Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Things Are Looking Bad For Obama
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
More Campaign News
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Why The Fake Polls?
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Polls and Jobs
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Obama Will Lose The Election
● The Polls: Polls this far out are unreliable. They are even less reliable because we can’t trust the pollsters. Most of the pollsters are using data which suggest a greater pro-Democratic turnout than Obama got in 2008, and many have begun hiding their raw data to prevent people like me from figuring out how badly they’ve skewed the data. But certain things are obvious because they run contrary to what the pollsters are trying to make you believe.
1) Romney has a small lead, even in these skewed polls. Factor out the pro-Obama bias and add in a pro-Romney enthusiasm gap and you’re looking at a landslide.This tells me Romney wins 53% to 47%.
2) Romney has a statistically significant lead in the battleground states.
3) Several “safe” blue states have become battleground states, e.g. Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico.
4) Romney’s lead is consistent as is Obama’s inability to get anywhere near 50% approval.
● Enthusiasm Gap: The polls show a huge enthusiasm gap – up to 13% in favor of the Republicans. This is significant because it would take a Democratic-leaning gap for Obama to win and that just won’t happen. But look beyond the polls. Romney and Ryan are speaking to massive crowds. Obama can’t fill a phone booth. Romney and Ryan are drawing massive amounts of money. Obama’s running debt. All over the country, people are putting up signs saying, “I built this.” By comparison, Obama bumper stickers have gotten really rare. People are going in droves to see a documentary exposing Obama, but no one has been interested in any pro-Obama crap for years now. This is something you can feel in the air, hear at the store, and see in random places online – people are enthusiastic about Romney, no one’s even thinking about Obama.
● Democratic Desperation: The Democrats are hitting the bottom of the barrel in terms of how they are running this campaign. They’ve tried everything from various “wars on ___” to flat out slander. They’ve accused Romney of felonies, of hate, and of killing some guy’s wife. They’ve appealed to black-racism. They’ve tried to attack Mormonism as a cult. They’ve tried to scare Hispanics and round up illegals to vote. They’ve accused Republicans of anti-Semitism, of hating women, and of wanting to bring back slavery. The one thing none of them have done is actually mention an issue.
What this tells me is that they are desperate. These are not attacks someone makes if they are winning. This is scorched earth with no regard for the consequences or the future. This is a party that knows it will lose and doesn’t care what it does to the political landscape on the way out. Moreover, using these tactics now tells us they see the race as essentially lost right now and are desperate to turn it around before it becomes an obvious and settled fact.
● Media Desperation: Like the Democrats, the MSM is desperate. We see this in several ways. First, despite 80% of their stories about Romney being negative, they have yet to find any attack which will stick. So they keep trying wilder and wilder attacks, which is a sign of desperation and a strategy guaranteed to backfire. Secondly, they avoid talking about Obama like the plague. This is because they know he’s so unpopular that they cannot help him by giving him coverage. Instead, they need to attack Romney.
Indeed, look at the lengths to which they go to talk about anything other than the issues. The Akin controversy is the perfect example of this. Everyone except the hard-core Religious Right have repudiated that troglodyte, yet the MSM continues to cover this incessantly and continues to try to connect Akin to every other Republican. Why do this? Because they have nothing else they can talk about.
Look also at the distortions. There is no mention of real inflation. Unemployment is downplayed. The failing economy is still called “a recovery.” There is no mention that gas prices are higher than they were under Bush, when the media blasted us with the-sky-is-falling stories about gas. Are American troops still dying overseas? The media won’t tell you. How is Obamacare working? Has anyone lost their health insurance? Are doctors still taking Medicare? Have medical costs gone down a single dollar? The media sure doesn’t know. How about too big to fail? Where are the reports about the biggest banks doubling in size under Obama? Did Copenhagen result in any positive change for the environment? Who knows. . . the MSM sure doesn’t.
This is proof the MSM knows Obama is in deep trouble and that they simply can't discuss anything without making it worse.
Obama has already lost this election and the items above prove it. The Democrats know he’s in such desperate trouble that they had to waste all their ammo already, and none of it scored a hit. That means Obama has lost. The MSM is desperate to cover up his tracks and knows they can’t promote him because people don’t like him. That means Obama can’t recover. And the public enthusiasm tells us what even the doctored polls are starting to suggest, the right will turn out in force in November and the left won't.
Barring something truly unusual, this election is over and the only question now is the margin of Romney’s victory.
Thoughts?
P.S. Don't forget, it is Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Polls and Captions
First, the polls: The AP just released a poll purporting to show that Obama is ahead of Romney nationally by 1%. . . one little percentage point. But at least he’s ahead, right? Well, maybe not. This poll was biased toward the Democrats by +8%!!! How significant is this? In 2008, the electorate was +7% for the Democrats. So for this poll to be accurate, more Democrats and fewer Republicans would need to turn out than turned out in the Democratic-wave’s high-water mark. That ain’t happenin’.
It sounds to me like Romney is several percent ahead.
But we all know that national polls don’t matter. State by state polls are what matter. So get this, Rasmussen and Gallup both have Romney ahead now in Michigan and Wisconsin. In Michigan, Romney’s lead is surprisingly strong – 48% to 44%. In Wisconsin, Romney leads by 1%, though other polls have him higher. Romney also is even or ahead in these battleground states: Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Florida and Iowa. The handwriting may not be on the wall yet, but somebody just whipped out an enormous crayon!
Finally, I leave you with this. The AP put out the photo below this week, causing all kinds of people to wonder what exactly the AP is thinking? Was this an intentional sleight of Obama or just sheer incompetence? You make the call (in the comments). Plus, give us your favorite caption(s)! Have at it!
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Americans: No More Business As Usual
The difference between populism and where the public seems to be headed is actually quite dramatic. Populism tends to focus on destroying the current system of privilege, taking from the rich, and implementing policies aimed at remaking society in the name of the public. Because of the extreme nature of populism, it is often borderline violent and it tends to flirt with either anarchy or socialism. I don’t see any of that in the current political environment.
To the contrary, groups like the Tea Party want neither anarchy nor socialism. They don’t envy those who have, nor do they seek to crush the rich. What they want instead is to reshape the government to stop it from being able to do the bidding of the connected. Specifically, they want the government to stop guaranteeing the risks of big business, and they want the government to stop issuing two sets of laws, one which helps the connected and one which simultaneously hinders the unconnected.
This seems to be confirmed by a new poll conducted by Rasmussen. Indeed, this poll showed broad bipartisan opposition to cronyism and strong support for free market policies. Consider these results:
● Only 27% think it is “ever ok for the government to make investments in private companies.”It’s the last couple that tell you what is going on. People saw trillions of dollars poured into the big banks to save them after they made horribly stupid bets on things that the banks themselves created after getting the Clinton Administration to change the law to allow them to take these kinds of risk. They saw how the entire financial system almost collapsed because 3-4 big banks fell apart and they saw how these same banks have returned to record profitability (and record size) while the rest of us get to pick up the tab. They saw how billions were funneled directly to unions through the stimulus bill. They saw how billions more were given to Obama donors under the guise of running “clean energy companies,” which went bankrupt within months of getting the billions. They saw GE lobbying to get nonsensical environmental laws passed and then turned right around and get waivers from those same laws. They saw how hundreds of billions in government contracts have been awarded on no-bid, sole-source contracts to companies that handed over tens of millions in lobbying money. They saw how loopholes were put into the tax code which protected only a handful of companies, or in the case of Charlie Rangel’s friends only one company. They saw bribes and sweetheart deals given for regulatory consideration. . . Chris Dodd and Countywide anyone? They saw average bondholders crushed in GM while the unions made out like thieves. They saw nonunion pension rights terminated. They saw a shakedown of Boeing. They saw attempts to tax and control the internet to protect contributors. And they saw no difference between Bush or Obama on any of this.
● 71% believe the private sector is “better than government officials at determining the long-term benefits and potential of new technologies.” Only 11% think the reverse.
● 64% think government money will be wasted if the government backs projects the private sector won’t.
● 66% believe crony connections drive most government contracts.
● Then there’s this: “By a 3-1 margin, voters believe elected politicians routinely provide help to favored companies.”
● And this: “Seven out of ten Americans believe government and big business work together against the rest of us.”
It is frankly surprising that people haven’t been more populist in their opinions. Outside of the leftist desire to steal from the rich and their rhetoric about getting even with the banks, the public has been remarkably calm. . . determined to change the game, but calm. And I think it is a real testament to the American public that their response to this pillaging and abuse has not been vindictive, but has been instead to demand the system be fixed so everyone can move on.
I think the Republicans better pay attention to this. I think Romney and Ryan will be great for this country, but they need to realize that the times have changed and the public now pays attention to who is sliding through the backdoor with their hand out. Business as usual must end.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
The Paul Ryan Effect
● Enthusiasm: More evidence of an enthusiasm gap. Gallup now reports the Republicans are showing a +13% enthusiasm gap. They caution that it’s too early to tell anything until after the conventions, but this is enough to suggest problems for Obama. His 2008 victory resulted from a +7% enthusiasm difference in favor of Democrats and lots of independents voting for Obama – close to 60%. That +7% has now morphed into a -13% and that’s been fairly constant since 2009. I don’t see how the convention will change that.
As for independents, Zogby just put out a poll that should scare Obama greatly. According to Zogby, Romney was losing and Obama had momentum until Ryan was chosen. Now they are tied at 46% each with 8% undecided. But more importantly, Romney/Ryan leads Obama/Biden by 45% to 40% among independents. Politico has Romney leading among independents by 10%, 47% to 37%. These numbers are death for Obama, who needs about 60% of independents to offset the lack of Democratic enthusiasm. Also interesting from the Zogby poll, Ryan helped boost Romney among 18-29 year olds.
There’s also another interesting issue which has arisen in the past couple days: crowd size. Everywhere Ryan and Romney have gone, they’ve been swamped by crowds. They’ve been speaking to 10,000-15,000 people typically and turning away others. Obama has been talking to crowds in the 1,000 range. Biden just spoke to 600. This is becoming such bad PR that Obama is actually trying to claim he intended this, though half-empty auditoriums tell a different story.
● Where He Helps: So where does Ryan help or hurt Romney? Here are some ideas:
● Conservatives: Ryan has solidified Romney’s right flank in a matter of minutes. Romney no longer needs to worry that evangelicals will stay home or that Tea Party people will view him with suspicion.● In His Own Words. . . Sort of: Finally, I leave you with this. It’s long, but it’s worth the read. This comes from the Onion and is presented as an editorial written by Ryan himself. I present this because it’s funny, and also because it fairly accurate about Ryan’s charisma advantage:
● Catholics: Ryan brings a fairly strong Catholicism to the ticket which supposedly will play well with Catholics. In effect, he should appeal to some of the same Catholics who liked Santorum.
● Wisconsin: It’s not clear how much Ryan helps in Wisconsin, except that (1) the local boy almost always gets a couple points added to his score, and (2) Ryan will ignite the activists who turned out to help Scott Walker. If this happens, then the electoral map will shake up a great deal. Wisconsin is only worth 10 votes, not the 18 of Ohio, but if Romney wins Wisconsin, then he could win by also getting New Hampshire and Iowa while losing Ohio. This could be huge.
● Pennsylvania: Ryan’s support among Catholics could be key to winning Pennsylvania, which is awash in Catholics and Tea Party types. And if Romney wins Pennsylvania (still difficult, but doable) then Romney wins in a landslide.
● Florida: Supposedly, Ryan hurts Romney in Florida because of his Medicare plan. But polls show Ryan being popular with old folks. That would seem to put the lie to the idea that Ryan will be a drag in Florida. Where Ryan does help in Florida is the evangelical North and panhandle, and that could well be the difference because turn out will be key in this election.
● Virginia: Believe it or not, a lot of people think Ryan will help Romney win Virginia because he brings a charisma that suburban moderates like, and Northern Virginia is very suburban moderate. I can’t disagree. The thing I heard most about Palin (before she imploded) was that she was the kind of woman any mother would want her son to marry. Well, Ryan strikes me as the kind of man any mother would want her daughter to marry. So if mommy politics counts, then this will help.
Admit It, I Scare The Ever-Loving Sh*t Out Of You, Don't I?
When Mitt Romney selected me as his running mate, I knew the Democratic attack dogs would come out in full force. They would say I’m a right-wing ideologue. They would say my views on entitlement programs are far too radical. They would say putting me on the ticket immediately kills Mitt Romney’s chances of becoming president because I’m a liability. But if we’re being honest with each other—if we’re able to put aside the talking points for a few minutes and say what we’re all actually thinking and feeling—I believe we can acknowledge the real truth here.
I’m young, I’m handsome, I’m smart, and I’m articulate. And that scares the ever-loving sh*t out of you. You can pretend like you have this thing in the bag, but you know good goddamn well that this race just got real interesting, real fast.
It’s okay to admit it. You’re frightened to death of me. It might actually be healthy for you to face your fears now rather than later, when Mitt and I are leading by a few points in the polls and it looks like this thing might end badly for you. Face it: I’m not some catastrophe waiting to happen, like a Sarah Palin or a Dan Quayle. On the contrary, you have the exact opposite fear. I’m a solid, competent, some might say exceptional, politician.
Did you get nervous when you read that last sentence? Is it because you know in your heart of hearts that it’s 100 percent true? Is it because, even if you strongly disagree with my beliefs on Medicare, Social Security, women’s rights, and marriage equality, you know my talent as a speaker and my well-thought-out approach to these issues—no matter how radical and convoluted you find them—might just be enough to win over independent voters?
Do you get chills just thinking about how strong my appeal actually is?
I have another question for you: How scared are you that I can convince people I’m right? Because I’m good at it. No, I’m really good at it. You see, I know how to turn up the charm and charisma without putting people off. Then I back up what I’m saying with arguments that, when they come out of my mouth, sound completely accurate and well-reasoned. And I do it with such passion that people automatically recognize me as a man with deep convictions he will stand up for, no matter what.
The American people love that sh*t. They love it.
Passion, intellect, and a magnetic personality. Pretty damn intimidating combo, if I say so myself. You want to talk about polish? Man, I’ve got polish for miles. Oh, and by the way, I’ll go ahead and say this next thing because, if we’re being honest, why the hell not, right? In case you haven’t noticed, I’m white. Hoo, brother, am I white. Yup, you should be scared sh*tless of me, because guess who isn’t?
The people of Wisconsin. They love me. Republicans and Democrats there love me. Hell, I get Democrats to vote for me even if my policies make zero sense when it comes to their livelihoods. Do you know why? Because they like me. They like my story. Young, good-looking kid who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to make something of himself. Christ, I'm a storybook candidate. I balance out this ticket so well it’s almost too perfect. The people of Ohio are going to think that. And seniors in Florida—the state we supposedly lost when Mitt picked me—won’t be so scared as soon they know that my mother lives in Florida, and that all I want to do is reform the health care system so she can receive care that makes good fiscal sense.
Boy, I’m going to sell the sh*t out of that talking point. And I’m going to do a great job of it. Why? Because I’m Paul Ryan. That’s what I do.
And if we’re having trouble getting Pennsylvania on board, just wait until I absolutely wipe the floor with Joe Biden in the vice presidential debates. Don’t think for a second that I don’t know you’re terrified of us facing off, because in the back of your mind you know it could be a bloodbath up there.
Well, that’s 77 electoral votes, and by my math that means you can kiss your golden boy goodbye after four short years. All that promise. All that energy. All that potential. Gone in one November night.
I’m your worst f*cking nightmare.
Oh, and by the way, don’t even try to pretend you haven’t imagined me being elected president one day.
P.S. Don't forget, it is Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Election Stuff
● 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.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Crazy People
1. The Democratic Myths● Bane/Bain Capital. Team Obama believes the Bain Capital attacks will work. They think it worked for Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts and for Newt in South Carolina, so it will work for them. Politico, however, notes that the evidence is “not conclusive” and they site a recent poll which shows that, by a 34% margin, voters think Romney’s business background will make him a better decision-maker.
But frankly, there’s stronger evidence. After Obama spent a summer blasting away with millions in negative ads about Bain, Romney’s poll numbers have continued to rise while Obama’s have fallen. That’s pretty conclusive. And logic tells us these attacks won’t work in any event. For one thing, they are too esoteric for voters to understand. For another, Americans have grown accustomed to private equity financing and it doesn’t anger them. And for another, the longer Obama spends trying to attack Romney for being a businessman, the more he reminds people of his own lack of business acumen and the failure of his Keynesian economic policies.
As for this attack working before, Romney lost South Carolina because it’s an evangelical state. He lost to Ted Kennedy because no Kennedy will ever lose in Massachusetts. Bain had nothing to do with either.
● Party Like It’s 2008. Team Obama is clinging to the idea they can excite their base to get turnout similar to 2008. Politico refutes this with a recent Gallup poll showing that Democrats are 39% less likely to say they are “more enthusiastic about voting than usual.” That is solid evidence, but consider all the other evidence. Look how Obama’s fundraising is way down, how low Obama’s approval ratings have been for so long, and how few Democrats turned out in 2010. That’s the real evidence of a lack of enthusiasm. And then consider this: Obama’s 2008 victory required more than his base. He needed two-thirds of independents and even cross-over Republicans. All the evidence tells us that those people have abandoned him and aren’t going back. Nor is Obama doing anything to attract them, as he’s spending all his time working on his base. The idea that the electorate will mirror 2008 is a pipe dream.
● It’s Bush’s Fault. Team Obama thinks the voters will forgive his near total failure because they will remember how bad things where when he took office and will cut him some slack. But as Politico notes, there is no polling which reflects this. Moreover, Obama’s handling of the economy is routinely seen as a negative and Romney easily blows him away in poll after poll on economic issues.
But there’s an even simpler factor Politico has missed: the public may grade him on a curve because of the problems he was handed, BUT they will ultimately grade him on his performance since taking office in light of those problems. In other words, the bad start Bush gave him only means that people don’t expect him to reach the same heights he otherwise would have reached, it does not excuse his failure to progress. And on that point, Obama has progressed poorly: taking unemployment from a temporary 6% to a permanent 9%, taking a $450 billion deficit and turning it into five years of trillion dollar deficits, rampant inflation, etc.
2. The Republican Myths● It’s the Economy Stupid. Team Romney is entirely focused on the economy (except when they aren’t (LINK)). Politico thinks this is a mistake because “voters expect their presidents to be multidimensional.” But here’s the problem. First, Romney has proven to be very multidimensional all summer, as he went issue by issue through everything outside the economy. Secondly, what makes them think Obama is any more popular on any other issue? Obamacare, Fast and Furious, standing in the way of school vouchers, environmental failures, his pathetic foreign policy, inflaming racial tensions, failing to respond to disasters, a failed energy policy, a failed industrial policy, cronyism, confusion on social issues, attacks on religion, etc. Where exactly is it that voters will think Obama has an advantage?
● Can Buy Me Love. Romney believes that massive spending by outside groups like American Crossroads will crush Obama. But Politico warns that voters are starting to tune out ads because of their sheer volume. In other words, money doesn’t matter. . . so much for Democratic claims to the contrary. I can’t argue with this. By and large, money isn’t all that relevant, except to the extent it allows a ground game in key states. BUT this race isn’t about money in any event, it’s about Obama’s failures.
● You Don’t Have To Like Me. Romney continues to be not-liked. Romney thinks this doesn’t matter. Politico counters that this means that (1) Romney has no room for error, (2) Romney will have no defense when Obama starts attacking his character, and (3) his unpopularity will cause voters to interpret Romney’s missteps in a negative light. The problem with Politico’s analysis is that it’s not being borne out by the reality. Romney’s “gaffes” and Obama’s personal attacks have failed to influence anyone. And the reason is that voters aren’t weighing Romney v. Obama, they are deciding whether or not Obama deserves a second term. Romney only matters to the extent he’s either acceptable or unacceptable. In other words, they view Romney as simply YES/NO and then they spend their timing thinking about Obama. So all this talk of Romney’s likeability is misplaced. Not to mention, as I pointed out yesterday (LINK), there’s reason to think the disconnect between Obama’s personal popularity and his failure on every other point should be troubling.
● It’s Inevitable. Finally, Team Romney thinks that given the state of the economy, no president can be reelected. Politico agrees that the three presidents who went up for reelection during bad economic times (Ford, Carter, Bush I) all lost, but they also faced other problems -- Watergate, the Iranian hostage crisis, and a third-party challenge from Ross Perot. So Politico concludes that while bad economic times probably do matter the most, elections are more complex than that.
I agree. BUT again, what exactly is Obama offering? Outside of the economy, his only two achievements are ObamaCare, which a clear majority of the public wants repealed, and financial regulation, which nobody cares about. And don’t forget, the public had a chance to render a verdict on all of his “achievements” in 2010 and they gave the Republicans an historic win in the House. The economy may not be the only issue, but Politico is kidding itself if it thinks that Obama fares better on any other issue.
ConclusionIt strikes me that Politico is nervous. Even before digging into these issues and seeing how limited their analysis was, it was already clear they think Team Obama is much more delusional than Team Romney. Indeed, the best they can do with Romney is argue that his reasons might not be correct, but with Obama, they’re pretty darn certain he’s wrong. What all of this tells me is that Romney is using an effective strategy with few holes, not to mention that he addresses the holes when they appear. But Obama is using a delusional strategy that just won’t work and relies on things happening which just won’t happen. Bad news for Obama.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
It's Like Likability And Like Stuff
● I Like You, But I’m Not “In Like” With You. Polls have consistently shown Obama doing much better than Romney in the likability category. This seems a strange contradiction given that every other indicator goes against Obama. So what is going on? Looking at the way people make decisions, it strikes me that this high likeability really indicates that the voters have already made up their minds. In other words, since they’ve already decided, there have no reason to generate dislike for him to aid their decision. This fits with his amazingly steady low approval rating.
And now we have more reason to question the likability number. Indeed, according to a new poll by The Hill, 93% of likely voters said that competence and policies matter more than likability. That’s horrible news for Obama. Once you get away from likability, Obama’s in deep trouble. Even the The Hill, whose polls do lean left, found that 47% of voters share Romney’s values compared to 44% for Obama, 48% view Romney as the stronger leader compared to 44% for Obama, and 46%-44% view Romney as more trustworthy.
Interestingly, The Hill uses these numbers to conclude that Obama’s attacks on Romney “as a heartless corporate raider responsible for layoffs, outsourcing and tax secrecy” have “largely failed to change the narrative in the race.” Yep. So it sounds like all those conservative blogs that were pounding the table that Romney wasn’t responding correctly have been proven wrong. Imagine that.
● Senate Math. With 98 days to go until we can upgrade from the Moron to the Mormon, there is another aspect of the election we should consider: the Senate. The Republicans need to win the Senate to get their policies in place. Romney can make some changes through agency rules and the such, but any sort of significant policy changes just won’t be possible. So what are the odds the Republicans will win the Senate? Not as high as you would think.
The Republicans need to gain four seats to control the Senate, three if Romney wins. There are 33 Senate seats up for reelection this time. The Democrats are defending 22 of those. And of the eight seats considered most endangered, the Democrats hold six of those. Should be simple, right?
Well, not quite. Right now, it looks like the Republicans will pick up North Dakota, Nebraska and Missouri for sure. However, they may lose Maine and Massachusetts. In the key swing states of Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Ohio, the Republicans have compelling candidates, but they still trail. Everything I know about Virginia tells me the Republicans will win that, but the polls don’t reflect that yet either. So based on this, we would be looking at anywhere from -2 to +7 seats, with a more likely result between +1 to +5.
That said, in the last several elections, the undecided seats have tended to sweep to one party, and that’s the party with the momentum. That would be the Republicans. Moreover, Obama’s lack of coattails and excitement will hurt the Democrats in each of these states except maybe Ohio, where blacks are likely to turn out in huge numbers. I personally think the Republicans will gain five seats, but we won’t know until we get a lot closer. This will be much closer than it should have been.
● Here Come The Excuses. Finally, the Democrats are starting to build up excuses for the loss they are expecting. The most used excuse is likely to be Voter ID laws. These laws were passed in six swing states, including Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia and Wisconsin, as well as several other less competitive states, and the left is claiming that these laws are aimed at blacks and the young, who apparently are incapable of getting state identification cards for some reason. They have even attached a number to this issue to make it sound scientific: 5,000,000!! Said Politico:
At least 5 million voters, predominantly young and from minority groups sympathetic to President Barack Obama, could be affected by an unprecedented flurry of new legislation by Republican governors and GOP-led legislatures to change or restrict voting rights by Election Day 2012.Yeah, ok. It’s no coincidence that the enthusiasm of both of these groups is down right now, probably in about the exact amount the left claims will be affected by these Voter ID laws. Not to mention that if these groups wanted to foil us in our dastardly plan, they could actually go get a valid license and register to vote. Imagine that. But that wouldn’t give the Democrats an excuse, would it?
No doubt, more excuses will be forthcoming soon. Want to help them with some suggestions?
P.S. Don't forget, it WAS Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Poll-arama: Blow Out Ahead
● Yeah, They Built That: Obama’s “you didn’t build that” line continues to resonate with voters. We know this because people keep talking about it everywhere. Pollsters are even asking the public about it, which means it’s entered “the mainstream consciousness.” And guess what? The public isn’t on Obama’s side. According to Rasmussen:
● 77% believe small business owners work harder that other workers. Only 2% disagree.This is all really bad for Obama, whose campaign strategy is to attack business as a mere outgrowth of government. The public ain’t buying it.
● 57% believe that entrepreneurs do more to create jobs and economic growth than big business or government.
● 61% believe small business provides more valuable services to local communities than big business or government.
● And Gallup found there appears to be a fundamental shift in the public’s view of government as 61% now say the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and private business.
● It’s Not Bush’s Fault After All: Nor are they buying Obama's attempt to avoid blame. Riddle me this: who said in 2009, “Look, if I can’t turn the economy around in three years, I will be looking at a one-term proposition”? Here’s a hint: he’s spent the last three years trying to blame all his failures on George W. Bush. Well, according to a new poll taken for The Hill, that excuse has worn thin. The Hill found that 66% of respondents blame the slow economic recovery and total lack of jobs on bad government policy. Of those people, 34% lay the blame on Obama. Only 18% continue to blame Bush. Moreover, 53% of voters say Obama took the wrong actions and caused the economy to slow. None of this is good news for Obama.
What could be upsetting people? How about this. Who said in 2003 that George Bush needed to “fix up the economy” before he did anything else? Here’s a hint, it’s the same guy who decried Bush’s $300 billion deficit as “underscor[ing] the recklessness of the George W. Bush administration and the Republican Congress.” And it’s the same man who has now given us five straight years of budgets with trillion dollar deficits. If $300 billion was reckless, what does that make a trillion five times over?
● We’ll Take the Mormon over the Moron!: All of this is adding up fast. USA Today/Gallup asked people who they trust more when it comes to managing the economy, reducing the federal budget deficit and creating jobs. Despite all the time and effort Obama has poured into his Bain Capital attacks, Romney wins this in a blowout: 63% to 29%. And it gets worse. Despite all the attacks Obama has made, including record spending on negative ads, Romney’s popularity has gone up from 53% to 54%, and the number of people who say they share Romney’s views has gone up from 42% to 45%.
But even more importantly, 18% of Republican and Republican leaning voters report being more enthusiastic about voting than normal. This compares to only 4% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners who report the same. That’s an enthusiasm gap of 14%!! Enthusiasm will be key this year because the evidence suggests that less than 10% of voters are actually swing voters. These numbers suggest a blow out in the works.
● A Cold Day In Minnesota: Finally, we have this amazing bit of new. Mitt Romney is within striking distance of winning Minnesota. Yeah, Minnesota. Obama leads 46% to 40%, but the key here is that Obama can’t get to 50% and his 6% lead is half of what it’s been in the past. If Minnesota is in play, then Obama might as well quit right now. The last Republican to win Minnesota was Richard Nixon. Even Ronald Reagan never carried that bastion of idiotic liberalism.
How do you say “blow out” in Minnesotan, eh?
P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
More Elective Thoughts
● Thought No. 1. Village Grade Idiocy. Obama really is a fool. Check out this quote: “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t built that. Somebody else made that happen.” W.T.F.?? This is the kind of ignorance only a man who never created a single thing could possess.
When you start a business, you take your own risk. Unless you’ve got a crooked financier behind you (like a certain “first black President” and his worthless wife), then you take your own money and your own time and your own labor and you bring them all together to create something that you hope to sell. If you do it right, and there is a market for what you are offering, then your business grows. Soon you hire other people to help expand. But you need to manage them, and everything is still your risk, your money, and your time. Only a man who thinks there are 57 states could suggest otherwise.
This actually gives us insight into why he’s failed as president, because this is how he understands leadership. He thinks you sit your skinny ass in a big leather chair or hide on a golf course as other people make things happen. That’s why ObamaCare became a cluster fudge, why he didn’t get card check or cap and trade, why financial regulation became such a mess, and why he can’t get any budget deals. Pathetic.
● Thought No. 2. Just Shut Up Already. I’m really sick of “conservatives” attacking Romney and offering retarded advice. Charles Krauthammer wants Obama to issue an apology for RomneyCare so Obama finally has something to attack. HotAir does too. Bill Kristol is demanding that Romney release his tax returns because that's what Obama wants. This needs to stop. How about these people go after Obama instead of Romney?
Interestingly, of all the clowns in the circus, Donald Trump had the best take on the tax issue. He said that Romney should agree to release his taxes only when Obama agrees to release his college applications and records. Yes! He then said, “I'll tell you what — the Republicans have to get a lot tougher. They have to get down and dirty also, because that's what's happening to them.” I never thought I’d agree with Trump, but this is absolutely right. It’s time that guys like Kristol learn that you can't win by crawling on your stomach to meet the politicized demands of your opponents.
● Thought No. 3. VP-arama. Romney is supposedly getting close to naming his choice for VP. I don’t think he can hurt himself with any of the names mentioned so far, but he can waste an opportunity if he picks the wrong person. I’ve said it before that I think he need a minority to send a clear message that the Republican Party has changed. In that regard, the short list includes Rubio, Jindal and Rice. I would prefer Rubio or Jindal to Rice, but I’d take Rice too. Also on the list apparently are Ryan and Pawlenty. I respect both men greatly, but picking either would probably make the ticket easy to lampoon as Dull and Duller. Both would be excellent once in office, however.
I would prefer Rubio (Allen West actually), but my money is now on Kelly Ayotte. She represents New Hampshire in the Senate and was previously the state’s Attorney General. She’s strongly conservative across the board. I’ll profile her if she’s chosen.
Whoever he chooses, it’s worth pointing out just how great Romney’s search has been. Rather than do the usual thing of trying to get a couple weeks of national exposure by dropping names, Romney has spent months now going from state to state, being seen each week with a possible candidate from that state. In the process, he’s generated buzz at the state level in key states (for himself and the local Republicans), and he’s used this as a way to deflect all of Obama’s attacks by each time suggesting he was getting close to making his choice. It’s been brilliantly done. Let’s hope his choice is as brilliant.
● Thought No. 4. The Bain of Obama’s Existence. I was a little confused this week when Romney strategist Ed Gillespie suggested that Obama’s attacks on Bain Capital were working. This clearly is not the case. For one thing, there’s nothing to attack. Bain bought and sold businesses, big deal. That hasn’t been controversial since the 1980s. For another, once you say the word “finance” people’s eyes glaze over. For yet another, Obama’s attacks have been esoteric, “lost in the weeds” attacks. Indeed, does it matter to any voter exactly what level of control Romney had as Chairman? Hardly. And if you want proof, look at the number of MSM types who have NOT dug into Bain. They know no one cares.
So why suggest these attacks are working, especially as there’s no evidence Romney is working to counter them? The answer is simple: Team Obama doesn’t seem to realize they’re beating a dead horse, and this was an attempt to make them think they were on to something so they would continue with this useless attack. Nice.
● Thought No. 5. Money Troubles. Obama made news last week by whining that Big Bad Romney has so much more money than poor little Red Obama. Interestingly, that’s not actually true. Since this election cycle began, Romney and the RNC have taken in about $425 million all told. Obama and the DNC have taken in $550 million.
So why the whining? Because in the past few months, Romney has blown Obama away. In June, Romney took in about $106 million compared to Obama’s $71 million. In May, Romney raised $77 million compared to $60 million for Obama. And apparently, Romney is now getting increasingly bigger checks as GOP whales are starting to give. Obama, meanwhile, isn’t. Obama is worried by the trend and acted desperately.
● Thought No. 6. DOOMED!! Finally, we have more evidence that Obama is doomed. One of the key demographics Obama need is young people. They are the one group he carries overwhelmingly and he needs them to make up for all the oldsters who will be turning out to toss him out. But the news isn’t good for Obama on the youth front. Gallup tracks enthusiasm by age group. In 2004, young people (age 18-29) turned out at 6% below the national average. In 2008, contrary to popular belief, they turned out 7% below the national average. If what they told Gallup is to be believed, they will turn out 20% below the national average in 2012!!! At the same time, old people who turned out 1% below average and 2% below average in 2004 and 2008, intend to turn out 7% above average in 2012. That’s the group that hates Obama the most. All of this will crush Obama and suggests that we are looking at a blow out.
Thoughts?
Thursday, June 14, 2012
You're Doing It Wrong!
Alright, a couple points then we can all get on with our days. First up, Jimmy Carville is “worried” about Obama. Second up, we have some polls showing why Jimmy is right to worry. Finally, we have a reminder why we should be done with the Bush family once and for all. Let’s do this.● Jimmy Carville: James Carville is a partisan hack, so when he tells you that Obama is eeah, doin’ sumtin wrongg, you better believe Obama’s doing something wrong. And in this case, Jimmy C is upset that Obama is telling everyone the economy is great. Said Jimmy C on Good Morning America:
“I’m worried that when the White House or the campaign talks about the progress that’s being made, people take that as a signal that they think that things are fine and people don’t feel they ought to believe that.”In other words, by telling people everything is fine when the public clearly knows better, Obama is squandering what little trust he has left and is telling voters that he “doesn’t get it” and has no plans to address their concerns.
As proof that Carville is right, think back to last week when Obama said at a press conference that “the private sector is doing fine.” Really? Perhaps he forgot that four million private sector jobs have vanished under his Reign of Error? The Republicans (led by Romney) pounced on this so strongly that Obama had to “clarify” his comments a few hours later by telling reporters, “it is absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine.” Nice, complete reversal “clarification.”
Carville once famously said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Perhaps he was talking directly to Obama?
● Polls: I’ve said before that this election really comes down to Florida and Ohio. In Ohio, Romney leads Obama 46% to 44%. In Florida, Romney leads Obama 46% to 45%. With undecideds typically breaking for the incumbent, this tells us Obama will lose. Iowa, which I see as irrelevant, is also trending Romney over Obama 47% to 46%. And if that isn’t enough, get this. . .
Colorado, an Obama state, is tied 45% each. Michigan, a clear Obama state, has Romney leading 46% to 45%. Wisconsin, another Obama state, has Romney leading 47% to 45%. That’s 36 electoral votes slipping through his fingers. Winning will be virtually impossible for Obama if that happen.
● RINO-dynasty: It is time America was finished with the Bush clan. Two disastrous Presidents who did their best to tar conservatism is enough. Sadly, there’s one more out there and he’s no better. This week old Jeb reminded us again why we want no part of him. What did he do this time? Get this. . . despite the election coming up, he decided now would be a good time to call us all a bunch of extremists. Specifically, he said this:
“Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican Party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground.”In other words, Reagan and Bush Sr. couldn’t have been nominated if they ran today because the party is now too extreme to accept them.
First of all, this is false. This is the same party which just nominated Mitt Romney, who was viewed by conservatives as a RINO and whose record as a governor is clearly moderate. This is also the same party which has made RINOs like Chris Christie and, regrettably, Jeb himself into stars. Secondly, saying this now is disloyal as now is the time to rally around the nominee to defeat Obama. Finally, it’s ultra-disloyal to say this particularly because this has been a Democratic talking point for years now, and only true RINOs adopt Democratic talking points and lend them credibility.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again, I will never vote for another Bush.
OT: I was planning to do a book giveaway promo later in the year, but for various reasons beyond my control, it's moved. So next Tuesday, Without A Hitch will be FREE on Kindle. Please pick it up if you haven't and read it and then leave a review! :)
Also, if you have already read it or Wrongful Death, please do me a favor and try to leave a review before Tuesday. People judge books by the number of reviews these days so it would help me a lot if you all posted one (and no, they don't need to be 5s... be honest). Thanks! Here's the LINK
[+] Read More...
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Americans Are Conservative
Every year, Gallup asks Americans to identify their ideology. And every year the answer is roughly the same. This year, as usual, conservatives outnumber liberals by about 2-1. Let’s discuss.Here are the headline numbers as to how people identify themselves:
Hmm. So what does this tell us? Well, for one thing it tells us that Americans still can’t stand being labeled as liberals, as only 2 in 10 embrace that label. As an aside, the number of people calling themselves economic liberals has been falling steadily since 2001, when it peaked at 38%. That suggests the Bush/Obama years have discredited liberal economics for a large chunk of Americans.● Overall: 41% conservative v. 23% liberal
● On economics: 46% conservative v. 20% liberal
● On social issues: 38% conservative v. 28% liberal
These numbers also tell us that Americans are much more conservative than you would think. What do I mean? I mean this: because of the herd instinct, which is alive and well within human beings -- with peer pressure advertisements being the most glaring bit of proof -- humans tend toward the center. Our culture actually reinforces this. Indeed, we teach people “moderation in all things” and “extremism” is considered a bad word in almost any endeavor. We tell people to worry about what society thinks, to try to fit in, and to follow the well-chartered path. This is so ingrained that both rich and poor people will identify themselves as “middle class” because they just don’t want to stand too far apart from the crowd. Moreover, on any measurable issue, trait or test, humans form a bell curve in which about 60% fall tightly into the middle with another 20% less tightly in the middle, and the remaining 20% outside on either end. That is the story of humanity.
And that means that if America were “a fair coin” (i.e. randomly distributed) then you would have 60% calling themselves “moderates”, 10% calling themselves “moderate-conservatives” and another 10% calling themselves “moderate liberals”, and 10% calling themselves “conservative” with another 10% calling themselves “liberal.”
But that’s not what we have. Instead, we have 40% calling themselves “conservative.” That means that in America, conservatives are 400% over-represented from what they should be here. Now, it's possible that Americans just drop the “moderate” portion of the “moderate conservative” and “moderate liberal” label, but even if we factor that in, then liberals are exactly what nature predicts -- 20%. But conservatives are still 200% overrepresented. And those extra conservatives have come from the ranks of moderates.
Here are my thoughts on this:
1. This means that conservatism is strongly attractive to Americans because it has yanked away 20% of the public from intense herd-instinct pressure and gotten them to abandon the “moderate” herd. Liberalism, on the other hand, has zero pull.
More than anything, this tells me that conservatives MUST return to selling conservatism to the public and must abandon being just anti-liberals. This is because liberalism is at its core-level of support and cannot be eroded further. Thus, tearing liberalism apart gets us nothing. Instead, we must convince moderates that they are really conservatives. And doing that requires selling our ideas to them so that they join the 20%+ of moderates who have already swung to the conservative camp.
2. We are very close to shifting the heard instinct. When enough people believe something, the herd follows. If conservatives can get above 50%, the rest of the moderates will follow because they are classic herd-followers.
3. This poll also tells us why conservatives need to keep making economic issues front and center. All conservatives need to win over the moderates to their cause on economic issues is about 1 in 4 moderates, whereas we would need to win 1 in 3 moderates on social issues and we face stronger opposition. Conservatives need not fear social issues, but economic issues are where their strength lies and that should always be the lead issues.
4. Conservatives have not yet done a good enough job winning over the public on social issues. I would suggest finding a new strategy to try to convince people that social conservatism works -- I’ll save that for another post.
Finally, I want to point out something said by Joe Scarborough. I don’t like Scarborough because he’s weak-minded and weak-kneed. He is the kind of Republican who is more comfortable as a Democratic-pet than putting in place his own ideas (assuming he has them). He thinks these numbers are generally overblown and he makes the point that even though the public is more conservative than liberal, he thinks conservatives don’t really mean it about being conservative:
This has become a standard liberal/RINO talking point about conservatives and it really highlights the problem with RINOs. The conservatives I know, and their Tea Party allies, are actively trying to shrink all of these things. They’ve vote for politicians promise to cut these things. They even tried to stop the budget because it funded them. They don’t find any cows sacred. Only the RINOs and their big business friends are fighting to the death to defend these things. And liberals use this as cover to keep spending on their friends. This is where things need to change. Conservatives need to get behind proposals to slash all these areas and take away this bit of false cover. And they need to call out the RINOs who make this claim.“The obvious irony is that while Americans like to think of themselves as rugged individualists who are perfectly capable of pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, these same cowboys would tar and feather any leader who tried to curb spending on Medicare, Social Security, farm subsidies, defense contracts, student loans or any other part of America's $4 trillion budget.”
[+] Read More...
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Martin Case? What Martin Case?
The Trayvon Martin case really exposed the liberal media as race-hate hustlers. Not to mention it showed their bias. But now that the facts of the case are going against their desires, they are all but ignoring it. Fortunately, it looks like the public has ignored the MSM all along.Right out of the gates, the media tried to turn this into a racial controversy. First, we had the NBC producer who maliciously edited the 911 call to make it sound like Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black, when the call actually proved that Zimmerman didn’t raise the issue of race and wasn’t even sure Martin was black. The MSM also tried to turn Zimmerman into a white guy so he would fit the racist narrative by calling him “white Hispanic” when his real ancestry apparently makes him “black Hispanic.” They also ignored all the charity work he did for a local black church. And to show that the only reason they covered this issue was race, consider what Alfonzo Rachel pointed out (about 1:05), that the media has ignored a succession of other Trayvons who were gunned down because they were all killed by blacks.
Once they had their narrative, the MSM set about trying to spin everything to fit that. For example, they ran with biased photos, using an old mugshot of Zimmerman to make him look like a thug while using a childhood photo of Martin to make him look like an innocent child. They kept using these photos even weeks after being criticized for the practice and long after more reputable places like conservative blogs were using better alternatives. They even shamelessly attacked the Daily Caller for “bias” for printing the nasty things Martin said on his Twitter account.
The reporting was skewed too. For example, they reported at face value that Martin had Skittles in one hand and a phone in the other, even though there is no witness who ever said that -- his girlfriend said that to the cops, but she wasn’t there to know.
After that, they kept trying to shoot down Zimmerman’s claims, like his claim that he had been attacked and injured. At first, the MSM just said they saw no evidence of injury. But how could they. . . they hadn’t looked? Then ABC released a grainy video and the media jumped on that as proof: “we don’t see any injuries!” Soon they were pronouncing him guilty because clearly he had lied about being attacked, right? Well, no. A week later, ABC enhanced the video. Now it showed significant injuries and the media actually attacked the practice of enhancing videos. Nobody bothered to read the witnesses statements or check Zimmerman’s medical records. Interestingly, Zimmerman’s lawyer has released his medical records, which show significant injuries, but the media didn’t repudiate their prior attacks. To the contrary, they all but ignored the records. An honest media wouldn’t have done any of this.
Now the blood tests have come back on Martin, and as expected, he had marijuana in his system. Yet, almost no one in the MSM reported this. Why? Because it doesn’t fit their narrative. Also, not one single reporter has pointed out that this fits with Zimmerman’s claim that Martin appeared stoned and was walking around aimlessly.
Now the case is pretty much being ignored since it hasn’t turned out like the MSM hoped. Although, some reporters are still trying. This weekend, for example, ABC attempted to deflect the public’s attention from the marijuana evidence. In this article, ABC ostensibly went through the witness statements. Only, they weren’t quite fair in how they did it. For example, the first couple pages of the article were “witnesses” saying things like “I do honestly feel that he intended for this kid to die,” and “I think the kid was running for help.” These would be damning statements if the person actually witnessed anything, but she hadn’t. These comments came from a woman who first saw Zimmerman after he had killed Martin and was standing over the body. So why repeat this speculation or describe her as a witness? This woman also said that Zimmerman told her to “call the police.” And to make sure the narrative continues, the reporter editorializes and describes this request as “curt,” as if that somehow proves something.
Another witness discussed in the article approached Zimmerman after the cops showed up and was asked by Zimmerman to call Zimmerman’s wife and let her know he was being taken into custody. According to the man, Zimmerman made this request “like it was nothing.” In other words, this “witness” was offended that Zimmerman didn’t act upset enough for his taste. In fact, he notes that Zimmerman didn’t act like: “I can’t believe I just shot someone.” So what? Again, this man witnessed nothing and his speculation that Zimmerman wasn’t shocked enough is utter horsesh*t and shouldn’t have been reported. Yet, the reporter leads off the article with this.
What this reporter has done is a despicable attempt to lynch Zimmerman by presenting as fact the speculation of people who saw nothing. This is deceitful advocacy. And so you know, none of the statements above will be admissible at court because witnesses can only speak to facts they witnessed, not opinions they formed.
So what really happened? Well, way near the bottom of the article, long after most people will have stopped reading, the reporter finally comes to the only person to actually witness something. This man said that he heard a commotion coming from the walk behind his residence. He looked out and witnessed a black male wearing a dark-colored hoodie on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help. He further stated that the black male was mounted on Zimmerman and “throwing punches MMA style” as the man on the ground yelled out for help.
Case closed. Self-defense.
On the positive side, the public seems to get it, even if the media doesn’t. Rasmussen asked people what they thought of the case. 40% thought Zimmerman acted in self-defense (up from 15%). 24% thought it was murder (down from 33%). These are good numbers. This means that only two in ten are going against the evidence of the case and buying into the media spin. Double that number have seen through the media spin. It also means that 34% of the public has kept enough of an open mind to change their opinions in light of new evidence and another four in ten have yet to form an opinion -- the way it should be.
So while the MSM is in the tank and is trying desperately to spin this case into a race war, the public clearly ain’t buying it.
[+] Read More...
Monday, March 26, 2012
Conservatives ARE Smarter Than Liberals
Here are six reasons why we know liberals are simply not very smart:
1. They support liberalism. No, I’m not being facetious. Liberalism has been an unmitigated disaster everywhere it’s been tried. It has bankrupted countries, destroyed inner city families, and made a mockery of education. Indeed, any area of our culture or economy which is dominated by liberals is a mess. And the more liberal a country is, the more likely it is to be broke with massive unemployment and little idea how to turn itself around. Not to mention that liberalism runs contrary to human nature, and its cousin socialism has slaughtered hundreds of millions of people. Einstein defined insanity as repeating the same behaviors and expecting different results, yet that is exactly what liberals are doing. Hence, anyone who still believes liberalism can work is either stupid or insane.
2. They reject reality. Anyone who ignores facts they don’t like and insists on believing things that are provably false just isn’t very smart. Yet, that describes liberalism to a T. They will believe things which have been debunked and ignore all evidence that disproves their beliefs. And, not only do they ignore evidence they don’t like, they attack the messenger and try to force people to accept their fantasy version of reality over genuine reality through groupthink and political correctness.
3. They accept contradictions. Anyone who can accept a logical contradiction is an idiot because it shows they have no ability to reason and they are willing to believe that which cannot be true just to maintain their worldview. And liberalism is crawling with logical contradictions. My recent favorite is Keynesian thought, which says that spending money helps the economy because it adds to the economy but simultaneously claims that taxes don’t hurt an economy even though taxes pull money from the economy.
4. They lack a principled framework through which to see the world. The liberal decision-making process is emotive and reactionary, it lacks consistency and any sort of framework upon which to base decisions. It is essentially “reasoning through gut feeling.” Inconsistency and lack of problem-solving methodology are evidence of weak, useless minds.
5. They are incapable of seeing the long term. All decisions have short-term and long-term consequences, yet liberals simply cannot grasp the concept of long-term effects. Only being able to grasp half an answer is evidence of stupidity.
6. They “admit” it. Liberalism’s most obnoxious trait is that liberals project their own worst traits onto others. Thus, while they act like racists/sexists/homophobes/ageists/etc-ists, they deny being any of these things and instead project these flaws onto others. They whine about conservatives speaking in code because they themselves speak in code. They accuse people of being liars when they are the liars, they accuse others of being “haters” when they have the hate, and they accuse others of being “fascists” when they are the fascists. So what do we make of liberals accusing conservatives of being closed-minded (a distinctly liberal, but not conservative, trait) and stupid? Hmm. Sounds like an admission to me.
And now we have more from Pew. Every year, Pew asks people a variety of questions to gage the public’s knowledge of various topics. If liberals are indeed smarter as they claim, they should dominate these tests, but they don’t. To the contrary, conservative blow them out.
Here are the results from the 2010 quiz:
● Men did better than women (50% to 35% correct) and in fact beat women on every question.In fact, it was even worse than it appears for the Democrats. On the 2010 Pew survey, Republicans outperformed the Democrats on 10 of 12 questions, with one tie and the Democrats winning the other question. On this year’s survey it was even worse. This year, Pew asked 19 questions and Republicans outperformed the Democrats on ALL 19 questions. Imagine that.
● College grads did much better than high school grads (61% to 33%).
● Age-wise, those in the 30+ brackets did much better than the 18-20 bracket (50% to 32%).
● And Republicans (50%) and Independents (47%) did better than Democrats (40%).
So these condescendingly smug liberals who see themselves as vastly more knowledgeable than Republicans. . . after all, they watch Stephen Colbert while you hillbillies are watching NASCAR. . . got smoked on 19 out 19 questions. And this continues a trend of Republicans smoking Democrats.
Sadly, the Democrats are probably too stupid to understand what this means, but feel free to try to explain it to them the next time they claim they are smarter than conservatives. I suggest using puppets to make it easier for them to understand.
[+] Read More...
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Liberals Are Intolerant, Who Knew?
Pew just did a fascinating poll about tolerance and the internet. And what they found will not shock you: liberals are intolerant of opposing views. Shocker, right?
According to Pew, 52% of liberals have discovered by going onto social networking sites (e.g. Facebook) that their friends have different beliefs than they thought. That’s right, more than half of all liberals were blind to the views of their friends. How did conservatives do? Only 34% of conservatives reported the same thing. And before you say those are roughly comparable, they aren’t. This means liberals are 150% more likely than conservatives to not grasp that their friends don’t share their views.
What would cause this? It’s a combination of two things. First, as anyone who has ever met a liberal knows, they live in bubbles. They believe that everyone thinks like they do, a view which gets confirmed by the MSM and Hollywood. Thus, they are essentially walking egoists without the power to empathize with anyone because they lack the ability to grasp that others are not like them. Hence it never occurs to them that their friends might disagree and they are incapable of seeing the signs that their blathering on about liberalism isn’t going over so well.
Secondly, they are intolerant. We know this because there is clearly something about these liberals which has stopped their friends from being honest with the liberals despite the fact they are apparently willing to otherwise share their views with the world on social networking sites. We also know this from something else Pew found. According to Pew, 28% of liberals have blocked people or unfriended people because they disagreed with something the user said. That's three in ten! Extrapolating that to the liberal population of the US means 34.7 million liberals have tried to silence people they know because they disagree with them. That’s the equivalent of TWICE the entire populations of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Boston combined.
But wait, aren’t conservatives just as bad? Hardly. Only 16% of conservatives reported doing the same. That means liberals are 175% more likely to try to shut people out because of their views. Imagine that.
Of course, none of this should surprise anyone. We’ve all seen the examples in our own lives where liberals assume that everyone in the room must be liberal because they simply can’t conceive of anyone thinking differently. And we’ve seen how shocked, how angry, and how vile they get when they hear that people have different views. And we’ve seen how they ignore all evidence which conflicts with their beliefs and how they dismissing any source which shakes up their world. We’ve seen it where they are incapable of good faith disagreement. We’ve seen it where they think nothing of using government force to impose their beliefs on others. We’ve seen it where they try to make words and thoughts into crimes and where they apply double standards based on their guess about your motives rather than looking objectively at your actions.
These numbers confirm that liberals are indeed what they appear to be: an intolerant group who are so self-centered they don’t understand that their friends don’t share their views and who are so intolerant that their friends are afraid to tell them the truth.
Liberalism is a sad way to live.
[+] Read More...
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
2012 Election: Predicting The Future
● The Race Is Over: For Santorum to win the nomination, he must win more than 65% of the remaining delegates throughout the race. But even if you combine all of Newt’s and Rick’s votes, Santoronewt has only hit this magic number in two states: Georgia (66%) and uncontested Kansas (66%). In most states they get 51%.
Further, the math is about to get uglier for Santoronewt because they have just about run out of southern states and small farming states where Santoronewt does well. Consider California. In California, Santoronewt gets only 38%. That means, Santoronewt needs to make up 55 additional delegates in the other states just because of California. That means the 65% average mentioned above goes to 69%, something Santoronewt has never hit. Illinois, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, D.C., Puerto Rico and New Mexico all show similar polling numbers. Hence, it is impossible for Santoronewt to win.
And it gets worse yet because not all of Newt’s supporters will go to Santorum. If 10% of Newt’s supporters stay home, Santorum then needs to average 68% instead of 65%. If they vote for Romney, Santorum needs 71%. If 30% of these people jump to Romney, suddenly Santorum needs 83%. Any analyst who tells you this race can still be won is lying.
Santorum knows he’s finished too, as demonstrated by his new wishful thinking strategy. Indeed, his team said this weekend that they intend to stay in the race despite this math because they are hoping the convention delegates might decide to go against their own voters and choose him at the convention. Yeah, and Satan might fly out of his ass. In the meantime, Santorum continues thrashing about. Now he’s accusing Fox News of “shilling” for Romney (after slandering Drudge as a “cheerleader” for Romney), and he keeps whining about Romney’s money. When you start offering explanations for why you can’t win, then you know you’ve lost. Put a fork in him. . . a pitchfork.
● Why Obama Will Lose: I know Obama will lose. No, I do not have access to a newspaper from the future. If I did, I would be out messing with the timeline! But I do know what motivates voters and I can tell you that Obama has lost. Here’s proof.
(1) I’ve said for some time now that voters have given up on Obama and no longer listen to him. This means he can’t win them back anymore. Here’s proof of that: Obama’s approval ratings are not keeping up with growing consumer confidence (LINK). This means the public is not giving him credit for economic growth. Translation: he’s doomed. Also, 80% of people polled say they are NOT better off than they were four years ago. Translation: he’s really doomed.
(2) According to Rasmussen, 59% of the public view Obama as more liberal than they are. You can be seen as more conservative and still win in this country, but you can’t be seen as more liberal and still win.
(3) Only 37% of voters say their views are more like Obama’s than the GOP contenders (who get a combined 53%). That’s the real approval gap right there, and the Republicans are ahead by 16%. And this is despite all the nastiness of the primary.
(4) In the Oklahoma primary, Obama only got 57% of the vote and he lost 15 counties. This suggests that the left remains upset and disillusioned with Obama. I wouldn’t draw too much from this, except polls also show that the Democrats are suffering an 8% voter enthusiasm gap (53%-46% compared to GOP enthusiasm). Even 2% can cost an election.
But there’s more. Romney has shown no interest in many of the other possible VP candidates: Palin, Cain, West, etc. Indeed, he never mentions them and they’ve all attacked him. Rubio hasn’t. It’s also highly unlikely that Romney would pick one of the other jokers in the race. When the question came up about a picking a "conservative" VP, Romney said, “Well, that would preclude, of course, Rick Santorum.” Yes. . . yes it would.
So he could be looking at a Christie, a Nikki Haley or a Rubio. But Christie is a northeasterner and Romney won’t do that. Haley is not especially popular even at home. He might pull a surprise and pick Rick Snyder, the Tea Party governor of Michigan, or Rick Scott, the Tea Party governor of Florida, but they’re both white dudes and also not very popular. He might pick New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, who is also Hispanic, except she’s very raw and she doesn’t bring much cache. So Rubio is the best choice.
But that’s just guess work. If you really want to know what’s going on, follow the money. Rubio has assembled a team to prepare his image for the national stage. This team includes people who handled re-election campaigns for George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. He’s also racing to publish his memoirs this fall, and his publisher has been leaking details to boost his image. He’s even spent $40,000 to hire investigators to investigate his own background so he knows everything that will end up in the Democrat’s opposition research file. These aren’t things someone does unless they expect to be thrust onto the national stage immediately (as compared to 2016). I would bet Rubio is spending this money and rushing his book because he and Romney have already cut a deal and Rubio is vetting himself for a quick announcement once the primary race winds down.
● Finally and unrelated: I don't normally pass on links, but I know many of you are history buffs and these are some incredible Civil War pictures -- high quality, amazing images, well worth the time. (The Atlantic)
[+] Read More...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)