● 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.
90 comments:
Andrew,
A thought that occurs to me, this is about who outed the woman who had insurance. CNN outed her. Also CNN outed the rest of the story in that Soptec had been in an earlier Pro-Obama commercial. This might not be much, but coupled with Morris seeing the polls that don't reach the public, it could mean that CNN also sees polls that reflect the same thing. The bottom line is that CNN is "turning on" Obama and is seeking to get some audience back.
I wonder if more news networks are going to be doing the same thing as it gets closer to the election. Part of the frustration is how much the media has been covering up for Obama. With Carter, they weren't this gentle and forgiving. Misery index and the hostage crisis in Iran come to mind.
Another way of putting it, CNN knows that Obama's days are numbered and sees no reason to suck up to a loser in the making.
Petraeus huh? I had to check where I saw other names such as Ryan, and Rubio, with Christie thrown in the mix. We'll just have to wait and see.
The Dems are acting like a cornered rat. Knowing they are in a tight spot, they are going all in on their attacks and defense. It's like those RPG games my son used to play, where when trapped, the only way out was to use your hidden, reserve power and unleash a massive weapons surge to destroy everything in your path. While you were weakened, you also got out of the deadly corner you were trapped in and survived to fight further once your weapons recharged.
The DemocRats are unleashing everything they have now, and for the next 3 months until the election. With their willing minions in the media, they will throw crap every day against Romney to see what sticks. If one thing doesn't, then throw the next issue the next day. They probably have an issue a day for their campaign. Above all, DO NOT let the conversation tack back to Os record. In fact, the more outrageous the charge the better. Something to keep the mdi a narrative on Romney and keep him and his team backpedling and on the defensive.
Do you really think they care how they are looked at by their "enemies?" Expect more of the Harry Reid lies, and more "look how Romney and his greed destroyed me and mine!"
Same as it ever was. (There....I think I put in enough cliches to last the day!)
I remember when Dick Morris was a regular guest on Rush (maybe he still is for all I know) and confidently predicted that it Obama won the nomination the Democrats would lose because they would lose white women who had their hearts set on Clinton and then doubled down on that claim by saying that Palin's selection as VP would cause many Clinton supporters to support McCain/Palin.
Nobody bats 100%, but as a black conservative I know (okay, strongly believe) that gender/ethnic/religious identification means less to most people than a politician having the right positions on the issues.
Anyway, as I've said before, I believe that based primarily on the economy, Obama will lose. The only danger I see is the debates, and Romney did a great job in the primary debates so that danger is minimal.
Back when I used to watch the political opinion shows more, I would be put off by Dick Morris. Yet, I'd also feel sorry for him the way I do for anyone who has to suffer through being a guest on the narcissistic Bill O'Reilly's show. Then I bought one of his books, and gained a new respect. Virtually everything he had predicted came to pass. So damned right I hope he is right on this one.
I have yet to waiver in my opinion Rubio is the best choice. He is young, passionate, and helps the G.O.P. shed it's image as old, boring white guys. Sure, it's the issues that should matter, but advertising is important too (shameless plug for your Commenarama Films post inserted here.) :)
Negative ads do have some effect, but I think they tend to be most effective when the choice isn't so stark as it is this election. People have seen the deleterious effects of the recession for three years now. People have had a chance to see what's in the bill (100%+ in medicare premium increases, etc.) The so called undecideds seem to go overwhelmingly against the incumbant historically (at least according to Morris, and his facts seem to back him up.)
when i read that trump may be deployed for romney, i was "YES!" only because i love that he's fearless in stirring the pot. you're right, this could get interesting.
Anthony, I'm going to respectfully disagree on the "most people" part of your statement. It's a complete matter of conjecture, but I'd estimate only about 1/3 of people place issues above ID. And some of that third goes left, anyway.
From that, I'd say 1/3 go all in for ID. Again, that group cuts both ways. The final third, I won't say are a wind-sock, but they oscillate between ID politics and issues and sometimes mistake one for the other. Just my opinion.
Jen, I actually don't think the Petraeus pick is real. I suspect Obama just it to a donor who fears Petraeus to get the donor to open his wallet. What's funny is that once again, Romney's VP search took over the news cycle and stripped away whatever moment they thought they were getting from the tax thing... which is none.
Joel, That's an interesting point and very much possible. If CNN believes that Obama truly is finished, they will turn on him to get some credibility with their views since they could no longer be blamed from bringing him down.
I guess we'll have to watch to see what happens.
Patriot, That is indeed a cliche-rich post! :)
I think you're right. We've already heard the left admit that they were going to make this the nastiest election ever and here we are seeing it. They've screamed racism about everything. They've accused Romney of fraud. Now they're accusing Romney of killing some guy's wife. And NONE of it is true. Basically, they are just saying anything they think will smear Romney in the hopes that they can keep the focus on Romney rather than having to discuss Obama's horrid record.
In the end, none of it will work. But it's going to be ugly along the way.
I saw the ad and I thought it was despicable. The money thing is interesting. Petraeus would be a horrible choice!
Anthony, Morris often has strong insight, but he's not perfect. I think where he went wrong in 2008 was the fact that no Republican was going to win that election unless the Democrats selected Charlie Manson or Ted Bundy as their candidate. He didn't see that.
I'm not sure how much gender/race identity matters. I suspect it matters a lot to some people, but with those people it also happens that the people pushing gender/race identity happen to be on the same side on the issues.
In any event, I think Obama loses this election unless something truly bizarre happens. His record is horrible. Too many people remain unemployed. Their home values remain depressed. And there's no real hope for change under his policies. Plus, he's truly turned off the moderates with his big leftist power grabs like ObamaCare. I don't think anything will turn this around for him, and certainly not attacks on some company Romney ran a decade ago.
Jed, Thanks for the shameless plug for today's Film Site article! :)
I agree. I've never had a lot of respect for any of the talking heads, but Morris has impressed me over time with having solid insights and a decent track record. By no means is he 100%, but he's better than 60% and those are good odds when predicting elections and related actions.
Rubio is still my top choice by far for all the reasons you mention. I truly hope Romney picks him.
I agree about the negative ads. They can shave a percent or two when the candidates are closely matched, but they don't work in an election like this, particularly because this election is about Obama -- not Romney. Romney gets graded pass/fail by voters and then the rest is about whether or not Obama deserves a second chance. And there is not nearly enough negative stuff about Romney for him to fail.
Patti, Trump will be very interesting. He's hooked into what average people are thinking and he's not afraid to say it. No doubt the Republican establishment will be horrified every time he starts talking about birth certificates or something similar, but I think it will resonate with the people it's meant to resonate with. We'll see.
tryanmax, I don't follow your numbers. Are you saying more than 2/3 of Americans go in for identity politics? I would disagree with that very much.
DUQ, It is a despicable ad, but it's what we need to expect from here on out. This is a scorched earth election on Obama's part.
I can't say that Petraeus would be horrible from a "getting elected" perspective, but I don't want him as VP.
Andrew, not at all. I think a strong third go all-in for ID politics, keeping in mind a wide array of possible identities. Like I said, it cuts both ways, so these folks represent the ~15% at each end of the spectrum that cannot be budged. That leaves 2/3 of the people who are not necessarily moved by ID politics, half of which are completely issues oriented, the other half of which may or may not take an ID issue into account. It would be very odd indeed if all of that middle third all made an ID decision simultaneously. But I think in '08, about half of them did.
I realize now I'm talking about thirds and also halves of thirds. Hopefully pointing that out clears up any confusion arising from that. I should also point out that I'm speaking of voting Americans, not necessarily all Americans. That pie may split differently.
One other thought: I would characterize these as fluid thirds, meaning two things.
1. At some points, what I call a "third" may shrink to a quarter or it may grow to two-fifths.
2. Individuals may move between the thirds depending on the issues at play. The economy is a big issue right now, so the issues wedge is probably swollen. Obama's race was the big factor last election, so the ID wedge was swollen.
Andrew
The Ads this election cycle are really getting vulgar to the point of ridiculousness. Of interest is a Nelson attack on Connie Mack that is so over the top it is laughable.
Essentially he links Mack's investment in Hooters, his drunken Brawling (the ad does not even cite any reference to why that claim is made) and a poor attendance record together. Despite the obvious ridiculousnesss of it it really is obnoxiously mean to a level I ahve never seen before.
The DNC really is beginning to get a little scary in their vitriol. There seems to be no level they won't find a way to crawl below to get what they want.
tryanmax, Ok, I misread your comment. I thought you were saying that only 1/3 of people look to issues rather than identities.
tryanmax, I've never bought the idea that voters and nonvoters are different. I think they are basically the same opinion-wise.
I personally suspect identities matter to about 1/3 of voters BUT I think it's more complex than just "oh, he looks like me." I think they have fused ideology with identity and, thus for example, they don't see a conservative black person as "black" because that they see the conservative lacking the necessary traits to be part of the identity group. In other words, they claim an identity based on race or gender, but they impose non-race/gender requirements on being part of that race/gender.
tryanmax, Is your "fluid" point about enthusiasm? Or do you mean you think people move between groups?
Indi, I think the left has decided that nothing is out of bounds anymore to save themselves. This is our first truly scorched earth election and I think it's going to get even worse before it's over.
Andrew, now we are totally on the same page. And people like you describe who convolute identity with ideology are who I would consider to compromise that middle third.
I'm just not sure if voters and nonvoters are different. That's why I left it ambiguous.
tryanmax, The left is big on claiming that nonvoters are all far left and would support them if they would only vote, but they've been "disenfranchised" for one reason or another. But I've never seen any evidence of that. To the contrary, when I've seen nonvoters polled, they always end up pretty much mirroring the opinion of voters.
I read part of that Newsweek article. It was a hack job all the way through. Among other things, the author (Tomasky, I think) was assuming that North Carolina can still go for Obama, which it obviously won't. If it weren't a magazine with a residue of reputation left, I'd say this idiocy shouldn't be responded to at all.
T-Rav, I think Newsweek is worthless at this point. I don't see anyone treating it like a relevant source anymore.
I think the idea that Obama could win North Carolina is ridiculous. I actually don't think he has a prayer in Virginia either. The states that are at issue right now are states Obama should be carrying by huge margins -- Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Pennsylvania, etc. That's a horrible sign for him because if he starts losing those, then he's lost all the swing states.
I agree about the polls, they are media generated hooey. You want a quick enthusiasm poll, Chick-Fil-A support last Wednesday – v – Kiss-in last Friday.
Un-Leash the Trumpster. He’ll tear into Barry, we may even see the Boy King cry.
Money is a kind of poll, However, don’t discount the criminal press and the unions who will dump tens of millions on Barry, in actual cash, or in value.
Petraeus would be boring.
We haven’t seen anything yet, “The Big Lie!” It’s all Barry’s got.
No one in Washington will cut anything yet, that’s where we come, the firings must continue for a decade of elections, then there’ll be cuts.
Andrew, even if everything were to break Obama's way suddenly, Indiana and North Carolina would still be lost. Those two states won't go Democrat again, or at least not in the near future. Factor in additional red-state gains through redistricting, and Obama will be, at best, 20 votes lower in the Electoral College count. By the standards of his '08 win, there's no way he can have a landslide.
And again, that's his best-case scenario.
Stan, The whole Chick-Fil-A episode should be a huge wake up call to people. That shows tremendous support for conservatism and almost no support for Obama. If I were Obama, I would be very concerned about that.
As an aside, my sister had a funny story about being at Chick-Fil-A and saying something like 100 days to go and the guy in front of her said "97." LOL!
It's going to be very interesting to see what happens with Trump. He's fearless and he's in tune with some of the more fringey issues. So it will be very interesting to see how everyone reacts once he starts pounding away.
Money is definitely a poll. It's actually a better poll that polling because it requires commitment to send money. I think the 4-3 advantage Romney has is huge.
Petraeus would be very boring. Plus, we don't need a moderate on the ticket.
Not only the big lie, but the big smear.
I think the cuts will come no matter what at this point because they don't have any choice.
T-Rav, Indiana will never vote for a Democrat again. North Carolina might, but certainly not in this election. This election should come down to Florida and Ohio, but from everything I've seen, a whole bunch of Obama states have gone into play -- Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Iowa, New Jersey. That tells me things are going really wrong for Obama and we are likely looking at a landslide.
Andrew: Nice capsule summary. I'll have to be forgiven for continuing to worry about the electoral college, but the trends in Ohio and Florida (from polls that don't skew Democratic) are slowly allaying those fears.
Still, I will not sleep well until this is all over. I've been around a long time, and this is the only presidential election where I can truly say that I fear for the survival of the Republic. I'm not being hyperbolic. The very existence of America as a world power and the continuation of constitutional government are on the line.
I don't want my children and grandchildren living in a nation variously described by our enemies as "a pitiful, helpless giant," or "a paper tiger." And I don't want them living in a nation that provides bread and circuses for the masses to keep them in line while the political elites and their monstrous bureaucracies make all their decisions for them.
Oops. I haven't had my morning coffee yet. Maybe that will help. I tend to become more optimistic as the day wears on.
Andrew,
A note about Trump, he was the only one to get Obama to produce some sort of Birth Certificate, even though the certificate in question is fake. I think his importance really is getting to the high dollar Obama supporters. If anything, he will bring a message to the Rich Guys that there position is no longer tenable. In other words, despite their bribes to the alligator to eat them last, Obama will be going after them sooner rather than later.
Lawhawk, Everyone always says that each election is critical, but this is the first time I think that's true since 1980. We need to undo what Obama has done and push the country back toward free markets. If we continue on this path, we will end up bankrupt and with massive numbers of voters hooked on government benefits. That all needs to change.
But I am getting increasingly confident that Romney will win. All the data except the skewed polls tells me that.
Joel, I'm not sure Trump has credibility with the big donors. I think his credibility is with the reality TV set. Those people love him and see him as the representative of capitalism -- even though he's nothing of the sort. And in a celebrity culture, celebrity opinion can shape events. That's why I think Obama does fear Trump because he provides something Romney doesn't have -- celebrity.
I read the Morris piece and I agree with him that conservatives need to start pushing this more. We need to stop the MSM from getting away with this idea that these polls are real and then using them to push the public into believing facts that aren't true.
T-Rav, Congratulations on a good night in Missouri. It sounds like the best conservative won. :)
Andrew: I take your point. But even with Nixon and Carter, I didn't believe the Republic was in peril. I don't panic easily. But this time, the best I can say about my political view is "near-panic." Every election is critical, but this is the first one I've been through that I consider "future-defining and existential."
Ellen, I agree with Morris. I saw that the +19 Democrat poll was refuted by everyone, but it's time that conservatives really started taking these polls to task on a constant basis. This is a weapon the MSM uses to shape news and they need to be disarmed.
Ellen and T-Rav, I'm happy with the result. It does sound like the best conservative won. Now he just needs to beat whatshername.
Lawhawk, This is probably the most critical election for the country in my lifetime, though I still see 1980 as a close second. Reagan re-established a political philosophy which had been tossed out of both parties and was effectively dead. He gave us back America.
What Obama is doing is trying to create a permanent class of people who will vote for more government and he's getting dangerously close to creating a voting majority. That to me, is the most important thing about this election... plus the bankruptcy and debt which are crippling our economy.
Thanks Ellen! I know there are some people in the Show Me State who would disagree with that assessment, but I don't. :-) And frankly, I think we could have run a ham sandwich against "whatshername," as Andrew calls her, so all's well that ends well.
Andrew, Any thoughts on Palin's influence?
T-Rav, I hope so. A ham sandwich would probably be better. :)
I'm hoping that Indiana doesn't vote Democrat again as well, and that includes the senate race between Murdock, and Donnelly. My brother, and parents have met Donnelly personally on numerous occasions (fundraisers), and all three of them vote split ticket. They are all registered Republicans, yet they go to Democrat functions (my brother's very good friend has a position in their county). Hilarious!
Andrew,
Today's Reuters' monthly Poll would have us believe that Romney better give up. He has no chance. Obama 49%, Romney 42%.
That is until you look into who was asked.
Adults and registered voters with a heavy weighting towards independents and extremely light Republicans. Now, maybe it is too soon for Reuters to actually give out numbers that reflect what is going to happen this November...I don't believe it. It is another crap poll designed to depress the voter turnout. There is one silver lining in this. It could make the average Democrat to relax into complacency. Why vote when your guy has it all sewn up?
I envision Obama at some point in the near future, responding like COL Jessup in "A Few Good Men" when, after finally blurting out the truth, that he did in fact order the Code Red, the room goes silent, and then he is read his rights. He is incredulous that anyone would question his authority to do what he did. It was HIS order, HIS Marines.
Obama will one day do the same...hopefully at the debates, where he blurts out what he really thinks of this country, a law, a group of people, hell, even what he really thinks of Romney and/or the Republicans. It will be so startling and over the top that everyone will stand by in stunned silence while he looks around saying "What....What?! What did I say? EVERYONE knows that white American males are all racists and only worship money, and don't care for people of color. EVERYONE knows this. All I did was use my authority as President to order that all minority and single female voters have their votes count as worth 5 of White males votes! What is wrong with that?"
One can only dream.........
T-Rav, I called her whatshername because I couldn't remember how to spell it and didn't want to look it up: McCaskill or something, right?
I suspect that Missouri is going Republican no matter what. What has me interested is that Palin's endorsement didn't change the race -- especially as the race was already close. You would think Palin would have easily shifted things for Steel, as she did in Nebraska. I'm not sure what this means yet, but it is interesting.
Ellen, I'm not sure yet what it means.
Joel, I'll see you Reuters poll, and raise you a Gallup poll that says 9% of Obama voters in '08 plan not to vote for him this time. Since we keep hearing it's all about the state margins, and not the national results, I plugged those numbers into Obama's margins of victory from Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, and got results of 51-47 R, 52-48 R, and 53-46 R, respectively. I don't believe the actual numbers will be anything like that, but that is some support for Andrew's contention that Romney will have a much bigger victory than it would seem now.
Jen, Indiana is a strange state when it comes to Senate or Governor. You would think that a state that is so solidly red in other ways would stay red in all statewide races, but apparently not. But we'll see, I think this is going to be a Republican wave like 2010.
Joel, That's exactly what they are trying -- depress Republican turn out by telling people it's hopeless.
I saw a poll by PPP the other day (who are notoriously unreliable). They showed Obama up by 3-4%. They never gave you the raw data to see how many R,D,I's they had. But when you looked at the independents, they supported Obama by 70% to 20%. Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't to me, unless they found a nest of fake independents.
Andrew, see my response on that matter last night. Like I said, some politics is in fact local, and Steelman had a smelly reputation in some circles--mainly for some personal stuff not worth getting into, but it did come out that she was opposed to any kind of tort reform, which doesn't go over well.
And for what it's worth, while I have more liking for Palin than some people (ahem), the ad she ran for Steelman was the first time I can remember really rolling my eyes. "Sarah defends Missouri's tax dollars, like a mama grizzly defends her cubs." (thump thump goes my head)
Still, she did endorse Cruz in Texas, and he did just win, so any speculation that she's losing influence may be premature.
Patriot, That would be an awesome moment at the debates! I would absolutely keep that one for posterity! :)
I think the debates are going to be interesting. Obama is getting very emotional (rage) at Romney and he's not good off teleprompter in any event. Romney is getting to be very good at debating and he's excellent at keeping his cool while tweaking the other guy.
I think Obama is going to look like an angry fool before it's all over.
T-Rav, I saw that Gallup Poll and laughed when I saw it. That's just more evidence for what appears to be a trend. And I wouldn't dismiss the numbers you've come up with. I think those percentages very much fit the way things are breaking when you look at all the other data. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if those numbers ultimately turned out to be real.
But of course, we need to wait and see.
T-Rav, All politics is ultimately local. BUT in this Tea Party-charged environment there are many wildcards which can twist an election. That definitely happened in Nebraska.
I think the difference is this. In Nebraska and with Cruz in Texas, you had the entire "I'm more severely conservative than you" establishment switch their support to one candidate suddenly. People like Rush and Palin and various Tea Party groups came in and just pounded the opponent. That seemed to be enough to reshape the local elections.
But in Missouri, there was no uniformity by conservatives. Hence, there was no peer pressure wave which suddenly hit people.
What this tells me, (early assessment, but still seems to fit the facts) is that Palin isn't the Kingmaker the blogs suggest, it's when the entire conservative establishment suddenly focuses on one person that a King is made.
Andrew, I'd like a repeat of 2010 as well.
When I lived in Michigan, I thought it was strange that Engler was Governor. I really despised living there, and never thought I belonged.
Andrew and T-Rav,
I know pollsters get more accurate as they get closer to the election, but these latest are horrible in there inaccuracy. It is getting way out of hand.
With Palin, 4 out of 5 times, she endorsed a winner. If she got 5 out 5, people would start to say that the voters don't matter. It is only who Palin likes that matter. Kinda creepy if you asked me.
Jen, I hope we get a repeat of 2010! That would be fantastic. I don't think we'll quite get that though, but it would be nice.
Frankly, I've written Michigan off for so long that I was stunned they got a Tea Party governor and I'm amazed they are in play now.
Andrew, of the three states I mentioned, I'm fairly optimistic about Florida, somewhat pessimistic about Ohio, and I don't have a clue about Virginia. I would think McDonnell's victory in '09 and then the congressional victories would indicate it's going red again, but I honestly don't know.
Joel, I think some of the polls are intentionally wrong -- like PPP. Some, like the Reuters poll, aren't really polls, they are internet polls which are notoriously inaccurate. And most of the rest are simply stuck using the wrong sample because they have no way to say what the turnout will look like in 2012.
On Palin, I'm not sure yet what her influence is. I suspect there's a lot of front running involved and a lot of team work by the conservative media. I can't say that for sure yet, but I have my doubts that she has the power to sway a significant percentage of the voters on her own. It's an interesting question though that deserves to be watched.
T-Rav, My experience in Virginia (10 years) and 10 more in close proximity tell me that Virginia goes for whoever appears more conservative. That's the only way Democrats win in Virginia, by being more conservative. Obama is not conservative and cannot hide his record. I think when push comes to shove, Obama loses by 6-8%, despite what the polls say now.
I am a little worried about Ohio because there will be strong turnout in Cleveland because Obama is black. Also, it's possible that the religious conservatives in the countryside may stay home, which would seal the deal.
BUT at the same time, I'm starting to think Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Colorado may switch to Romney, which would make Ohio irrelevant.
Right now, I think we need to wait until the debates. That will be the point where things will start to break out. If people see the race breaking for Romney, then the herd instinct will kick in and we're looking at a blow out. If not, this is going to be a long night as every vote will matter.
On the subject of polls, here's an old piece from Iowahawk on why talk like "scientific poll," "sampling size," and "margin of error" are all crap. LINK
Short version, because my head blew up a third of the way through: Polling techniques rely on conventional statistical analyses, which in turn rely on assumptions that what's being counted is entirely passive and quantifiable, like the "number of red versus blue balls in an urn" thing. People, however, don't work that way; they lie to the pollsters, they change their minds, the pollsters often have biases of their own, etc. So taking any one poll too seriously is a bit ridiculous.
T-Rav, That's true and that's a solid reason to doubt any poll. Not to mention that a human may be a red ball one week and then a blue next week. Humans are difficult to quantify. That's why I look at things like money rather than poll results because money tells you where people have made up their minds and are committed.
I think Petraeus would be a mistake. He's a moderate and we don't need anymore moderates on Republican tickets. Let him run for Senate in some liberal place like Maryland or New York. That's where he could do the most good.
T-Rav, Nice work in Missouri. :) I hope Akin wins.
On polls, I don't trust them because getting the sample right is voodoo. It's not scientific.
Doc, I think Petreaus would be a mistake as well. And that's a really good idea, by the way. He should run in some place where conservatives don't normally win (like NY), but where someone with his reputation could win.
Getting the sample right in a poll is an art, not a science, and is too open to manipulation.
I really think (pray) Romney is smart enough to realize that he needs to bolster the conservative base with his VP pick. While lots of conservatives like Petreaus well enough for a General doing his job, IDK - scratch that - I'm pretty sure that he isn't liked enough for him to be a good pick. I'd say that TOTUS was [1] trying to scare an anti-war donor and [2] trying to irritate the Tea Party base with the idea of Romney picking a moderate.
rlaWTX, I think that's an accurate assessment. I think Obama was mainly lying to a donor to make him cough up and the guy blabbed to the media.
In either event, I was happy to see that the Drudge poll (totally unscientific) was more negative about Petreaus than positive, so that will hopefully put this issue to bed.
That makes a lot of sense if it was an anti-war donor. "Romney's going to pick Gen. P. and then wage war for four years.... give me money and I'll stop that."
Doc, That does. It makes more sense than Obama releasing this intentionally because all Obama ended up doing was handing Romney another news cycle.
Is it possible Obama did this to hide the blowback Harry Reid is getting?
I guess, it's possible, I really mean, is it likely?
No on Petreaus. Yes on Morris!
I'll believe Obama will outline spending cuts when I see it. I think he's going to find some way to not really do it.
Trump is gonna be interesting.
Doc, That's an interesting thought. I think it's too high level for Obama. But it's an interesting thought.
Terry, It sounds like those are common positions around here. :)
Did anybody see the trailer for the new Obama propoganda film is out -- the one about him killing Osama bin Laden with his very own hands? I refuse to see that on principle.
Ellen, I won't watch that either.
Thanks, Doc. :-) I think he probably will.
T-Rav, I heard he declared himself a communist this morning. ;)
I won't see it either. I have no interest in seeing a film that was made to pump up Obama's re-election chances.
DUQ, I can't blame you. I have no desire to see it. I hope they lose their shirts.
John Nolte at BH has a great article about Obama being caught in a lie about this commercial. They claimed they didn't know Coptic before the ad came out, but Nolte points out that Obama's people gave a press conference where they mentioned this story some months ago. Apparently, Politico knew the truth buy buried it on some minor link way off the front page.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/08/Politico-buries-Obama-lie
Ellen, I saw that earlier. Excellent mention!
Here's the link: LINK.
Nolte is doing a lot of non-Hollywood reporting lately and he's very good at it.
Nightcrawler, Nolte has been doing a lot of other things and you're right, he's very good at it.
Leave Barack alone!
Hi Barry.
Wow, this ad is blowing up on Obama. Even Yahoo has taken this story apart, is accusing Obama of lying, and is now reporting that Obama is backtracking.
LINK
BTW, here's the headline Yahoo is using:
"Obama camp denies knowledge of cancer tale it told in May"
Nice! LOL!
Post a Comment