Read it and weep, my friends:
Romney 47.6%
Obama 46.1%
That is the national polling average at Real Clear Politics.
The Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, has surged at the right time against the Worthless Leader, President Obama.
There is no doubt that the public, over 60,000,000 that watched the two men debate last Wednesday are beginning to believe that Mr. Romney does have what it takes to be president in these difficult times.
There is no doubt that the GOP standard-bearer was behind the Worthless Leader, President Obama before last week's debate. And it was clear that Mr. Romney had to have a great debate and hope that it would help breathe life into a kind of sort of blah campaign.
In fact, if you look at the chart from the link above, Mr. Romney was pretty flat-lined at 45% to the Worthless Leader, President Obama's 49%. But look at the huge ground made up from Wednesday to Wednesday. While three points does not seem like a big deal, it is how Mr. Romney went ahead. But the Worthless Leader, President Obama, dropped three points and it would appear to be in a free-fall.
Tomorrow night, the respective vice-presidential candidates, the current one, Vice-President Dim Wit Joe Biden and the GOP number two, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) have their only debate.
A lot has been going around how Rep. Ryan will mop up the floor with Vice-President Dim Wit Biden. It is so bad that Vice-President Dim Wit Biden has been off of the campaign trail for six days prepping for this encounter.
For us, the bad thing is that the Vice-President has not said anything dumb, stupid or dangerous.
Too bad.
Maybe Vice-President Dim Wit Biden is just saving it all for tomorrow night.
But the bottom line is this.
Mitt Romney got to show the American public what he is all about without the filter of the Obamawhore front guard media. He was coherent, clear about what the problems are and the solutions to them.
On the other hand, the same public saw a distant, disengaged president that could not say anything that he has done has made the United States a better place in any way. In fact, it is as if the president was incensed that he had to actually be there in the first place.
And that is when the tide turned.
Huge percentages in instapolls right after the debate said not only that Mr. Romney won, but that people were willing to give him another look.
Some had to be people that would vote for the Worthless Leader, President Obama. Some were undecided. Some had not seen Mr. Romney and it was their first time and they were impressed.
The Romney Surge is real. Tomorrow night could very well add to it. If Vice-President Dim Wit Biden makes a total fool of himself and Rep. Ryan comes off similar to Mr. Romney, it will make the Worthless Leader, President Obama's job in the next debate harder. And in between Mr. Romney could gain even more support in the polls.
We now have a race on our hands and the real question may very well be this.
Is there any Blue states that Mr. Romney will be able to pick up in 2012?
Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polls. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Sunday, September 30, 2012
OK, Are You Really Gonna Believe THIS Poll?!
The Columbus Dispatch newspaper released their latest poll of Ohio voters and it is not good for Mitt Romney.
According to this poll, conducted from September 19 to September 29 shows the Worthless Leader, President Obama, with a 51% to 42% advantage over the Republican candidate.
OK, on the surface so far, so good. It is very possible after all.
But here is something to look at very carefully in this poll.
It seems like a long period of time to conduct a poll, doesn't it?
Why yes it does, especially when you are conducting it by. . .snail mail!
And it is a random computer that picks alleged voters. Thus, strike two on why this poll is especially suspect.
In the linked article, it states that 43% of Democrats returned the poll forms while only 35% of Republicans did so. Then there are 20% that declined to state or are independent.
How can this be a serious poll?
How many people got this poll and did NOT respond? How many just threw it away? Where is any kind of real breakdown other than people who took the time to respond?
In most polls today, they are conducted by phone. But one of the complaints is who are the pollsters calling. Land-lines, cell phones? Land-lines only? Cell phones only?
But a mail in poll, that just seems a little much this late in the game. And there does not seem to be a screening process other than getting 1,662 people to respond.
The screening process is very important because it is how to tell who is seriously paying attention and who is actually going to vote in this election.
And most serious polling at this late stage is of at the very least registered voters but mostly likely voters.
It is why the numbers are really all over the place everywhere.
No question, the Worthless Leader, President Obama, is probably ahead at this point. I am thinking about four to five percent. And I look at the Real Clear Politics national average and the Worthless Leader, President Obama is up by 4.1%. And that is the margin of error.
Color me not all that impressed.
And even less impressed by this latest Ohio poll.
However, this poll unlike many others shows independent voters split, 43-43 for either candidate.
Most polls in counting independents show strong leads for Mr. Romney and solid Republican support.
Thus again, how is this poll so seemingly wrong?
And another thing to add to the deep suspicions of these pro-Obama polls.
The significant drop in Democrat registration not only in Ohio, but all the so-called swing states. And interesting little blurb here at Powerline blog points this inconsistency out. If the Worthless Leader all that, why are Democrats more than Republicans dropping off the voter rolls?
And yet, according to a poll conducted by snail mail, with registered Democrats dropping 490,000 off the rolls, and decline to state voters putting the candidates even, the Worthless Leader is up nine points?! It is because it is unfrickinbelievable!
According to this poll, conducted from September 19 to September 29 shows the Worthless Leader, President Obama, with a 51% to 42% advantage over the Republican candidate.
OK, on the surface so far, so good. It is very possible after all.
But here is something to look at very carefully in this poll.
It seems like a long period of time to conduct a poll, doesn't it?
Why yes it does, especially when you are conducting it by. . .snail mail!
And it is a random computer that picks alleged voters. Thus, strike two on why this poll is especially suspect.
In the linked article, it states that 43% of Democrats returned the poll forms while only 35% of Republicans did so. Then there are 20% that declined to state or are independent.
How can this be a serious poll?
How many people got this poll and did NOT respond? How many just threw it away? Where is any kind of real breakdown other than people who took the time to respond?
In most polls today, they are conducted by phone. But one of the complaints is who are the pollsters calling. Land-lines, cell phones? Land-lines only? Cell phones only?
But a mail in poll, that just seems a little much this late in the game. And there does not seem to be a screening process other than getting 1,662 people to respond.
The screening process is very important because it is how to tell who is seriously paying attention and who is actually going to vote in this election.
And most serious polling at this late stage is of at the very least registered voters but mostly likely voters.
It is why the numbers are really all over the place everywhere.
No question, the Worthless Leader, President Obama, is probably ahead at this point. I am thinking about four to five percent. And I look at the Real Clear Politics national average and the Worthless Leader, President Obama is up by 4.1%. And that is the margin of error.
Color me not all that impressed.
And even less impressed by this latest Ohio poll.
However, this poll unlike many others shows independent voters split, 43-43 for either candidate.
Most polls in counting independents show strong leads for Mr. Romney and solid Republican support.
Thus again, how is this poll so seemingly wrong?
And another thing to add to the deep suspicions of these pro-Obama polls.
The significant drop in Democrat registration not only in Ohio, but all the so-called swing states. And interesting little blurb here at Powerline blog points this inconsistency out. If the Worthless Leader all that, why are Democrats more than Republicans dropping off the voter rolls?
And yet, according to a poll conducted by snail mail, with registered Democrats dropping 490,000 off the rolls, and decline to state voters putting the candidates even, the Worthless Leader is up nine points?! It is because it is unfrickinbelievable!
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Are We Really Going To Let Polls End This Election Before It Even Begins?
Oh the hand wringing!
I mean, have you seen all the slew of polls that show the Worthless Leader, President Obama, leading all over the place? Now, he is up 50-44 in the Gallup daily tracking poll! It is all over. Hell, let's not even bother with those debates because the polls, the polls are telling all we need to know.
Except that today is September 27, 2012. It is not November 6, 2012 which is election day.
And that is why we who want to see the Worthless Leader defeated and Willard Mitt Romney become the 45th president of the United States should be jolted into getting serious, but definitely not anyway near panicking, about getting him over the finish line.
Let's look at Rasmussen for some comfort. Today is not much different as they keep showing the race tied. today 46-46 each. One reason I like Rasmussen is that for one, the sample is not as large as Gallup. And of course it is all about likely voters. No "registered", no "adults". People that are going to vote.
But this post is not really about process as much as it is perception.
Yes, when all is said and done, the Worthless Leader, President Obama, is leading at this point over the GOP standard-bearer, Mitt Romney. But it is still within the general accepted margins of error. And there has not been one debate yet.
A lot of history I totally forgot about the 1980 presidential race between Jimmah Carter and Ronald Reagan was presented this week in The Spectator by Jeffrey Lord.
Yes, I knew that the Gallup tracking poll had it a close race, often with President Jimmah in the lead, almost to the end.
But I did not realize all the state polls that were, well way wrong.
I was but 16 years old then, still in high school but realizing, I was not going to maintain the family tradition of being Democrats. I came out of the closet and said that I am going to be a Republican when I was able to vote two years later. But I always followed politics. And, thank you Jimmah Carter for making me realize that I was a Republican.
But back on point.
Mr. Lord looks at how The New York Times in nine articles looked at so-called crucial states-we now call them swing states. Only two, California and New Jersey looked to be in Mr. Reagan's corner. The remaining seven, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, New York and Texas were all essentially put in the Carter corner.
On October 8, 1980, The Times had an article and accompanying poll that assumed a tight race in Texas. It had President Jimmah leading Mr. Reagan, 40% to 39% with third-party spoiler John Anderson trailing at three percent.
The result?
Mr. Reagan won Texas by 13 points and began transforming the once Democrat stronghold into a solid Republican state.
Next on The Times hit parade was Pennsylvania, where Mr. Reagan was leading President Jimmah by two percent. There were "danger signs" that President Jimmah was gaining and that the undecideds were going toward the Democrat incumbent.
Again, the result?
Pennsylvania went with Mr Reagan by seven points.
See the pattern here?
On October 13, 1980, The Times went on to Illinois. Yes, that Illinois. The home state of Mr. Reagan and the semi-home state of the Worthless Leader, President Obama. Again, President Jimmah was closing the gap and only trailing Mr. Reagan by a mere one percent, 34% to 33%.
I know that you already know the answer to the perpetual question, but once again what was the result?
A decent Reagan win by roughly eight points.
And next came Ohio.
And President Jimmah was trailing here too, 36% to 34%. The labor unions were coming home to Carter. Er, labor union leadership. But certainly not the rank-and-file.
The end result?
Glad you asked for Mr. Reagan won Ohio by 10 points. A blowout compared to recent results from the Buckeye State.
Oh The Times tried to put Florida in the crucial state category. But natch, this was their weakest attempt and in the end Mr. Reagan won by a staggering 17 points.
Now a state that yes, for once, that really was a swing or crucial state was New York. Of course Mr. Reagan was losing New York City, and here is an interesting blurb Mr. Lord lifted from The Times article about their own backyard:
Reagan was "being hindered by doubts within his own party."
Does that sound familiar to you? Do you not read of hand wringers within the GOP, off the record of course, giving their two-cent doubts on Mr. Romney? Of course.
Well, Mr. Reagan offset his bad showing in New York City, save for the one GOP stronghold of Staten Island, and ended up winning, yes winning, New York state by two points.
Then there is Michigan.
The signs of decline, especially in Detroit, were just beginning at this time. And while The Times reported on Mr. Reagan gaining the endorsement of civil rights leader, the Dr. Rev. Ralph Abernathy, of course the negative? Well, backlash from I guess the "real" Black leaders.
No matter.
Mr. Reagan went on to win Michigan by six points.
Supposedly all those states were close and yet every single one was won in the end by Mr. Reagan.
But read on the piece by Mr. Lord.
Because it is very important to show how entrenched the bias was even 30 years ago.
In 1984, the last true presidential landslide, Ronald Reagan won 49 states. He barely lost in Minnesota, home state of the Democrat presidential nominee.
In that year, a Washington Post poll showed President Reagan's lead in California was only in single-digits.
Nancy Reagan was panicked. Why, I do not know. But she persisted and got campaign manager Ed Rollins to spend money for a couple of polls to essentially calm Mrs. Reagan down. But because of that, there were more phone banks (I know, I worked on them.) and some concern.
It turned out unnecessary of course as Mr. Reagan won California by a nice 16 point margin.
But here is what happened in Mr. Lord's words:
After the election, Ed Rollins ran into the Washington Post's blunt-speaking editor Ben Bradlee and "harassed" Bradlee "about his paper's lousy polling methodology."
Bradlee's "unrepentant" response?
The editor of one of the United States' leading newspapers admits he was trying to prop up the failure that was the Walter Mondale '84 campaign.
I am not really surprised. But now some one like a Ben Bradllee can just say that all he wants on any of the Obamawhore media outlets and go unchallenged.
Oh, one other thing about Mr. Reagan in 1980.
His quest for the GOP nomination was not as smooth sailing as one would believe today.
Mr. Reagan had as his campaign manager John Sears. He managed Mr. Reagan's near upset over President Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976. But he made some bad moves and ran up against some of Mr. Reagan's longtime confidants such as Edwin Meese, Michael Deaver, an damn if he was not one of my favs, Lynn Nofziger.
And of course, up against Nancy Reagan.
On the day Mr. Reagan won the New Hampsire primary, Mr. Sears was given the door and replaced by William Casey.
As I noted, because Mr. Reagan won two substantive landslides, history does not even note that the first did not seem to be in the making. Poll after poll was showing a close race.
Another tidbit in Mr. Lord's article is that in the final Times poll before the election, it was assured that a correct turnout model was being used.
Funny but I think that is being touted today.
The reason I do not think that this polling business is all that is another election in which, while a win, overstated the win.
In 1996, then President Clinton faced GOP senator, Bob Dole, for the presidency. Poll after poll here showed a seemingly insurmountable lead. Some polls had President Clinton up as much as 20 points.
But then as in 1992, the spoiler was Ross Perot. And it bears looking at that chart. Because if you take Mr. Perot out of the equation in the early days once the nominee was decided, it would have been a much closer race. And in fact it was for even with Mr. Perot, Mr. Dole only lost by nine points. And gained five percent of GOP voters back in the fold from the 1992 disaster. And President Clinton only had 49% of the vote.
As I like to always point out, polls are but a snapshot in time and in that polling period. Sometimes, the samples are good and sometimes, well they just plain suck. And sometimes, as in this election, there is an assumption that, despite the general negative feeling in the United States, that the Worthless Leader, President Obama, is going to have the same if not stronger turnout than 2008. The problem is that everything points the other way. The GOP is all in with Mr. Romney. Independents are consistently for Mr. Romney by varying numbers. But never, ever are the in favor of the current occupant of the White House.
Like in 1980, there is a great desire to end this era. To start fresh. And while many have reservations about Mr. Romney, the trend is going his way.
And these polls, these polls be damned!
I mean, have you seen all the slew of polls that show the Worthless Leader, President Obama, leading all over the place? Now, he is up 50-44 in the Gallup daily tracking poll! It is all over. Hell, let's not even bother with those debates because the polls, the polls are telling all we need to know.
Except that today is September 27, 2012. It is not November 6, 2012 which is election day.
And that is why we who want to see the Worthless Leader defeated and Willard Mitt Romney become the 45th president of the United States should be jolted into getting serious, but definitely not anyway near panicking, about getting him over the finish line.
Let's look at Rasmussen for some comfort. Today is not much different as they keep showing the race tied. today 46-46 each. One reason I like Rasmussen is that for one, the sample is not as large as Gallup. And of course it is all about likely voters. No "registered", no "adults". People that are going to vote.
But this post is not really about process as much as it is perception.
Yes, when all is said and done, the Worthless Leader, President Obama, is leading at this point over the GOP standard-bearer, Mitt Romney. But it is still within the general accepted margins of error. And there has not been one debate yet.
A lot of history I totally forgot about the 1980 presidential race between Jimmah Carter and Ronald Reagan was presented this week in The Spectator by Jeffrey Lord.
Yes, I knew that the Gallup tracking poll had it a close race, often with President Jimmah in the lead, almost to the end.
But I did not realize all the state polls that were, well way wrong.
I was but 16 years old then, still in high school but realizing, I was not going to maintain the family tradition of being Democrats. I came out of the closet and said that I am going to be a Republican when I was able to vote two years later. But I always followed politics. And, thank you Jimmah Carter for making me realize that I was a Republican.
But back on point.
Mr. Lord looks at how The New York Times in nine articles looked at so-called crucial states-we now call them swing states. Only two, California and New Jersey looked to be in Mr. Reagan's corner. The remaining seven, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, New York and Texas were all essentially put in the Carter corner.
On October 8, 1980, The Times had an article and accompanying poll that assumed a tight race in Texas. It had President Jimmah leading Mr. Reagan, 40% to 39% with third-party spoiler John Anderson trailing at three percent.
The result?
Mr. Reagan won Texas by 13 points and began transforming the once Democrat stronghold into a solid Republican state.
Next on The Times hit parade was Pennsylvania, where Mr. Reagan was leading President Jimmah by two percent. There were "danger signs" that President Jimmah was gaining and that the undecideds were going toward the Democrat incumbent.
Again, the result?
Pennsylvania went with Mr Reagan by seven points.
See the pattern here?
On October 13, 1980, The Times went on to Illinois. Yes, that Illinois. The home state of Mr. Reagan and the semi-home state of the Worthless Leader, President Obama. Again, President Jimmah was closing the gap and only trailing Mr. Reagan by a mere one percent, 34% to 33%.
I know that you already know the answer to the perpetual question, but once again what was the result?
A decent Reagan win by roughly eight points.
And next came Ohio.
And President Jimmah was trailing here too, 36% to 34%. The labor unions were coming home to Carter. Er, labor union leadership. But certainly not the rank-and-file.
The end result?
Glad you asked for Mr. Reagan won Ohio by 10 points. A blowout compared to recent results from the Buckeye State.
Oh The Times tried to put Florida in the crucial state category. But natch, this was their weakest attempt and in the end Mr. Reagan won by a staggering 17 points.
Now a state that yes, for once, that really was a swing or crucial state was New York. Of course Mr. Reagan was losing New York City, and here is an interesting blurb Mr. Lord lifted from The Times article about their own backyard:
Reagan was "being hindered by doubts within his own party."
Does that sound familiar to you? Do you not read of hand wringers within the GOP, off the record of course, giving their two-cent doubts on Mr. Romney? Of course.
Well, Mr. Reagan offset his bad showing in New York City, save for the one GOP stronghold of Staten Island, and ended up winning, yes winning, New York state by two points.
Then there is Michigan.
The signs of decline, especially in Detroit, were just beginning at this time. And while The Times reported on Mr. Reagan gaining the endorsement of civil rights leader, the Dr. Rev. Ralph Abernathy, of course the negative? Well, backlash from I guess the "real" Black leaders.
No matter.
Mr. Reagan went on to win Michigan by six points.
Supposedly all those states were close and yet every single one was won in the end by Mr. Reagan.
But read on the piece by Mr. Lord.
Because it is very important to show how entrenched the bias was even 30 years ago.
In 1984, the last true presidential landslide, Ronald Reagan won 49 states. He barely lost in Minnesota, home state of the Democrat presidential nominee.
In that year, a Washington Post poll showed President Reagan's lead in California was only in single-digits.
Nancy Reagan was panicked. Why, I do not know. But she persisted and got campaign manager Ed Rollins to spend money for a couple of polls to essentially calm Mrs. Reagan down. But because of that, there were more phone banks (I know, I worked on them.) and some concern.
It turned out unnecessary of course as Mr. Reagan won California by a nice 16 point margin.
But here is what happened in Mr. Lord's words:
After the election, Ed Rollins ran into the Washington Post's blunt-speaking editor Ben Bradlee and "harassed" Bradlee "about his paper's lousy polling methodology."
Bradlee's "unrepentant" response?
"Tough sh…t, Rollins, I'm glad it cost you plenty. It's my in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign."Nice.
The editor of one of the United States' leading newspapers admits he was trying to prop up the failure that was the Walter Mondale '84 campaign.
I am not really surprised. But now some one like a Ben Bradllee can just say that all he wants on any of the Obamawhore media outlets and go unchallenged.
Oh, one other thing about Mr. Reagan in 1980.
His quest for the GOP nomination was not as smooth sailing as one would believe today.
Mr. Reagan had as his campaign manager John Sears. He managed Mr. Reagan's near upset over President Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976. But he made some bad moves and ran up against some of Mr. Reagan's longtime confidants such as Edwin Meese, Michael Deaver, an damn if he was not one of my favs, Lynn Nofziger.
And of course, up against Nancy Reagan.
On the day Mr. Reagan won the New Hampsire primary, Mr. Sears was given the door and replaced by William Casey.
As I noted, because Mr. Reagan won two substantive landslides, history does not even note that the first did not seem to be in the making. Poll after poll was showing a close race.
Another tidbit in Mr. Lord's article is that in the final Times poll before the election, it was assured that a correct turnout model was being used.
Funny but I think that is being touted today.
The reason I do not think that this polling business is all that is another election in which, while a win, overstated the win.
In 1996, then President Clinton faced GOP senator, Bob Dole, for the presidency. Poll after poll here showed a seemingly insurmountable lead. Some polls had President Clinton up as much as 20 points.
But then as in 1992, the spoiler was Ross Perot. And it bears looking at that chart. Because if you take Mr. Perot out of the equation in the early days once the nominee was decided, it would have been a much closer race. And in fact it was for even with Mr. Perot, Mr. Dole only lost by nine points. And gained five percent of GOP voters back in the fold from the 1992 disaster. And President Clinton only had 49% of the vote.
As I like to always point out, polls are but a snapshot in time and in that polling period. Sometimes, the samples are good and sometimes, well they just plain suck. And sometimes, as in this election, there is an assumption that, despite the general negative feeling in the United States, that the Worthless Leader, President Obama, is going to have the same if not stronger turnout than 2008. The problem is that everything points the other way. The GOP is all in with Mr. Romney. Independents are consistently for Mr. Romney by varying numbers. But never, ever are the in favor of the current occupant of the White House.
Like in 1980, there is a great desire to end this era. To start fresh. And while many have reservations about Mr. Romney, the trend is going his way.
And these polls, these polls be damned!
Monday, September 10, 2012
This Is NOT Time To Panic On The GOP Side
OMG! Did you see the latest polls since the Democrat National Convention?
Why, why, the Dear Leader, President Obama, he, he has gotten a. . .bounce and is now ahead of GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
It is September, 10th! What do we do! Election Day is 56 days away! OMG! We are gonna lose folks!
A wee bit of satire in the previous three graphs. But there are those who are panicking that this is over and because the Dear Leader, President Obama, make that former President Clinton, had a great convention, and there is a bounce why it is insurmountable because, well because the voters minds are totally made up.
Uh, not really folks.
The occasional primer is good here.
In the United States, there are roughly 40% of the voting public that will vote for a Democrat no matter what. These are the hardcore partisans. And they are spread out across this Great Land.
As there are 40% that will vote for a Democrat no matter what, there are about the same number that will vote for a Republican no matter what. Again, these are the hardcore partisans and also spread all across the Great Land.
So, what about the 20% left?
They are the ones these campaigns are going after. And in this election, about 10% are iffy this late in the game. Maybe even higher than that.
So why the panic?
Well, here is some of the latest polling over at Real Clear Politics. Yes, all show the Dear Leader, President Obama, ahead of Mr. Romney. When you cumulate and average it out, it is by a rip-roaring 2.9%, essentially within the margin of error.
And guess what?
Four years ago today, one GOP nominee, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain was ahead in the RCP average. And the margin? A mere 2.2%. Again, within the margin of error. Sen. "F--- You" McCain's lead from his post convention bounce was already evaporating.
Which why I do not get the hand-wringing from some on our side,
I would also point to this from the Team Romney in-house pollster, Neil Newhouse. I think that he is correct.
So why did the Dear Leader, President Obama, get a bit more of a boost from his convention over Mr. Romney?
Four words. Well, two for the masses.
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, aka, Bill Clinton.
No doubt that it was the former president's speech at the DNC confab in Charlotte last Wednesday night that brought the house down. In fact, many have commented how weak and underwhelming the Dear Leader, President Obama's speech was in comparison.
So, now that the abysmal job numbers from August have been released showing a minimal decrease of unemployment from 8.3% to 8.1%, it is the reason that not even the Obamawhore media can cover-up.
That over 400,000 people who have been unemployed have simply given up looking for work.
No matter how anyone spins it, it is really lousy.
And that along with the dismal economy, the massive deficit and debt the federal movement is running up, states and cities on the financial brink, it is a recipe for electoral disaster.
Which leads to this.
Why isn't Mitt Romney up say about 20% over the Dear Leader?
I refer you to the seventh paragraph about the electorate.
Even in two landslides for Ronald Reagan, the Democrat candidates manged 41% of the popular vote.
So yes, it is close, but not anywhere near time to push the panic buttons.
There are still three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate. There is still time for events to change the course of the election for a while.
One thing that the Republican candidate has this time around that they did not in 2008.
A boatload of cash.
And in way that is what should help tremendously. Most analysts believe that the Democrats are running in the red or close to it. And that means either they get a lot of help from the outside groups or they will not be able to keep up in October and up to election day. Also, the enthusiasm is stronger on the GOP side than the Democrat side. That is not deniable, yet the Obamawhore media is doing all it can to make that a meme.
Bottom line is this.
Stop reading too much in these post-convention polls. By the end of this week, it will be back to a horse race and that makes it advantage Romney.
Why, why, the Dear Leader, President Obama, he, he has gotten a. . .bounce and is now ahead of GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
It is September, 10th! What do we do! Election Day is 56 days away! OMG! We are gonna lose folks!
A wee bit of satire in the previous three graphs. But there are those who are panicking that this is over and because the Dear Leader, President Obama, make that former President Clinton, had a great convention, and there is a bounce why it is insurmountable because, well because the voters minds are totally made up.
Uh, not really folks.
The occasional primer is good here.
In the United States, there are roughly 40% of the voting public that will vote for a Democrat no matter what. These are the hardcore partisans. And they are spread out across this Great Land.
As there are 40% that will vote for a Democrat no matter what, there are about the same number that will vote for a Republican no matter what. Again, these are the hardcore partisans and also spread all across the Great Land.
So, what about the 20% left?
They are the ones these campaigns are going after. And in this election, about 10% are iffy this late in the game. Maybe even higher than that.
So why the panic?
Well, here is some of the latest polling over at Real Clear Politics. Yes, all show the Dear Leader, President Obama, ahead of Mr. Romney. When you cumulate and average it out, it is by a rip-roaring 2.9%, essentially within the margin of error.
And guess what?
Four years ago today, one GOP nominee, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain was ahead in the RCP average. And the margin? A mere 2.2%. Again, within the margin of error. Sen. "F--- You" McCain's lead from his post convention bounce was already evaporating.
Which why I do not get the hand-wringing from some on our side,
I would also point to this from the Team Romney in-house pollster, Neil Newhouse. I think that he is correct.
So why did the Dear Leader, President Obama, get a bit more of a boost from his convention over Mr. Romney?
Four words. Well, two for the masses.
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, aka, Bill Clinton.
No doubt that it was the former president's speech at the DNC confab in Charlotte last Wednesday night that brought the house down. In fact, many have commented how weak and underwhelming the Dear Leader, President Obama's speech was in comparison.
So, now that the abysmal job numbers from August have been released showing a minimal decrease of unemployment from 8.3% to 8.1%, it is the reason that not even the Obamawhore media can cover-up.
That over 400,000 people who have been unemployed have simply given up looking for work.
No matter how anyone spins it, it is really lousy.
And that along with the dismal economy, the massive deficit and debt the federal movement is running up, states and cities on the financial brink, it is a recipe for electoral disaster.
Which leads to this.
Why isn't Mitt Romney up say about 20% over the Dear Leader?
I refer you to the seventh paragraph about the electorate.
Even in two landslides for Ronald Reagan, the Democrat candidates manged 41% of the popular vote.
So yes, it is close, but not anywhere near time to push the panic buttons.
There are still three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate. There is still time for events to change the course of the election for a while.
One thing that the Republican candidate has this time around that they did not in 2008.
A boatload of cash.
And in way that is what should help tremendously. Most analysts believe that the Democrats are running in the red or close to it. And that means either they get a lot of help from the outside groups or they will not be able to keep up in October and up to election day. Also, the enthusiasm is stronger on the GOP side than the Democrat side. That is not deniable, yet the Obamawhore media is doing all it can to make that a meme.
Bottom line is this.
Stop reading too much in these post-convention polls. By the end of this week, it will be back to a horse race and that makes it advantage Romney.
Saturday, September 01, 2012
The 2012 Election Is THIS Close
No really, it is very close and when you compare it to four years ago today, it is an ominous sign for the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Look at this link at Real Clear Politics and tell me that this is not close?
It is all the current polls averaged out and the Dear Leader, President Obama, is essentially tied with the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney. All that separates them is a measly 0.5 percent. And that is the margin of error so yes, the Dear Leader, President Obama, could really be ahead about 3.5%. Or Mitt Romney could be ahead by the same 3.5%.
And compared to 2008, then Sen. Messiah Barack was ahead of then GOP nominee Sen. John "F--- You" McCain by a 4.5% margin. Essentially a full percent north of the margin of error.
Both elections at this time had about eight percent of voters that were undecided.
I guess that is what the two candidates are essentially fighting over.
Eight percent of the national electorate.
Here is something else interesting.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, had an average of support last election on this day of 48.8% of those polled. This time around it has dropped to 46.4. Or to put it another way of rounding, the Dear Leader, President Obama, has gone from 49% to 46%, a three-percent drop.
On the other hand, four years ago on this day, Sen. "F--- You" McCain had 44.3% of those polled. Mr. Romney now has 45.9% of those polled. That is about a two-point improvement and has drawn the two men even at this point.
So, why is this not a blowout one way or the other?
If you believe that things are better in the United States and attribute that to the Dear Leader, President Obama, then he should be far ahead, right?
If you believe that things are worse in the United States and attribute that to the Dear Leader, President Obama, then Mitt Romney should be far ahead, right?
So, what gives?
One theory that I have is probably controversial, but I believe true.
Because the Leftywhore media has deemed any and all opposition to the Dear Leader, President Obama as raaaaacist, there is probably about a three to five percent of people that will not answer the basic poll question, who would you vote for as president.
To expand on that, I do not think that was nearly as much the case in 2008.
The majority of people, yes myself included, wanted the president to succeed. There was a real excitement of the possibility of the first Black president. Sen. Messiah Barack just seemed different. He did not come off to a lot of people as someone really annoying like so many other Black politicians. Many people believed that he could bring people together and do great things.
But really, that is no longer the case.
And now that he is on the verge of losing this election, for the reason that I stated above, that things are worse, he is flailing like a over aged boxer not realizing that his career is over.
And it is not pretty.
But people that are not raaaaacist are being accused of it at a blistering pace.
Even though polling is like an election itself, private, still there is something of feeling stigmatized even with a simple question.
Having said that, I do believe that the polls are essentially the margin of error and it is really as close as it gets.
That is why no one can or should take anything for granted. Especially Republicans.
Look at this link at Real Clear Politics and tell me that this is not close?
It is all the current polls averaged out and the Dear Leader, President Obama, is essentially tied with the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney. All that separates them is a measly 0.5 percent. And that is the margin of error so yes, the Dear Leader, President Obama, could really be ahead about 3.5%. Or Mitt Romney could be ahead by the same 3.5%.
And compared to 2008, then Sen. Messiah Barack was ahead of then GOP nominee Sen. John "F--- You" McCain by a 4.5% margin. Essentially a full percent north of the margin of error.
Both elections at this time had about eight percent of voters that were undecided.
I guess that is what the two candidates are essentially fighting over.
Eight percent of the national electorate.
Here is something else interesting.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, had an average of support last election on this day of 48.8% of those polled. This time around it has dropped to 46.4. Or to put it another way of rounding, the Dear Leader, President Obama, has gone from 49% to 46%, a three-percent drop.
On the other hand, four years ago on this day, Sen. "F--- You" McCain had 44.3% of those polled. Mr. Romney now has 45.9% of those polled. That is about a two-point improvement and has drawn the two men even at this point.
So, why is this not a blowout one way or the other?
If you believe that things are better in the United States and attribute that to the Dear Leader, President Obama, then he should be far ahead, right?
If you believe that things are worse in the United States and attribute that to the Dear Leader, President Obama, then Mitt Romney should be far ahead, right?
So, what gives?
One theory that I have is probably controversial, but I believe true.
Because the Leftywhore media has deemed any and all opposition to the Dear Leader, President Obama as raaaaacist, there is probably about a three to five percent of people that will not answer the basic poll question, who would you vote for as president.
To expand on that, I do not think that was nearly as much the case in 2008.
The majority of people, yes myself included, wanted the president to succeed. There was a real excitement of the possibility of the first Black president. Sen. Messiah Barack just seemed different. He did not come off to a lot of people as someone really annoying like so many other Black politicians. Many people believed that he could bring people together and do great things.
But really, that is no longer the case.
And now that he is on the verge of losing this election, for the reason that I stated above, that things are worse, he is flailing like a over aged boxer not realizing that his career is over.
And it is not pretty.
But people that are not raaaaacist are being accused of it at a blistering pace.
Even though polling is like an election itself, private, still there is something of feeling stigmatized even with a simple question.
Having said that, I do believe that the polls are essentially the margin of error and it is really as close as it gets.
That is why no one can or should take anything for granted. Especially Republicans.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Explain If The American Public Is More Accepting Of Same-Sex Marriage Why Does It Keep Losing At The Polls?
Forgive the looong headline, but the point is that I do not get the meme of the Leftywhore media as to the supposed change of heart of Americans in regard to same-sex marriage.
And again, I am not advocating for or against, I think that there is a huge disconnect between so-called polls and what voters are saying across this Great Land.
Now since voting has occurred on this subject since 1998, 30 states have voted to varying degrees to affirm the meaning of marriage to that state between one man and one woman.
In the proceeding 14 years since the first vote in Alaska to the last one (before this past Tuesday in North Carolina), the numbers are staggering as to what the people have said.
Since 1998, 63,415,154 Americans have voted in referendums regarding the subject of same-sex marriage. And again, they have ranged from affirming traditional marriage to, yes, banning civil unions and also domestic partnerships. In all, 40,315,695 Americans have voted in 30 states before the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll vote in North Carolina to uphold traditional marriage. Only 23,099,459 have voted against or for eventual recognition of same-sex marriages. That translates to about 67% for traditional marriage and 33% against or to eventually redefine marriage.
And make no mistake. Again, no matter what you feel on the subject, it does redefine marriage recognizing same-sex unions.
But back to the raw data.
These votes have occurred in Blue of the Bluest states like California and Red as a tomato states as Alabama. And all have voted for the state to recognize marriage to be between one man and one woman.
Now to be fair, in 2006, Arizona became the first and only state to defeat a traditional marriage initiative on the ballot. But that was more restrictive and would not have recognized civil unions. So, in 2008, just marriage was on the ballot and it won handily.
The interesting numbers are in fact from 2008.
The Arizona initiative passed 56% to 44%. And Republican presidential candidate Sen. John "F--- You" McCain carried his home state.
In Blue as Blue California, while the Democrat candidate, Sen. Messiah Barack, was carrying the state with 61% of the vote, 52% of voters passed a marriage between one man and one woman. That is amazing in and of itself that it passed here. But it did pass.
And Florida was also being carried by Sen. Messiah Barack. But 62% of voters voted to affirm traditional marriage and ban civil unions.
But because of the closeness of the California vote, roughly about 56% of voters said at the very least that traditional marriage is all that should be recognized by the state.
Now I do not pull these numbers out of a hat. All one has to do is go to this link at Wikipedia and crunch the numbers as I did.
So, what is it?
Do we believe people who answer a poll or people that actually take the time in each state to vote for or against any of these measures?
Sorry proponents, gotta go with people who vote. I go with the fact that 63,415,154 people that have voted on this issue. Again, 67% of that number have voted in one way or another to affirm marriage as between one man and one woman.
So, is the public more accepting of same-sex relationships? I can say yes. Do Americans really want to redefine marriage. Not at all. Will a lot of Americans want some kind of allowance for same-sex relationships yet not call it marriage? That kind of depends what part of the United States one lives in.
Now, some states have passed legislation or been forced by supreme courts and not overturned those decisions to recognize same-sex marriages and perform them.
They are Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York state and Vermont. The common thread is that these are all Northeast and or New England states, except for Iowa.
But, most other states will not recognize these relationships as marriage.
And, like it or not proponents, that is the real number to look at.
And while no one for same-sex marriage wants to listen to me, an eeeeevvvvviiiiiilllll conservative, I will still offer a little advice.
One, if ye want to win people over, demonizing them and essentially calling them idiots and hoping for their deaths is probably not going to win over people.
Two, if you are in a committed relationship and the people you care about, or claim to care about, see that, they just may come around on their own in their own time. Something that you believe is worthwhile can not be rushed.
Three, recognize that those who believe in traditional marriage are not all bad, evil people. Most believe that while your intentions are good, there is a broader social ramification that you have not thought about or just do not care about. That is what other types of marriages could emerge. Polygamy, adult-child, relatives other than cousins. And that concern does not diminish your relationship. No one is seriously taking your relationship, good and great as it is, and saying your leading the way to the aforementioned. It is a real and genuine concern.
Forth, make the case that same-sex marriage is a great civilizer of those relationships. What most people see, especially at so-called Gay Pride parades is a freak show. It is what upsets a lot of people. And I am sure alot of same-sex couples don't exactly like seeing that as well. After all, they are not interested in a lot of the freakishness that is out there at those shows.
Again, I don't expect a lot of people who advocate same-sex marriage to actually take what I write and think about it. No, just go on Facebook and get into it with people who actually believe that the Dear Leader, President Obama, sudden change of heart on same-sex marriage is genuine. They are blinder than Helen Keller to actually get that maybe it is not all that it seems to be.
Which is the point of all this.
Polling data only goes so far. It depends on how questions are in fact and indeed asked and answered. The most important poll to look at is how voters actually vote when the question is put on the ballot.
Oh, and North Carolina voted for traditional marriage 61% to 39%.
So, please explain polls that show one thing and people voting a vastly different way.
And again, I am not advocating for or against, I think that there is a huge disconnect between so-called polls and what voters are saying across this Great Land.
Now since voting has occurred on this subject since 1998, 30 states have voted to varying degrees to affirm the meaning of marriage to that state between one man and one woman.
In the proceeding 14 years since the first vote in Alaska to the last one (before this past Tuesday in North Carolina), the numbers are staggering as to what the people have said.
Since 1998, 63,415,154 Americans have voted in referendums regarding the subject of same-sex marriage. And again, they have ranged from affirming traditional marriage to, yes, banning civil unions and also domestic partnerships. In all, 40,315,695 Americans have voted in 30 states before the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll vote in North Carolina to uphold traditional marriage. Only 23,099,459 have voted against or for eventual recognition of same-sex marriages. That translates to about 67% for traditional marriage and 33% against or to eventually redefine marriage.
And make no mistake. Again, no matter what you feel on the subject, it does redefine marriage recognizing same-sex unions.
But back to the raw data.
These votes have occurred in Blue of the Bluest states like California and Red as a tomato states as Alabama. And all have voted for the state to recognize marriage to be between one man and one woman.
Now to be fair, in 2006, Arizona became the first and only state to defeat a traditional marriage initiative on the ballot. But that was more restrictive and would not have recognized civil unions. So, in 2008, just marriage was on the ballot and it won handily.
The interesting numbers are in fact from 2008.
The Arizona initiative passed 56% to 44%. And Republican presidential candidate Sen. John "F--- You" McCain carried his home state.
In Blue as Blue California, while the Democrat candidate, Sen. Messiah Barack, was carrying the state with 61% of the vote, 52% of voters passed a marriage between one man and one woman. That is amazing in and of itself that it passed here. But it did pass.
And Florida was also being carried by Sen. Messiah Barack. But 62% of voters voted to affirm traditional marriage and ban civil unions.
But because of the closeness of the California vote, roughly about 56% of voters said at the very least that traditional marriage is all that should be recognized by the state.
Now I do not pull these numbers out of a hat. All one has to do is go to this link at Wikipedia and crunch the numbers as I did.
So, what is it?
Do we believe people who answer a poll or people that actually take the time in each state to vote for or against any of these measures?
Sorry proponents, gotta go with people who vote. I go with the fact that 63,415,154 people that have voted on this issue. Again, 67% of that number have voted in one way or another to affirm marriage as between one man and one woman.
So, is the public more accepting of same-sex relationships? I can say yes. Do Americans really want to redefine marriage. Not at all. Will a lot of Americans want some kind of allowance for same-sex relationships yet not call it marriage? That kind of depends what part of the United States one lives in.
Now, some states have passed legislation or been forced by supreme courts and not overturned those decisions to recognize same-sex marriages and perform them.
They are Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York state and Vermont. The common thread is that these are all Northeast and or New England states, except for Iowa.
But, most other states will not recognize these relationships as marriage.
And, like it or not proponents, that is the real number to look at.
And while no one for same-sex marriage wants to listen to me, an eeeeevvvvviiiiiilllll conservative, I will still offer a little advice.
One, if ye want to win people over, demonizing them and essentially calling them idiots and hoping for their deaths is probably not going to win over people.
Two, if you are in a committed relationship and the people you care about, or claim to care about, see that, they just may come around on their own in their own time. Something that you believe is worthwhile can not be rushed.
Three, recognize that those who believe in traditional marriage are not all bad, evil people. Most believe that while your intentions are good, there is a broader social ramification that you have not thought about or just do not care about. That is what other types of marriages could emerge. Polygamy, adult-child, relatives other than cousins. And that concern does not diminish your relationship. No one is seriously taking your relationship, good and great as it is, and saying your leading the way to the aforementioned. It is a real and genuine concern.
Forth, make the case that same-sex marriage is a great civilizer of those relationships. What most people see, especially at so-called Gay Pride parades is a freak show. It is what upsets a lot of people. And I am sure alot of same-sex couples don't exactly like seeing that as well. After all, they are not interested in a lot of the freakishness that is out there at those shows.
Again, I don't expect a lot of people who advocate same-sex marriage to actually take what I write and think about it. No, just go on Facebook and get into it with people who actually believe that the Dear Leader, President Obama, sudden change of heart on same-sex marriage is genuine. They are blinder than Helen Keller to actually get that maybe it is not all that it seems to be.
Which is the point of all this.
Polling data only goes so far. It depends on how questions are in fact and indeed asked and answered. The most important poll to look at is how voters actually vote when the question is put on the ballot.
Oh, and North Carolina voted for traditional marriage 61% to 39%.
So, please explain polls that show one thing and people voting a vastly different way.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Is Palin Running For President? You Betcha!
I think that it is becoming more and more obvious to anyone with a clue, but so many do not, that the former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, is running for the Republican nomination for president.
While Mrs. Palin has not made any formal announcement, she hinted recently on Hannity on Fox News Channel that she is still thinking about it.
And there is this from US News and World Report. There is Peter Singleton a one-man shop in Iowa that is laying the groundwork for the Palin campaign there.
And radio talker Mark Levin is saying that he is certain Mrs. Palin is running.
I am with them both.
Folks, the one thing about Mrs. Palin is that she is unconventional. She does things the way that no one else in politics would.
Or to put it another way, she could jump in the race tomorrow and be in the lead very quickly.
Then there is Tim Palwenty.
He tried a conventional, very staged path to the Republican presidential nomination.
And as fast as it began, he is done.
A lot of people thought that Ronald Reagan was kind of crazy just two years in as governor of California to mount a half-hearted favorite son effort in 1968 against Richard Nixon. But that, and Mr. Nixon's vainglory, set the stage for the titanic 1976 struggle against President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination.
It took Mr. Reagan three cracks at the apple but he hit it in 1980. And a lot of establishment Republicans, the RINOs of the day were just giddy about one George Herbert Walker Bush.
The point is that Mrs. Palin need not follow the leader. She is the leader.
I will go a step further and suggest that the announcement, which I believe will be unconventional, will occur around Labor Day. Which means only a couple of weeks.
And not by accident Mrs. Palin will be speaking at a huge Tea Party group in Iowa on September 3. And it is. . .Labor Day weekend.
Even Allahpundit at HotAir is jumping on the Palin is running bandwagon.
And also, to go back to Ronald Reagan, despite the fact that he won the presidency in 1980 by a landslide, it was not until the final weekend, and not better than 50-50 in polling that Mr. Reagan would be the 40th president of the United States. And yeah, he was considered a weak contender to then President Jimhah Carter.
So before all you Palin haters want to point out such polls as this, the similarities between Mrs. Palin and Mr. Reagan are rather striking.
So, my prediction is Sarah Palin will use the Tea Party speech on September 3 to began her quest for the Republican nomination for president.
Good luck to her. She will need it.
While Mrs. Palin has not made any formal announcement, she hinted recently on Hannity on Fox News Channel that she is still thinking about it.
And there is this from US News and World Report. There is Peter Singleton a one-man shop in Iowa that is laying the groundwork for the Palin campaign there.
And radio talker Mark Levin is saying that he is certain Mrs. Palin is running.
I am with them both.
Folks, the one thing about Mrs. Palin is that she is unconventional. She does things the way that no one else in politics would.
Or to put it another way, she could jump in the race tomorrow and be in the lead very quickly.
Then there is Tim Palwenty.
He tried a conventional, very staged path to the Republican presidential nomination.
And as fast as it began, he is done.
A lot of people thought that Ronald Reagan was kind of crazy just two years in as governor of California to mount a half-hearted favorite son effort in 1968 against Richard Nixon. But that, and Mr. Nixon's vainglory, set the stage for the titanic 1976 struggle against President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination.
It took Mr. Reagan three cracks at the apple but he hit it in 1980. And a lot of establishment Republicans, the RINOs of the day were just giddy about one George Herbert Walker Bush.
The point is that Mrs. Palin need not follow the leader. She is the leader.
I will go a step further and suggest that the announcement, which I believe will be unconventional, will occur around Labor Day. Which means only a couple of weeks.
And not by accident Mrs. Palin will be speaking at a huge Tea Party group in Iowa on September 3. And it is. . .Labor Day weekend.
Even Allahpundit at HotAir is jumping on the Palin is running bandwagon.
And also, to go back to Ronald Reagan, despite the fact that he won the presidency in 1980 by a landslide, it was not until the final weekend, and not better than 50-50 in polling that Mr. Reagan would be the 40th president of the United States. And yeah, he was considered a weak contender to then President Jimhah Carter.
So before all you Palin haters want to point out such polls as this, the similarities between Mrs. Palin and Mr. Reagan are rather striking.
So, my prediction is Sarah Palin will use the Tea Party speech on September 3 to began her quest for the Republican nomination for president.
Good luck to her. She will need it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)