney has done well this entire cycle with independents, but not enough to overcome turnout models that suggested much, much higher Democratic turnout.

But now he’s killing it so soundly that it’s enough to overcome higher Democratic turnout. In fact, in ARG’s poll of Ohio today, Dems are sampled at +9% over Republicans, but Romney wins indies by 20%, which is enough to inch ahead, overall, 48%-47%.

Some of this is a debate bounce, but as I’ve said, one of the most under-reported stories this cycle has been Romney’s continual lead with independents. That always assured this would be a close election, regardless.

In fact, Barack Obama won indies by 8% in 2008. Romney is easily hitting that number in the most recent batch of polls.

The two best pollsters of 2008 – Rasmussen and Pew – both have Romney up nationally.  Rasmussen has Romney up by 2 points.  And Pew has Romney up by four points after having him down eight before Obama came out and told 70 million Americans that he was a chump who had no business being president.  And Gallup has Romney up by 2 points among likely voters.

Andrew Sullivan – a career liberal who just can’t acknowledge that he obviously is and always has been a career liberal – has officially panicked with his piece, “Did Obama Just Throw The Entire Election Away?”  It kind of reminds me of SNL’s mock-up of “thrill going up my leg” Chris Matthews being taken away in a straitjacket by men in white coats during his post-debate breakdown.

I can only say thank God my Messiah is Jesus, and so I’ll never have to find out what happens when my messiah spectacularly fails the way the liberals’ messiah just did.

How much of this was the result of the fact that Mitt Romney made Barack Obama look like a drooling imbecile last Wednesday at their debate, and how much is it because the mainstream pollsters figured they’d better start making their numbers appear realistic so they wouldn’t look stupid?  I don’t know.

But what I do know is that if independents vote for Mitt Romney in these percentages, it will be a very long, painful night for Obama and a very good night for America.

Regarding The Polls We’re Being Bombarded By: Are The 9% Who Respond To Polls Representative Of The 91% Who Refuse To Respond To Polls?

October 1, 2012

Thought this “caveat emptor” piece on polling was interesting and informative:

Barone: When it comes to polls, readers beware
September 29, 2012 | 8:00 pm
By Michael Barone

As a recovering pollster (I worked for Democratic pollster Peter Hart from 1974 to 1981), let me weigh in on the controversy over whether the polls are accurate. Many conservatives are claiming that multiple polls have overly Democratic samples, and some charge that media pollsters are trying to discourage Republican voters.

First, some points about the limits of polls. Random-sample polling is an imprecise instrument. There’s an error margin of 3 or 4 percent and polling theory tells us that one out of 20 polls is wrong, with results outside the margin of error. Sometimes it’s easy to spot such an outlier; sometimes not.

In addition, it’s getting much harder for pollsters to get people to respond to interviews. The Pew Research Center reports that it’s getting only 9 percent of the people it contacts to respond to its questions. That’s compared with 36 percent in 1997.

Interestingly, response rates are much higher in new democracies. Americans, particularly in target states, may be getting poll fatigue. When a phone rings in New Hampshire, it might well be a pollster calling.

Are those 9 percent representative of the larger population? As that percentage declines, it seems increasingly possible that the sample is unrepresentative of the much larger voting public. One thing a poll can’t tell us is the opinion of people who refuse to be polled.

Then there is the problem of cellphone-only households. In the 1930s and 1940s, pollsters conducted interviews in person, because half of households had no phone or (your grandparents can explain this) a party-line phone.

By the 1970s, phone ownership was well nigh universal and pollsters mostly phased out in-person interviewing. Phone interviews are much cheaper and quicker.

But today the percentage of households without land-line phones is increasing. Under federal law, cellphone numbers have to be hand-dialed rather than dialed by computer, as land-line numbers are now even when live interviewers ask the questions.

Cellphone-only individuals tend to be younger and more Democratic than land-line owners. Most pollsters are conducting a set number of interviews with cellphone-only households.

But they can only guess at what percentage of the electorate they’ll constitute. Oversample them and you’ll get overly Democratic results.

Which, many conservatives have been arguing, pollsters have been getting in polls this month. They point out that Mitt Romney is running ahead among independents in many polls but trails overall.

This can only happen if Democrats have a big lead in party identification, as they did in 2008. In the exit poll then, 39 percent of voters identified themselves as Democrats and 32 percent as Republicans.

In contrast, exit polls showed an even break on party identification in 2004 and 2010. But many September and some earlier polls showed Democrats with an even bigger party identification lead than four years before.

That seems implausible. Party identification does change over time, as exit polls indicate. But it usually shifts gradually rather than suddenly, as current polls suggest.

There is evidence that since the Charlotte, N.C., convention, Democrats have become more motivated to vote and have narrowed the advantage in enthusiasm Republicans have had since 2010. In which case more Democrats may be passing through screening questions and getting polled.

I don’t believe that any of the media pollsters have been tilting their results in order to demoralize Republicans, though I do look with suspicion on the work of some partisan pollsters.

But I do have my doubts about whether samples with more Democratic Party identification than in 2008 are accurate representations of the electorate. Many states with party registration have shown big drops in registered Democrats since then.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen, who weights his robocall results by party identification, adjusted monthly, has shown a much closer race than most pollsters who leave party identification numbers unweighted. So has the Susquehanna poll in Pennsylvania.

It may be that we’re seeing the phenomenon we’ve seen for years in exit polls, which have consistently skewed Democratic (and toward Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries). Part of that is interviewer error: Exit poll pioneer Warren Mitofsky found the biggest discrepancies between exit polls and actual results were in precincts where the interviewers were female graduate students.

But he also found that Democrats were simply more willing to fill out the exit poll. Which raises the question: Are we seeing the same thing in this month’s polls?

Michael Barone,The Examiner’s senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.

Here’s an interesting Tweet from USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page:

Susan Page@SusanPage29 Sep

New USA TODAY/Gallup Poll: GOP regains enthusiasm edge. 64% of Reps are more enthusiastic than usual v. 48% of Dems. http://usat.ly/QyKk3a

Are the polls reflecting that a whopping majority of Republicans (by a margin of 16 points) would crawl off their deathbeds through broken glass to vote Obama the hell out of office?  I’m kind of guessing no.

Are the polls reflecting that nearly the same whopping majority of the American middle class (by a margin of 14 points) are going to be voting for Romney?

In our latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll with middle-class families, which comprise about 54 percent of the total American electorate and usually split in their vote behavior between Republicans and Democrats, Romney holds a 14-point advantage (55 percent to 41 percent). Middle-class families are more inclined to believe the country is on the wrong track (34 percent right direction, 62 percent wrong track), are more likely to hold an unfavorable view of Obama (48 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable), and hold a more favorable view of Romney (51 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable) and Paul Ryan (46 percent favorable, 35 percent unfavorable) than the overall electorate. These middle-class families also hold a majority disapproval rating on the job Obama is doing as president (45 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove), and turn even more negative toward Obama on specific areas; the economy 56 percent disapprove; spending 61 percent disapprove; taxes, 53 percent disapprove; Medicare 48 percent disapprove; and even foreign policy 50 percent disapprove.

Again, I’m guessing they don’t.

Liberals are putting an awful lot of stock in the 9% of Americans who are so lonely and who so do not have lives that a pollster calls and they grab the phone.

I guess I’m more like the 91% who won’t pick up the phone to talk to a pollster when it comes to thinking about the polls: I’m frankly just not that worried about them.  And frankly the only thing I DO worry about is the extent to which the mainstream media has been going to try to exploit the polls to try to suppress Republican enthusiasm.

And that 16 point advantage the GOP has in voter enthusiasm tells me that maybe I shouldn’t be very worried about that, either.

Reweighting Polls In Real Clear Politics Average To (Most Accurate In 2008) Rasmussen Assumptions Gives Romney Massive 7.8 Point Advantage

September 29, 2012

Rather interesting.  If you take the mainstream polls that are popping up like weeds in spring, and reweight the assumptions to reflect the most-accurate-in-2008 Rasmussen model, you get Romney winning in a landslide.

The truth about 2012 polls
By Douglas E. Schoen
Published September 27, 2012
FoxNews.com

In the 2012 race for the White House President Obama is ahead, but the polls  are misleading.
It seems that each new poll brings good news for  Obama. He’s up six points nationally according to the latest Bloomberg numbers.  Gallup’s weekly tracker has the president up six as well. And it looks like  crucial swing states are going for Obama in a big way: the latest Quinnipiac  poll gives Obama a nine point edge in Florida, a 10 point advantage in Ohio and  a 12 point lead in Pennsylvania.

To be sure, Obama is ahead in this race. But by how much has become a serious  point of contention and one that deserves further examination.

Republicans and Democrats alike have honed in on the fact that recent media  polls are oversampling Democrats. Indeed, we have seen many polls that are  heavily skewed. There was the Washington Post/ABC poll that had a +9 Democrat  skew in late August. There was the Marquette poll for Wisconsin from two weeks  ago with a D+8 sample. And the newest swing state poll from Quinnipiac gave  Obama a spread between Democrats and Republicans that was even greater than the  historic Democrat advantage in 2008, a seven point spread between voters  identifying themselves as Democrats or Republicans at 39 percent to 32 percent,  in each state they polled.

In a recent interview, Romney pollster Neil Newhouse made the argument that  these mainstream polls are skewed in favor of Obama. “I don’t think [the polls]  reflect the composition of what 2012 is going to look like,” he said.

In order to address this, some conservative outlets have taken matters into  their own hands. One website, www.unskewedpolls.com,  has begun reweighting mainstream polls to more closely track the demographic  assumptions that the conservative leaning Rasmussem Reports uses. The results  have been staggering: the re-weighted polls all put Romney ahead of Obama with  margins of between 3 and 11 points. If one looks at the Real Clear Politics  average Obama is currently up four percent over Romney. But according to UnSkewedPolls.com,  Romney has a 7.8 percent edge on Obama.

The expectation by mainstream pollsters is that the turnout in 2012 will be  the same, if not better, for Democrats as it was in 2008.

There was a seven-point increase in the party identification gap between 2004  and 2008 nationally, which was the largest shift in a generation. If you look at  individual swing state results from 2008 you see a different story in certain  cases like Florida where exit polls show a Democratic skew of just D+3.  Pennsylvania and Ohio were similar to the national result at D+7 and D+8, but  these figures are still less than pollsters are sampling. The Quinnipiac poll  skew was D+9 in Florida and D+11 in Ohio – a substantive difference from using  2008 as a predictor.

The assumption the pollsters are making that turnout in 2008 will be the same  and even better for Obama than in 2008 is flawed. Not only are we looking at a  terrible economic situation, but there will be key differences in turnout from  2008 that will affect the results and the accuracy of these polls.

Democratic  registration may be overstated. It is my belief that many weak  Obama voters are saying that they are Democrats when they really aren’t  partisans at all: they are disillusioned with American politics. What this means  is that these people aren’t even certain to vote in November and if they stay  home, Obama’s numbers will surely be affected.

Additionally, fewer young people will turn out at the polls this year. As  evidenced by Obama’s push to mobilize the youth vote, a group that he won  handily in 2008, demonstrates, this is a key group that is becoming increasingly  apathetic and is apt to turn out in fewer numbers.

Even so, these differences do not mean that the Democrat skew in the  electorate is a total misrepresentation of the electorate today. While the  seven-point bulge from 2008 is too large for this election, there is most likely  to be a three to five point skew to the Democrats.

If you look at the results of these polls and account for the average three  point margin of error and take another 2-3 points from Obama’s number to account  for the overstated Democrat skew, you still have Obama ahead by anywhere between  two and four points.

What’s more, Obama’s job approval rating has been 50 percent or higher in  each of the last four Gallup daily tracking figures and now 50 percent of  registered voters prefer him in the election. Crossing the 50 percent threshold  is a crucial indicator of an incumbent’s chances at reelection and shows that  things are shifting in Obama’s favor.

To be sure, Obama is in the lead. The polls are oversampling Democrats, but  he remains ahead. But it is also a lead that should not be exaggerated. The race  is not over yet and the debates beginning next week will be a decisive test for  both the president and Governor Romney.

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton and  is currently working with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has more  than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a  Fox News contributor and co-host of “Fox News Insiders” Sundays on Fox News  Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of ten  books including,“Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and  What it Means for 2012 and Beyond” (Rowman and Littlefield 2012). Follow  Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.

I’m not quite sure how Schoen (who clearly is a lifelong Democrat) goes from the lines that I have boldfaced to stating that “To be sure, Obama is in the lead.”  He doesn’t explain the mental gymnastics that led to that point in his routine.  That said, I do recognize that the man is an expert in his field of polling and that he is able to both access and understand the internals of polls in a way that I cannot.  That said, there are other polling experts, such as Dick Morris, who is looking at the same data and drawing the opposite conclusion.

What puzzles me is that somehow after presenting Unskewed Polls in a credible light, Schoen completely dismisses their findings without even bothering to wave his hand at a reason.  As an example, Schoen cites Obama’s job approval rating as over 50%; but Unskewed Polls shows Obama SERIOUSLY under water by more than 8 points:

It’s kind of incoherent for Schoen to present the Unskewed Poll and then completely dismiss it without bothering to explain why we should similarly dismiss it.

When you look at the mess of assumptions and oversampling and whatnot, it very much seems that “polling” is like unto a witch doctor peering into the “internals” of chickens to try to predict the future.  It just aint very wise to put too much credence in either one of them.

Three Articles Worth Reading As You Consider The Polls (Especially In Ohio)

September 28, 2012

I’m just going to post three articles without comment and allow you to draw your own conclusion:

Tracking Ohio’s absentee ballot requests.
September 27, 2012
by Moe Lane

We[**] got a guy out there doing just that, and the link to his spreadsheet is here.

Executive summary: the process is ongoing, and what’s being tracked are absentee/early ballot REQUESTS, not turned-in ballots.  So it’s not telling us who’s ahead in Ohio; it’s merely telling us what we know of which party’s members are asking for ballots.  In other words, it’s a possible measure of voter enthusiasm in Ohio.  So…

2012 2008 % of 08
Total 601208 740725 81%
Democrat 177155 288270 61%
Republican 145560 144300 101%
Cuyohoga 159572 231497 69%
D Cuyohoga 86274 119891 72%
R Cuyohoga 38134 35067 109%
Hamilton 61253 102796 60%
D Hamilton 9793 16763 58%
R Hamilton 18304 23677 77%
Summit 39056 92941 42%
D Summit 9581 43524 22%
R Summit 7525 12857 59%

The above shows first the total absentee/early ballot requests of all counties currently reporting*, for both 2008 and 2012; followed by the current totals for three of the top five most populous counties in Ohio (full information is not yet available in [Republican] Franklin and [Democratic] Montgomery counties).  So, in 2008 the total absentee/early ballots for all counties currently captured by the linked spreadsheet was just under 741 thousand; the 2012 equivalent so far is currently 601 thousand, or 81% of 2008′s total.  And when you look at the partisan breakdowns… simply put, the Democrats are not requesting absentee ballots at the same rate as Republicans are.  Of the three counties listed above, only Hamilton is particularly Republican… yet Cuyohoga Democrats have yet to reach their 2008 numbers while the Republican numbers have, and it may still end up that Summit county Republicans will surpass the Democrats there.  In fact, if this trend continues then total Republican early/absentee ballot requests in Ohio may surpass total Democratic ballots; it is uncertain whether the Democrats will match their 2008 totals, while the Republicans very probably will.

Shorter executive summary: what we know of early/absentee ballot requests in Ohio does not support the current narrative that Ohioan Democratic voters are as enthusiastic about voting in 2012 as they were in 2008.  This in turn does not support the current narrative that the Democrats will do better in Ohio in 2012 than they did in 2008.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*This is an important caveat: there are considerably more counties out there that still need to report in.  This report indicates that there were a total of 1.72 million absentee/early voters in Ohio in 2012; clearly the process has a way to go.

[**UPDATE: For the record, that ‘we’ is generic.]

The point here is that Democrats are at 61% of what they attained in 2008, versus Republicans who are at 101%.

Second article:

Drop in Ohio voter registration, especially in Dem strongholds, mirrors nationwide trend
By Doug McKelway
Published September 27, 2012
FoxNews.com

[See video available at Fox News]

“Don’t boo, vote,” President Obama often says in his stump speech whenever  crowds boo a Romney plan.

The off-hand call to vote may be by design. It comes amid a precipitous  decline in Democratic voter registration in key swing states — nowhere more  apparent than in Ohio.

Voter registration in the Buckeye State is down by 490,000 people from 4  years ago. Of that reduction,. 44 percent is in Cleveland and surrounding  Cuyahoga County, where Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two to one.

“I think what we’re seeing is a lot of spin and hype on the part of the Obama  campaign to try to make it appear that they’re going to cruise to victory in  Ohio,” Cuyahoga County Republican Chairman Rob Frost said. “It’s not just  Cuyahoga County. Nearly 350,000 of those voters are the decrease in the rolls in  the three largest counties, Cuyahoga, Hamilton and Franklin.”

Frost points out that those three counties all contain urban centers, where  the largest Democrat vote traditionally has been.

Ohio is not alone. An August study by the left-leaning think tank Third Way  showed that the Democratic voter registration decline in eight key swing states  outnumbered the Republican decline by a 10-to-one ratio. In Florida, Democratic  registration is down 4.9 percent, in Iowa down 9.5 percent. And in New  Hampshire, it’s down down 19.7 percent.

“It’s understandable that enthusiasm is going to wane a little bit from that  historic moment (in 2008),” says Michelle Diggles, the study co-author and  senior policy adviser for Third Way. “You can only elect the first  African-American president of this country once.”

The dip in registration has been framed by some as the result of Republican  efforts to suppress the vote – an accusation that Ohio Secretary of State John  Husted, a Republican, categorically rejects.

“That’s kind of a silly notion that removing deceased people and duplicate  records from the roll has anything to do with voter suppression,” he said. “It  actually has to do with voter integrity. They can’t point to one legally  registered voter that’s actually been removed from the rolls.”

The Third Way study, which was conducted in August, indicates the Democrats’  drop in registered voters coincides with a gain in independent voters.

“There are about half a million more independents now than there were just  for years ago,” Diggles said.

One Democratic Party consultant told Fox News that independents in Ohio may  be leaning Democratic – an effect that may be tied to the bailout of Chrysler  and GM. One of eight people in Ohio work in businesses directly tied to the auto  industry. The state has been carpeted with Obama ads that point to his bailout  of the industry and it’s managed bankruptcy.

Mitt Romney also favored a managed bankruptcy of the auto industry. But he  criticized the expenditure of taxpayer money and the preferential treatment  given to union-linked creditors over the industry’s secured creditors.

Others question the bailout’s effect on swaying the minds of independent  voters. In the words of Diggles, independents are “not a stable voting block at  all.”

Last article:

Asking the experts: Which polls are, or aren’t, legitimate?
posted at 7:47 pm on September 27, 2012 by Allahpundit

After yesterday’s post on poll trustworthiness, I started wondering whether there’s any poll or model that’s been consistently accurate over time and therefore worth watching down the stretch as a weathervane of where the race really stands. I e-mailed two experts whom I trust and put that question to them. Is there any steady signal they trust amid the cacophony of statistical noise? Anyone we can look to as a beacon in the darkness when the NYT drops its next D+10 sample of Utah or whatever on us?

Short answer: No, there’s no one whom they count on to get it more or less right every time. Polling averages did well in 2008 and 2004 but not so well in 2000 and 1996. The first person I spoke to told me flatly that it’s not worth paying much attention to the numbers now because the assumptions being made about the composition of the electorate on November 6 differ too widely among individual pollsters to distill a truly useful average. That uncertainty is compounded by the fact that, with six weeks left until America votes, there’s still an ocean full of potential “black swans” — wonderful/terrible jobs reports, war with Iran, a new eurozone spasm, etc — that could send the trendlines fluttering. (Team Romney told Rich Lowry they think their dip in Gallup’s tracker lately is due to one such black-swan moment whose effects are already fading.) Once we get to within a week or two of election day and pollsters’ assumptions finally start to coalesce, the polling averages will become more reliable as an indicator of where the race really stands. As my own addendum to that, I think we’re close enough to the first debate that there’s no point picking through polls until late next week at the earliest. Why worry about this week’s data when there’s a hugely important event that’s bound to affect the race right around the corner?

My other source had less to say about the reliability of polling averages generally than their reliability with respect to specific candidates. He told me that if you look at historical averages, you find that they underestimated Gore in 2000, Dole in 1996, and Bush 41 in 1992 — all of them dull, somewhat stiff candidates whom their respective bases weren’t thrilled about. Why would polls miss the mark on people like that? His theory is that pollsters pay lots of attention to voter enthusiasm but less attention to whether voters say they’re “certain” to vote, and in the case of candidates who aren’t beloved by their base, those two variables don’t match up especially well. There were plenty of Republicans who weren’t enthusiastic about Bush and Dole but who were nonetheless certain to vote for them in hopes of defeating the Democrat. Ditto for Gore vis-a-vis the GOP. (Kerry and McCain were also dim lights to their bases and the polls gauged their support pretty well, but in McCain’s case he had a huge shot of enthusiasm late from adding Palin to the ticket.) He thinks the same thing could be happening this year — essentially, pollsters are keying off of the Dems’ slight edge in “enthusiasm” and missing the fact that plenty of unenthusiastic Republicans will be at the polls anyway to vote for a guy who’s taken to citing RomneyCare lately as proof of his empathy. If that’s the case, then they’re lowballing Romney’s support. And in a tight race, that’s potentially a decisive error.

See? I am capable of writing a poll post that’s not hopelessly eeyorish. Although I’d be lying if I said this wasn’t how I felt when I saw those Gallup numbers yesterday. Oof.

The guy being shot was actually me on November 4, 2008.  And I thought I’d died so magnificently, too…

Just To Brighten Your Day: Romney Has Overtaken Obama In The Polls Even As Obama’s Approval Has Plummeted

August 17, 2012

Nice to see articles like this from the Washington Times:

LAMBRO: Romney polls overtake Obama
President’s approval plummeting
By Donald Lambro – The Washington Times
Thursday, August 16, 2012

Let’s get a few things straight about the presidential race between President Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. It’s not a dead heat anymore.

Everyone knew this was going to be a close race, but as of this week, Mr. Romney moved slightly ahead of President Obama. Not by much, maybe a couple of points, but he clearly has begun to move into the lead.

Heading into July, the race clearly was a tie, with the Gallup Poll showing each candidate at 46 percent in its head-to-head daily surveys. But something happened this week that appears to have changed the political equation.

Perhaps it was Mr. Romney’s choice of veteran Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the powerful House Budget Committee. Or more evidence of the Obama economy’s persistent weakness and soaring gasoline prices. Or the tough TV ads Mr. Romney’s campaign has begun running after months of being punched around by an avalanche of negative ads in the battleground states.

Whatever the reason, the numbers began slowly but clearly to edge Mr. Romney’s way, and Mr. Obama’s numbers took a nose dive on his job-approval ratings.

The first indication that Mr. Obama’s shaky presidency was taking a tumble came Monday, when the Gallup Poll’s daily tracking survey showed his job-approval numbers plunging to 43 percent and his disapproval climbing to 50 percent.

Then, on Wednesday, Gallup’s candidate matchup suddenly was leaning in Mr. Romney’s direction, 47 percent to the president’s 45 percent. That’s where things stood heading into Friday.

While a number of factors are contributing to Mr. Obama’s slight decline and Mr. Romney’s rise in the national polls, there is no doubt the economy and jobs are the biggest factors driving this race.

Gallup proved that Thursday when it released new poll numbers showing voters were giving Mr. Obama some of the worst scores of his failed presidency on the economy, job creation and four years of $1 trillion-plus deficits that most trouble the American people.

White House morale, which reportedly is declining fast, must have sunk even further when staffers looked at Mr. Obama’s bleak approval-disapproval numbers on these issues:

Creating jobs: 37 percent approval and 58 percent disapproval.

The economy: 36 percent approval and 60 percent disapproval.

The federal budget deficits: 30 percent approval and 64 percent disapproval.

These aren’t just disastrous job-approval scores, they are among the worst in recent presidencies, including the one Mr. Obama followed in 2009.

“Obama’s ratings on the economy are significantly worse than all three prior successful presidential incumbents at this same point in their first term,” Gallup reported Thursday.

“His 36 percent approval rating on the economy is well below George W. Bush’s rating in August 2004 (46 percent), Bill Clinton’s in August 1996 (54 percent), and Ronald Reagan’s in July 1984 (50 percent),” Gallup said.

It’s worth noting that in Reagan’s case, the 1984 election was all about Reagan’s tax-cut-driven recovery versus tax increases proposed by Democratic nominee Walter Mondale. Reagan won in a landslide, carrying 49 states.

In many ways, the central election issues in 1984 were the same ones we are fighting over today. Tax cuts get the economy back on its feet, stimulate capital investment, create more jobs and produce more revenue to boot.

Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are embracing lower taxes, just as John F. Kennedy, Reagan and, eventually, even Bill Clinton did, to build the economy, while Mr. Obama and the Democrats are running on raising taxes to grow the government and increase spending.

Mr. Obama and his party charge that lowering taxes will worsen the deficit, when one of the chief culprits driving the Obama deficits, besides his spending binge, is slower 1.5 percent economic growth and an 8.3 percent jobless rate. People who don’t have jobs don’t pay income taxes.

Meantime, another issue is emerging in the campaign that is hurting Mr. Obama’s quest for a second term, and that is his directive to rewrite the welfare reform law of 1996.

That directive will grant waivers to the states to override the welfare reform law, according to a study written by two top analysts at the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley.

“The new welfare dictate issued by the Obama administration clearly guts the law and seeks to impose its own policy choices — a pattern that has become all too common in this administration,” they wrote.

In a nutshell, Mr. Obama’s directive says the “traditional TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) work requirements can be waived or overridden by a legal device called the Section 1115 waiver authority,” they said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said in a separate study of that section, “Effectively, there are no TANF waivers.”

The Romney campaign has been hitting the airwaves with an ad lambasting the administration for its backdoor attempt to undermine the welfare reforms. The Obama campaign has counterattacked, charging the ad is a lie and that Mr. Romney sought the same kind of waiver authority as governor.

Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler, while criticizing the Romney ad, said “There is something fishy about the administration’s process on this memorandum.” He gave the Obama camp “a solid three Pinocchios” for its shaky waiver claim against Mr. Romney, saying “there is little evidence that is the case.”

Increasingly, as Mr. Obama’s disapproval numbers have been getting worse, his campaign has been making up things that aren’t true. A sense of desperation and hysteria is creeping into its bipolar rhetoric, with Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. warning voters (guess who?) that Mr. Romney will “put y’all back in chains.”

Historically, Gallup says, presidents who won a second term had near 50 percent job-approval ratings. But with Mr. Obama’s ratings stuck in the mid to low 40s, it looks as if the end is near.

Donald Lambro is a syndicated columnist and former chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

If that doesn’t make you happy, then consider the Purple Poll which examines the dozen swing states that will decide the presidency.  Romney is now leading in Ohio, Virginia and Florida.

What is most promising of all is that Obama has enormously outspent Romney the last several months – even as Romney has actually outraised Obama during those months – due to the campaign laws that prevent Romney from spending money he has raised for the general election until he is the official nominee of his party.  After the GOP convention near the end of August, it will suddenly be ROMNEY who has the huge money edge over Obama.  Obama has spent hundreds of millions lying and slandering and demonizing – and it basically hasn’t done him any good.  And in less than three weeks it will be Romney on serve.

The race is close.  But it is very possible that Romney is beginning to break through.

Pray.  Contribute/donate.  Volunteer.  And vote.  For the love of God and the love of America.

New York Times Woefully Examines The Likelihood Of Another Republican Asskicking House Election In 2012. Then Consider The Implications For Obama.

July 30, 2012

This caught my eye, given all the various predictions and hand-wringing over all the many polls:

For House Democrats 2012 will be at least as bad as 2010, but chances are it will be worse
By Kevin “Coach” Collins, on July 28th, 2012

“If this were just our candidates versus their candidates, I would sign an affidavit that we would pick up 35 seats” so says Congressman Steve Israel the Democrat in charge of getting the House back. This false bravado sums up a big part of the Democrats’ problem: not being able to acknowledge there is a problem.

A hand wringing New York Times analysis lays out the grim situation for its Party:

“The overall dynamic favors Republicans, who look poised to maintain their hold on the House. More Democrats than Republicans have retired in districts where they were endangered, and more Republicans benefited from the decennial redistricting, leaving the Democrats with too small a cushion of Teflon incumbents as they try to regain a majority in the House. Of the 80 races viewed as most competitive by The New York Times, based on polls and interviews with independent analysts, 32 are leaning Republican, 23 are leaning Democratic and 25 are tossups.”

The reality is that these numbers indicate the GOP is poised to win over 50 of these race and maybe more. Because of the cumulative effect of both elections this would be worse than 2010 for the Democrats who could see their numbers fall to the fewest since 1931.

Why this will happen

With less than four months to go compared to 2008 conservative Republican enthusiasm is 16 points higher and liberal Democrat enthusiasm is 22 points lower.

Democrats from local candidates to Barack Obama have no coherent plausible message.

Together they have made America sick so what can they say?

They can’t even keep their “We hate” list straight. They’ve tried to get their base to hate Bain Capital, but couldn’t make their charges stick because they are lies. They’re still trying to get their base to hate the TEA party but every charge they make is a lie so it falls flat. Now they are telling their Christian base to hate Christian doctrine and love Democrats which is also doomed to failure.

There is no group Obama lost in 2008 that he is winning now and no group (not even African Americans) he won in 2008 that he is doing better with today. Now that voters have a clearer idea of what he is all about, Barack Obama will be an even bigger drag on his Party this year than he was in 2010 when the GOP took 63 seats in a landslide not seen since 1938.

Americans are NOT going to the polls to vote against Barack Obama then vote for a Democrat in their Congressional district as Mister Israel fantasizes. Come November Democrat policies will sink them in large numbers.

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

To reach your Congressional representative, use this link:

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

To read more use this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/us/politics/republicans-and-democrats-fight-for-control-of-the-house.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

To read about how hypocritical the Democrats have been over the past 200 years. Get you copy of Coach’s new book Crooks Thugs and bigots: the lost hidden and changed history of the Democratic Party available at:http://crooksthugsandbigots.com

Here is the map the New York Times created.  It is interactive if you go to the article available (again) here:

I admit, it might be my eyes are messed up or something.  But I don’t see the blue tidal wave of adoration for Obama.  I see the red of a bunch or Republicans rising up in righteous outrage.

We’re seeing a lot of polls coming out that apparently favor Obama.  They have two major weaknesses:

1) Flawed polling methodology.  Recently we had a poll that had Obama up by six points over Romney.  What you have to dig a little more into is the fact that the poll had a sampling distribution that favored Democrats by 11 points over Republicans.  That’s a 2008 model.  Well, please understand: 2008 went bye-bye for Obama.  He’s simply not going to have the sort of overwhelming Democrat tide that he had in 2008 – and any polling methodology that assumes he will is deeply flawed and in fact biased.

When we can routinely point to polls that skew toward Democrats by seventeen points, we can point to an invalid poll.

2) Voter turnout.  I’m not hearing predictions that Democrats will vote for Romney in substantial numbers the way we had “Reagan Democrats.”  The question is, how energized are Democrats to show up and vote?  The fact of the matter is that voter enthusiasm was ALL in Democrats’ favor in 2008 – and the fact of the matter is that it is now a mirror image with the same levels of enthusiasm now favoring Republicans.  The most heavily Democrat voter groups such as blacks and youth are already showing a substantial enthusiasm gap which predict that they will NOT turn out the way they did in 2008.

Fittingly, Democrats have been dropping out in such droves rather than be seen with Obama that Nancy Pelosi has suggested that Democrats should just skip the whole damn thing altogether:

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi says Democratic members should stay home and campaign in their districts rather than go to the party’s national convention in North Carolina.

“I’m not encouraging anyone to go to the convention, having nothing to do with anything except I think they should stay home, campaign in their districts, use their financial and political resources to help them win their election,” Pelosi said in an exclusive interview for POLITICO Live’s “On Congress,” a new weekly show to be streamed live on POLITICO’s website and broadcast on NewsChannel 8 on Wednesdays.

Someone might be able to correct me, but I find this historic. I don’t believe any party leader has ever called for that party to abandon their own national convention.

To add insult to injury for Democrats, the labor unions that form the backbone of the Democrat Party machine are literally planning on holding their own convention and tuning out the DNC Convention in North Carolina:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Three weeks before the Democratic National Convention this summer, union leaders plan to hold their own “shadow convention” to promote labor issues they believe too many elected officials are ignoring.

The union gathering in Philadelphia on Aug. 11 was inspired by the anger many labor officials felt after Democrats decided to stage their nominating convention in North Carolina, a right-to-work state that is the least unionized in the country.

Most unions are still planning to attend the Charlotte, N.C., convention, but more than a dozen are boycotting it. Other unions are not spending big money on the convention as they have in the past.

Does this sound positive for Democrats?  And compare these developments to when Obama was parading around as “the messiah” at the enormous 2008 Democratic National Convention with an ostentatatious Grecian Temple platform to magnify his wonderful wonderfulness.

Numerous polls are assuming it’s Obama messiah magic all over again with their assumptions, but reality seems to be screaming a very different message.

Here’s another example: Democrats are refusing to pay their dues to the Democrat Party to the tune of a full third of the entire caucus not paying ANYTHING to go with an even larger group who have only paid a portion:

Prying open members’ fists is an election year ritual for leaders of both parties, but Democrats contend this time around has been particularly frustrating. Facing a team of deep-pocketed Republican outside groups poised to swamp them in TV ad spending — and with the party not benefiting from the kind of wave conditions that lifted Republicans two years ago — Democrats say the stinginess of their lawmakers has left them severely weakened as the fall campaign season approaches.

Democrats say they’ve tried just about everything to get their colleagues to open their wallets. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has told members that unless they pay their dues in full, they won’t get to partake in the committee’s Democratic National Convention package, complete with access to much sought-after hotel rooms and parties. And in early June, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tried to shame her members into giving, distributing notes to each of them with a request for cash and asking them if they are part of “the team.”

The push hasn’t had much success. As of June 30, 64 Democrats — around one-third of the entire caucus — hadn’t paid anything to the DCCC, according to a party document provided to POLITICO. Another 109 members had paid only a portion of what they owe in dues, which are calculated based on seniority and committee assignments.

In June, GOP members flooded the National Republican Congressional Committee with nearly $6.4 million. The DCCC secured just $1.8 million from Democratic lawmakers.

THAT is a Democrat enthusiasm gap.  This isn’t a happy, enthused, energized party saying let’s work together to win with and for our messiah.  This is a bunch of professional politicians who see a lot of numbers that the rest of us don’t get to see who are saying in several important ways, “It’s every DemocRAT for himself.”

To other factors promise to make what Democrats are already seeing as really, really bad even WORSE:

1) Money.  Obama raised more money in 2008 than any politician in the entire history of the world.  Guess what’s happened since?  Obama has alienated and frankly enraged many of the deep pockets that he won in 2008 with his lies and empty promises and meaningless rhetoric.  The advantage is now on Romney’s side.  Obama is going deep into the hole now to spend money while Romney is unable to open the floodgates until he is the official GOP nominee, but come August Romney will be able to release the hounds on Obama.  Obama has been attempting – apparently without much success – to demonize Romney and “frame” him before he is able to spend money to answer all the lies in all the bogus Obama ads.  If Romney is able to weather this storm, the worm will begin to turn come August after the GOP Convention.

2) The economy.  Job growth is slowing to so far below the threshold needed just to keep up with population growth it isn’t funny.  We just saw that GDP growth is so meager that we are very close to stall speed and a dreaded double-dip recession.  Consumer confidence is plunging.  Record numbers of Americans are on food stamps compared to any other time in US history and we’ve got more Americans filing for disability than we’ve got Americans getting jobs.  This is by far and away the WEAKEST and most miserable “recovery” in US history because Obama’s policies are so wrong and he simply will not LET the economy recover.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the economy will get any better between now and election day and damn GOOD reason to believe it will be getting WORSE.  Nouriel Roubini, an economist who is famous for having predicted the 2008 economic implosion, believes that the economy will get WORSE.  Economist Peter Morici is writing about a soon-coming economic collapse.

That’s the real record Obama is running on: from bad to worse.

Obama is running on the assertion that if George W. Bush were still president, there is absolutely no way the CIA and the SEALs could have got Obama.  Why?  Because getting bin Laden was a miracle, and only messiah Obama could possibly have ever performed this miracle.  Obama is running on the assertion that if George W. Bush were still president, the US economy would still be losing 700,000 jobs a month, and only messiah Obama had the superhuman wisdom to lead America to the worst “recovery” in the history of the nation.  The only way “pathetic” can be viewed as “glorious” is if we ignore the reality that 1) no recession has EVER lasted forever and it wouldn’t have lasted forever if George Bush were president, either, and that 2) that most US recessions last less than 18 months with 3) recoveries generally being the strongest when the recessions have been deepest.  Which is to say that if Obama wasn’t an abject failure we’d have GDP growth of 10 percent the way we did when Ronald Reagan was running en route to a landslide re-election.

Obama has to ignore all of that.  He has to say, “This economic holocaust that you see all around you is really a Utopia.  And the Promised Land is right around the corner, ye herd of mindless animals.”

All that said, I’m not going to predict that Mitt Romney wins in a landslide.  Or even that he wins at all.

Why?  Because this is God damn America, just like I told you it would be back in November 4 of 2008.  God damn America is not a land of wise and good people; no, it is a land of fools and wicked people.  And fools and wicked people pursue their own destruction until God gives it to them the way they deserve.

If we re-elect Obama – and 2008 proved there are more than enough fools and wicked people to pull it off – we will get the fools’ end that we demand God give us.

It’s going to come fast, too.  Because Taxmageddon is coming.  And given that the Republicans are going to retake the House, if Obama wins, every American will find himself or herself paying taxes right out of their ass.  And given that pretty much every economist agrees that “taxmageddon” will amount to a double-dip recession, the re-election of Obama will amount to a double-dip recession.  And America will deserve it in spades.

The sequestration that is also looming over America because Barack Obama is a fool and a failure who cannot and will not lead are another nuclear trigger for this double-dip recession: as many as 1.53 million defense sector workers will get their pink slips right before and right after the election unless Obama pulls his skull out of his ass.  And given that Obama has had his skull up his ass his entire life, that isn’t very likely.  Instead, Obama has actually promised to veto any attempt to keep these 1.53 million workers employed.  Which makes the 100,000 jobs that Obama has already pissed away with his idiotic radical environmentalist lobby-owned killing of the Keystone Pipeline look like chump change.

Democrats are already firmly on record vowing to take America off the fiscal cliff unless Republicans abandon all sanity and join them in their Marxist class warfare against job creators and investors:

Democrats threaten to go over ‘fiscal cliff’ if GOP fails to raise taxes
By Lori Montgomery, Published: July 15, Washington Post
Democrats are making increasingly explicit threats about their willingness to let nearly $600 billion worth of tax hikes and spending cuts take effect in January unless Republicans drop their opposition to higher taxes for the nation’s wealthiest households.

Either everybody should get a tax cut or everybody should get taxed up the wazoo.  If you think that somebody else ought to have their taxes raised, YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR TAXES RAISED.  By the measure that ye judged, YE shall be judged.  You want someone else to pay so you can skate?  You should be taxed until you can’t feed your kids; you should be taxed until you can’t make your house payments; you should be taxed until your car is repossessed.  All of you wicked fools should get both barrels of what you want to inflict on other people.

The only great thing about Mitt Romney is that he is not Barack Hussein Obama.

I’m not enthusiastic about Mitt Romney in any other respect.  His entire career is of being a liberal-leaning moderate – contrary to the demonic Obama ads that depict him as some kind of fire-breathing rightwing conservative fanatic.  But I am TOTALLY enthusiastic about ridding this nation of the scourge of the worst president in our entire history.  And I will crawl out of my death bed through broken glass to vote for Romney for that very reason.

‘Obama’s Approval Rating Has Hit The Lowest Level EVER In CBS News Polling’ – That’s A Quote From CBS

March 13, 2012

America won’t actually be safe until Obama sees a giant crowd of millions of Americans banging on the gates of the White House and he decides he’d better flee the country like many of the banana republic-style dictators have done before him.

March 12, 2012 6:30 PM
Poll: Obama’s approval rating sinks to new low
By Stephanie Condon

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

(CBS News) President Obama’s approval rating has hit the lowest level ever in CBS News polling, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times survey. The drop may be partially attributable to rising gas prices.

Just 41 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, according to the poll, conducted from March 7 to 11. Another 47 percent disapprove of his performance, up from 41 percent last month.

Mr. Obama’s approval rating was 50 percent last month.

The average U.S. price of a gallon of gasoline has jumped 12 cents over the past two weeks. The poll found that most Americans, 54 percent, believe gas prices are something a president can do a lot about.

Americans have historically felt that a president can control gas prices, though experts attribute changes to a variety of factors, many outside of a president’s control. They also felt this way when gas prices spiked during the administration of former President George W. Bush.

Chart - Are Gas Prices Something the President Can do a lot About (Credit: CBS)

When asked Tuesday by CBS Pittsburgh affiliate KDKA whether he can impact gas prices, Mr. Obama said, “Understandably people are frustrated when gas prices are going up, and there are things we can do, but they’re not going to result, provide results overnight.”

The president noted that the U.S. has reduced its dependence on foreign oil under his administration and that fuel efficiency standards for cars are being raised. The administration is exploring other ways to reduce prices, but Mr. Obama said the biggest contributor to the current high prices is rumors of war in the Middle East.

“Which is part of the reason I said a couple weeks ago let’s stop with the loose talk about war,” he said. “Because a lot of what’s driving this is people’s concern and fear that there might be major disruptions in the Middle East oil markets.”

Attacks from the Republicans running to replace Mr. Obama may be having an impact on his approval rating as well. His disapproval rating has risen to 89 percent among Republicans (from 82 percent last month), and more independents now disapprove of his job performance than approve. Though Mr. Obama’s approval rating among Democrats remains high, it has dropped seven points – from 85 percent last month to 78 percent today.

Of the four remaining GOP candidates, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has hit Mr. Obama particularly hard on high gas prices, promising on the campaign trail to bring down the price to $2.50.

Jim Ritterbusch, president of an oil trading advisory firm, told CBS News there are no quick fixes.

“It’s become somewhat of a political football,” Ritterbusch said. “But none of the candidates or the current president can flip a switch and drive gas prices down to $3 a gallon.”

Mr. Obama’s job rating on the economy remains about the same as it was last month – 39 percent approve, while 54 percent disapprove.

The economy and jobs remains the most important problem facing the country today, according to 51 percent of Americans. Three in four Americans think the economy is at least somewhat bad, including 30 percent who say it is very bad.

More Americans, 30 percent, say the economy is getting better; 24 percent say it is getting worse. The public’s economic outlook was slightly better last month, when 34 percent said the economy was getting better.

Most GOP voters expect Romney nomination
Most support U.S. military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons
Most say employers should be allowed not to cover contraception
Poll: Romney, Santorum narrow gap on Obama
Obama’s approval rating sinks to new low

Just 20 percent of Americans feel their family’s financial situation is better today than it was four years ago. Another 37 percent say it is worse, and 43 percent say it is about the same.

While his rating on the economy is about the same as last month, Mr. Obama’s rating on foreign policy has dropped 10 points. Now, just 40 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy, while 41 percent disapprove. This is the first time since the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011 that more Americans disapprove than approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing handling foreign policy.

Amid speculation that Israel may consider attacking Iran to stop its nuclear ambitions, Americans are split on the president’s handling of the situation in Iran: 42 percent approve, while nearly as many – 39 percent – disapprove. Nineteen percent don’t know.

CBS Radio News’ Rob Mank contributed to this report.


This poll was conducted by telephone from March 7-11, 2012 among 1009 adults nationwide.

878 interviews were conducted with registered voters, including 301 with voters who said they plan to vote in a Republican primary. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The margin of error for the sample of registered voters could be plus or minus three points and six points for the sample of Republican primary voters. The error for subgroups may be higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

As we speak, both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum lead Barack Obama, according to most-reliable pollster Rasmussen:

With Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney adding to their primary wins Saturday, the latest Rasmussen poll shows both of them capable of posing a challenge to President Barack Obama in the November election.

According to Rasmussen’s poll of likely voters, the updated numbers show Romney ahead by five points in a hypothetical 2012 battle with the president. While Romney sits at 48 percent to Obama’s 43 percent, Santorum sits at 46 percent to Obama’s 45 percent. His one-point lead over Obama is Santorum’s second time ahead of the president.

Romney, Rasmussen reports, is the only other candidate to lead the president more than one time in the polls.

Obama’s approval index history shows a swing in his approval numbers, from 44 percent strongly approving of the president’s performance in January 2009, to 25 percent strongly approving now. The new numbers show that 44 percent strongly disapprove of the president’s performance, up from 16 percent in January 2009. Obama’s presidential approval index rating is -19.

Hopefully, this will at least shut the pie holes of the talking head fools who have asserted that “Obama is unbeatable.”