Archive for the ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ Category

I find it interesting that all recent polls now have Obama and Romney exactly tied

It’s an insult to quackery to call polling quackery

The pollsters are now out to protect their reputations. So all the recent polls now suddenly have Mitt Romney and Barack Obama tied – EXACTLY tied.

A curious coincidence, don’t you think?


It wasn’t long ago that these polls were all over the map.  Now we see this mysterious and sudden convergence — just before their reliability can be checked against actual election results.

The truth is these pollsters have no idea what’s really happening, so they might as well call this election tied and protect their reputations.  Can’t be faulted for just saying what everyone else is saying.  So that’s what they’re doing.

As we have seen, polling really isn’t much of a science.  These polls are useless, always have been useless. You’ll get more truth by consulting your palm reader.

We see wild 10 point swings from one poll to another. National Journal last week had Obama up by five points, while Gallup had Romney up by five points . . . at the same time.

What’s the point of wasting time reading these polls where there is a 10 point variance between them?

These polls tell us there is a potential margin of error of between two and four points.

What use is that then for tracking a close race?

But it turns out there’s really a potential margin of error of at least ten points — since there’s a ten point difference between them.

Yet professional pundits base their commentaries on these bogus polls.

They say Romney is stumbling or Obama is surging because one poll shows a one or two point shift.

Dick Morris tells us Romney’s advantage is eroding because the Rasmussen poll now has Romney and Obama tied, instead of Romney two points up.  He attributes Romney’s so-called erosion to Hurricane Sandy.


Why isn’t it just statistical noise inherent in these tiny poll samples?

Most likely, Rasmussen is just protecting his reputation by calling this race now tied . . . because he has no more idea than anyone else what’s really happening out there.

Frankly, I wonder if these pollsters are really making the phone calls they say they are making to voters.  Why not just save the money and make up the numbers?

That would be just as useful.

Is anyone checking?

But even if they really are making these phone calls and talking to voters, we are assuming an entirely false precision to all these polls.

There’s simply no statistical possibility that a survey of 800 or 1,000 or 2,500 Americans can tell us within three percent or even five percent, with any reliability, what 130,000,000 voters are actually thinking now — much less how they will vote on Election Day.

Heck, we have no idea who will even vote in this election. That’s why the pollsters call these people “likely voters” and not “actual voters.”

And it really all comes down to that. Whose registered voters will actually show up to vote?

Pollsters are about as useful as witch doctors.  Why anyone would pay any attention to them is a mystery.

It’s insulting to pseudoscience and quackery to call polling pseudoscience or quackery.

But pollsters (like witch doctors) have to make a living, too. Now they have their reputations to protect so they can continue to make a living with their bogus craft.

The safest bet right now for these pollsters is to just call this race a tie. So that’s what they’re all doing.

The most reliable poll we have seen this year is the Wisconsin recall election involving Governor Scott Walker — when actual votes were cast (2.5 million actual votes).

Now that’s a representative polling sample in a heavily blue state. And it’s a great indicator of what’s really happening out there.

I’ve been basing my election predictions on that poll. What other poll do we really need?

What has fundamentally changed in the country since that recall election in June?

ANSWER: Nothing, except the economy is in even worse shape.  And the fiasco in Libya has happened since then. We also have a pretty good candidate in Mitt Romney.

Walker won the Wisconsin recall election by 7 points (in a solidly blue state) — about four points better than what the average of polls were saying during that final week.

I think it’s highly likely we will see a Wisconsin-sized polling error play itself out on Tuesday — with Mitt Romney winning by a comfortable margin.

Related Articles . . .

Six Reasons Why Romney Will Win Ohio

Conclusive Proof That This Election Will be a Blowout Victory for Mitt

Fear Not! Six Reasons Why Romney Will Win Ohio

True. The polls are showing a narrow Obama edge in Ohio of about two points. Fear not. Here are six reasons why I’m 100 percent certain Romney will win Ohio by a comfortable margin . . .

1) Ohio is a Republican-leaning State

Republicans have controlled the governorship for 20 of the last 24 years. The GOP overwhelmingly controls both houses of the Ohio state legislature. Republicans hold all five of the statewide elected offices, including the governorship. All Ohio Supreme Court Justices are Republican.

2) Cuyahoga county — which includes Cleveland — has lost 150,000 registered voters since 2008.

This is Obama’s big county.  It’s where his votes are. So this is bad news for Obama.

3) Ohio traditionally votes about 2 points more Republican than the rest of the country.

Obama defeated McCain nationally by 7 points, but won Ohio by 4.7 percent.  The Real Clear Politics average of national polls shows Romney and Obama tied — though Gallup gives Romney a 5 point lead nationally.  So if Ohio is a point or two more Republican than the country as a whole, that gives the edge to Romney on this metric alone.

4) Romney is running anywhere from 7 percent to 18 percent ahead of Obama among Independent voters (depending on the poll).

I’m assuming Republicans and Democrats turnout in equal numbers. That gives the win to Romney because of the Independent vote.  But even if you give Democrats a 3 point turnout advantage over Republicans (highly unlikely), that still gives the win to Romney.

5) Obama only beat McCain in 2008 in Ohio by 4.7 points.

Obama is now running nationally 7-8 points behind his 2008 vote total according to the RCP average of polls. This fact will be mirrored in Ohio.

Do you really think Romney won’t perform 5 percent  better than McCain?

Do you really think Obama won’t perform at least 5 percent worse than in 2008 after four years of dismal economic performance?

Remember, McCain was a stunningly weak candidate, while Obama was heralded as the Messiah.

We had just had the financial meltdown under George W. Bush, who was the most unpopular President since Jimmy Carter.  But now Obama has a four-year record — and a sorry record it is.  An overwhelming majority of Americans believe America is headed in the wrong direction. Republican enthusiasm for this election is at a fever pitch, while Democrat enthusiasm is down. There’s just no way Romney won’t outperform McCain by more than 5 points in Ohio.

6) Early voting and absentee ballot requests have already erased Obama’s 2008 262,224 vote margin of victory over McCain.

Karl Rove has been closely tracking early voters and absentee ballot requests. Here’s what Rove said in his Wall Street Journal column the other day:

Adrian Gray, who oversaw the Bush 2004 voter-contact operation and is now a policy analyst for a New York investment firm, makes the point that as of Tuesday, 530,813 Ohio Democrats had voted early or had requested or cast an absentee ballot. That’s down 181,275 from four years ago. But 448,357 Ohio Republicans had voted early or had requested or cast an absentee ballot, up 75,858 from the last presidential election.
That 257,133-vote swing almost wipes out Mr. Obama’s 2008 Ohio victory margin of 262,224. Since most observers expect Republicans to win Election Day turnout, these early vote numbers point toward a Romney victory in Ohio.”

Rove was on FOX News last night with updated early-voting numbers that show Obama has now lost his entire 262,224 early voting and absentee ballot 2008 margin of victory. So Democrats continue to under-perform, while the GOP is over-performing with early voting and absentee ballots.

Remember, John McCain defeated Barack Obama in Ohio (and across the nation) with votes cast on Election Day. Obama’s entire margin of victory was achieved with early voting. The GOP has just about eliminated Obama’s early voting advantage and will now swamp Obama with Election Day votes. Republicans traditionally vote on Election Day.

So it’s game over for Obama on this early-voting and absentee ballot data alone.

The Bottom Line . . .

I do think Ohio will be fairly close. It always is.  That’s why it’s a bellwether state.

It won’t be a blowout for Romney, who has been hurt by the auto bailout issue in this state among some blue collar workers. That’s what’s keeping Obama reasonably close in Ohio. Though Obama is being hurt with blue collar workers in south eastern Ohio with his war on the coal industry. So this will dampen any advantage Obama is getting from the auto bailout. Romney will win Ohio by about 140,000 votes (2-3 percent).

No recount will be needed.

I also believe Romney will win Wisconsin, Iowa, and might even pull off a surprise victory in Pennsylvania.

Virginia, Florida and Colorado are now all in the bag for Romney.

About that NBC/WSJ/Marist poll that has Obama now leading in Ohio by 6.

Who knows whether this ridiculous poll is pure political propaganda, or just incompetence.

Does anyone really believe Obama will win Ohio this year by more than he won it by in 2008?

This so-called poll included a +9 Democrat advantage over Republicans in its sample.

So that’s all you have to know about this poll.

In 2008, the Democrat turnout margin over Republicans in Ohio was +7.

In 2010, Republicans were +1 over Dems in turnout.

Expect turnout in Ohio this year to be about equal between Democrats and Republicans. Romney will win with the 7 to 18 point advantage he now has with Independents (depending on the poll). If Romney’s advantage with Independents is just 6 points on Election Day, he’ll win Ohio handily.

GALLUP’S BOMBSHELL FINDING: And conclusive proof that this will be a blowout Election for Mitt Romney

I’ve been saying now for months that Mitt Romney will win this by 6+ points. This election will not be close.

Here’s more evidence I’m right.

Gallup has had Mitt at the 50 percent or more mark now for about two weeks. Today, Mitt is up 5.

Rasmussen also has Mitt at 50 percent, now up four points over Obama.

But that’s not the really devastating news for Obama. That’s not what I want to point out here.

The really bad news for Obama and the Dems is hidden in Gallup’s internal numbers.

The metric to focus on is party identification.

I know. Everyone’s focused on the undecided vote. That favors Mitt because undecideds tend to break against the incumbent in Presidential elections by a 2-to-1 margin.

So if Romney is ahead now (which he is), he’ll be more ahead on Election Day.

But that’s not the important news because I don’t think there are many undecided voters.

If you are an undecided voter today, you must be a total moron — or have no interest whatsoever in politics, so probably won’t vote anyway.

The important news is Party ID breakdown.

This little nugget is buried deep in Gallup’s otherwise boring article on its poll titled: “2012 U.S. Electorate Looks Like 2008.”

From the headline, it sure doesn’t sound like there’s any news here. I would not expect the basic demographics of the country to change much in four years (about the same percentages of men, women, blacks, Hispanics, whites, Asians, seniors, yoots, etc). So no big deal there.

Why even bother to conduct a poll on all that?

You have to read the entire article and poll to find out what’s really important.

And what’s really important is this BOMBSHELL fact . . .

In 2008 Democrats had a 39-29 (D+10) advantage in hard party ID, and a 54-42 (D+12) advantage when you throw in leaners.

But now Republicans show a 36-35 (R+1) hard party ID advantage, and a 49-46 (R+3) lead when you include leaners.

So, we have a party ID shift here of 11 to 15 points.

This is devastating not just to Obama, but to Democrats down the entire ballot.

Yup, we’re talking victories by the Todd Akins and Richard Mourdocks of the world.

Just about any candidate with an “R” next to his or her name has a great chance to win on November 6th.

Then when you throw in the 10-20 point advantage Romney has among Independents (depending on the poll), we’re looking at a blowout Election of historic proportions against the incumbent President.

In other words, what we are seeing here is the destruction of the Democrat Party by Barack Obama.

But what about Ohio?

I know a lot of you are worried about Ohio.  We really haven’t seen any public polls that show Romney ahead.  We have a few that show him tied.  Most polls have Mitt slightly behind.

Fear not.  The metric to focus on here is Romney’s standing among Independents in Ohio.

Figure Republicans and Democrats will turn out in about equal numbers. Heck, give a generous two-point edge to self-identified Dems.

Here’s a chart of recent polls — including all those biased media polls that over-sample Democrats by 6-10 points:

In 2008, Obama won the Independents in Ohio by 8 points and won the state by 4.

So this presents a clear picture of what we will see in Ohio.

Some Ohio “Early Voting” Data Points . . .

Here’s what’s happening so far with “Early Voting” in Ohio.

220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008 by this point. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago at this point. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.

Republicans always perform much better on Election Day.  John McCain would be President today if we only counted votes cast on Election Day. The fact that Republicans and Democrats are now essentially tied in Ohio early voting is very bad news for Obama.

In summary, what we are about to witness is the most lopsided defeat of an incumbent President in an Election since Jimmy Carter. And this election blowout might surpass even that.

So sit back, have a glass of wine, smile, and relax — and enjoy watching Team Obama and the Left descend into total panic and gloom over the next nine days as this reality starts to break through.

Obama’s embarrassing 20-page jobs plan for the next four years

I just finished reading Obama’s entire “jobs” agenda for his second term. It took me exactly three minutes to get through it.

And I read every word. This would not even pass the laugh test for an 8th grade essay assignment.

Who approved this?

Did Obama even read this before it went to press?

This is truly sad.

There’s not much text in this dopey (but glossy)  20-page pamphlet. It’s mostly pictures of Obama. In fact, there are a total of 17 photos of the President — photos of Obama looking down benevolently on children, seniors, Hispanics, blacks, union workers, etc.

80 percent of the space is taken up with photos.

So you’ll need additional reading material if you take this into the bathroom  to occupy your time.  This little pamphlet won’t last you all the way through your stint on the can.

The actual content of Obama’s program for the next four years is even more ridiculous than the 17 photos.

Much of the text is about the wonders of ObamaCare.

But that’s already been signed into law. So that’s not really an agenda for the future, is it?

That  already happened. Well, it’s going to happen. We haven’t yet felt the full brunt of ObamaCare because most of it starts kicking in on January 1, after the election, and won’t fully kick in until 2014.

Then we get to the actual agenda. And we find there is absolutely nothing new here.

It’s all a rehash of Obama proposals from the first term.

Obama’s budget was unable to get a single vote in Congress, not even a single Democrat vote. That alone should tell you that nothing Obama proposes is serious.

The text is essentially copied and pasted excerpts from the speech Obama delivered at the Democratic National Convention in September. The words are almost identical.

He says he’s going to ask the rich to “pay a little more.”

He repeats the lie about getting rid of special tax breaks for U.S. companies that set up factories or relocate overseas. There are no special tax breaks outside the normal deductions for business expenses that the IRS needs to calculate profit — so profit can be taxed.

Few believe we should be taxing losses, although this seems to be what Obama is proposing to do.

He talks about the need to develop “clean energy” and how this will create all kinds of new “green jobs.”

He wants more windmills, more solar panels, and lots of research on how to turn algae and garbage into fuel. He also wants lots of people making batteries for his Obama Volt cars that are selling so well (NOT).

Yes, all that’s worked out so well for America so far.

He boasts about how He — Obama — saved the American auto industry.

This, of course, had nothing to do with George W. Bush who wrote the first bailout checks, or with you, the taxpayer.

Ford Motor Company would likely also disagree with this assessment. Ford took no bailout money and is doing much better than GM. In fact, GM desperately wants to buy back its stock from Uncle Sam, but Obama won’t let them.

GM says being known as Government Motors is badly hurting its business.

Few people want to buy a Government Motors car or an Obama Volt.

I feel sorry for GM — having to operate now with all of Obama’s ridiculous mandates (Golden Handcuffs).  I doubt GM really wants to waste time and money making the dismal Obama Volt (which has a range of 40 miles per battery charge).

Romney’s approach of letting GM go through a managed bankruptcy with the help of (as a last resort) some guaranteed government-backed loans (as happened with Chrysler in 1979) was the correct approach — not giving GM to the labor unions to run and robbing the bondholders and pensions of the non-union workers.

On the day of the government’s initial public offering on November 18, 2010, the price of GM’s stock was $35.

It hit a high of $38.98 on January 7, 2011. And it’s been down hill ever since.

Today, GM’s stock is trading at $24.68.

If that’s success, I’d hate to see what failure looks like. Probably more like Solyndra.

GM’s stock would have to go up to $55 a share for taxpayers to get their money back — more than double where the stock is now.

Inexplicably, Obama (as part of his takeover of GM) forced 2,400 GM dealerships to close, many of them profitable, eliminating tens of thousands of jobs.

And Obama is attacking Romney over Bain Capital?!

Now GM is on the brink of bankruptcy again.

So looks like we’ll get to test Romney’s managed bankruptcy solution soon, after Romney is elected President.

Henry Ford, Walt Disney, and Donald Trump all went through the normal bankruptcy process and emerged stronger. Many great companies have.

The purpose of bankruptcy is not to destroy companies, but to allow companies to survive by restructuring their debt and giving them time to reorganize. Often companies come out of bankruptcy stronger and leaner.

Had GM gone through the normal bankruptcy process, it could have gotten out of all those ridiculous labor union contracts.

Let’s see, what else is in this 20-page pamphlet?

Here’s an item that caught my eye . . .

Obama boasts that oil and gasoline consumption are down.

But that’s because of his miserable economy and the doubling of the price of gasoline under Obama that has forced people to reduce their oil and gas consumption. Americans have been cancelling their summer vacations and driving a lot less under Obama.

Plus the median American household has lost $4,345 in annual income since Obama came into office. So many Americans just can’t afford to do anything — can’t afford to go out to eat, can’t afford to go to a movie, can’t afford to go to the grocery store.

That’s why oil and gas consumption are down. Demand for everything is down. Almost everyone is making do with less — except for the Obamas.

According to this pamphlet, this is one of Obama’s big achievements.

But this still isn’t exactly an agenda, is it? All this has already happened. And what’s happened over the last four years is mostly very, very bad.

Obama boasts of three trade pacts he signed. But all these were handed to him by George W. Bush. Gee, this doesn’t sound like an agenda item either. These are also things that have already happened — in the past.

We want to know what’s going to happen.

Here’s something . . .

Obama plans to create 20 new government agencies that will focus on manufacturing and innovation because, as we all know, the government is responsible for so much manufacturing and innovation.

Will these 20 new government bureaucracies work as well as the U.S. Department of Energy? Or will they work more like the Post Office or the IRS?

The pamphlet doesn’t say.

But it sounds just great.

All this is on top of the 159 new Soviet-style government agencies created by ObamaCare.

Obama says he plans some spending cuts, but won’t say where. He says he will reduce the deficit, but won’t say how, except he wants to raise taxes on the rich — so they pay their fair share (because they aren’t now).

He says he wants to hire more teachers, more fire fighters, more policemen, build more bridges, and repair our infrastructure.

Gee, where have we heard those ideas before?

Wasn’t the TRILLION-dollar stimulus supposed to do that?

How well has that worked out?

What happened to all that money?

Does the infrastructure look repaired to you?

And isn’t it state and local governments that hire teachers, fire fighters, policemen, and build and repair most of our roads?

The federal government only handles the Interstate highway system.

Obama has borrowed one of Romney’s ideas and now says he wants to reduce corporate tax rates.

I’m encouraged by this.  I support it.

Usually, he just demonizes business. He worked in the private sector briefly once — as a junior copy editor for a financial publisher. He called that brief experience “working behind enemy lines.”

But now he says he wants to cut the top tax rate on business.

So I guess that’s the one unexpected thought in this ridiculous pamphlet. It’s a proposal Obama never talks about.

Why do I feel Obama’s heart really is not in that idea?

He also says what America needs is a “New Economic Patriotism.”

This idea is not encouraging.

A “New Economic Patriotism” is  exactly what Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin called for.

But at least Obama is not calling for a “Final Solution.”

MITTMENTUM: Romney gets poll bounce in Ohio after final debate

It’s now all tied up in the Buckeye state 48-48, proving definitively that Romney-Ryan won all four debates.

A new Rasmussen poll taken after the final debate, shows Mitt Romney and Barack Obama tied in Ohio with 48 percent apiece.

Before the debate, Rasmussen had Obama up by one.

So the bounce isn’t much, but Mittmentum continues, proving that the Romney-Ryan ticket won all four debates. Even if there had been no movement either way in the polls, the final debate would be a victory for Mitt because his task was just to keep Mittmendum going, not to have a reversal of Mittmentum.

Romney-Ryan has received a bounce (often substantial) after every debate, even though the mainstream media awarded three of the four debates to Obama-Biden.

Today’s Rasmussen national tracking poll shows Romney leading Obama 50-46 — no change from yesterday.  But today’s three-day tracking poll includes one day of polling after the final debate. So no gain for Obama from the final debate.

For Romney now to be at 50 percent or higher nationally in both the Gallup and Rasmussen polls is devastating to Obama.

What it all means . . .

Obama’s reelect number has been stuck at 47 percent for months.

Scott Rasmussen, Gallup, and Suffolk University Political Research are the only three polls I trust. The media-sponsored polls have proven themselves to be worthless.

Rasmussen, Gallup, and Suffolk Research try to get it right. The other polls are mostly political propaganda for the Left, or just aren’t accurate.

Undecided voters almost always break 70 percent against the incumbent in Presidential races.  So for Obama to be at 48 percent in the Buckeye state is disastrous for his chances.

If Romney wins Ohio, he will just about certainly win the election. If he loses Ohio, he can still win, but the math becomes more complicated.

Why I continue to predict a blowout election for Romney . . .

I have been predicting a blowout election in favor of Romney for months.  Before the first debate, I was projecting Romney winning by 4.  Since the first debate, I have been projecting Romney winning by at least 7.


Because Obama’s reelect number has been stuck at 47 for months. Remember, 70 percent of undecided voters break in the final days against the incumbent President.

So that’s a 4-6 point Romney victory right there assuming both sides turnout in equal intensity.

But that won’t happen.  Obama’s voters are not enthusiastic about Obama, while the anti-Obama vote is at a fevered pitch.

The intensity of the anti-Obama vote will swamp Obama in the final days and add at least three percent to Romney’s margin of victory over what Gallup and Rasmussen are showing now.

It’s simple math.

And think about this.

Scott Walker outperformed what the polls were saying in the June recall election in Wisconsin by four points.  If there is a Wisconsin-sized polling error at work now nationally (which I believe there is) you’ll see Romney win by 10 or more.

The Wisconsin recall election (in a heavily blue state) is the best poll and best indication of what’s likely to happen on November 6th.

It’s been my belief that there is a hidden anti-Obama vote out there simmering beneath the surface that even the best pollsters are not picking up.  Look at what happened in the 2010 mid-term elections.

Has the economy improved since 2010?  Has the situation in the Middle East improved since then?  Is America more positive about ObamaCare since then? Is gasoline any cheaper?  Is the deficit going down?  Does America think we are not spending enough on government programs?  Do Americans now see Obama’s stimulus and all this deficit spending as a success?  Is America looking forward to Taxmageddon kicking in on January 1?

The answer on all these questions is no.

So why will we see a different result on November 6th than we saw in 2010?

DEBATE SEASON SCORE: Romney-Ryan 4, Obama-Biden 0

Obama plays small ball, while Romney focuses on what’s important to America.

The Romney-Ryan ticket has now won all four debates.

All agree, Romney crushed Obama in the first debate. That debate was so one-sided that it is one of the few Presidential debates in history that actually changed the trajectory of a Presidential race.

Biden looked mentally unstable in his debate performance, with his non-stop laughing at inappropriate times (such as in the discussion about Iran getting the nuclear bomb), his constant smirking, guffawing, and interrupting. Biden appears to be suffering from some form of dementia.

Obama’s best performance was in his second debate with Romney. But polls of debate watchers overwhelmingly thought Romney had better answers on the #1 issue of the day, which is the economy.

Romney’s momentum in the polls accelerated after the Biden debate fiasco and after Obama’s second debate performance.

Debate #3 may prove as disastrous for Obama as debate #1.

This debate is the nail in the coffin for the Obama regime.

The insta-polls after the debate gave Obama a narrow victory on points. CNN’s poll of debate watchers had it 48 percent for Obama, 40 for Romney.

But on the question of: “Who did the debate make you more likely to vote for?“, the score in the CNN poll was Romney 25 percent to Obama 24 — with 50 percent saying the debate will have no impact on their vote.

So, essentially, it was a draw — with Romney slightly ahead on the question that matters.

Romney is already ahead in the polls, with two weeks to go before the election.

Romney’s goal in the debate was to run out the clock and look Presidential — that is, to look like he’s up to the job of Commander-in-Chief.

He did that in spades.

Obama’s goal was to show that Romney is not up to the job. He failed miserably.

And Romney’s performance in the debate will continue to look better in hindsight. Obama’s performance will look worse.

Romney took the high road throughout this final debate.

He decided not to attack Obama much, but calmly laid out his approach to foreign policy and national defense. He also did a good job of tying the economy to America’s leadership position in the world.

America can’t be strong if our economy is in shambles, or if we are $16 TRILLION in debt — a TRILLION of which we owe to China.

Voters understand that.

Voters (especially undecided voters) don’t follow foreign policy much. But they certainly understand the importance of having a strong economy if we are to continue to be a world superpower. And they certainly see that America’s superpower status is now on the wane as a direct result of our weak economy. We are a nation in decline at home and overseas.

China is on the rise.

Romney successfully connected all those dots throughout the debate.

Yes, it was on the surface a foreign policy debate. But it’s still the economy, stupid.

Obama, meanwhile, acted churlish, petulant, even desperate with his constant attacks on Romney — entirely over small, petty issues.

Romney went big in this debate. He talked about big themes, mostly ignoring Obama.

I was glad to see Romney mostly abandon neo-conservatism for more of an America First foreign policy.

Forget trying to turn these Muslim countries into Jeffersonian democracies.  We will project power only when it’s in America’s interest to do so. We’re certainly not anxious to get into anymore land wars in the Middle East. And no more foreign nation building.

We will, however, take out Iran’s nuclear reactors if we have to.

Obama was like a little Shih Tzu (that annoying small yappy dog) nipping at Romney’s heels.

The low point for Obama was his second attempt at attacking Romney over his investments in a company that does business with China. Huh?

What was strange about this attack is it had nothing to to with the topic under discussion. It just looked small and forced.

Obama had a good zinger prepared about horses and bayonets in the discussion of how we have fewer ships today than in 1916. Even I laughed at that one. Obama’s supporters will love that exchange. But the line also did not come off as Presidential. In fact, Obama looked condescending and nasty while delivering it.

I was hoping Romney would really rip the bark off Obama on Libya.

Why was there no security for the U.S. Consulate in one of the most dangerous regions of the world?

That would have been a simple question for Romney to ask that Obama would have no answer for.

But Romney skipped over Libya. Not sure why. Probably because he wanted the night to be about big themes. What will the future look like under a Romney Presidency?

He wanted to focus on that.

Elections are always about the future?

Yes, Libya is a disaster. Yes, it’s a wonderful illustration of Obama’s incompetence.

But the murder of our Ambassador and three Americans (as grim as that was) is not about the future. And no need to get bogged down in details about why Obama tried to blame this terrorist attack on a video.

Ronald Reagan would not have talked about the video or the inconsistent timeline, or the shifting stories and explanations on Libya from Team Obama.  No need to waste time on whether this is a cover-up by Obama, incompetence, or both.

Reagan would have talked about the big picture, big themes. That’s what Romney did last night.

I disagree with Romney on Egypt. I think we should have stuck with Mubarak. Yes, he was a dictator. But he was an ally of the United States and wasn’t going to attack Israel. Now Egypt is under the control of the radical Muslim Brotherhood. So nothing good will happen there.

It was clear Romney wanted to take the discussion back to the economy whenever he could — always connecting America’s economic strength to America’s role as world leader.

I try to watch these debates as an undecided voter might.

If I were from another planet and had no idea what was going on before watching this debate, I would conclude that Romney must be the President, Obama the challenger.

Romney was acting and sounding like a President, like a Commander-in-Chief — for the most part ignoring Obama.

Obama wanted a mud wrestling match. Obama was desperately trying to bring Romney down to his level, trying to get under Romney’s skin with little chippy attacks on nonsensical small issues (such as Romney’s investments in China).

But Obama’s attacks were like arrows bouncing off the side of an aircraft carrier, having no impact whatsoever.

Romney’s numbers will continue to go up in the aftermath of this debate.

We are now heading toward a true blowout election.

Romney will win this election by 7-10 points. He’ll win all the swing states. He’ll win Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Romney even has a shot at winning New Jersey, Minnesota, and Oregon.

This will be a blowout on the magnitude of Reagan’s landslide win against Jimmy Carter in 1980. And this will carry over to the Senate, with the GOP gaining control, most likely with two or three Senate seats to spare. Even Tod Akin will win

ObamaCare will soon be history.  After the first 30 days of the new Romney Administration, and with solid GOP majorities in both chambers of Congress, it will be as if there never was an Obama Presidency.

Here’s Romney’s New “Apology Tour” Ad . . .

Romney wins CBS News focus group of undecided voters in Ohio

Here’s Romney’s new “Clear Path” ad — his closing statement in the debate . . .

Here was Frank Luntz’s focus group of undecided voters, who saw Romney winning overwhelmingly on the issue that matters most to voters — the economy

Meanwhile, over on MSNBC, Chris Matthews says Romney is winning because of racial hatred . . .

If this is the line of argument Obama’s supporters are reduced to, you know he’s losing.

List of Obama’s “green energy” failures

Here’s your list of Obama’s “green energy” failures, with cost to taxpayers:

  1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
  2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
  3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
  4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
  5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
  6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
  7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
  8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
  9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
  10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
  11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
  12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
  13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
  14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)*
  15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
  16. Schneider Electric ($86 million)
  17. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
  18. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
  19. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
  20. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
  21. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
  22. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
  23. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
  24. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
  25. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
  26. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
  27. GreenVolts ($500,000)
  28. Vestas ($50 million)
  29. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
  30. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
  31. Navistar ($39 million)
  32. Satcon ($3 million)*
  33. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
  34. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

SOURCE: Heritage Foundation >>>

Why Romney won his second debate with Obama

Mainstream media pundits are giving Obama a narrow debate win.

Their argument is that Obama was feistier and more energetic than he was in his first debate.

Mitt was also plenty energetic. Both the CNN and CBS insta polls of debate watchers both gave Obama a narrow overall win.

CNN had it Obama 46 to Romney 39, with the rest seeing the debate as a draw.

The CBS poll had it Obama 37 to Romney 33, with 37 percent seeing the debate as a draw.

But both these polls also gave Romney an overwhelming victory on the issue that matters to voters: Who will fix this disastrous Obama economy?

In the CBS poll, 65 percent said Mitt Romney won on the issue of the economy compared to 34 percent who said Obama won.

In the CNN poll, Romney beat Obama by 18 point on who has better answers for the economy.

This is devastating for Obama.  This means even some Democrats who watched the debate came away thinking Romney has a better plan than Obama for the economy.

The economy is the issue that matters to voters.  And that’s the issue that will decide this election.

Moreover . . .

In both MSNBC’s and the FOX News/Frank Luntz focus groups of undecided voters, Romney won overwhelmingly. Here’s what Frank Luntz’s focus group had to say:

And here is what MSNBC’s focus group had to say:

Mainstream media pundits were going to award the debate to Obama  no matter what.

Obama was certainly better in terms of energy this debate than what we saw from him in Denver. But his arguments were the same.

And his answer on Libya (supposedly Romney’s weakest moment last night) will come back to bite Obama because what he said there was flatly false.

Debate moderator Candy Crowley was the big loser last night when she intervened to supposedly correct Romney on Libya.

Turns out Romney was right, Crowley was wrong. Her intervention into the exchange between Obama and Romney with her false statement threw Romney off stride a bit for a moment.

Obama told us he had called the Benghazi attack terrorism on day one, when in fact, he had not.

Here are the facts on why Crowley and Obama were wrong and Romney was right on Libya >>>

Obama’s lie on Libya hurt Obama because every minute America is thinking about Libya is another minute Obama is losing voters.

A U.S.  Ambassador and three other Americans were killed in an inexplicably unprotected  U.S. consulate in one of the most dangerous regions of the world by an al Qaeda attack on September 11 — the anniversary of, well, September 11.

This was the third attack on this U.S. consulate in a country dominated by radical, militant Islamists. But Ambassador Stevens’ requests for more security were rejected . . . even though the British and Red Cross had exited Libya because it’s so dangerous and had become overrun by al Qaeda and other Islamic radicals.

Now the Ambassador and three other Americans are dead. Reports are that he was repeatedly sodomized and tortured before he was murdered.  Also inexplicably, we (and the families of the slain) still have no autopsy reports from the Obama Administration.

The well-planned al Qaeda attack featured rocket-propelled grenades, mortars, heavy artillery, and commandos.

Obama blamed the attack on a YouTube video that had 19 views before the Obama Administration started talking about it.

Now he’s compounding his lies by lying about his lies . . . because he wants to promote the myth that he’s defeated al Qaeda.  Apparently not.  Apparently, al Qaeda is as strong, or stronger, than ever.

All this will hurt Obama badly as we speed toward the foreign policy debate on Monday.

The need for leadership and truthfulness should be Romney’s theme in Monday’s debate.

Overall, Romney put in another strong debate performance last night.

Perhaps it was a draw, or Obama a little ahead, on style.  But Romney won overwhelmingly on substance and on what matters to voters — and that’s having actual solutions to America’s economic crisis.

Here’s why . . .

1) Romney hammered Obama relentlessly on his economic record, on the deficit, and on gas prices. Obama had no answers. That’s what voters will remember.

2) Romney explained his tax plan better in this debate than he did in the first debate.

3) Romney went into great detail on how he would dramatically increase oil and coal production to bring energy prices down and make America energy independent.

4) Romney hammered on the theme that he would make America the most attractive country in the world for business — so businesses will build plants and invest here rather than in China and overseas.  He pointed out that even left-leaning Canada dropped its corporate tax rate to 15 percent, compared to a 35 percent top corporate tax rate in the U.S.  – which is why Canada’s economy is now doing so much better than ours.

5) Romney was terrific on how he would crack down on China’s cheating on trade.

6) Romney reminded voters repeatedly about how ObamaCare is killing business, killing the economy, and killing jobs.

7) CNN’s poll of debate watchers had Romney beating Obama 49-46 on who would better handle health care. ObamaCare is Obama’s #1 legislative achievement, but voters don’t like it.

8) Obama never talked about the future or what America will look like after another four years of Obama policies.

In the CNN poll, 49 percent thought Obama spent more time attacking his opponent to 35 percent who thought Romney was the main attacker — which is probably why more debate watchers awarded Obama a few more debating points.

But what voters will remember is that Obama never talked about his plans for a second term. How will his second term be any different from his first term?

Elections are always about the future.  People want to know the President’s plan for making America a better place.  How will life be different four years from now?

Obama did not say.

He just attacked Romney.  That’s what liberals liked about Obama last night.

But that won’t help Obama win over undecided voters, which is what he has to do to win the election.

In the CNN poll, 49 percent of debate watchers saw Romney as the stronger leader compared to 46 percent who saw Obama as the stronger leader.

If you’re the sitting President of the United States and more people see your opponent as the stronger leader, you’re in a heap of political trouble.

People want a real leader as President, not someone who boasts about “leading from behind.”

This is a race for President, not for debate winner.  People want to know: Who has the best plan to take America to a better place? Who has the best plan for the future? . . .because what we’ve been doing for the last four years has so obviously failed.

Romney answered these questions. Obama didn’t.

That’s why Romney this morning is in even a stronger position to win this election than he was before last night’s debate.

By the way, what was Obama’s long discourse on contraception all about?

Does he really think this is the big issue on the minds of voters?

“Obama Phone Lady” Featured in New Ad

Four Reasons Why Romney Has Already Won The Election

The upcoming debates won’t matter much. Romney will just add to his margin of victory if he does well. Even if he only turns in a so-so performance, he still wins the election.

How can I say this?

REASON #1: All you have to do is look at President Obama’s reelect number.

Today, in the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Obama’s reelect number stands at 46.0 percent in his head-to-head race with Romney.

Romney is now at 47.3 percent — one full point ahead of Obama.

But what’s important right now is Obama’s reelect number.

Anytime a sitting President’s reelect number drops under 50 percent, he’s in trouble.

When it falls below 48 percent, it becomes very difficult (nearly impossible) for an incumbent President to claw his way back to 50 percent.


Because the President is the known quantity. And right now only 46.3 percent of likely voters think he deserves another term.

After four years in office, how on earth will he persuade 3.7 percent of the electorate to change their mind and vote for his reelection?

Obama’s reelect number has been at 46-48 percent all year. Hasn’t budged much.

What’s changing is Romney’s rising elect number, as voters get to know him better.

Obama’s only hope was to demonize Romney.

But that can’t succeed anymore.

Team Obama spent $300 million doing just that, with an avalanche of negative ads.

Both Romney and Ryan were able to undo all these negative ads with their debate performances — watched by a combined 125 million Americans.

With their debate performances, they were able to answer the #1 question in the minds of undecided voters: Are these two men plausible alternatives to Obama and Biden?

Both Romney and Ryan showed themselves to be far more than plausible alternatives.

By all accounts, Romney wiped the floor with Obama in the first debate, while Biden exhibited signs of mental instability with his incessant laughing, snickering, eye-rolling, and guffawing during Paul Ryan’s cogent presentation and answers to questions.

Biden demonstrated with his bizarre, mentally unstable debate performance that he’s completely unfit to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

So Romney just needs to perform acceptably in the next two debates. He will.

REASON #2: Obama only won Ohio with 51.2 percent of the vote in 2008

And this was when Obama could do no wrong, and nothing was going well for McCain.

We had just suffered a massive financial collapse under the watch of George W. Bush, who also was unable to find any WMDs in Iraq. Bush ended his Presidency as among the most unpopular Presidents in history.

Yet, Obama was still only able to win 51.2 percent of the vote in Ohio in 2008.

Does anyone seriously believe Obama will get anywhere near the 51.2 percent of the vote in got in 2008 — when he was at the very peak of his popularity?

The five big battleground states to watch are Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado.

The respected Suffolk University Polling Research Center of Massachusetts has already pulled its polling research team out of Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina (to focus elsewhere) because they feel those states have already been won by Romney (this, even before Romney’s debate trouncing of Obama).

Romney now has also established a lead in Colorado.

Real Clear Politics has now moved Colorado into the Romney column.

Most polls still give Obama a narrow lead in Ohio of one or two points. But most of these polls are old.

Obama’s only hope at this point is to somehow pull out a win in Ohio. He then would have a chance to win an Electoral College vote victory even while losing the popular vote across the country.

By the way, Romney can still win an Electoral College victory without Ohio. But that math becomes more complicated.  He would have to win Wisconsin — which is entirely doable with Paul Ryan (from Wisconsin) on the ticket.  Polls show Romney-Ryan just two points behind in the usually blue badger state.

But if Romney wins Ohio, this election is over.

Now let’s look again at why it will be so tough for Obama to win Ohio when Romney is leading Obama in national polls.

In 2008, McCain performed three points better in Ohio than he performed across the rest of the country — losing to Obama by 4 percent in Ohio while losing by 7 nationwide.

In 2000, we saw a similar gap between the Ohio vote and the national vote. George W. Bush won Ohio over Al Gore by a 3.3 percent margin, while Al Gore actually won the popular vote nationally by half a percent.

So Ohio tends to vote more conservative than America as a whole — which is why Ohio is always the key state for Republicans to win in Presidential election years.

If the Republican candidate can’t win Ohio, he can’t expect to win the election . . . because Ohio is slightly more conservative than America is as a whole.

It’s a bellwether state — but it’s a bellwether state that tips slightly in favor of Republicans.

There’s no reason to believe Ohio will behave any differently this year.  If Romney wins nationally, he’ll win Ohio by a slightly wider margin than his national total.

REASON #3: The giant enthusiasm gap between the Republicans and Democrats.

This is always a key number predicting election outcomes.

Scott Rasmussen puts the enthusiasm gap at +11 to +14 in favor of the GOP. Other polls show about the same number.

This is critical for gauging likely voter turnout.

Does anyone believe black and young voters (the core of Obama’s base in 2008) will turn out for Obama in the same numbers they did four years ago?

Young (under age 30) voters still favor Obama over Romney, but by a deminishing margin. And there is zero enthusiasm this time among young pro-Obama voters. Look for many of them to stay home on Election Day.  And the unemployment rate among black voters is now 15%.  They will still vote for Obama. But how many will show up?

REASON #4: The Independent vote is breaking heavily against Obama.

Romney leads by 12 points among Independents in most polls, by 20 points in some polls.

It’s almost impossible for Obama to swim against this tide.

If you assume a roughly equal turnout of Republicans and Democrats (which is what most pollsters assume), Romney wins by winning the Independents. Even if you give Democrats a +3 percent turnout advantage over Republicans (unlikely), Romney’s big lead among Independents gives him the election.

The bottom line . . .

Debates  don’t change the fundamentals of Presidential elections.  Never have.

Debates perhaps can turn a few votes in super-close elections (Kennedy-Nixon in 1960 — with Nixon visibly sweating; Bush-Gore in 2000 — with Gore sighing excessively).

But this election is not that close.

The media polls have skewed in Obama’s favor in part because of the pro-Obama bias of most media polls — also because pollsters tend to deliver the results those paying them are looking for.

So it looked like Obama was winning.

But now that the election is only three weeks away, these pollsters have their reputations to protect. So you are seeing more accuracy today in the polls than we saw two weeks ago.

In addition, the Gallup poll has shifted its metric from measuring registered voters to “likely voters.”

Republicans always score 3-4 points better among likely voters than registered voters — and better still among actual voters.

The closer you get to measuring actual voters, the better Republicans do.

In addition, Romney was unknown to many low-information voters before the debate.

The more voters see Romney, the more they become comfortable with the idea of Romney as President.

So the upcoming debates will be fun to watch. The debates will provide good fodder for the pundits.

Pundits have to make a living, too, so need to talk about something every day.

But the debates won’t matter much — except possibly to add to Romney’s margin of victory by giving the undecideds even more confidence that the country will be in good hands with Romney.

Of course, if Obama lays another egg on the stage, we’re looking at a blowout election.

So put this in the bank.

A Romney-Ryan victory is now baked in stone (barring something completely unexpected). The only question now is the margin of Romney’s victory.

My expectation is that this election won’t be close.

Romney will win by 7 to 10 points as the undecided voters break heavily against the incumbent President in the final few days before the Election, as they always do.

Login to Join Discussion!