Jay Severin was on the Blaze and filled us in to the 5, that’s FIVE, reasons why it’s going to be President Romney. Everyone, it is said, claims to know two businesses – their own and politics. Despite the tedious, transparent ignorance of the usual suspect “journalists” covering the presidential contest, their ponderous analyses on politics continues to “set the market” for the public’s daily sense of “who’s winning.” If you really want to know what is happening and what will happen, forget the feckless talking heads at CNN or Marxist imbeciles at MSNBC. They might as well be making predictions on local tribal chieftain elections in Fiji –about which they likely know much more.
Here’s five reasons (the political professionals) believe why it will be President Romney.
(1) Political change happens, but suspension of the laws of gravity does not. Over a lifetime advising candidates in this country and abroad, some things have never changed:
-The oldest, most significant question in history of U.S. public opinion polling: Asked of voters “Is the country on the right or wrong track?” No incumbent underwater on this question–including very impressive candidates for dog catcher–gets re-elected. For more than two years, across the board, voter response to this central question has consistently been greater than 2 to 1 wrong track.
-”Independents.” Pretend what you wish, independents weren’t born politically a-sexual. The vast majority of them are, and will vote, Republican.
-Much like “right/wrong track,” one of the profound metrics or indicators in a presidential campaign is a president who cannot hit 50 percent approval among voters. Obama has consistently failed to reach 50 percent in over two years. Uh Oh.
-The single-most important signifier in the history of American campaigns is “Economy/Jobs.” Under Obama, the nation’s performance in this area sucks. People know it. I can’t promise you Obama can’t get elected with these numbers, but I can promise you nobody ever has.
(2) Everything we think we “know” about this election is based exclusively on polls, which despite enjoying the undue respect of the public are utter sh**. There are maybe five pollsters in America who could not successfully be sued for malpractice. There is nothing so common and useless in American media/”politics” than inept polls. Worse, it is easy and cheap to produce a “poll,” which hustlers and newspapers (forgive the redundancy), know is obviously inaccurate. Good polls, by good pollsters, are very difficult to produce ad very expensive.
The New York Times doesn’t want am accurate poll; they want the cheapest poll they can report by day-after-tomorrow. They do this by ignoring virtually all the tenets of a good poll in favor of quick/cheap/bad polls – which have an added advantage for the MSM: they polls guaranteed to yield liberal results.
Why are these polls inaccurate? Of 100 Americans eligible to vote, only circa 1/3 of us turn out. So when you talk to non-voters (2/3 of the sample), you get non-results. But bad pollsters don’t care about that minor detail! They want a headline.
Most of the bad polls we see today are based on voter turn out models of 2008. Why? There has been a national election since then: 2010. Difference is Obama voters turned out/won 2008 – Tea Party/Patriots turned out in 2010.
Bottom line, the majority of polls we see are garbage. Average results of 10 bad polls, know what that yields? One bad average.
The Real polling in this – and every campaign – is being done in strictest confidence by top pollsters, at a cost of $1Million+ Per Month! Know what NBC Pays per month for its polling? Same as your electric bill.
Think that affects quality of results?!
Most polls/pollsters showing Obama ahead are Wrong. Demonstrably Wrong. Intentional Obama Propaganda. The media won’t report it, because the media is the culprit. If you want good polls check out Doug Schoen, Scott Rasmussen, or Pat Caddell.
(3) Watch for the “Silent Majority.” Per Ann Coulter’s latest blockbuster, “Mugged”, racial politics permeate our politics. Pity. The major effect it will have on this election is that many people, in my professional opinion, are intimidated at work, among friends and in public to express a pro-Romney viewpoint – inasmuch as that equals an “anti-Obama” viewpoint. Which of course equals a “racist” opinion.
Ask yourself: how many men and women just clam up at work or parties, rather than be labeled ‘racist?’
That is a theory. Until my dear friend Ann Coulter appeared on my BlazeRadioShow last week and told the story of a man who brought home a Romney lawn sign, in reaction to which his wife recoiled in horror, saying “You’re not going to put THAT on our lawn! Everyone will think we’re Racists!”
No, we’re against Obama, socialism, and for Romney. While we may eschew lawn signs, we do – and will – vote robustly.
-About 10 percent of the electorate who will in the end vote, remain “Undecided.”
-In no national election in recorded US history has an incumbent won the majority of Undecideds in the final days. If you have an incumbent president that has already served four years, and now in the heat of an election you still can’t bring yourself to support him, you are going to do what late Undecided voters have always done: vote heavily for the challenger. Mitt will capture 70% of Undecided vote in closing days, easy.
(5) A greater percent of Romney supporters are going to turn out than Obama voters. In 2008, there was a gap between Republican and Democrat voter turn out. In a 4 percent race, that made the difference. In 2012, there again will be a big turn out gap. This time, it’s ours.
Mister Mentum, first name “Mo,” will amplify this result. MO has, undeniably, parachuted in again, unannounced but subtle as a mule kick for one candidate: Romney. In my professional estimation, this was inevitable – but is tangibly derivative of The ROMNEY-obama debate. Unaccustomed to being challenged (or correct), President Obama was absolutely overwhelmed by Romney’s superior knowledge, style and, yes, truth.
Ask yourself: Do you honestly expect Obama to beat Romney – in two debates? Me neither. (In fact, if Obama doesn’t absolutely dazzle tonight, most voters who watch Debates won’t bother to watch the 3rd contest.)
As of several days ago, unless Obama changes the fundamental dynamic of this campaign, “On Any Given Tuesday” – he loses this election. Look at the size/enthusiasm of the candidate crowds over the past 10 days. This is a reaction to the profound difference between a wasted, libelous $100Million Obama TV Ad brutalization of Romney as a Monster.
Guess what? Voters suddenly saw and intuitively embraced the real Mitt Romney – the difference between Obama Night and Romney Daylight.
Remember the old electric Obama pre-election magic?
“Under new management.”
As will be the United States of America, in roughly two weeks.
Ms. Candy Crowley will be hosting the presidential debate. Some are saying ‘the fix is in’. Newsbusters offered her, let’s call them, pro Obama moments:
- “Usually you kind of give the President a pass on leaking confidential stuff.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley on Obama’s self-promoting national security leaks, June 10, 2012 State of the Union.
- “Let me talk to you a little about the swing state of Virginia, and I want to show our viewers your unemployment rate which has basically stayed two to three points below the national unemployment rate. It’s a success story really. Okay? You like this. I understand that. But, but, even as you embrace it as a Republican governor, does it not make it difficult for Mitt Romney, who has the same problem in other swing states, to come in and say, ‘The economy is terrible and, you know, you need to elect a new president?’ Because Virginia is doing very well under President Obama. – CNN’s Candy Crowley to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, June 3, 2012 State of the Union.
- “It’s probably less of a phony issue than a passe issue. This might have had some resonance had he done it early on, and he had a whole, you know, springtime to begin to, you know, chip away. The problem is, that the economy just came down on him.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley after the third presidential debate raised the issue of Obama’s friendship with radical Sixties bomber Bill Ayers, October 15, 2008.
- “If you raised more than a quarter billion dollars in the primary season, would you limit yourself to $85 million in the fall campaign? Duh!” – CNN’s Candy Crowley’s spin when Obama decided to break his promise to abide by campaign spending limits to accept public financing, June 19, 2008.
- “I recall standing out in very chilly Springfield, Illinois, when Barack Obama announced. And a lot of people I talked to there said, ‘Oh, you’re an Obama supporter?’ I said no, but you know, this might be history. I wanted to bring my kid. Same with Hillary Clinton. I brought my daughter, you know, because I think this might be history.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley on American Morning, February 1, 2008.
Republicans Too ‘Far Right,’ Intolerant
- “Do you have a problem with being inclusive, because most people do look at Republicans going ‘They’re a conservative bunch of white guys who want to protect Big Oil.’ And now you’re even hearing Republicans saying, ‘It’s not big enough. We haven’t opened up the tent door.’” – CNN’s Candy Crowley touting an Arnold Schwarzenegger op-ed to Newt Gingrich, May 6, 2012 State of the Union.
- “We have a poll where the majority of Americans said you all need to compromise on this debt ceiling, you all need to raise the debt ceiling, and it out to be — the deal ought to include a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. You are opposed to both raising the debt ceiling and that kind of compromise. So doesn’t that put you outside the mainstream?” – CNN’s Candy Crowley to Rep. Michele Bachmann, August 14, 2011 State of the Union.
- “You and others who are for abortion rights in the Republican Party were frozen out of the platform. What does that say, if anything, about compassionate conservatism and the broad tent?” – CNN’s Candy Crowley to New York Governor George Pataki, July 31, 2000 daytime coverage of the GOP convention.
- “Somewhat north and far to the right of George Bush, there was this presidential primary cookout put together by a coalition of conservative groups who are feeling a little ignored.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley at a New Hampshire cookout featuring Sen. Bob Smith, July 4, 1999 The World Today.
- “There’s that term, ‘penny wise and pound foolish.’ Would you worry that, by cutting off those services, people…would have sicker babies, or certain people…wouldn’t have HIV testing…and that would just cost us more?” – CNN’s Candy Crowley questioning Rep. Steve King on Planned Parenthood subsidies while guest-hosting The Situation Room on February 18, 2011.
- “So let’s get down to the basic question, who’s going to get hurt in this budget?…So you have said in an editorial you wrote that the budget is an expression of our values and aspirations. So if I look at this what we call discretionary spending, things we don’t have to spend on, you want to cut back community development block programs. That creates jobs in communities; it helps them with infrastructure, that kind of thing. Home heating assistance; education, as you just mentioned. You’re also going to do — the Great Lakes Restoration Fund Initiative is getting a pretty healthy cut in what they get from the feds, eight states involved, in trying to keep the Great Lakes economically viable. What does that say about our values and aspirations?: – CNN’s Candy Crowley pressing Obama budget director Jack Lew from the left on State of the Union, February 13, 2011.
Heroic Democrats for the New Century
- “This is a man [John Kerry] who went and served his country. Do you feel as though you’re making fun of him?…One of the things that the criticism of this is, that there are, you know, kids over in Iraq right now, some of them getting Purple Hearts. Is this defaming of them?” – CNN’s Candy Crowley to a GOP delegate mocking Sen. John Kerry’s war injuries by wearing a band-aid with a purple heart on it, August 30, 2004.
- “It is good old-fashioned ticket balance: a Northeastern Democrat on the liberal side, a Southern Democrat on the moderate side.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley on American Morning, July 6, 2004. (At that time, Sen. John Edwards had a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 10 percent conservative.)
- “He is the last of the liberal lions, roaring on behalf of the voiceless….The 30-year-old with nothing but a name to run on turned 70 as one of the premier legislators of the 20th century….He has championed civil rights, pushed for improved education and better health care. His name is on hundreds, probably thousands, of bills….He is an undiluted, undeterrable liberal, but a closet pragmatist. He prefers half a loaf to none, something to nothing, results over rhetoric.” – CNN’s Candy Crowley, noting the 70th birthday of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, on the February 22, 2002 Inside Politics.
One thing is for certain – it’s going to be an interesting townhall debate.
The National Journal has put together a drinking game for this evening (gosh a ton of people are going to be drunk!) On Tuesday night, the presidential debates begin anew. After Mitt Romney’s trouncing of Barack Obama at the first debate in Colorado, the two candidates will come to Hofstra University in Long Island, N.Y., for another round. It’s like Rocky II, just with less “ADRIAAAN” and more “cuts to the domestic discretionary budget.” But if near-drunken hollering is your thing, we’ve got just the drinking game for you. Check below for our rules for the first and only town-hall debate between Obama and Romney. And stay safe out there.
1 Drink Events
• Romney cites the “six studies” that have signed off on his tax plan.
• Unlike the last time around, Obama says the number 47.
• A question is asked about marriage equality or gay rights.
• The audience boos either candidate.
• Either candidate praises a member of the other party.
• A questioner asks about the Obama administration’s response to the attack in Libya.
• Obama brings up the Massachusetts health care law.
• Anybody says the word “Bain.” Take an extra drink or two if it sounds a bit more like “Bane.”
• Housing or Fed policy is discussed by either candidate.
• Stimulus-funded “green jobs” and windmills supposedly made in China are derided by Romney.
• Either candidate accuses the other of making Medicare unsustainable for people under age 55.
• Either candidate directly panders to the hometown of a questioner.
• Obama accuses Romney of changing his policies mid-debate.
• Either candidate hassles the moderator over how much time they’ve been given to speak.
2 Drink Events
• Anyone says “malarkey.”
• An actual unemployed person gets to ask either candidate a question.
• Big Bird is mentioned in a question.
• The camera pans to a woman or member of an ethnic group that a candidate is currently pandering to.
• A question is asked about immigration policy at a presidential debate.
• Taking the lead from Vice President Joe Biden, Obama actually defends the stimulus.
• A questioner starts crying, mid-question.
• As he is wont to do, Romney attempts to guess the age and ethnicity of a questioner.
• Several minutes into a question, an audience member has to be reminded to ask a question, not make a statement.
• Obama channels Biden and laughs through a response from Romney.
• A questioner asks the candidates about unmanned drone policy.
• Moderator Candy Crowley cuts off a questioner to ask her own, vaguely related, question.
• A questioner asks either candidate about the euro crisis.
3 Drink, Red Alarm Events
• Obama visibly falls asleep at his podium.
• To keep from falling asleep, Obama appears on stage with a nicotine patch stapled to his forehead.
• Romney leaves the stage half way through the debate, figuring he may as well go out on top.
• Obama sends in Biden to debate Romney in his place.
• To level the playing field, Romney sings the answer to an audience question on the economy.
• Obama congratulates his fellow Nobel Peace Prize winners: everyone living within the European Union.
Now, speaking about the townhall, LD Jackson has made a good point writing: Whenever Mitt Romney is asked what his plans are for America, his opponent usually asks for details. When stating he wants to reform the tax code by lowering the rates and eliminating deductions, the Obama campaign wants to know how he will pay for that tax cut. They want to know which deductions he plans to eliminate. Details, details, details. Their new favorite line of attack is that Romney needs to be more specific about the details of his plan. It doesn’t seem to matter that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have said they plan to work out the specific deductions that will be eliminated with Congress. In case President Obama has forgotten, that’s called bipartisanship. You know, both parties working together. But no, that isn’t good enough. They want more details.
How’s this for details? What is President Obama’s plan for a second term? He’s made it clear, he wants to spend more money and to finish implementing Obamacare. If he can manage to push it through Congress, he would prefer to eliminate the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on the rich. What will be the result of these details? A higher tax burden for small businesses and corporations, which will be passed down to their customers. Many of these businesses may have to cut employees, just to be able to afford to pay their portion of the fees required by Obamacare. Did I mention he wants to continue his free spending ways?
Speaking of details, what are the results of the policies put into place by the Obama administration, Version I? Is unemployment going down in America? No, not the rate they released last week. I’m talking the real rate of unemployment, after factoring back in all the people the government has factored out. There are very few jobs available, or at least very few that pay a decent wage. Most businesses are not hiring. Could that possibly be the result of the regulatory climate put into place by Obama and his first administration?
What are some of the promises Barack Obama is making along the road to what I hope is his defeat on November 6? Here is a short list, found at CNN.
• Create one million new manufacturing jobs by the end of 2016
• Double exports by the end of 2014
• Cut net oil imports in half by 2020
• Support 600,000 natural gas jobs by the end of the decade
• Cut the growth of college tuition in half over the next 10 years
• Recruit 100,000 math and science teachers over the next 10 years
• Train two million workers for real jobs at community colleges
• Reduce the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade
At the risk of sounding completely facetious, I would like President Obama to give us some specifics. Given that manufacturing companies don’t seem to be hiring, how does he plan to persuade said companies to kick off a hiring spree? I’ll give him a hint. Continuing to grow the number of regulations put on many of these companies isn’t likely to do the trick. Neither is raising their taxes or requiring them to pay a fine, if they can’t afford to provide health insurance for their employees.
What about those net oil imports? What are the details of Obama’s plan to do that? Does he think continuing to restrict the drilling activity of oil companies is going to help them produce enough oil to reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil? I really want to see the details of how he thinks this should work.
Skipping over education, let’s take a quick look at the deficit we are running in 2012. Yes, it is high and yes, some of it is Bush’s fault. The same applies to the national debt, which I believe currently stands at a little over $16 trillion, give or take a billion or two. It also belongs to Obama’s predecessor, but not nearly as much of it as Obama would like to claim. Given his propensity to spend first and ask questions later, after he raises taxes on those who are obviously not paying their fair share, I would like to hear how exactly how he plans to cut the deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years. Another hint, continuing his current spending patterns isn’t going to help matters. In fact, it will make it impossible to cut the deficit in any meaningful way.
I would ask President Obama why should we believe Version II of his administration will be any different from Version I? The devil really is in the details and the American people deserve to know more about your plans. Perhaps he will be kind enough to share some of those details during night’s debate with Mitt Romney? Just so you know, I’ll not be holding my breath for that to happen.
- Here is a quick video of lies, lies and damn lies! The only promise kept was to bankrupt the coal industry and make electric rates “skyrocket.” Can we afford four more years of national suicide?
- Now, getting back to speaking of oil and b/c Gas Prices aren’t High Enough, Obama Bans Drilling On 11.5 Million Acres Of Alaska’s Petroleum Reserve…
President Obama is campaigning as a champion of the oil and gas boom he’s had nothing to do with, and even as his regulators try to stifle it. The latest example is the Interior Department’s little-noticed August decision to close off from drilling nearly half of the 23.5 million acre National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
The area is called the National Petroleum Reserve because in 1976 Congress designated it as a strategic oil and natural gas stockpile to meet the “energy needs of the nation.” Alaska favors exploration in nearly the entire reserve. The feds had been reviewing four potential development plans, and the state of Alaska had strongly objected to the most restrictive of the four. Sure enough, that was the plan Interior chose. [...]
The problem is almost no one in the energy industry and few in Alaska agree with him. In an August 22 letter to Mr. Salazar, the entire Alaska delegation in Congress—Senators Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski and Representative Don Young—call it “the largest wholesale land withdrawal and blocking of access to an energy resource by the federal government in decades.” This decision, they add, “will cause serious harm to the economy and energy security of the United States, as well as to the state of Alaska.” Mr. Begich is a Democrat.
- WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 56 million Social Security recipients will find out today how much their monthly payments will go up next year. The increase is tied to a government measure of inflation being released Tuesday morning. Preliminary figures indicate the increase will be between 1 percent and 2 percent, which would be among the lowest since automatic annual adjustments were adopted in 1975. The small increase reflects relatively low inflation over the past year. This year’s increase was 3.6 percent. Social Security payments for retired workers average $1,237 a month, or about $14,800 a year. About 8 million people who receive Supplemental Security Income will also receive the increase, meaning the announcement will affect about one in five U.S. residents.
- Wendy Long is FINALLY getting a chance to debate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand one on one! This Wednesday at 7:00 PM, watch as Wendy engages her opponent in how to improve the economy and bring more jobs back to New York, the phony Democrat “war on women,” and more! The debate will air live on YNN, NY1 News 12, and CSPAN.
- The unemployment rate in New York State has been rising sharply, presenting a challenge for Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo as he tries to build an image as a fiscal centrist who can transform the state’s business climate. Over the last 12 months, New York has been the only state with a statistically significant increase in its unemployment rate, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As of August, the state’s rate had climbed to 9.1 percent from 8.2 percent when Mr. Cuomo took office in January 2011, a reversal of the national trend, according to the federal household survey. In every corner of the state, there are trouble spots. In the Bronx, the unemployment rate is nearly 14 percent. Along Lake Ontario, in rural Orleans County, shrinking manufacturing jobs and government payrolls have pushed unemployment to more than 11 percent. In St. Lawrence County, in the northern Adirondacks, the rate is also 11 percent. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/nyregion/new-yorks-rising-jobless-rate-poses-test-for-cuomo.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes
Enjoy your day,