Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’
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:
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.
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?
Obama plays small ball, while Romney focuses on what’s important to America.
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.
- Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
- SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
- Solyndra ($535 million)*
- Beacon Power ($43 million)*
- Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
- SunPower ($1.2 billion)
- First Solar ($1.46 billion)
- Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
- EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
- Amonix ($5.9 million)
- Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
- Abound Solar ($400 million)*
- A123 Systems ($279 million)*
- Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)*
- Johnson Controls ($299 million)
- Schneider Electric ($86 million)
- Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
- ECOtality ($126.2 million)
- Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
- Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
- Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
- Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
- Range Fuels ($80 million)*
- Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
- Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
- Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
- GreenVolts ($500,000)
- Vestas ($50 million)
- LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
- Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
- Navistar ($39 million)
- Satcon ($3 million)*
- Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
- Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.
SOURCE: Heritage Foundation >>>
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.
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?
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.
Until this, Mitt Romney’s ads have been absolutely dreadful — no bite
Rasmussen today has Romney now leading Obama 49-47 — with a 16 point lead among Independents. This represents a four point bounce so far from the debate. But Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll is a three-day rolling average. So one day of polling is still from before the debate.
Look for Romney to increase his lead in tomorrow’s Rasmussen daily tracking poll.
Obama’s new ad on debate even more pathetic than his debate performance: Accuses Romney of bullying poor Obama . . .
RNC puts out great ad on the Obama “Smirk” . . .
What was Sandra Fluke doing giving a speech in Prime Time?
I still pronounce her name the way it’s spelled — “Fluke” instead of “Fluck” (the way she pronounces her name) . . . because I’m concerned I might slip up and inadvertently leave out the “L” when I’m talking about Fluck.
So I’m flipping back and forth between the NFL football opener and the DNC Convention, and there’s Fluck at 10:00 p.m. Eastern Time delivering a feminist tirade.
Even the liberal FOX News commentator Kirsten Powers (bless her heart) said she was embarrassed for her party and gender watching Fluck’s angry man-hating speech.
Then Bill Clinton comes on at around 10:30 EST . . . because Fluck had prattled on for so long – something about how Paul Ryan wants women to perform their own abortions in bathtubs with coat hangers; and how Republicans are mean because we don’t think taxpayers should pay for Fluck’s birth control and her recreational sexcapades.
He would have been better off having been preceded by Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, or Juanita Broaddrick.
But, no — he was stuck following Fluck.
Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor?
And who was the genius who scheduled the DNC Convention and Clinton’s speech at the same time as the NFL football opener?
As a result, Clinton’s speech tied “Honey Boo Hoo” in the ratings race.
So no one saw Clinton’s speech, as he had the impossible task of defending Obama’s record.
The best he could come up with was that no one could have solved these problems in just four years.
So then Clinton rambled on for an hour about himself, every now and then throwing in Obama’s name because that’s what he was up there to do — puff up Obama.
The problem is that Clinton’s speech just served to highlight the huge differences between Obama and Clinton.
Obama added nearly $6 TRILLION to the national debt in four years. Clinton left office with balanced budgets (thanks to a Republican Congress not letting him spend money).
Clinton cut capital gains taxes. Obama wants to increase capital gains taxes. Clinton signed welfare reform into law, which included work requirements. Obama is waiving work requirements and has been one of the few critics of welfare reform and work requirements. Clinton deregulated. Obama has issued an avalanche of regulations that have strangled the economy.
When Clinton suffered a rebuke at the ballot box in the 1994 mid-term election when Republicans won control of the House and the Senate, Clinton pragmatically told the country that the “era of big government is over.”
He then tacked right and worked with Gingrich and the Republicans in Congress. He cheerfully signed many of their initiatives in to law (welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts, deregulation) and happily took the credit.
Obama suffered the same kind of defeat in the 2010 mid-term elections and tacked even harder Left. Instead of working with Republicans, Obama demonized them.
So Clinton’s hour-long speech last night just served to underscore how different he is from Obama. Oh, sure, he did what he was supposed to do and endorse Obama (the Democrat) over Romney (the Republican). Clinton will take one for the team every now and then. But mostly what he did was talk about himself and remind voters how different he is from Obama.
I wonder how angry Obama was having to wait back stage for Clinton to end his hour-long speech so he could come out and have Clinton give Obama a hug.
Obama looked so small at that moment. He looked like a six-year-old whose dad had just taken the training wheels off his bike — his dad picking him up off the pavement after falling in a heap. The visual contrast of the successful elder statesman Clinton and failing, flailing Obama is not the image that gets Obama reelected on November 6th.
Clinton’s message to the country was, yes, Obama failed in the first term because the task was just too big for Obama. So let’s give him a second try to get it right.
But Obama declared the U.S. economy in recovery in June of 2009 — before a single Obama policy had kicked in. So, really, this was the Bush recovery.
The recovery stopped in its tracks in April of 2010 — two weeks after the passage of ObamaCare.
Had Obama done absolutely nothing except play golf, we would be in a full-blown Reagan-style economic expansion right now. It was Obama — specifically ObamaCare — that killed the recovery.
The stimulus and Dodd-Frank didn’t help either. The zealots at the EPA and Obama’s war on domestic oil and coal production also haven’t exactly given our economy a boost.
There have been many embarrassments at this convention in addition to Fluck and the Clinton-Obama contrast.
Taking God out of the Platform and then having the delegates boo when party officials put God back in sure wasn’t a help. Nor was removing the reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Obama had to move his speech indoors because there was no chance they would come close to filling the football stadium for Obama’s speech. Now they’re so disorganized they can’t even have a balloon drop.
Has there ever been a convention without the traditional balloon drop?
Team Obama says they’re moving his speech indoors due to weather concerns — even though the weather forecast is that there’s a zero percent chance of rain. The weather is perfect.
Bill Clinton’s 1992 Convention is thought to be perhaps the best choreographed convention of all time. Obama’s 2012 Convention is the worst.
So that’s another big difference between Clinton and Obama.
Tonight Obama will ask America for a Mulligan on his first four years — a “do over.”
I sure wish I had a Mulligan in the first job I was fired from.
DAILY CALLER: President Barack Obama could lose his home state of Illinois in November, a new poll shows.
A poll conducted by Illinois-based pollster and political strategist Michael McKeon found Obama leading Republican Mitt Romney by 49 percent to 37 percent in Cook County, the home of Chicago. That puts him ahead by a far thinner margin than expected in a county he should be winning handsomely.
Cook is the most Democratic leaning county in the state. It is also the most populous.
Those numbers do not bode well for the president.
This documentary, “Dishonorable Disclosures”, is very well done. And it’s getting a lot of traction out there. It was posted on YouTube on August 15, and already has more than 800,000 views as of today. Pass this video onto your friends and relatives. Every American should see this video.