Election Day 2012

Signs that Romney will win and it won’t be close

There is not one person who voted for John McCain last time who will switch and vote for Obama this time.  There are many previous Obama supporters who plan to vote for Romney.  Republicans who stayed home four years ago rather than vote for McCain are not going to stay home again.  Many will vote not because of Romney, but in spite of Romney.  They want no more of Obama and his policies.

Crowd comparisons between Romney and Obama reveal Obama as a fad whose time has passed.  There is energy and enthusiasm in the Romney campaign.  There is anger and pettiness in the Obama campaign.

Early voting suggests a tsunami for Romney, at least when compared to the corresponding numbers four years ago.  Women are breaking for Romney.  States that were never thought to be in play by pollsters suddenly look even or even trending toward Romney.  Pennsylvania and Michigan are two examples.  Nothing is moving toward Obama.  Everything is moving away.

Newspaper endorsements reflect the mood of their readers.  The Des Moines Register endorsed Romney.  Ditto the NY Daily News and many other papers who routinely endorse Democrats.  Ben Shapiro reports:

According to the University of California, Santa Barbara American Presidency Project study of the top 100 newspaper editorial endorsements, Mitt Romney has seen a vast wave of switches from 2008 Obama endorsers. Obama, meanwhile, has seen only one newspaper that endorsed John McCain come around to endorse him. At the same time, many newspapers have also switched from Obama to "no endorsement."

There is not one constituency group that reasonably can be seen increasing its support for Obama.  Hardcore Democrat groups are uninspired.  Turnout among them will be lower.  Obama will win these groups by overwhelming majorities, but the groups will be much smaller this time around.

Doug Ross presented some interesting results that support my contentions.  A survey commissioned by the Washington Post is the source of these numbers.  Mr. Ross's summary included the following (my emphasis):

Overall, the Post-ABC poll found that 13 percent of 2008 Obama voters have decided to back Mitt Romney.

Even absurdly-skewed Poll show Romney tied

The latest CNN national poll of likely voters, which shows a 49%-49% tie between Republican challenger Mitt Romney and incumbent President Barack Obama, is either absurd, or very good news for the GOP--or both.

Romney has gained 3 points since the last time CNN ran its poll, in late September, when Obama led 50%-47%. That is good news for the Republican ticket, especially since the poll was conducted after Hurricane Sandy.

Yet there is something odd--and even ridiculous--in the poll's sample: of the 693 likely voters in the total sample of 1,010 adults polled, "41%described themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans." 

+11 D’s still only get Obama a tie. 

More reasons to be bullish

Why do I think this when the polls continue to forecast a close race? Two reasons. First, because the air long ago went out of the Obama campaign. “But where,” you ask, “is the data for that? What do the numbers say?” I have no doubt that data could be assembled and expressed numerically. But asking for data about the state of the Obama campaign is like asking for proof that a body lying on the sidewalk with a stake through its heart is dead.  Evidence comes in many forms, and some of the most compelling forms are bluntly empirical.  (A point that Aristotle noted in the Nicomachean Ethics when he noted that different subjects admit different levels of precision and that it is a sign of wisdom to demand only the level of precision which the subject under discussions requires.) Do you know anyone who believes the Obama campaign has traction?  You don’t need a statistic to issue a death certificate.

The second reason I predict a handy victory for Romney-Ryan ticket is likewise rudely empirical.  Look at the rallies. Note the number of “Romney-Ryan” signs, buttons, and insignia you see around — and note, too, who’s sporting that paraphernalia.

Free Springsteen concert and Obama pull in 18,000

One of the more memorable "gulp" moments for Republicans in '04 was the Friday before Election Day when John Kerry and Bruce Springsteen brought together a massive crowd of 70,000 to 80,000 in the liberal stronghold of Madison, Wisconsin. 

Today, in a last minute push to get the vote out, the combined power of Barack and the Boss drew only 18,000. 

Democrats are already worried about the early vote counts in Wisconsin. The fact that Obama is now depressing turnout for free Bruce Springsteen concerts should worry them even more.  On his own, Springsteen can attract 84,000 paying customers just a few hours away in Chicago.

Does this suggest John Kerry can pull in 52,000 more people than Barack Obama can? 

Does this look like an ad of a winner?

Dancing for Obama.

A New York Conservative tells you why you should vote

Voting is an honor.  It is a gift.  It may not be a duty, or a responsibility to vote, but it certainly is an opportunity to be counted, to have one's say, to make one's feelings known -- to stand up against the liberal dream of silencing all dissent.

The fact of the matter is that every vote counts.  It is a message sent to those who refuse to hear our voices, because they believe we don't matter -- unless, of course, we agree with them.

Just because they will not listen does not mean we should not speak.

Beyond the polls:  Another way to predict the election

A rather obscure university model has proven to be far more reliable than public polling -- or pretty much any other model. Developed by two University of Colorado (CU) political science professors, Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver, this analysis method has proven amazingly accurate at correctly projecting Electoral College results on a state-by-state basis covering an amazing 30 years and eight presidential elections.

Their most recent analysis, released October 4th, projects that Romney will receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes (five votes more than their August prediction). President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes; well short of the 270 needed to retain the presidency.

Amazon picks the winner

It seems more people are reading conservative books than liberal books by a 59-41 margin. 

NY Times: Obama Beat Hoover!

You know your record as President is abysmal when supporters are reduced to touting how much better you’ve done than Herbert Hoover. But that’s where Obama is at, apparently, as historian Robert McElvaine took to the New York Times a few days ago to make exactly that case. Seeking to combat unfavorable comparisons to the pace of recovery under Obama with that of other Presidents, such as Reagan or Clinton, McElvaine dismissed them all us irrelevant and asserted that the only comparison that matters is between Obama and Hoover. And on that measure, we are told that Obama passes with flying colors!

Union Leader endorses Romney

Only Mitt Romney offers a way out of this destructive cycle

It’s up to you

The election is here and you will make the difference.

MSM has dropped the pretense and openly supports Obama

They aren’t even pretending any more. 

The reality of the polls

Romney's terrible month

Pay no attention to the national tracking polls

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina told reporters on Saturday that despite national tracking polls showing the president and Romney tied, Obama is still winning.

“In all the battleground states, we continue to see all our pathways there,” he told the White House pool at an Obama fundraiser in Milwaukee. “We’re either tied or in the lead in every battleground state 45 days out.”

And if those tracking polls weren’t heavily weighted in favor of the Democrats, Obama would be 3-7 percent behind.

Another Reason Obama will lose

It seems over 1 million copies of an anti-Obama movie has been mailed out to Ohio voters.   That should move the scales a bit.

LA Times explains why it won’t release the Khalidi Video—because

A disappointing story and explanation.  Readers should be grateful to know that it exists seems to be the explanation. 

The Chicago Teacher’s Strike may have national implications

This is an interesting article on the Chicago Teacher’s strike.  But one of the unintended consequences (at least by the union) is an increase in charter schools which are not unionized. 

Romney’s release of his tax records

But the release of these tax records leaves no doubt about one thing: Mitt Romney is an extraordinarily, remarkably, astonishingly generous man. A good man. Maybe even a great man.

That is all. There is no “but.” Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, stupid or a liar.

Obama claims he never said change would happen right away

"From the day I ran for this office last year -- er, four years ago, it seems like just last year -- I've always said change take more than one term, one president, one party," Obama said at a fundraiser in Milwaukee.

Although in February 2009 he did say, his presidency would be a “one termproposition” if the economy didn’t recover in three years. 

And for President Obama “always said change takes more than one term, one president, one party” it doesn’t show up in goggle. 

MSNBC Panel baffled that anyone would question redistribution of wealth

The echo chamber of the left has completely isolated many MSM reporters.  They simply believe that everyone sees the world as they do, that is, the government is good.  Yet recent polls by Gallup show the American population who think government has too much power is at 51% while those thinking it doesn’t have enough is 8%. 

Change? Obama is still blaming Bush

What’s New Today

Story #1 tells of a leftist’s view of why Obama will lose in the fall.  #2 looks at the continual screed by the left on everything being Bush’s fault.  #3 is a new Republican ad about Obama and how he grades himself as a president (hint, I think he’s grading on the curve).  #4 compares the press to the fawning people in the fable of the emperor’s new clothes.  #5 looks at the Democrats and the Wisconsin recall.  Finally #6 is a call to drop the murder charges against George Zimmerman.

Today’s Thoughts

How many jobs did Obama promise he would bring to America?  Give up?  Seven and he did that on seven different occasions.  

It appears Obama’s press agent declared BHO was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.  Where would a press agent get these ideas?  It appears Obama was a birther before anyone else was.  

Hope and Change?  The number of people under the age of 25 without a job now has more college attendees than high school only job seekers.  I don’t think that is the change college kids were counting on in 2008.

1. Why I Think Obama Is Losing

As always Bill Galston and John Cassidy are well worth reading. In interesting new commentaries on the election, both think Obama has the edge, while emphasizing that it might be a close thing and warning Democrats against complacency. I hesitate to put my instincts up against their careful analyses, but if the election were tomorrow and I was forced to put money on one of the candidates, I'd say Romney. I also feel that unless something new and dramatic happens--as it usually does, admittedly--Romney's advantage is more likely to grow than diminish.

Why do I say this?

It's not because the country is sick of Obama. He's still pretty well-liked personally (more so than his policies). Among those who aren't committed to support or oppose him regardless, my feeling is, the country still wants him to succeed. If voters do reject him in November, for many people it will be with regret. It's striking to me that while Obama has approval ratings in the upper 40s, not bad under the circumstances, Congress is viewed by the electorate with naked contempt….

…So what's the answer? Obama's big problem, I think, is that he is no longer the president he said he would be. Above all, he's stopped trying to be that president.

The astonishing enthusiasm for Obama in 2008 rested heavily on his promise to change Washington and unify the country. You can argue about whose fault it is that Washington is even more paralyzed by tribal fighting than before--in my view, it's mostly (though not entirely) the GOP's fault. For whatever reason, Obama failed to bring the change he promised. That would be forgivable, so long as he was determined to keep trying. But he isn't determined to keep trying. His campaign message so far boils down to this: You just can't work with these people. I tried, they're not interested, so it's war. If they want bitter partisan politics, they can have it. 

My instinct tells me this is a losing strategy….

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-i-think-obama-is-losing/257285/#comment-531623412

I don’t agree with everything he says, but I do believe Obama will lose some votes for this reason.  But overall his loss will come from the economy and the deficit and his absolute failure to every address these issues. 

2. Who’s to blame for the economy?

In the early days of the Obama administration, a lot of people, including some Republicans, weren't much bothered by the new president's tendency to blame his predecessor for the nation's problems. After all, Barack Obama did inherit a mess from George W. Bush. The voters were inclined to give Obama time to turn things around.

But how much time? Certainly a year was reasonable. And so, as Obama's one-year mark approached in 2010, many political analysts assumed he would stop blaming Bush for the nation's woes. The conversation would change from the problems Obama inherited to the effectiveness of his efforts to fix them.

But a year passed, and Obama and his supporters continued to point the finger at Bush. At that point, nearly everyone assumed that when Obama's two-year mark came, he would certainly have to stop blaming his predecessor.

But no -- Obama kept at it, all the way through the three-year mark. And now, in the president's fourth year in office, with his-re-election campaign under way, some of the president's defenders have come up with something new entirely. They're not only still blaming Bush for the problems of the Obama administration -- they're blaming Bush for anticipated problems in Obama's second term, should he win one.

Specifically, a number of commentators on the Left have come up with a scenario in which they blame Bush for nearly all future federal budget deficits until at least 2019…

…"The economic downturn, President Bush's tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years," writes the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities in a report released last week. The major drivers of deficits through 2019, the Center says, are "not of President Obama's making."…

Is that really the case? Is the war in Iraq, which ran from 2003 to 2011, really going to drive the deficit in 2019? And what about Afghanistan, with American forces on schedule to leave? "It's ludicrous," says former Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "We are out of Iraq and nearly out of Afghanistan. And under current law we are scheduled to take another $500 billion out of defense."

Holtz-Eakin also notes that the Center blames the 2009 deficit on Bush even though that year includes the $821 billion stimulus bill. "There was a LOT of activity in the final nine months [of fiscal 2009] that had nothing to do with Bush," he says. In addition, the 2009 deficit included two massive one-time-only expenditures: the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But spending did not plunge after that. "The fact that spending remains as high as [2009's] means that Obama has replaced temporary spending with persistent spending," says Holtz-Eakin….

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/dems-bush-blame-forever-and-ever/550196

The last paragraph certainly is something I find compelling.  There were a lot of onetime expenses, yet the spending didn’t come down after those expenses.  Obama goosed up social spending and now when we talk about cuttings to that spending the Democrats cry Republicans are trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.  What if we go back to 2007 spending rates and then increase those rates for inflation?  That would take cut spending by $506 billion and reduce the deficit to $395 billion

3. New Ad:  Obama grading himself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vDYkE3eD4M&feature=player_embedded

A fun look at the ONE and the delusional world he lives in.  Do you remember where he graded himself compared to the other presidents?  Watch and remember. 

4. Obama’s New Clothes

Each week, the Obama administration (which has become indistinguishable from the Obama campaign) becomes more reminiscent of the old children's story, "The Emperor's New Clothes," with the national media elites playing the members of the king's fawning court, pretending that the president is not naked, that he is, in fact, resplendent in the best finery, and that his ever more absurd pronouncements are somehow credible. The latest issue is same-sex marriage…

…As a committed leftist, Barack Obama should be proud of his record. He has done some very profound things in his three-and-a-half years as president. He should be proud of his multi-billion dollar government bailout of the United Auto Workers, his trillion dollar "stimulus package" (which seems to have stimulated nothing other than his friends and campaign bundlers in the nation's public sector unions and the industry known laughingly as "solar energy"), and, of course, his crowning achievement, Obamacare.  But after all this radical tinkering, Obama cannot and will not run on his record. His promise to "fundamentally transform the United States of America," which caused mindless, starry-eyed crowds to cheer him on five days before the 2008 election, has now become a haunting threat to the freedoms of many voters who will not be fooled in 2012. 

So let's not kid ourselves, as so many of the nation's media elites have been doing, that Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage for any reasons other than political ones. There are two reasons he made this calculated decision now (and neither of them have to do with Joe Biden, whom I believe was sent out to do exactly what he did on Meet the Press). First, despite his incessant fundraising, he is insatiably desperate for more campaign money. When a president has no discernible governing leadership skills, and nothing to which he can point as an example of the positive things he has done for his nation's economy, he must spend all his time campaigning and fundraising. He needs lots of cash with which smear his opponents, and boatloads of it are now sailing into Port Obama from wealthy leftwing Hollywood loons and other radical advocates of homosexual marriage….

http://www2.hernandotoday.com/news/hernando-news/2012/may/17/weapons-of-mass-distraction-barack-obama-has-no-cl-ar-404729/ 

Desperate is a word you are going to hear in this election cycle when talking about the Democrats. 

5. Wisconsin Update

“The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is investing in Wisconsin’s June 5 gubernatorial recall election. The DCCC confirmed to Roll Call today that the committee has shifted its Badger State operation, in place to aid Democratic Congressional candidates in the fall elections, to boost the party’s effort to recall Gov. Scott Walker (R) and replace him with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Today, the DCCC today sent an email fundraising appeal asking its supporters to help underwrite its participation in the recall campaign.”

http://atr.rollcall.com/wisconsin-dccc-involved-in-gubernatorial-recall/

This is the equivalent of taking money out of the kid’s college fund to try your luck at the track.  If you are a Democrat congressional candidate, you probably should be upset.

6. Drop the murder charge on George Zimmerman

A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.

There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey , will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.

She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. The New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face picture” of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him that showed “a bloodied nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.

But none of this was included in any affidavit.

Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin….

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161#ixzz1vEKbh1yq

I believe you have the equivalent of a legal lynching going on by this special prosecutor.  What was it that George Roy Bean used to say?  First we give him a fair trial and then we hang him.