Posted on 11/05/2012 2:47:11 PM PST by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: It looks like the final Gallup is out, and it's 49-48 Romney, and in no poll that I could find is Obama higher than 48%. In no poll is he over 48%. I can't find a poll where Obama is over 48% Well, maybe there's one where he's at 49. I mean, CNN has him at 49%. He's not at 50%, anyway. Again, just to repeat: Rasmussen's out with his final Summary of Party Affiliation, as of October 31st.
This is a huge sample of people that Scott Rasmussen asks are they Republican or Democrat or independent or what have you. He has the Republicans at their highest party affiliation he's ever recorded since he's been doing this. Basically it's Republicans plus six: Republicans 39, Democrats 33. The actual number is 5.8. We'll round it up to six points. Rasmussen had the exact turnout in 2008 at Democrats plus seven.
So he has a track record here.
I'm just throwing this all into the hopper because what we're doing here is we're comparing what we think versus what everybody in the establishment's telling us, and the two don't jibe. So then you end up with a conflict of what you feel versus what you think. In my case what I think always triumphs over what I feel. What I think, I've got no fear. No fear on the thinking side of this.
Now, you tell me if this matters. Bruce Springsteen is in Madison, Wisconsin, and he's performing in front of 18,000 people. You think, "Oh, man! Oh, wow." Until you remember that Springsteen and John Kerry on the same day in 2004 turned out a crowd of 70,000. Does that mean anything? Springsteen and John Kerry in 2004 had crowd of 70,000 in Madison, Wisconsin. Today, it's 18,000.
Barely 2,000 people in Cleveland for Stevie the Boy Wonder last week. That was so small, it didn't even get commented on. There was barely any mention of it. There was one local story and that was it. Then you have all of the data on the ground. You got the polling over here that shows the race today but then no matter where you go, you see that the Democrats' early voting advantage is either way down or wiped out.
We've been chronicling all of that last week as the early voting numbers came in, and the same thing with the absentee requests. And then we see that Obama's gonna do an interview either today or tomorrow with Ryan Seacrest. Now, nothing against Ryan Seacrest, but that's an interview with your base. That's not a broaden-the-base interview. Then we got Moochelle Obama on Friday trying to get the black vote at two black colleges in Virginia.
You got Bill Clinton and Colin Powell in Pennsylvania. All these media people are talking about, "Obama's got Pennsylvania wrapped up. Yeah, he's got Minnesota wrapped up." Apparently not! You see, because they're on the ground working those states. And I will guarantee you that those states that they're in -- Pennsylvania, Minnesota -- are the last places they thought they'd be the day before the election. No way.
I mentioned Michael Barone. Michael Barone admits that he's going out on a limb here, and he says he could be wrong about a couple swing states. But Michael Barone is not just anybody. Barone is the gold standard of election prognosticators, and also postelection analysis. I mean, this guy goes precinct by precinct by precinct after every election and puts together what is called the Almanac of American Politics.
It tells you who voted for what, where, when, why in the smallest burghs and precincts all over this country. He knows the American electorate almost on a precinct-by-precinct level. In election night coverage, they'll start talking about some county in Montana you've never heard of and he's intimately aware of it. Just to give you an example. He says what the polling data indicates, that independents are breaking big for Romney.
Independents are what define a swing state.
Am I right about that? I mean, a swing state is called a swing state because they're independent people who go either way. Independents. So if Pennsylvania is now a swing state, then independents are the determining factor. Independents are breaking for Romney all over the place. He says the Republican turnout is gonna be higher than the Democrats. Well, every bit of evidence that we've seen so far indicates that that's true.
It was in 2010.
I'm sorry to keep going back to that, but I think I'm the only guy that's looking at 2010. It's making me wonder why. Nobody is calculating 2010. I'm talking about the professionals when you turn on television. I don't care what it is, I don't care what network, you don't hear any of these people talking about what happened in 2010. I know they don't think it's an apples-to-apples comparison, but it is better than a 2008 comparison.
Because 2008 was a fraud election. In 2008, Obama was an entirely different candidate. In 2008, Obama was Mr. Perfect. People that voted for Obama -- and it was only 53%, by the way. Let us not forget that. It wasn't some massive landslide in 2008. It wasn't this whole country voting for Obama. It was 53%. Yep, it's a majority, but it's not commensurate with what everybody thinks or thought Obama's wild, massive, uncontrollable popularity was.
It was just 53%.
But back in 2008, Obama was Mr. Perfect.
By that I mean you could make him whatever you wanted him to be. He was an empty canvas. All the circumstances came together. The American people were tired of Bush, they were tired of the war, they were tired of torture, tired of all of it. They were tired of the economy, tired of the media beating everything. They're tired. And here came this guy that they portrayed as a messiah.
He was gonna end all the strife! There wouldn't be any more torture, wouldn't be any more discord, wouldn't be any more partisanship. Believe me, to people that voted that way, that was huge at them. That's gone. There is no such candidate today. In 2010, the electorate turned out to reject Barack Obama, and nothing has changed except it's gotten worse -- which, to me, 2010 is a far-more-relevant turnout model and election model than 2008 is, because 2008 is gone.
That candidate's gone, doesn't exist. They can't get that back. There's no magic. There's no magic. There's no messiah. There's no empty canvas. There's no magical fix. There's no, "Gee, we've never seen a guy like this before." There's no, "Gee, man, this guy is smart! This guy, he can solve anything." That's gone. At best, he's a total incompetent. So I go back to 2010 in all these swing states and I look at what happened with the Tea Party, and nothing's changed, other than to have worsened.
I haven't seen any slackening of enthusiasm for what happened in 2010. The Tea Party has only gotten bigger. The Tea Party's ground game has only been improved. The grassroots are deeper, and yet everybody wants to go back to 2008. "Well, that's right, Rush. You just don't know what you're talking about. 2008 is a presidential race, 2012's a presidential race. The 2010 were midterms. You can't count on midterms. People always vote against the incumbent in the midterm, and so forth."
Not always.
They didn't vote against Bush in 2002 in the midterms.
I'll never forget it. I was on the election night coverage that night on NBC, and they were stumped. So, anyway, here's Barone and basically he says Romney's gonna win handily. He's got Romney at over 300 electoral voters. So does Dick Morris, so does Karl Rove, so do Larry Kudlow. There are a number of people that do, for their own reasons. Barone is predicting Romney's gonna win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Virginia.
He said that scenario will have been Romney 315 electoral votes to Obama's 223.
So even if Barone's wrong and Romney loses Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, he'd still win the election if everything else Barone thinks is right. He says he can still lose a couple swing states and still win this. I listen to the Drive-Bys, and they're talking about Obama's path to 271. I don't hear anybody talking about Obama's path to 300 plus. Even among the Drive-Bys, you've got a narrow Obama win, a narrow Romney win, or a Romney blowout. But I don't hear anybody talking about an Obama blowout, and there certainly isn't one indicated anywhere in the polling data.
So the bottom line from Michael Barone is Romney 315, Obama 223, and he says that sounds high for Romney, but he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. "Fundamentals usually prevail in American elections. That's bad news for Barack Obama. True, Americans want to think well of their presidents and many think it would be bad if Americans were perceived as rejecting the first black president. But it's also true that most voters oppose Obama's major policies and consider unsatisfactory the very sluggish economic recovery."
I cannot tell you, folks, I cannot overemphasize, it would be impossible to exaggerate the role race plays in Drive-By Media analysis and hope. I cannot exaggerate what a factor that is. That is the primary factor in the coverage Obama got in 2008. It's a factor in why the media's ignoring Benghazi. It's why the media's doing everything they can to avoid any negative coverage of Obama. It's about race and their view of the civil rights movement and their overall opinion, the liberals' overall opinion that the deck is forever stacked against African-Americans. It will never be a level playing field for them. It'll never be fair. This country doesn't have it in its capacity to be fair to blacks because of slavery. Nothing will ever make up for it, and so, I'm telling you, it's what animates 'em. And I know this because I've talked to enough of them about it. I've heard what enough of them say about it to know exactly what I'm talking about.
I could give you other real-world examples to illustrate how I'm right about this, but it's not necessary for what we're talking about today. So maybe some other time I will do that. But there's other things out there. The Scott Walker recall, Wisconsin. Three times Democrats thought they had that in the bag, three times. They didn't even get close. And what was the polling data on the last Scott Walker recall? Neck and neck. Have the Democrats won anything since 2008? They lost the Walker recall. Look at the Chick-fil-A boycott. That just came out of nowhere, and that was not covered, either. Real world, Realville. The signs are everywhere. But somebody tell me, what significant elections have the Democrats won since 2008. They lost Weiner's seat. Huma Weiner's husband got beat by Bob Turner. They lost Weiner's seat in a sex scandal. That's usually a resume enhancement for Democrats.
END TRANSCRIPT
Here’s the best explanation I’ve read of why pollsters discount mid-term results, from Barrons, http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424053111903463204578048870829726606.html#articleTabs_article%3D1
“Political scientists generally discount the predictive power of midterms—and with good reason—but this time may be different. Turnout for these contests generally is short of its potential by 30% to 40%, which is too low to be reflective of the nation’s mood, the argument goes. And a party that is out of power typically scores gains in a midterm because its adherents are frustrated, angry, and consequently more energized than the incumbent party. This was true in 2006 when Democrats took back Congress from the GOP. In 2010, a backlash against Obamacare by Republicans certainly was the biggest factor in their rout of the Democrats.
But Morgan reasons that the 2010 election was not your run-of-the-mill midterm. “It was historic,” he says, comparing it to epic GOP victories in 1894 and 1924. “This was as good as any of them. In the Senate we won 25 seats and lost 13. This is astounding.”
Can someone tell me what I’m missing in the graphic below? It looks like Indy’s are breaking for Obama by a point.
I think you are correct. Tide turning to Obama perhaps??
Check the polls.
From Gallup:
“The race is not only close overall, but has Romney and Obama holding equally strong advantages among men and women, respectively, and closely matched among political independents. This suggests that turnout of partisans could be particularly important in deciding the election, with Romney poised to benefit slightly more if they do, with 96% of Republicans backing him, as compared with Obama’s 93% support from Democrats.”
Kaslin ? have you seen the latest Drudge Report about a Russian Nuclear Attack Sub was detected 200 miles of the East coast of the USA ?
And that’s not all...a Russian AGI which is a floating electronics intercept station was allowed into port at Jacksonville because of the storm! The ship clearly knew the strom track well in advance and had plenty of time to relocate to safer waters. There is NO reason for a spy ship to ever dock in a U.S. port.
“officials also said that a Russian electronic intelligence-
gathering vessel was granted safe harbor in the commercial port of Jacksonville, Fla., within listening range of Kings Bay.
The Russian AGI ship, or Auxiliary-General Intelligence, was allowed to stay in the port to avoid the superstorm that battered the U.S. East Coast last week. A Jacksonville Port Authority spokeswoman had no immediate comment on the Russian AGI at the port.”
Hey Rush... I heard you ask this today. Let me answer you with one of your own famous quotes. “It doesn’t fit their template” for the election.
LLS
Has this been posted here on FR ?
Has this been posted here on FR ?
I wonder if allowing Russian vessles access to our waters is an example of the “flexibility” that Obama promised Medvedev?
http://freebeacon.com/russian-subs-skirt-coast/
The article is by noted defense analyst Bill Gertz. He’s solid.
That ticks me off! We were just at that sub base and they pulled us over, had all kinds of questions and did their jobs, I guess, before finally allowing us access to the base. We of course had proper ID and paper work but still...Russians get in easier than American Vets? Jeez.
Rush, 'tis irrelevant...
ALL - #1...I believe, to the Obama campaign right now, they've already inwardly ceded the popular vote...but are forging their firewall to take Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois and Michigan in the Northern Midwest...and then, jumping Indiana, Ohio & PA toward the East...
So, they think they can get 47-48% of the popular vote & still win the electoral vote count...
#2: Why Is Nobody Calculating 2010? And to quote Rush: In 2010, the electorate turned out to reject Barack Obama, and nothing has changed except it's gotten worse -- which, to me, 2010 is a far-more-relevant turnout model and election model than 2008 is...
Again, Rush, not relevant...
34% of the 2010 vote were Evangelicals...that's not 34% of the GoP vote...that was 34% of the ENTIRE ELECTORATE!
Now do you think the GoP-establishment appreciated that by securing a candidate the Evangelicals could rally behind in 2012? (Not on your life, unless you think a socialist healthcare pioneer, pro-abort, idolatrist 'god-in-embryo' qualifies)
It is true that among SOME Evangelical leaders & local pastors, they've been able to glean enough excitement to make some swing states close. But will that be enough?
At this point, I'm thinkin' all roads lead thru Ohio...If Romney didn't get the Ohio Evangelicals to rally enough, then I don't think he's going to pull it off...I think it'll all come down to Ohio...and I think it'll be razor-thin there...either way...
Yeah, I know Michael Barone and Dick Morris are forecasting 330 electoral votes for Romney...I know Newt Gingrich is saying 300+ electoral votes for Romney...
I know Karl Rove is saying a narrow Romney victory...
But even some talk-show hosts like Michael Medved today was starting to show his uncertainty...
The Democratic machinery could have enough in place to pull out a given swing state...(especially as you size up normal Dem-party chicago-like chicanery)
And conversely, the Evangelical excitement just isn't there this year...Evangelicals will NOT repeat its 34% of the electorate performance of 2010...Not even close...
The GoP-e just didn't think Evangelicals were an important piece of the 2012 puzzle...Even bringing Billy Graham on board was a late after-thought...
Signed...An Evangelical...
I just posted the submarine/AGI story.
Michael Medved is a complete moron.
Whatever he says, the complete opposite is true.
Take it to the bank...evangelicals will show up in greater numbers than they ever have. The evangelicals (men especially) are fired up and anxious to give Obama the boot. I’ve never heard these men as political as they are today. The hate they have for Obama because of how he has moved against families, churches and the military is real and intense. If this nation rights itself tomorrow, it will be because men finally had enough and got up and voted like never before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.