Obama Rated A Failure

The Washington Post seems to be getting a real dose of reality lately. First, they put out an article admitting that the reason the Democrats are likely to lose the Senate - something the Post hasn’t admitted before - is Obama’s unpopularity dragging down their candidates. Now they put out an article admitting that a majority of the public sees Obama’s presidency as a failure. Yep.

The article in question addresses the results of a poll taken by The Washington Post and ABC News. It found that 52% of Americans believe Obama’s presidency is on balance “a failure.” Only 42% think his presidency has been “a success.” That’s horrible!

And it gets worse when you dig down into the numbers.

● 54% disapprove of his handling of the economy
● 56% disapprove of his handling of foreign affairs
● 65% say the country is on the wrong track
● 59% disapprove of his handling of immigration
● 56% disapprove of Obamacare
● 55% think Obama has done more to divide the country than to unite it

Yeah, that reeks of failure. And truthfully, I don’t think there is anything Obama can do to change any of this. He was counting on Obamacare becoming popular once people were forced into it, but it’s only gotten less popular over time. Beyond that, his legacy is bare.

Even one time sycophant Michael Moore said this of Obama's legacy: "When the history is written of this era, this is how you’ll be remembered: 'He was the first black president.' Okay, not a bad accomplishment, but that's it. That's it, Mr. Obama." Ouch.

As an interesting aside, the Democrats are mentally relying on polling showing that the GOP is way more unpopular than the Democrats as a way to tell themselves this isn't a problem. In that regard, this poll showed that Obama’s disapproval was at 54% and the Democratic Party’s disapproval is 61%, but the GOP’s disapproval is 72%. So they are somewhat correct. Nevertheless, their reliance on this is misleading. For one thing, when asked if people will change their vote to prevent a GOP senate, only 25% said that they were scared of a GOP senate. More people, 32%, actually say a GOP senate would be a good thing. Thus, people are more likely to vote for their local candidates than they are to worry about their approval of the GOP. Said differently, the 72% disapproval number is meaningless.

Even more to the point, however, the GOP’s low approval rating comes from Republicans, who won’t vote for the Democrats. Indeed, whereas 63% of Democrats approve of their party, only 34% of Republicans do. So this 72% number is entirely unreliable. Most importantly, though, Obama can’t really base his legacy on the opposition being less popular... life doesn't work that way.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

An Interesting Poll On Obama

There was a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll last week which really drives home how badly things have gone for Obama. It's causing unhappy liberal pundits to speak in funeral voice and to throw around words like "failed term" and "malaise." Observe some of its more damning findings:

● Obama's disapproval ratings are at all time highs, with his approval down at 41%. 45% disapprove, leaving him underwater.
● 54% of Americans think Obama lacks the leadership ability to get the job done: "cannot lead and get the job done."
● 57% of Americans disapprove of Obama's foreign policy.
● 41% say their view of the administration has gotten worse over the past 12 months. 15% say their view of Team Obama has improved.
● 31% think Obama has done a good job handling immigration.
● 10% of people plan to vote in November "to send a signal of opposition to Obama."

Obama is the past, not the future, so in many ways, this doesn't help us. But on the other hand, this is how his legacy is being defined, and through that, the value of liberalism. Said differently, Obama is discrediting liberalism in a way which hasn't happened since the 1970s. Now we just need to step in and help define Obama as nothing more than a typical liberal, and offer our own solutions to make life better for the public.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Analyzing A Drudge Poll

The Drudge Report is an interesting site. Drudge picks and chooses his headlines carefully to feed an alarmist worldview. He loves to blow up isolated incidents into themes. His headlines are often inaccurate, sometimes to the point of being exactly backwards of reality. And yet, he’s become the trusted source of news for a good many conservatives and fringers. Indeed, he’s pretty much become the sole research tool for most talk radio hosts. Anyway, he just did a poll and it had some interesting results.

The poll in question asked his readers to pick their current Republican candidate for 2016. Here are the results in order:

RAND PAUL ... 30.75% ... (67,958 votes)
TED CRUZ ... 28.52% ... (63,030 votes)
Other ... 6.91% ... (15,271 votes)
JEB BUSH ... 6.3% ... (13,922 votes)
SARAH PALIN ... 5.21% ... (11,507 votes)
CHRIS CHRISTIE ... 4.84% ... (10,706 votes)
RICK PERRY ... 4.4% ... (9,715 votes)
MIKE HUCKABEE ... 3.74% ... (8,254 votes)
PAUL RYAN ... 3.61% ... (7,974 votes)
BOBBY JINDAL ... 2.96% ... (6,538 votes)
DONALD TRUMP ... 1.86% ... (4,106 votes)
RICK SANTORUM ... 0.9% ... (1,995 votes)

There is much to consider here.

First, this poll reminds us that Drudge is about ratings, not serious politics. We can see this in the choices he offers. Notice that he’s excluded Marco Rubio, who keeps coming up as the front-runner in more scientific polls. He’s also excluded Scott Walker, who has a growing network of supporters. What this suggests is that Drudge, like the rest of the fringe, sees Rubio as finished because he offended them with “Amnesty.” The fact that more than 60% of Republicans support it, has never appeared on Drudge’s pages and doesn't seem to enter his thinking. His dismissal of Scott Walker is more curious, but is likely because Walker doesn’t make Drudge headlines. So Drudge excludes two top tier candidates, yet he includes professional clown Donald Trump and Reality TV queen Sarah Palin. What does that say about Drudge’s worldview? That he’s not serious.

Secondly, this tells us that Drudge’s audience is what people suspect – rather far right. Current Tea Party favorites Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin together took 65% of the vote. Establishment candidates Bush and Christie totaled only 12%. By comparison, the Drudge Wing of the party represents less than 20% of the Republican Party in other polls. So Drudge's audience is the inverse of reality.

Third, Rick Santorum is toast. The Republicans have an annoying tradition of handing the nomination to the second place runner in the prior primary season, but clearly that won’t be happening here. Santorum ran second last time, but can’t even get half of Trump’s score and doesn’t even score within the margin of error. In fact, Drudge’s audience is overwhelming made up of the people who voted for Santorum in the 2012 primary and yet they are showing him no love now.

Fourth, Rick Perry’s efforts are not paying off at this time. For many months now, Perry has been doing his best to court conservatives. Yet, he can’t even muster 5% among the very people who would form his base.

Fifth, the bloom is fading on the Cruz rose. I’ve actually seen this coming for a while now. Cruz lost support when he pushed the shutdown and then admitted he had no plan to turn that into a victory. That was when non-fringe conservatives started to abandon him. When they turned on him, he started getting ugly press. Then he made the mistake of hypocritically disavowing the shutdown, of launching random criticism, of engaging in an obsessive war against Mitch McConnell and of flip flopping on John Cornyn. All of this has actually caused some supporters of his that I know to call him “a nut job.” His loss of strength is reflected in this poll as well as he’s down to 29% support among an audience that should be his base. Six months ago, he was closer to 40% support.

Sixth, the slight preference for Bush over Christie is interesting. This fits something I’m sensing, but don’t have real evidence for yet. Right now, Christie seems to be the establishment candidate, and by extension, the nominee. But Bush’s name keeps popping up as a better choice for the establishment as a means of maximizing conservative support without choosing a conservative candidate. If I had to put money on it right now, I would bet that our ticket will be Jeb Bush for President and Rand Paul for Vice President... and I will become a terrorist. I guess we’ll see.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Senate Update: 2014 Election

There’s been a lot of chatter about the Republicans taking the Senate in November. That’s still unlikely, but the odds have been improving lately because the Republicans finally got their fringe under control – the primary challenges are failing and the lack of idiocy has left the focus on Obama’s failings. The Republicans need to pick up six seats to regain control of the Senate. As things stand right now, 13 states are key to whether or not this happens. Let’s examine the key races.

● Alaska: Democrat Mark Begich is defending his seat in this conservative state. Begich got into office by defeating a Republican with a history of corruption. He won’t have that luck again. On the negative side, he has generally acted as a moderate, except on social issues -- he did, however, support Obamacare. The leading Republicans have slight leads in the poll over Begich (+1% or +6%). Prediction: Republican gain.

● Arkansas: Democrat Mark Pryor is seeking a third term. He is a moderate with a generally so-con voting record. He did vote for Obamacare. The Republican, Congressman Tom Cotton, is a Tea Party type and a so-con, but he’s also a Harvard-educated attorney so he’s not your typical loon. He has a slight lead (+4%). Prediction: Toss up.

● Colorado: Democrat Mark Udall is facing a serious challenge from Rep. Cory Gardner. Udall defeated a strong Republican opponent to win the seat, but has since voted for Obamacare, for the Stimulus, for background checks on gun sales, and some things that won’t play well with military voters. Gardner became the candidate when his opponent bowed out to give the party the best chance against Udall. It sounds like Gardner is in favor of immigration reform, which will play well with Hispanics in Colorado. Udall has a small lead in the polls (+4%). The problem here is that the Colorado Republican Party is whacko when it comes to social issues and rip each other apart for entertainment. There’s no way to tell how this will go at this point, but expect Tom Tancredo (Colorado’s version of Pat Buchanan) to probably ruin it for Gardner. Prediction: Democrats probably keep the seat.

● Georgia: An open race to replace retiring Republican Saxby Chambliss. The Democrats are running the daughter of Sam Nunn, a popular pro-military moderate from the Reagan Era. She should do well. The Republicans are running Huey, Duey and Screwy who are competing to be seen as the most extreme. There is much talk that these fools will hand a safe seat to the Democrats. On the other hand, this will be a low turnout election and the Democrats aren’t going to turn out... of course, neither will our side. Prediction: Toss up.

● Iowa: Democrat Tom Harkin is retiring. The Democrat will be Rep. Bruce Braley, who is a populist leftist. He voted for Obamacare, for the stimulus, and has a 100% pro-choice record. Unfortunately, that won’t hurt him in socialist Iowa, and he does lead in the polls (+6%). Also, the Republicans haven’t decided on their candidate yet, but the Iowa party is split between so-cons, Paulbots and everyone else and recent history suggests they don’t support each other. Prediction: Democrats keep the seat.

● Kentucky: Our fringe wants to unseat Mitch McConnell, but that’s not happening. Their candidate, Bevins, is down by 42% to McConnell, but that’s not stopping them because they would be happy to have the Democrat take out McConnell so they can whine, “We told you so!” McConnell is tied with Democratic challenger Alison Grimes, but that’s not reliable because of the primary challenge. McConnell also has too much knowledge of Kentucky politics to lose in an off-year election with low Democratic turnout. Prediction: Republicans keep the seat.

● Louisiana: Democrat Mary Landrieu is defending the seat here. She comes from a Louisiana dynasty, but the state has been shifting to the right more and more each year. She is also infamous for causing Obamacare by agreeing to the Louisiana Purchase. It’s not clear who the challenger will be yet, but they have all the momentum and they lead her in the polls by +5%. Prediction: Republican gain.

● Michigan: Democrat Carl Levin is retiring. Seeking to replace him is Democratic Rep. Gary Peters, who supported Obamacare and Republican Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, who opposed the auto bailout. The polls are even (+0%). But a clue to this race is that 63% of Michiganites (including Tea Party Governor Rick Snyder) supported the bailouts and Snyder has also embraced the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare. Prediction: Democrats keep the seat.

● Montana: Democrat John Walsh is the incumbent, having been appointed to replace Max Baucus, who wrote Obamacare. The idea was to remove the Obamacare stain. But polls show Republican Rep. Steve Daines with a big lead (+14%) over Walsh. Prediction: Republican gain.

● North Carolina: Democrat Kay Hagan is defending her seat. She voted for Obamacare and that is hurting her. But the Republicans don’t have a candidate yet, so it’s too early to tell what will happen. The lack of a clear front runner is a danger sign for the GOP. Also, North Carolina is trending bluer with each passing election. BUT, Hagan is behind in the polls (-7%). Prediction: Toss up, leans Republican.

● South Dakota: Democrat Tim Johnson is retiring. Former Republican Gov. Mike Rounds is favored (+20%) to replace him in this very red state. Prediction: Republican gain.

● Virginia: Democratic Sen. Mark Warner is a heavy favorite (+27%) in a state that doesn’t often throw out incumbents. Add the fact that Virginia is trending more and more blue and that the state GOP thinks becoming more extreme will help them and this should be a cakewalk for Warner. Prediction: Democrats keep the seat.

● West Virginia: Democrat Jay Rockefeller is retiring. The race will be between Republican Shelley Moore Capito and Democrat Natalie Tennant. Moore is perhaps the one Republican in the state who can win statewide and she leads in the polls (+14%). Moreover, West Virginia is slowly trending away from the Democrats because of their position on coal and their acceptance of gays and blacks. Prediction: Republican gain.

As an aside, the Democrats in these states are doing all kinds of conservative things now. For example, eight of them vote against Obama nominee Debo Adegbile because they knew that voting for a man who defended a cop killer loved by the left would not be good politics right now. They know they’re in trouble.

So what we’re looking at here is the Republicans should gain 5, with two toss ups they still might get. They also may lose one seat. So they do have a shot at getting the six they need. Of course, this all assumes that the Republicans don’t do anything stupid between now and the election, and you have to remember that certain people have a vested interest in Republican failure. Look for Talk Radio to try to suppress Republican turnout, for Ted Cruz to look to inspire Democratic turnout, and our attention-whore brigade (e.g. Palin, Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan, Newt, Santorum, etc.) to do their best to remind the public why the GOP scares them. Other than that, things are looking surprising good.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Don't Fall For Scaremongering

Have you ever noticed that Americans do really terribly on international tests and surveys? The latest example involves a survey that purports to show that American adults rank 21 of 23 in math and 15 of 23 in literacy among the developed world. Panic!!! Hold on. This number is misleading, as are many such numbers. Let’s discuss.

Fear sells. If a magazine put “Everything is fine!” on its cover, then no one would buy. So instead, they push fake crises. Politicians do this too, as do businesses who want your money. This is how numbers like the 21/23 and 15/23 come about. They are meant to scare you. They are meant to shock you: “You mean we aren’t the best in the world?! Something has gone wrong! Ahhhhhh! We must ____!” And when you are sufficiently panicked, they will happily fill in that blank for you. Don’t fall for this. Always look behind the numbers. Observe.

The rankings above are the result of a random survey of 5,000 people. They took a quick test which was ranked between 0-500 points. The results were then averaged and fed to the news as the latest example of how bad things are in America. But these numbers don’t actually say that. How can I be sure? Well, each score is within +/- 4% of the median. Why does this matter? In a normal survey, that would put them well within the margin of error. Here they claim that is not true because the survey size was large – at 5,000 people. Thus, the margin of error is around 1-2%. But that’s misleading. That margin of error only applies to the median because that’s the only number created by all 5,000 people. When you look at each country’s score, what you find is that only around 220 people were tested in each country. That means that margin of error for any particular country score is closer to +/- 8%. That means that every country is within half the margin of error. That means that mathematically speaking, there is NO difference between these countries that we can say with any degree of certainty.

But that’s not scary, so they cite this number as if it really has meaning.

It’s the same thing with so many other numbers. When they talk about test scores of high school kids, for example, those numbers are so close that using those numbers to rank countries is like ranking toothpicks by height when the issue is comparing toothpicks to yardsticks to trees. Other numbers meant to scare us are similarly warped. People point to meaningless differences, ignore key facts, and make wrong comparisons.

For example, did you know that Mohammed is the number two name for children born in Britain? Wow, that means they must be awash in Muslim kids, right? Panic!! When someone says that Mohamed is number two, people wrongly assume (1) that there must be millions of these Mohameds being born otherwise they wouldn’t be near the top of the list, and (2) if it’s the number two name, then there must be almost as many Muslims being born as Christian British. And that is what the scaremongers want you to believe. But is this right? Hardly.

First, being number two isn’t that big of a deal. Do you know how many Mohamed were born last year? 7,549. That’s it. And that’s out of 706,248 child born. Essentially, 1% of children born in Britain were named Mohamed. Not so scary anymore, is it? And what about this idea that being second means there must be an equal number of Muslims as Christians being born? People forget that almost all Muslims name their sons Mohamed, whereas whites don’t do that, i.e. we don’t all name out sons Jesus. Thus, Mohamed’s high ranking is deceptive because Muslims are more likely to name their children Mohamed whereas people wrongly assume a normal distribution similar to Christian behavior. In other words, the high number of Mohameds does not imply an equally high number of Omars and Saddams. So how many Muslims do think there are in the UK? All of 2.7 million... 4.8% of the population. Not so threatening anymore, is it, certainly not compared to hearing that Mohammed is now the number two name!!

All right, so what about this 47% of the public who pay no taxes? (The number actually fell to 43% in 2013, but that’s neither here nor there.) I bought this one at the time, but I shouldn’t have. Let’s take a closer look at the figure than we have in the past. Consider this: 27.3% of the population is under 20 and 12.8% of the population is over 65. Combined, these two groups account for 41% of the population and most members of these two groups likely pay no taxes. If you subtract them from the 47% figure, then you get 6%. In other words, only 6% of working age Americans pay no taxes. That’s a very different world than the one painted by the assertion of the 47% figure.

Folks, America ain’t so bad, and things are nowhere near as dire as people want you to believe with these headline grabbing, but ultimately false, numbers. When we look at things to worry about and talk about plans to fix them, let’s be sure we know what the real extent of the problem is.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Gallup, Rubio and the Talk Radio Base

Bev will probably kill me for talking about 2016, so don’t tell her I said this. ;-) I said last week that despite the howling on talk radio that Rubio was finished, Rubio will be the man to beat in 2016. Now there’s some proof to back that up in the form of a Gallup poll. This poll also tells us something interesting about the party’s base.

Gallup quizzed the public about five Republican contenders. What they found suggests that the Republican base is very much in tune with its leaders and not with talk radio. Consider these numbers on how Republicans responded:

Notice that despite the near universal hatred poured out at Rubio from talk radio and conservative blogs, Rubio has a 58% approval and only an 11% disapproval.... and that’s among Republicans, not the public at large. That’s significant. That means that despite months of an intense anti-Rubio campaign by the supposed leaders of the base, the Republican base approves of Rubio in overwhelming numbers – by a 6 to 1 margin. Even more significantly, only one in ten disapproves of Rubio. That’s an amazing repudiation of the talk radio message, and that suggests several things.

First, that suggests broad acceptance (if not endorsement) of immigration reform by the Republican base, otherwise Rubio’s disapprovals would be higher. This is consistent with the large and growing number of conservatives who support the initiative and the polls which show surprisingly high support for the measure. This further suggests that Rubio won’t be hurt by pursuing immigration reform, or else his disapprovals already would be higher.

Secondly, it suggests that the talk radio base is not the supermajority within the Republican base they like to think they are... not even close. Consider this: Rubio has been blasted for months with near 100% vehement opposition from the talk radio base. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that some high proportion of the talk radio base disapproves of Rubio. Yet, he only polls 11% disapproval. That means that only 11% of the Republican base is following the talk radio line. Similarly, look at Christie. Christie is viewed favorably (52% - 25%) by the Republican base despite being attacked daily for several years now as a RINO traitor by talk radio. Thus, only 25% of the Republican base toes the talk radio line on Christie.

Think about what this says about the size of the base. Talk radio has blasted Christie so long, so harshly and so universally that it is likely that everyone in the talk radio base disapproves of him as well as a good number of conservatives who don’t align with the talk radio base. That means not only that it’s logical to see his 25% disapproval as the upper cap on the potential size of the talk radio base, but it also means that 25% likely overstates the size of the talk radio base. Looking at these numbers suggests to me that the talk radio base is somewhere between 11% and 25% and I would place them at around 16% (Rubio disapproval times 1.5 or Christie disapproval times 2/3). Again, that is not consistent with the picture painted by talk radio of a silent conservative majority oppressed by a small RINO leadership. Why does this matter? Well, I think it explains why the Republican leadership seems to be willing to decouple themselves from the talk radio base. I see hints of this everywhere, everything from a change in the agenda to a change in the rhetoric to the pushing aside of bomb throwers like Michelle Bachmann. And I don’t think the Republicans would be doing this if these numbers were reversed.

Other thoughts on this data:

● This data suggests that Paul Ryan (69% - 12%) would be the leader if he chooses to run, but I actually doubt he will. I like Ryan a lot, but he just never looked comfortable in 2012. I think he will happily stay in the House and run the budgets.

● This data suggests that Christie is stronger than I would have guessed last year, though I wonder how far his appeal really runs? I suspect a lot of his support is at the level of “Oh, I like him in New Jersey, but not nationally.” In either event though, he must be considered a serious contender. Ultimately, I interpret his approval rating as a sign that the base is being much more practical than they been have in the past. This seems to be a statement that they will accept people who aren’t ideologues if they can win in places Republicans don’t win and they can bring some conservatism to the table in those areas.

● Rand Paul’s support (56% - 13%) is interesting too. Paul embraces issues that sit uneasily with the Republican base. His foreign policy and defense policy make the neocons angry, the religious right is suspicious of his claims to social conservatism, and his attempts to appeal to minorities and youths through civil liberties issues are upsetting to many conservatives. Yet, six in ten approve and only one in ten disapprove. That suggests that the Republican base is much more open to new ideas than you hear.

● Finally, the data suggest that Ted Cruz may have a problem. He has hooked his star to the talk radio base and they have rewarded him with an intense amount of coverage and praise. He is the anti-Rubio. Yet, all of this has resulted in only 40% approval and 52% indifference. Those aren’t great numbers when the guy you’ve cited as your mortal enemy is 20% higher than you. Even worse, if the “not Rubio” agenda hasn’t worked so far, there is little reason to think it will work any better in the coming two years, and Cruz doesn’t really offer more than that. If he wants to win, he’ll need an agenda, not just opposition to the new Republican agenda.

I guess we’ll see.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Things Are Looking Bad For Obama

Things are not going well for Team Obama. The debate was a debacle and liberals are now beginning to ask if Obama even wants to win. Others are joking about him using their donations to buy pot (see, e.g. Bill Maher). Early voting is sending up huge warning signs for Obama, the polls are finally starting to show movement against Obama, and Biden is on deck. Let’s discuss.

● Early Turnout Leans Romney: Turnout is key to winning elections and right now the turnout is telling us that Romney has a significant advantage. Obama won in 2008 with a +7% Democratic turnout advantage nationally. That’s the high-water mark for the Democrats. In certain critical states, the turnout was even higher for Obama. This enthusiasm advantage translated into a large advantage for Obama in early voting, which made Obama's election day job easier. This year, everything is reversed:

● In Ohio, the early voting edge went to Obama over McCain by +14% D in 2008, and Obama won by 4.6%. Right now, the early voting is only +4% D, which means Obama needs to make up around 6% on election day to win the state.

● In North Carolina, which Obama won by 0.3% in 2008, early turnout is favoring Romney by a 2-1 margin, with GOP ballots coming in 44% ahead of the pace in 2008. Again, Obama will need to make up significant ground on election day.

● In Iowa, Obama had a 150,000 advantage in early voting in 2008 and he won by 9.5%. In 2004, John Kerry had a 60,000 advantage in early voting and Bush won by 2.4%. Right now, Obama has only a 77,000 advantage. That suggests a tossup.

None of this means Obama is losing or that he’s lost. What this tells us is that Democratic enthusiasm is indeed way down and Republican enthusiasm is way up. That’s really bad for Obama because this election will depend on turnout. It also means that the Democrats are not running as good of a ground game as they have in the past and Romney is way ahead of McCain in that regard. Indeed, his campaign has already met more people face to face than McCain’s did. So what this ultimately means is that Obama is lagging.

● Polling Bump: Meanwhile the polls are showing a significant bump for Romney following his debate performance.

● In Wisconsin, the famously liberal PPP poll shows Obama’s 7% lead (52% to 45%) falling to a mere 2% (49% to 47%). That’s a 5% bump for Romney. Romney’s biggest gains came among women in that poll.

● Rasmussen shows Romney with a 2% national lead (49% - 47%), for a bump of about 4%. Most other polls are showing a 3-5% bump. Gallup shows Romney with a 5% bounce.

● The Battleground Poll shows Romney winning independents 51% to 35%, Obama won them last time 52% to 44%, and it shows a 13% enthusiasm gap for the Republicans.

● Rasmussen also shows Romney only 1% behind in Ohio and 2% behind in Nevada, but 1% ahead in Virginia, 2% ahead in Florida and Colorado, and 3% ahead in North Carolina, Iowa and New Hampshire. And don’t forget, Rasmussen is mixing 2008 turnout with 2004 turnout... not 2010.

This is bad news for Obama because these polls are getting close to the point where they simply can’t be faked enough anymore to make the race appear competitive. When that happens, look for a sharp, sudden break in the race away from Obama. Moreover, this may be an indication of the beginning of momentum. If that’s true, then the race is over. The next couple weeks will be very instructive.

● Biden: Finally, they’ve hidden Joey Biden away for six days to prepare him for the debate Thursday night. Personally, I’m dreading this debate. I suspect the strategy Biden will use will be to avoid trying to meet Ryan on anything statistical or principled, and to instead keep countering Ryan’s points with “arguments” about individuals who will be hurt and with statements like, “man, you’re talking about millions of people who are going to go broke trying to pay for healthcare bills they can’t afford.” That will make for a messy, confusing debate as the two candidates basically talk past each other. Moreover, comments like that are impossible to counter because they are emotional in nature and people will either believe them or they won’t. Hopefully, Ryan will be prepared to handle this.

Personally, every time Biden tries that, I would counter with the identical attack Romney made on Obama’s record and I would phrase it in terms of:

“Talking about people hurting, how about the 23 million people who can’t find jobs, the 47 million on food stamps, the one in six Americans now below the poverty line, the two hundred million middle class families whose incomes crashed $4,300 during your administration, whose health care costs rose $2,500, who saw their gas prices double, who watched your administration double the deficit and waste the money on cronyism to nowhere, and who have no idea how their grandkids are going to pay off your debt. I think you and Mr. Obama have caused enough pain.”

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

More Campaign News

There has been a lot of interesting talk about the Romney campaign lately. From the manufactured claim the campaign is imploding to Paul Ryan slamming all the right-wing pundits who won’t stop smearing the campaign to more polling data. Let’s discuss.

● Polls: It seems almost obligatory that we talk about polling these days. So here are two things worth noting. A new Politico/GWU poll claims Romney has a 14% lead on Obama among the middle class. If true, that would not only put the lie to Obama’s class warfare strategy and claims to represent the middle class, but it would also mean Romney is blowing Obama away because 60% of the public is middle class. Interestingly, this figure doesn’t fit with Politico’s topline number of Obama leading by 3%.

The other interesting news was hidden within an article by Dick Morris on why you can’t trust the current polls. We’ve discussed this extensively here, but what Morris adds is that while most polls are using sample turnout identical to 2008, Rasmussen is using a combination of 2008 and 2004. . . not 2010. This explains why Rasmussen is better, but still calls the race a toss up. The electorate in 2004 was one of the most closely balanced in recent history and 2008 was a high-water mark for the Democrats. Neither of those scenarios is likely this time because there is a huge enthusiasm gap in favor of the Republicans and many Democratic voters (like college kids) haven’t even registered. Thus, any poll that incorporates the 2008 numbers will be skewed too far toward the Democrats. Moreover, 2004 is not a good balance for 2008 because it was also a low-Republican turnout election which gave the Democrats the House and Senate. Consequently, even Rasmussen’s numbers appear to be skewed left. I suspect that balancing the numbers against 2010 would show Romney with a 5-8% lead.

● It’s All Falling Apart: It’s been amazing to watch this false narrative being built about the Romney campaign falling apart. This started at Politico as a speculation piece on one of their back pages. The following morning, several MSM outlets and blogs ran with this story as if it were being reported as true rather than speculation. Suddenly, reporters were asking Romney about it and reporting his responses as him denying the truth of the supposed turmoil. Romney has all but laughed these off, but the MSM continues to run with stories about the troubles Romney is experiencing and how they are desperate for a re-set button, etc. They are also weaving in the fake poll narrative now, claiming that these polls are proof that Romney’s campaign is failing. In the latest incarnation, they are spinning it backwards by claiming the polls caused the panic, even though the panic story began before the polls they are talking about.

● Ryan Fires Back: This narrative of internal chaos has been pushed hard by many on the right. Leading the charge is RINO Peggy Noonan, who last week called the Romney campaign “incompetent,” and this week said:

“The Romney campaign has to get turned around. This week I called it incompetent, but only because I was being polite. I really meant ‘rolling calamity.’ A lot of people weighed in. . . . [but] no one that I know of defended the campaign or argued ‘you’re missing some of its quiet excellence.’”

This is pathetic logic: “I’m right because I nobody bothered to tell me I’m wrong.” You can prove anything that way. She even claims that an unnamed source inside Romney’s camp secretly agrees with her! Yeah, right. But Noonan is not alone. Others on the left and right ends of the conservative spectrum have been just as harsh. Romney is swinging too far right, not far enough right, hasn’t said enough, says too much, needs to provide specifics, should avoid specifics. Mostly, he just needs to do “better.”

The truth is that our pundit class are idiots. They don’t know what they are talking about, so they try to fake having knowledge by criticizing the campaign while careful avoiding actually saying what the problem is. They do this because criticism is easy and they win no matter what. If Romney loses, they warned him. If he win, it was only because he followed their advice and “did it better.” Moreover, they make their living by drawing attention to themselves. Thus, they look for ways to be controversial and to sound smarter than they really are. This is not helping. These people should be attacking Obama’s myriad of failures, flaws and outrages, but they know they will sell more copies attacking their own side.

Paul Ryan put his finger on this when he said these commentators were wrong and that “I think that’s just the nature of conservative punditry is to do that – to kind of complain – about any imperfection they might see.” Sadly, that is correct.

● Return of the Tax Return: Finally, Romney released his 2011 taxes and the media is frustrated. They have no idea how to smear Romney with these because Romney gave $4,020,722 (29.4% of his income) to charity. Obama gave only $172,130 (21%) of his income and Joe Biden gave $5,540 (1.5%) of his income to charity.

There are also no strange surprises or deductions the MSM have been able to attack. So the best they’ve got now is Harry Reid whining to the Las Vegas Sun, “He’s hiding something! He’s hiding something! It is so evident he’s hiding something!” Which makes me ask again why Harry won’t tell us where he buried the children he molested. . . it’s evident he’s hiding something.

Thoughts? Additions?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why The Fake Polls?

The polling game continues. The MSM keeps putting out polls showing Obama ahead nationally and in the key battleground states. Yet, as soon as you scratch the surface on these polls, it becomes obvious right away that they are skewed to result in pro-Obama outcomes. Let’s take a look at the latest and then I’ll tell you why they’re doing this.

This week we have two offenders: NBC/WSJ and CBS/NYT.

NBC/WSJ just issued a poll showing Obama with a 5% lead in Florida and Virginia and a 7% lead in Ohio. That seems like quite a lot, given that Rasmussen found these states statistically tied and Romney with a 3% national lead. So what’s the real story? Get this.

● On the surface, the Virginia poll shows only +5% Democratic oversampling. This may not sound like a lot, except Democratic turnout that high in Virginia would be identical to 2008 -- which won’t repeat this year. Factor that out and you’ve got a tie. But there’s something even more interesting hidden within this poll. “Independents” are oversampled by around +10%. So who are these independents? Are they genuine independents or leftists pretending to be independents? Well, when you dig deeper, you find that the poll oversampled blacks by 50% and oversampled the rich by about 10%, both of which groups line up on the left. Yet these people don’t show up in Democratic ranks in this poll. Moreover, the overall sample gave Obama a whopping +10% approval rating, compared to a negative 3-4% in most national polls. So it’s likely these independents skew heavily toward the Democrats. Factor that out and Romney wins Virginia easily.

● NBC’s Ohio numbers are ludicrous. They are +10% Democratic. That’s way more Democratic than even 2008. Factor that out and Obama loses by 3%.

● The Florida numbers are interesting because they are only +2% Democratic. So it sounds like Obama wins by 3%. Except, when you look at the Senate numbers, you suddenly see NBC’s sample going +14% for the Democrat, even though everyone else gives the Democrat a small lead. It’s impossible to know what this really means, except you can’t trust this poll.

CBS/NYT shows Obama with a 3% national lead. They no longer provide their underlying data because they’ve been caught too many times now using laughably biased samples. But get this. . . Romney wins 90% of Republicans. Obama wins 92% of Democrats. So to get a 3% win for Obama, Obama must carry independents, right? No. Romney wins independents by +11%. Think about that. If they used a fair sample, then Romney and Obama should get about the same percentage of voters from their own parties. That means Romney should be winning by 11%, but he’s not. He’s losing by 3%. That tells us the sample was probably around +14% for the Democrats!! There’s also no enthusiasm gap for Obama among Democrats, which is inconsistent with all prior polling.

Clearly, these polls are fakes, just as so many others have been in recent months. It’s becoming a worn out story how the polls are skewing sample sizes well into the double digits, well beyond the peak of Democratic turnout in 2008, to show Obama with a tiny lead. Why are they doing this?

The answer is simple: the herd instinct.

As I’ve said many times before, humans are by instinct herd animals. Marketing people understand this, which is why so many advertisements tell you that if you want to belong, you better do what everybody else is doing and buy their product. These appeals work on the human instinct to follow the herd and do what everyone else does.

The left is worried that if it becomes obvious that the public, i.e. the herd, is running with Romney, the rest of the herd will follow. That will create unstoppable momentum. By putting out these fake poll numbers, the MSM hopes to stop the public from realizing the direction of the herd so that Obama has a chance to win people back before the election. That’s why they pushing the idea that Obama is slightly ahead. And since they know that few people will ever read blogs or dig into the numbers themselves, they know there is little or no danger they will lose their own credibility in putting out these polls. That’s what’s going on.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Polls and Jobs

Folks, I’m still feeling a little sick, so this won’t be long. Here are some interesting poll numbers and a surprising story from CNN about the Democrats’ claim that Obama made 4.5 million jobs. Other than that, feel free to treat this like an open thread.

● No Second Term For You! The Hill just did an interesting poll asking a broad range of questions. Only 31% of respondents think the country is better off than it was when Obama took office, while 52% say it is in a worse condition. Fifty percent say they are “very unsatisfied” with Obama’s stewardship of the economy, with another 8% saying they are “somewhat unsatisfied.” And the most interesting number. . . 54% think Obama does not deserve to be re-elected. Those are not good numbers for Obama.

● Women Have Turned: Obama’s biggest strength, indeed the only thing which has kept him competitive, has been that women view him much more favorably than unfavorably. In April, women supported him 57% to 39%, according the ABC/Washington Post. Now that same poll has found that women view him unfavorable by 46% to 50%. This is consistent with The Hill poll, which found that 51% of women (57% of men) think he does not deserve to be re-elected. This is really bad for Obama, particularly as it will be hard for him to win women back as he has little to offer them. It’s also worth noting that his collapse among women has occurred during the “war on women” smear by the Democrats. Whoops.

● Yes, But: If you’ve been watching the convention, then you will have seen that the Democrats are claiming Obama created 4.5 million jobs. Each of them has been repeating this number like it’s magic. Well, CNN just debunked the claim.

To get the 4.5 million jobs, what you need to do is start in January 2010, the bottom of the jobs recession, and look only at private-sector jobs between then and now. If you do that, you will see that there are indeed 4.5 million more jobs than before. BUT, if you go back to the start of Obama’s administration, you will see that the economy has only produced 300,000 net jobs since January 2009. In other words, Obama is excluding all the jobs lost just to play up the number of jobs created. Moreover, this figure does not count the number of government jobs which disappeared over the same period. When you go from January 2009 to the present and look at the total jobs figure, the economy is down 1.4 million jobs.

Finally, CNN points out that according to the liberal-leaning National Employment Law Project, the jobs that have been created have been low-paying, low-stability jobs such as retail and food services, which have accounted for about 3/4 of all new jobs. These are exactly the kinds of jobs the Democrats claimed should not be counted when they appeared under Reagan or the Bushes.

It’s amazing CNN would point this out. Maybe there’s hope for them yet? In any event, the poll numbers certainly give me further hope that Obama is finished.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Will Lose The Election

Obama is losing. He’s losing badly. I’ve been sensing this for some time, but now I’m ready to say it officially. Obama has lost this election. Here’s the proof.

● The Polls: Polls this far out are unreliable. They are even less reliable because we can’t trust the pollsters. Most of the pollsters are using data which suggest a greater pro-Democratic turnout than Obama got in 2008, and many have begun hiding their raw data to prevent people like me from figuring out how badly they’ve skewed the data. But certain things are obvious because they run contrary to what the pollsters are trying to make you believe.

1) Romney has a small lead, even in these skewed polls. Factor out the pro-Obama bias and add in a pro-Romney enthusiasm gap and you’re looking at a landslide.
2) Romney has a statistically significant lead in the battleground states.
3) Several “safe” blue states have become battleground states, e.g. Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico.
4) Romney’s lead is consistent as is Obama’s inability to get anywhere near 50% approval.

This tells me Romney wins 53% to 47%.

● Enthusiasm Gap: The polls show a huge enthusiasm gap – up to 13% in favor of the Republicans. This is significant because it would take a Democratic-leaning gap for Obama to win and that just won’t happen. But look beyond the polls. Romney and Ryan are speaking to massive crowds. Obama can’t fill a phone booth. Romney and Ryan are drawing massive amounts of money. Obama’s running debt. All over the country, people are putting up signs saying, “I built this.” By comparison, Obama bumper stickers have gotten really rare. People are going in droves to see a documentary exposing Obama, but no one has been interested in any pro-Obama crap for years now. This is something you can feel in the air, hear at the store, and see in random places online – people are enthusiastic about Romney, no one’s even thinking about Obama.

● Democratic Desperation: The Democrats are hitting the bottom of the barrel in terms of how they are running this campaign. They’ve tried everything from various “wars on ___” to flat out slander. They’ve accused Romney of felonies, of hate, and of killing some guy’s wife. They’ve appealed to black-racism. They’ve tried to attack Mormonism as a cult. They’ve tried to scare Hispanics and round up illegals to vote. They’ve accused Republicans of anti-Semitism, of hating women, and of wanting to bring back slavery. The one thing none of them have done is actually mention an issue.

What this tells me is that they are desperate. These are not attacks someone makes if they are winning. This is scorched earth with no regard for the consequences or the future. This is a party that knows it will lose and doesn’t care what it does to the political landscape on the way out. Moreover, using these tactics now tells us they see the race as essentially lost right now and are desperate to turn it around before it becomes an obvious and settled fact.

● Media Desperation: Like the Democrats, the MSM is desperate. We see this in several ways. First, despite 80% of their stories about Romney being negative, they have yet to find any attack which will stick. So they keep trying wilder and wilder attacks, which is a sign of desperation and a strategy guaranteed to backfire. Secondly, they avoid talking about Obama like the plague. This is because they know he’s so unpopular that they cannot help him by giving him coverage. Instead, they need to attack Romney.

Indeed, look at the lengths to which they go to talk about anything other than the issues. The Akin controversy is the perfect example of this. Everyone except the hard-core Religious Right have repudiated that troglodyte, yet the MSM continues to cover this incessantly and continues to try to connect Akin to every other Republican. Why do this? Because they have nothing else they can talk about.

Look also at the distortions. There is no mention of real inflation. Unemployment is downplayed. The failing economy is still called “a recovery.” There is no mention that gas prices are higher than they were under Bush, when the media blasted us with the-sky-is-falling stories about gas. Are American troops still dying overseas? The media won’t tell you. How is Obamacare working? Has anyone lost their health insurance? Are doctors still taking Medicare? Have medical costs gone down a single dollar? The media sure doesn’t know. How about too big to fail? Where are the reports about the biggest banks doubling in size under Obama? Did Copenhagen result in any positive change for the environment? Who knows. . . the MSM sure doesn’t.

This is proof the MSM knows Obama is in deep trouble and that they simply can't discuss anything without making it worse.

Obama has already lost this election and the items above prove it. The Democrats know he’s in such desperate trouble that they had to waste all their ammo already, and none of it scored a hit. That means Obama has lost. The MSM is desperate to cover up his tracks and knows they can’t promote him because people don’t like him. That means Obama can’t recover. And the public enthusiasm tells us what even the doctored polls are starting to suggest, the right will turn out in force in November and the left won't.

Barring something truly unusual, this election is over and the only question now is the margin of Romney’s victory.

Thoughts?


P.S. Don't forget, it is Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Americans: No More Business As Usual

There’s been an interesting shift in the political scene in this country. Some would argue that it’s a shift toward populism, but I’m not so sure. I think this is more likely a shift away from the abusive system of the past where taxpayers get turned into piggybanks for the well-connected. Let’s discuss.

The difference between populism and where the public seems to be headed is actually quite dramatic. Populism tends to focus on destroying the current system of privilege, taking from the rich, and implementing policies aimed at remaking society in the name of the public. Because of the extreme nature of populism, it is often borderline violent and it tends to flirt with either anarchy or socialism. I don’t see any of that in the current political environment.

To the contrary, groups like the Tea Party want neither anarchy nor socialism. They don’t envy those who have, nor do they seek to crush the rich. What they want instead is to reshape the government to stop it from being able to do the bidding of the connected. Specifically, they want the government to stop guaranteeing the risks of big business, and they want the government to stop issuing two sets of laws, one which helps the connected and one which simultaneously hinders the unconnected.

This seems to be confirmed by a new poll conducted by Rasmussen. Indeed, this poll showed broad bipartisan opposition to cronyism and strong support for free market policies. Consider these results:

● Only 27% think it is “ever ok for the government to make investments in private companies.”
● 71% believe the private sector is “better than government officials at determining the long-term benefits and potential of new technologies.” Only 11% think the reverse.
● 64% think government money will be wasted if the government backs projects the private sector won’t.
● 66% believe crony connections drive most government contracts.
● Then there’s this: “By a 3-1 margin, voters believe elected politicians routinely provide help to favored companies.”
● And this: “Seven out of ten Americans believe government and big business work together against the rest of us.”

It’s the last couple that tell you what is going on. People saw trillions of dollars poured into the big banks to save them after they made horribly stupid bets on things that the banks themselves created after getting the Clinton Administration to change the law to allow them to take these kinds of risk. They saw how the entire financial system almost collapsed because 3-4 big banks fell apart and they saw how these same banks have returned to record profitability (and record size) while the rest of us get to pick up the tab. They saw how billions were funneled directly to unions through the stimulus bill. They saw how billions more were given to Obama donors under the guise of running “clean energy companies,” which went bankrupt within months of getting the billions. They saw GE lobbying to get nonsensical environmental laws passed and then turned right around and get waivers from those same laws. They saw how hundreds of billions in government contracts have been awarded on no-bid, sole-source contracts to companies that handed over tens of millions in lobbying money. They saw how loopholes were put into the tax code which protected only a handful of companies, or in the case of Charlie Rangel’s friends only one company. They saw bribes and sweetheart deals given for regulatory consideration. . . Chris Dodd and Countywide anyone? They saw average bondholders crushed in GM while the unions made out like thieves. They saw nonunion pension rights terminated. They saw a shakedown of Boeing. They saw attempts to tax and control the internet to protect contributors. And they saw no difference between Bush or Obama on any of this.

It is frankly surprising that people haven’t been more populist in their opinions. Outside of the leftist desire to steal from the rich and their rhetoric about getting even with the banks, the public has been remarkably calm. . . determined to change the game, but calm. And I think it is a real testament to the American public that their response to this pillaging and abuse has not been vindictive, but has been instead to demand the system be fixed so everyone can move on.

I think the Republicans better pay attention to this. I think Romney and Ryan will be great for this country, but they need to realize that the times have changed and the public now pays attention to who is sliding through the backdoor with their hand out. Business as usual must end.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Paul Ryan Effect

We’ve now have a couple days to think about Paul Ryan and to see the reactions all around. This is a phenomenal pick. So let’s talk about the polls and how this changes the electoral map. Also, I’m quoting a piece from the Onion that is well worth reading.

● Enthusiasm: More evidence of an enthusiasm gap. Gallup now reports the Republicans are showing a +13% enthusiasm gap. They caution that it’s too early to tell anything until after the conventions, but this is enough to suggest problems for Obama. His 2008 victory resulted from a +7% enthusiasm difference in favor of Democrats and lots of independents voting for Obama – close to 60%. That +7% has now morphed into a -13% and that’s been fairly constant since 2009. I don’t see how the convention will change that.

As for independents, Zogby just put out a poll that should scare Obama greatly. According to Zogby, Romney was losing and Obama had momentum until Ryan was chosen. Now they are tied at 46% each with 8% undecided. But more importantly, Romney/Ryan leads Obama/Biden by 45% to 40% among independents. Politico has Romney leading among independents by 10%, 47% to 37%. These numbers are death for Obama, who needs about 60% of independents to offset the lack of Democratic enthusiasm. Also interesting from the Zogby poll, Ryan helped boost Romney among 18-29 year olds.

There’s also another interesting issue which has arisen in the past couple days: crowd size. Everywhere Ryan and Romney have gone, they’ve been swamped by crowds. They’ve been speaking to 10,000-15,000 people typically and turning away others. Obama has been talking to crowds in the 1,000 range. Biden just spoke to 600. This is becoming such bad PR that Obama is actually trying to claim he intended this, though half-empty auditoriums tell a different story.

● Where He Helps: So where does Ryan help or hurt Romney? Here are some ideas:

● Conservatives: Ryan has solidified Romney’s right flank in a matter of minutes. Romney no longer needs to worry that evangelicals will stay home or that Tea Party people will view him with suspicion.

● Catholics: Ryan brings a fairly strong Catholicism to the ticket which supposedly will play well with Catholics. In effect, he should appeal to some of the same Catholics who liked Santorum.

● Wisconsin: It’s not clear how much Ryan helps in Wisconsin, except that (1) the local boy almost always gets a couple points added to his score, and (2) Ryan will ignite the activists who turned out to help Scott Walker. If this happens, then the electoral map will shake up a great deal. Wisconsin is only worth 10 votes, not the 18 of Ohio, but if Romney wins Wisconsin, then he could win by also getting New Hampshire and Iowa while losing Ohio. This could be huge.

● Pennsylvania: Ryan’s support among Catholics could be key to winning Pennsylvania, which is awash in Catholics and Tea Party types. And if Romney wins Pennsylvania (still difficult, but doable) then Romney wins in a landslide.

● Florida: Supposedly, Ryan hurts Romney in Florida because of his Medicare plan. But polls show Ryan being popular with old folks. That would seem to put the lie to the idea that Ryan will be a drag in Florida. Where Ryan does help in Florida is the evangelical North and panhandle, and that could well be the difference because turn out will be key in this election.

● Virginia: Believe it or not, a lot of people think Ryan will help Romney win Virginia because he brings a charisma that suburban moderates like, and Northern Virginia is very suburban moderate. I can’t disagree. The thing I heard most about Palin (before she imploded) was that she was the kind of woman any mother would want her son to marry. Well, Ryan strikes me as the kind of man any mother would want her daughter to marry. So if mommy politics counts, then this will help.

● In His Own Words. . . Sort of: Finally, I leave you with this. It’s long, but it’s worth the read. This comes from the Onion and is presented as an editorial written by Ryan himself. I present this because it’s funny, and also because it fairly accurate about Ryan’s charisma advantage:

Admit It, I Scare The Ever-Loving Sh*t Out Of You, Don't I?

When Mitt Romney selected me as his running mate, I knew the Democratic attack dogs would come out in full force. They would say I’m a right-wing ideologue. They would say my views on entitlement programs are far too radical. They would say putting me on the ticket immediately kills Mitt Romney’s chances of becoming president because I’m a liability. But if we’re being honest with each other—if we’re able to put aside the talking points for a few minutes and say what we’re all actually thinking and feeling—I believe we can acknowledge the real truth here.

I’m young, I’m handsome, I’m smart, and I’m articulate. And that scares the ever-loving sh*t out of you. You can pretend like you have this thing in the bag, but you know good goddamn well that this race just got real interesting, real fast.

It’s okay to admit it. You’re frightened to death of me. It might actually be healthy for you to face your fears now rather than later, when Mitt and I are leading by a few points in the polls and it looks like this thing might end badly for you. Face it: I’m not some catastrophe waiting to happen, like a Sarah Palin or a Dan Quayle. On the contrary, you have the exact opposite fear. I’m a solid, competent, some might say exceptional, politician.

Did you get nervous when you read that last sentence? Is it because you know in your heart of hearts that it’s 100 percent true? Is it because, even if you strongly disagree with my beliefs on Medicare, Social Security, women’s rights, and marriage equality, you know my talent as a speaker and my well-thought-out approach to these issues—no matter how radical and convoluted you find them—might just be enough to win over independent voters?

Do you get chills just thinking about how strong my appeal actually is?

I have another question for you: How scared are you that I can convince people I’m right? Because I’m good at it. No, I’m really good at it. You see, I know how to turn up the charm and charisma without putting people off. Then I back up what I’m saying with arguments that, when they come out of my mouth, sound completely accurate and well-reasoned. And I do it with such passion that people automatically recognize me as a man with deep convictions he will stand up for, no matter what.

The American people love that sh*t. They love it.

Passion, intellect, and a magnetic personality. Pretty damn intimidating combo, if I say so myself. You want to talk about polish? Man, I’ve got polish for miles. Oh, and by the way, I’ll go ahead and say this next thing because, if we’re being honest, why the hell not, right? In case you haven’t noticed, I’m white. Hoo, brother, am I white. Yup, you should be scared sh*tless of me, because guess who isn’t?

The people of Wisconsin. They love me. Republicans and Democrats there love me. Hell, I get Democrats to vote for me even if my policies make zero sense when it comes to their livelihoods. Do you know why? Because they like me. They like my story. Young, good-looking kid who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to make something of himself. Christ, I'm a storybook candidate. I balance out this ticket so well it’s almost too perfect. The people of Ohio are going to think that. And seniors in Florida—the state we supposedly lost when Mitt picked me—won’t be so scared as soon they know that my mother lives in Florida, and that all I want to do is reform the health care system so she can receive care that makes good fiscal sense.

Boy, I’m going to sell the sh*t out of that talking point. And I’m going to do a great job of it. Why? Because I’m Paul Ryan. That’s what I do.

And if we’re having trouble getting Pennsylvania on board, just wait until I absolutely wipe the floor with Joe Biden in the vice presidential debates. Don’t think for a second that I don’t know you’re terrified of us facing off, because in the back of your mind you know it could be a bloodbath up there.

Well, that’s 77 electoral votes, and by my math that means you can kiss your golden boy goodbye after four short years. All that promise. All that energy. All that potential. Gone in one November night.

I’m your worst f*cking nightmare.

Oh, and by the way, don’t even try to pretend you haven’t imagined me being elected president one day.

P.S. Don't forget, it is Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Election Stuff

There’s been a good deal of election related news in the past few days. Let’s cover it all. . . every last single item. Or not.

● The Polls: Dick Morris, who is often correct, made an interesting statement about the polls the other day. He noticed that the MSM is presenting the picture of Obama having momentum and they are doing it through polling that purports to show Obama gaining support. Newsweek apparently even speculated about an Obama landslide. Morris says not to believe any of this.

Morris has seen state-by-state polling of the thirteen key states. He says this polling shows Romney gaining momentum in nine of those states and Obama gaining momentum in four. From this, Morris claims that Romney is ahead in Indiana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, North Carolina and Colorado. He is basically tied in Virginia, Florida and Ohio, though Obama importantly remains stuck below 50% in each. Moreover, while Obama is still ahead in Iowa, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, he is stuck below 50%, which presents a significant pick up opportunity for Romney -- Obama needs to win each of those states to win the election.

All told, Morris thinks that Romney may end up with around 350 electoral votes, which would be a landslide. I’m leaning in that direction as well.

● The Trumpster: According to reports, Romney plans to unleash Trump to win over swing-state whites in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan. Trump huh? Well, before you scoff, consider this. According to Zogby, Trump appeals to whites who earn less that $35,000. These people make up the bulk of the undecideds. They apparently see Trump favorably based on “his celebrity, personal magnetism, and the positive aspiration brand he offers, [which] seems to gel with this group of voters.” He’s also a fearless campaigner who won’t shy away from blasting Obama on any issue. This could get interesting.

● The Money: I’m not a believer that money decides elections, but a lot of people are. To me money is more an indication of which way people think the election will go. Thus, it’s fascinating that Romney continues to out raise Obama by huge margins. In May, Romney raised $77 million compared to $60 million for Obama. In June, Romney took in $106 million compared to Obama’s $71 million. Now we learn that in July, Romney took in $101 million compared to Obama’s $75 million.

● The General: According to an Obama donor, Obama thinks Romney is looking to pick Gen. David Petraeus for his Vice President. Obama promptly denied saying that. On the one hand, this pick would probably electrify the public. I bet this would add 3-5% to Romney’s poll numbers everywhere. On the other hand, I’m leery of Petraeus. Generals rarely make good politicians and Petraeus is a known moderate. Given that Romney is still viewed with suspicion by the right, I think this would be a bad move. I still prefer Rubio.

● The Shameless: Obama keeps hitting new lows in his political ads. Last week, one of his ads called Romney a felon for his SEC filings. This week, he’s got some guy whining how he lost his healthcare when Romney closed a plant which led to his wife dying of cancer, i.e. Romney killed his wife (LINK). For the record, she died four years after Romney left Bain. Also, anyone who has dealt with our healthcare system knows this is crap. But that never stops the Democrats. PLUS, it turns out that she actually had insurance through her own job even after Bain closed the plant (LINK).

Romney, by the way, has hired a new advisor whose job will be to start pushing back on the Bain attacks. That shouldn’t be too hard, just point out the companies Bain saved.

● The Spending Cuts: Finally, do you recall the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts that are supposed to kick in? Under a new law signed Tuesday, Obama will need to begin detailing where those cuts will happen as early as next month. This isn’t going to sit well with his voters when he tells them that if he’s re-elected, he will cut their jobs or benefits. Of course, that assumes he does what the law requires. Obama has already delayed Medicare cuts until November, even though those were supposed to kick in already, and he’s apparently been leaning on Big Business not to fire people before the election.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Crazy People

Every once in a while, Politico does an interesting article that deserves comment, like their article about the myths Obama and Romney are telling themselves about the election.

1. The Democratic Myths

● Bane/Bain Capital. Team Obama believes the Bain Capital attacks will work. They think it worked for Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts and for Newt in South Carolina, so it will work for them. Politico, however, notes that the evidence is “not conclusive” and they site a recent poll which shows that, by a 34% margin, voters think Romney’s business background will make him a better decision-maker.

But frankly, there’s stronger evidence. After Obama spent a summer blasting away with millions in negative ads about Bain, Romney’s poll numbers have continued to rise while Obama’s have fallen. That’s pretty conclusive. And logic tells us these attacks won’t work in any event. For one thing, they are too esoteric for voters to understand. For another, Americans have grown accustomed to private equity financing and it doesn’t anger them. And for another, the longer Obama spends trying to attack Romney for being a businessman, the more he reminds people of his own lack of business acumen and the failure of his Keynesian economic policies.

As for this attack working before, Romney lost South Carolina because it’s an evangelical state. He lost to Ted Kennedy because no Kennedy will ever lose in Massachusetts. Bain had nothing to do with either.

● Party Like It’s 2008. Team Obama is clinging to the idea they can excite their base to get turnout similar to 2008. Politico refutes this with a recent Gallup poll showing that Democrats are 39% less likely to say they are “more enthusiastic about voting than usual.” That is solid evidence, but consider all the other evidence. Look how Obama’s fundraising is way down, how low Obama’s approval ratings have been for so long, and how few Democrats turned out in 2010. That’s the real evidence of a lack of enthusiasm. And then consider this: Obama’s 2008 victory required more than his base. He needed two-thirds of independents and even cross-over Republicans. All the evidence tells us that those people have abandoned him and aren’t going back. Nor is Obama doing anything to attract them, as he’s spending all his time working on his base. The idea that the electorate will mirror 2008 is a pipe dream.

● It’s Bush’s Fault. Team Obama thinks the voters will forgive his near total failure because they will remember how bad things where when he took office and will cut him some slack. But as Politico notes, there is no polling which reflects this. Moreover, Obama’s handling of the economy is routinely seen as a negative and Romney easily blows him away in poll after poll on economic issues.

But there’s an even simpler factor Politico has missed: the public may grade him on a curve because of the problems he was handed, BUT they will ultimately grade him on his performance since taking office in light of those problems. In other words, the bad start Bush gave him only means that people don’t expect him to reach the same heights he otherwise would have reached, it does not excuse his failure to progress. And on that point, Obama has progressed poorly: taking unemployment from a temporary 6% to a permanent 9%, taking a $450 billion deficit and turning it into five years of trillion dollar deficits, rampant inflation, etc.

2. The Republican Myths

● It’s the Economy Stupid. Team Romney is entirely focused on the economy (except when they aren’t (LINK)). Politico thinks this is a mistake because “voters expect their presidents to be multidimensional.” But here’s the problem. First, Romney has proven to be very multidimensional all summer, as he went issue by issue through everything outside the economy. Secondly, what makes them think Obama is any more popular on any other issue? Obamacare, Fast and Furious, standing in the way of school vouchers, environmental failures, his pathetic foreign policy, inflaming racial tensions, failing to respond to disasters, a failed energy policy, a failed industrial policy, cronyism, confusion on social issues, attacks on religion, etc. Where exactly is it that voters will think Obama has an advantage?

● Can Buy Me Love. Romney believes that massive spending by outside groups like American Crossroads will crush Obama. But Politico warns that voters are starting to tune out ads because of their sheer volume. In other words, money doesn’t matter. . . so much for Democratic claims to the contrary. I can’t argue with this. By and large, money isn’t all that relevant, except to the extent it allows a ground game in key states. BUT this race isn’t about money in any event, it’s about Obama’s failures.

● You Don’t Have To Like Me. Romney continues to be not-liked. Romney thinks this doesn’t matter. Politico counters that this means that (1) Romney has no room for error, (2) Romney will have no defense when Obama starts attacking his character, and (3) his unpopularity will cause voters to interpret Romney’s missteps in a negative light. The problem with Politico’s analysis is that it’s not being borne out by the reality. Romney’s “gaffes” and Obama’s personal attacks have failed to influence anyone. And the reason is that voters aren’t weighing Romney v. Obama, they are deciding whether or not Obama deserves a second term. Romney only matters to the extent he’s either acceptable or unacceptable. In other words, they view Romney as simply YES/NO and then they spend their timing thinking about Obama. So all this talk of Romney’s likeability is misplaced. Not to mention, as I pointed out yesterday (LINK), there’s reason to think the disconnect between Obama’s personal popularity and his failure on every other point should be troubling.

● It’s Inevitable. Finally, Team Romney thinks that given the state of the economy, no president can be reelected. Politico agrees that the three presidents who went up for reelection during bad economic times (Ford, Carter, Bush I) all lost, but they also faced other problems -- Watergate, the Iranian hostage crisis, and a third-party challenge from Ross Perot. So Politico concludes that while bad economic times probably do matter the most, elections are more complex than that.

I agree. BUT again, what exactly is Obama offering? Outside of the economy, his only two achievements are ObamaCare, which a clear majority of the public wants repealed, and financial regulation, which nobody cares about. And don’t forget, the public had a chance to render a verdict on all of his “achievements” in 2010 and they gave the Republicans an historic win in the House. The economy may not be the only issue, but Politico is kidding itself if it thinks that Obama fares better on any other issue.

Conclusion

It strikes me that Politico is nervous. Even before digging into these issues and seeing how limited their analysis was, it was already clear they think Team Obama is much more delusional than Team Romney. Indeed, the best they can do with Romney is argue that his reasons might not be correct, but with Obama, they’re pretty darn certain he’s wrong. What all of this tells me is that Romney is using an effective strategy with few holes, not to mention that he addresses the holes when they appear. But Obama is using a delusional strategy that just won’t work and relies on things happening which just won’t happen. Bad news for Obama.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

It's Like Likability And Like Stuff

Whoops. For months now, the left has consoled itself with the idea that because Obama rates more likable in polls than Romney, voters will choose him in November even though their answers to every other poll question show a pro-Romney blowout in the works. A new poll by The Hill casts serious doubt on that. Let’s talk about the Senate too.

● I Like You, But I’m Not “In Like” With You. Polls have consistently shown Obama doing much better than Romney in the likability category. This seems a strange contradiction given that every other indicator goes against Obama. So what is going on? Looking at the way people make decisions, it strikes me that this high likeability really indicates that the voters have already made up their minds. In other words, since they’ve already decided, there have no reason to generate dislike for him to aid their decision. This fits with his amazingly steady low approval rating.

And now we have more reason to question the likability number. Indeed, according to a new poll by The Hill, 93% of likely voters said that competence and policies matter more than likability. That’s horrible news for Obama. Once you get away from likability, Obama’s in deep trouble. Even the The Hill, whose polls do lean left, found that 47% of voters share Romney’s values compared to 44% for Obama, 48% view Romney as the stronger leader compared to 44% for Obama, and 46%-44% view Romney as more trustworthy.

Interestingly, The Hill uses these numbers to conclude that Obama’s attacks on Romney “as a heartless corporate raider responsible for layoffs, outsourcing and tax secrecy” have “largely failed to change the narrative in the race.” Yep. So it sounds like all those conservative blogs that were pounding the table that Romney wasn’t responding correctly have been proven wrong. Imagine that.

● Senate Math. With 98 days to go until we can upgrade from the Moron to the Mormon, there is another aspect of the election we should consider: the Senate. The Republicans need to win the Senate to get their policies in place. Romney can make some changes through agency rules and the such, but any sort of significant policy changes just won’t be possible. So what are the odds the Republicans will win the Senate? Not as high as you would think.

The Republicans need to gain four seats to control the Senate, three if Romney wins. There are 33 Senate seats up for reelection this time. The Democrats are defending 22 of those. And of the eight seats considered most endangered, the Democrats hold six of those. Should be simple, right?

Well, not quite. Right now, it looks like the Republicans will pick up North Dakota, Nebraska and Missouri for sure. However, they may lose Maine and Massachusetts. In the key swing states of Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Ohio, the Republicans have compelling candidates, but they still trail. Everything I know about Virginia tells me the Republicans will win that, but the polls don’t reflect that yet either. So based on this, we would be looking at anywhere from -2 to +7 seats, with a more likely result between +1 to +5.

That said, in the last several elections, the undecided seats have tended to sweep to one party, and that’s the party with the momentum. That would be the Republicans. Moreover, Obama’s lack of coattails and excitement will hurt the Democrats in each of these states except maybe Ohio, where blacks are likely to turn out in huge numbers. I personally think the Republicans will gain five seats, but we won’t know until we get a lot closer. This will be much closer than it should have been.

● Here Come The Excuses. Finally, the Democrats are starting to build up excuses for the loss they are expecting. The most used excuse is likely to be Voter ID laws. These laws were passed in six swing states, including Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia and Wisconsin, as well as several other less competitive states, and the left is claiming that these laws are aimed at blacks and the young, who apparently are incapable of getting state identification cards for some reason. They have even attached a number to this issue to make it sound scientific: 5,000,000!! Said Politico:

At least 5 million voters, predominantly young and from minority groups sympathetic to President Barack Obama, could be affected by an unprecedented flurry of new legislation by Republican governors and GOP-led legislatures to change or restrict voting rights by Election Day 2012.

Yeah, ok. It’s no coincidence that the enthusiasm of both of these groups is down right now, probably in about the exact amount the left claims will be affected by these Voter ID laws. Not to mention that if these groups wanted to foil us in our dastardly plan, they could actually go get a valid license and register to vote. Imagine that. But that wouldn’t give the Democrats an excuse, would it?

No doubt, more excuses will be forthcoming soon. Want to help them with some suggestions?

P.S. Don't forget, it WAS Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Poll-arama: Blow Out Ahead

All right, we know not to read too much into polls this early. We also understand that polls get kind of fuzzy when translated into votes. And we know that electoral college votes are more important than the popular vote, and the electorate is largely fixed. Still, when you start to see so much data going in one direction, you begin to wonder. Things don’t look good for Obama.

● Yeah, They Built That: Obama’s “you didn’t build that” line continues to resonate with voters. We know this because people keep talking about it everywhere. Pollsters are even asking the public about it, which means it’s entered “the mainstream consciousness.” And guess what? The public isn’t on Obama’s side. According to Rasmussen:

● 77% believe small business owners work harder that other workers. Only 2% disagree.

● 57% believe that entrepreneurs do more to create jobs and economic growth than big business or government.

● 61% believe small business provides more valuable services to local communities than big business or government.

● And Gallup found there appears to be a fundamental shift in the public’s view of government as 61% now say the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and private business.

This is all really bad for Obama, whose campaign strategy is to attack business as a mere outgrowth of government. The public ain’t buying it.

● It’s Not Bush’s Fault After All: Nor are they buying Obama's attempt to avoid blame. Riddle me this: who said in 2009, “Look, if I can’t turn the economy around in three years, I will be looking at a one-term proposition”? Here’s a hint: he’s spent the last three years trying to blame all his failures on George W. Bush. Well, according to a new poll taken for The Hill, that excuse has worn thin. The Hill found that 66% of respondents blame the slow economic recovery and total lack of jobs on bad government policy. Of those people, 34% lay the blame on Obama. Only 18% continue to blame Bush. Moreover, 53% of voters say Obama took the wrong actions and caused the economy to slow. None of this is good news for Obama.

What could be upsetting people? How about this. Who said in 2003 that George Bush needed to “fix up the economy” before he did anything else? Here’s a hint, it’s the same guy who decried Bush’s $300 billion deficit as “underscor[ing] the recklessness of the George W. Bush administration and the Republican Congress.” And it’s the same man who has now given us five straight years of budgets with trillion dollar deficits. If $300 billion was reckless, what does that make a trillion five times over?

● We’ll Take the Mormon over the Moron!: All of this is adding up fast. USA Today/Gallup asked people who they trust more when it comes to managing the economy, reducing the federal budget deficit and creating jobs. Despite all the time and effort Obama has poured into his Bain Capital attacks, Romney wins this in a blowout: 63% to 29%. And it gets worse. Despite all the attacks Obama has made, including record spending on negative ads, Romney’s popularity has gone up from 53% to 54%, and the number of people who say they share Romney’s views has gone up from 42% to 45%.

But even more importantly, 18% of Republican and Republican leaning voters report being more enthusiastic about voting than normal. This compares to only 4% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners who report the same. That’s an enthusiasm gap of 14%!! Enthusiasm will be key this year because the evidence suggests that less than 10% of voters are actually swing voters. These numbers suggest a blow out in the works.

● A Cold Day In Minnesota: Finally, we have this amazing bit of new. Mitt Romney is within striking distance of winning Minnesota. Yeah, Minnesota. Obama leads 46% to 40%, but the key here is that Obama can’t get to 50% and his 6% lead is half of what it’s been in the past. If Minnesota is in play, then Obama might as well quit right now. The last Republican to win Minnesota was Richard Nixon. Even Ronald Reagan never carried that bastion of idiotic liberalism.

How do you say “blow out” in Minnesotan, eh?


P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...