Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

20 October 2012

The Remarkable, Unfathomable Ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

The Chair of the Democratic National Committee is completely unaware of one of the biggest stories of the Obama years

By Glenn Greenwald

On 29 May 2012, the New York Times published a remarkable 6,000-word story on its front page about what it termed President Obama's "kill list". It detailed the president's personal role in deciding which individuals will end up being targeted for assassination by the CIA based on Obama's secret, unchecked decree that they are "terrorists" and deserve to die.

Based on interviews with "three dozen of his current and former advisers", the Times' Jo Becker and Scott Shane provided extraordinary detail about Obama's actions, including how he "por[es] over terrorist suspects' biographies on what one official calls the macabre 'baseball cards'" and how he "insist[s] on approving every new name on an expanding 'kill list'". At a weekly White House meeting dubbed "Terror Tuesdays", Obama then decides who will die without a whiff of due process, transparency or oversight. It was this process that resulted in the death of US citizen Anwar Awlaki in Yemen, and then two weeks later, the killing of his 16-year-old American son, Abdulrahman, by drone.

The Times "kill list" story made a huge impact and was widely discussed and condemned by media figures, politicians, analysts, and commentators. Among other outlets, the New York Times itself harshly editorialized against Obama's program in an editorial entitled "Too Much Power For a President", denouncing the revelations as "very troubling" and argued: "No one in that position should be able to unilaterally order the killing of American citizens or foreigners located far from a battlefield - depriving Americans of their due-process rights - without the consent of someone outside his political inner circle."

That Obama has a "kill list" has been known since January, 2010, and has been widely reported and discussed in every major American newspaper since April 2010. A major controversy over chronic White House leaks often featured complaints about this article (New York Times, 5 June 2012: "Senators to Open Inquiry Into 'Kill List' and Iran Security Leaks"). The Attorney General, Eric Holder, gave a major speech defending it.

But Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic Congresswoman from Florida and the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, does not know about any of this. She has never heard of any of it. She has managed to remain completely ignorant about the fact that President Obama has asserted and exercised the power to secretly place human beings, including US citizens, on his "kill list" and then order the CIA to extinguish their lives.

Just marvel at this stunning, completely inexcusable two-minute display of wholesale ignorance by this elected official and DNC chair. Here she is after the second presidential debate being asked by Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change about the "kill list" and whether Romney should be trusted with this power. She doesn't defend the "kill list". She doesn't criticize it. She makes clear that she has never heard of it and then contemptuously treats Rudkowski like he is some sort of frivolous joke for thinking that it is real:

Anyone who observes politics closely has a very low bar of expectations. It's almost inevitable to become cynical - even jaded - about just how inept and inane top Washington officials are. Still, even processing this through those lowly standards, I just find this staggering. Staggering and repellent. This is an elected official in Congress, the body that the Constitution designed to impose checks on the president's abuses of power, and she does not have the foggiest idea what is happening in the White House, and obviously does not care in the slightest, because the person doing it is part of the party she leads.

One expects corrupt partisan loyalty from people like Wasserman Schultz, eager to excuse anything and everything a Democratic president does. That's a total abdication of her duty as a member of Congress, but that's par for the course. But one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history, trumpeted on the front-page of the New York Times and virtually everywhere else.

How Carter Beat Reagan

 Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

 Washington Post admits polling was "in-kind contribution"; New York Times agenda polling.

By Jeffrey Lord 

Dick Morris is right.

Here's his column on "Why the Polls Understate the Romney Vote."

Here's something Dick Morris doesn't mention. And he's charitable.

Remember when Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan in 1980?

That's right. Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan in 1980.

In a series of nine stories in 1980 on "Crucial States" -- battleground states as they are known today -- the New York Times repeatedly told readers then-President Carter was in a close and decidedly winnable race with the former California governor. And used polling data from the New York Times/CBS polls to back up its stories.

Four years later, it was the Washington Post that played the polling game -- and when called out by Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins a famous Post executive called his paper's polling an "in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign." Mondale, of course, being then-President Reagan's 1984 opponent and Carter's vice president.

All of which will doubtless serve as a reminder of just how blatantly polling data is manipulated by liberal media -- used essentially as a political weapon to support the liberal of the moment, whether Jimmy Carter in 1980, Walter Mondale in 1984 -- or Barack Obama in 2012. 

First the Times in 1980 and how it played the polling game.

The states involved, and the datelines for the stories:

  • · California -- October 6, 1980
  • · Texas -- October 8, 1980
  • · Pennsylvania -- October 10, 1980
  • · Illinois -- October 13, 1980
  • · Ohio -- October 15, 1980
  • · New Jersey -- October 16, 1980
  • · Florida -- October 19, 1980
  • · New York -- October 21, 1980
  • · Michigan -- October 23, 1980

Of these nine only one was depicted as "likely" for Reagan: Reagan's own California. A second -- New Jersey -- was presented as a state that "appears to support" Reagan.

The Times led their readers to believe that each of the remaining seven states were "close" -- or the Times had Carter leading outright.

In every single case the Times was proven grossly wrong on election day. Reagan in fact carried every one of the nine states.

Here is how the Times played the game with the seven of the nine states in question.

Texas: In a story datelined October 8 from Houston, the Times headlined:

Texas Looming as a Close Battle Between President and Reagan

The Reagan-Carter race in Texas, the paper claimed, had "suddenly tightened and now shapes up as a close, bruising battle to the finish." The paper said "a New York Times/CBS News Poll, the second of seven in crucial big states, showing the Reagan-Carter race now a virtual dead heat despite a string of earlier polls on both sides that had shown the state leaning toward Mr. Reagan."

The narrative? It was like the famous scene in the Wizard of Oz where Dorothy and her friends stare in astonishment as dog Toto pulls back the curtain in the wizard's lair to reveal merely a man bellowing through a microphone. Causing the startled "wizard" caught in the act to frantically start yelling, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" In the case of the Times in its look at Texas in October of 1980 the paper dismissed "a string of earlier polls on both sides" that repeatedly showed Texas going for Reagan. Instead, the Times presented this data:

A survey of 1,050 registered voters, weighted to form a probable electorate, gave Mr. Carter 40 percent support, Mr. Reagan 39 percent, John. B. Anderson, the independent candidate, 3 percent, and 18 percent were undecided. The survey, conducted by telephone from Oct. 1 to Oct. 6, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

In other words, the race in Texas is close, assures the Times, with Carter actually in the lead.

What happened? Reagan beat Carter by over 13 points. It wasn't even close to close.

Pennsylvania: The next "Crucial States" story focused on Pennsylvania on October 10. Here the headline read:

Undecided Voters May Prove Key

Reagan, said the Times, "appears to have failed thus far to establish many positive reasons for voting for him."

Once again the paper played the polling data card, this time saying Reagan had a mere 2 point lead. But the Reagan lead was quickly disputed in series of clever ways. Fundraising for Reagan wasn't as good as expected, said the Times, and besides the budget for a Reagan telephone bank being shaved "from $700,000 to $400,000." The Times/CBS poll showed that Carter was ahead of Reagan 36-32 among union households in a heavily labor state. To make matters worse for Reagan the GOP Senate candidate Arlen Specter was being "swamped" in the polls by his Democratic rival, the former Pittsburgh Mayor Pete Flaherty -- with Specter losing to Flaherty 47-36. Not to mention Reagan was being trounced in Philadelphia 52-15 percent. Towards the very end of the story was this interesting line -- a line that should have some relevance to the Romney campaign as President Obama struggles with the consequences of the killing of the American Ambassador in Libya. Reads the sentence:

One negative reason [meaning an anti-Carter vote] that did not turn up in the telephone poll but came up repeatedly in door-to-door interviews was the hostage situation in Iran. 

What happened? The race wasn't close, with Reagan beating Carter in Pennsylvania not by barely 2 points but rather trouncing him by over 7 points. And Arlen Specter beat Pete Flaherty.

Illinois: The Times headline here in a story October 13?

Poll Finds Illinois Too Close to Call: Both Camps Note Gains by Carter 

The narrative for Illinois? Carter is gaining, so much so that:

 …uncertainty about Ronald Reagan's leadership, especially among suburban voters, [has] apparently set back Mr. Reagan's hope for a victory in Illinois and left his campaign scrambling to regain lost momentum, according to advisers in both camps. 

Then came the usual New York Times/CBS polling data that proclaimed a Reagan one-point lead of 34% to Carter's 33% as a sure sign that "Carter Gains and Reagan Slips in Close Illinois Race" -- as an inside page headline proclaimed. 

What happened? Reagan beat Carter by almost 8 points, 49.65% to 41.72%. Again, there was no "close" race as the Times had claimed.

• Ohio: The headline in this "Crucial States" profile once again conforms to the Times pattern of declaring Reagan and Carter to be in a "close" race.

Ohio Race Expected to Be Close As Labor Mobilizes for President

The narrative for Ohio? Ohio, the paper explained, had been "long viewed by Ronald Reagan's campaign as its best opportunity to capture a major Northern state" but "such a victory …is not yet in hand." Then came the inevitable New York Times/CBS polling data. Reagan was ahead by a bare 2 points, 36% to 34%. Two-thirds of the undecided were women and Reagan was doing "much worse among women voters than men." Carter on the other hand had the great news that "35 percent of the undecided came from labor union households, a group that divides nearly 2-1 for Mr. Carter among those who have made up their minds."

What happened? Reagan beat Carter by over 10 points in Ohio. Yet another "crucial state" race wasn't even close to being close as the paper had insisted.

Florida: For once, the problem was impossible to hide. The Times headline for its October 19 story headlined:

Carter Is in Trouble With Voters In Two Major Sections of Florida

There was no New York Times/CBS poll here. But what was published was "the most recent Florida Newspapers Poll" that showed Reagan with only a 2 point lead over Carter: 42 for Reagan, 40 for Carter, with 7 for Anderson. The election, said the Times confidently, "was widely expected to be close." Surprise!

What happened? Reagan beat Carter in Florida by over 17 points.

New York: The Times headline for its home state in a story dated October 21?

President is in the Lead, Especially in the City -- Anderson Slide Noted

The Times waxed enthusiastic about New York. Reagan was "being hindered by doubts within his own party." And it trotted out its favorite New York Times/CBS Poll to show definitively that Reagan was getting clobbered in New York. The poll, said the Times, "showed Mr. Carter leading in the state with 38%, to 29% for Mr. Reagan…." Which is to say, Carter was running away with New York state, leading Reagan by 9 points. The headline on the inside of the paper:

Reagan Far from Goal in New York; Carter in Lead 

Why was this so? Why was Reagan doing so badly in New York? The paper turned to a Carter campaign aide in the state who explained that New Yorkers aren't "willing to vote for a Goldwater." Then they found one "frustrated Republican county chairman" who said the problem with Reagan was that New Yorkers "don't like what they think they know about him." Then there was the usual yada-yada: Reagan was failing miserably with women (losing 41-23 said the poll) and losing in New York City, not to mention that "labor is hard at work" for Carter.

What happened? Reagan beat Carter in New York by over 2 points.

Michigan: The last of the profiles in the Times "Crucial States" series was Michigan, published on October 23. The ambiguous headline:

Party Defections May Tip Scales in Michigan Vote 

The Michigan story begins with the tale of Reagan being endorsed by Dr. Martin Luther King's famous aide the Reverend Ralph Abernathy. But the Times immediately saw a problem in this backing of Reagan from a prominent "black civil rights leader." The problem? Black backlash. Said the paper:

Mr. Reagan was barely out of town [Detroit] before the backlash set in.
"The Abernathy Betrayal," screamed the headline over the chief article in The Michigan Chronicle, a black newspaper. And yesterday the 400-member Council of Black Pastors, in the greater Detroit area, broke its precedent of refraining from Presidential endorsements and declared its support for President Carter a direct reaction to the Abernathy endorsement.

In other words, Reagan was damned because he didn't get black support -- and damned especially when he did. Grudgingly, the paper admitted that "although the race was close" in Michigan, "Mr. Reagan was ahead." But once again, the Times insisted that a key state race was close. Close, you see, close. Did they mention it was close?

What happened? Reagan carried Michigan by over 6 points, 48.999 to Carter's 42.50. Yet again -- it wasn't close.

That same day, October 23, the paper ran a second polling story on the general status of the presidential election, its theme self-evident:

Poll Shows President Has Pulled To Even Position With Reagan.

The story by Times reporter Hedrick Smith began this way:

In an election campaign reminiscent of the tight, seesaw contest of 1960, President Carter has pulled to an essentially even position with Ronald Reagan over the last month by attracting some wavering Democrats and gaining on his rival among independents, according to a new nationwide survey by The New York Times and CBS News.

The survey, readers were assured, was "weighted to project a probable electorate" and had Carter leading Reagan 39-38.

As if the point hadn't been driven home enough, seven days later on October 30, the Times decided to sum up the entire race in the light of the just completed Reagan-Carter debate. Can you guess what they said? That's right:

Carter and Reagan Voicing Confidence on Debate Showing: Performances Rated Close

And inside the paper the continuation of the story proclaimed -- guess what?

Outcome of Debate Rated as Close.

On November 4 -- the day before the election -- the Times proclaimed… proclaimed…


Race is Viewed as Very Close

The final results?

Ronald Reagan clobbered Jimmy Carter winning 51.7% to Carter's 41% -- a 10 point-plus victory in the popular vote. Third place Congressman John Anderson managed a mere 6.6%.

In the Electoral College? Reagan carried 44 states for a total of 489 votes. Carter won 6 states plus the District of Columbia for 49 electoral votes.

To say the least, the race wasn't "close." To compare it to 1960 as a "tight, seesaw contest" was in fact not simply ridiculously untrue but bizarre.

So what do we have here? 

What we have is the liberal "paper of record" systematically presenting the 1980 Reagan-Carter election in 9 "Crucial States" as somehow "close" in five of the nine -- Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. New York was in the bag for Carter. Only in his own California and New Jersey was Reagan clearly leading.

The actual results had only New York "close" -- with Reagan winning by 2. Reagan carried every other "close" state by a minimum of 6 points and as much 17 -- Florida. Florida, in fact, went for Reagan by a point more than California and about 4 more than New Jersey.

How could the New York Times -- its much ballyhooed polling data and all of its resulting stories proclaiming everything to be "close" -- been so massively, continuously wrong? In the case of its "Crucial States" -- nine out of nine times?

The obvious answer is called to mind by a polling story from four years later involving Ronald Reagan and his next opponent, Jimmy Carter's vice president Walter Mondale.

By 1984, Reagan was an extremely popular incumbent president. He was running well everywhere against Mondale. But suddenly, up popped a curious Washington Post poll that indicated Reagan's 1980 margin of over 16% in California had dropped precipitously to single digits. Nancy Reagan was alarmed, calling campaign manager Ed Rollins (full disclosure, my former boss) and saying, "You have to do something."
Rollins disagreed, as he later wrote in his memoirs Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms: My Life in American Politics

A Californian himself Rollins was certain Reagan was just fine in California. The Reagan campaign's own polls (run by Reagan's longtime pollster Dick Wirthlin) showed Reagan with a "rock-solid" lead. After all, said Rollins, "Californians knew Ronald Reagan, and either loved him or hated him. He'd been on the ballot there six times and never lost." The Post poll data made no sense. But Mrs. Reagan was insistent, so Rollins ordered up another (expensive) poll from Dick Wirthlin. Rollins also dispatched longtime Reagan aide and former White House political director Lyn Nofziger, a Californian as well, back to the Reagan home precincts. More phone banks were ordered up. In all, a million dollars of campaign money that could have been spent on Minnesota -- Mondale's home state where the ex-Minnesota Senator was, remarkably, struggling -- was spent on California because of the Washington Post poll.

A few weeks later, the Washington Post ran a story that confirmed Rollins' initial beliefs. The Post confessed that… well… oops… it had made a mistake with those California polling numbers. Shortly afterward came the November election, with California once again giving Reagan a more than 16 point victory. In fact, Reagan carried 49 states, winning the greatest landslide victory in presidential history while losing Minnesota in -- yes -- a close race. Mondale had 49.72% to Reagan's 49.54%, a difference of .18% that might have been changed by all that money that went into California. Making Reagan the first president in history to win all fifty states.

After the election, Ed Rollins ran into the Washington Post's blunt-speaking editor Ben Bradlee and "harassed" Bradlee "about his paper's lousy polling methodology."

Bradlee's "unrepentant" response?

"Tough sh…t, Rollins, I'm glad it cost you plenty. It's my in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign." 

Got that?

So the questions for 2012.

How corrupt are all these polls showing Obama leading or in a "close race"?

Are they to Obama what that California poll of the Washington Post was for Walter Mondale -- an "in-kind contribution"?

Is that in fact what was going on with the New York Times in 1980? An "in-kind contribution" to the Carter campaign from the Times?

What can explain all these polls today -- like the ones discussed here at NBC where the Obama media cheerleaders make their TV home? Polls that the Obama media groupies insist show Obama 1 point up in Florida or 4 points in North Carolina or 5 points in Pennsylvania. And so on and so on.

How does one explain a president who, like Jimmy Carter in 1980, is increasingly seen as a disaster in both economic and foreign policy? How does a President Obama, with a Gallup job approval rating currently at 49% -- down a full 20% from 2009 -- mysteriously win the day in all these polls?

How does this happen?

Can you say "in-kind contribution"?

19 October 2012

'Toon of the Day: MSM: People Died. Obama Lied. We're OK With That.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Really, If Obama Is Only At 46% In Ohio With A D+8 Sample, He’s Finished There

M2RB:  Teddy Pendergrass

Just turn off the lights...

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Some key numbers from recent Ohio polls

By Josh Jordan of NumbersMuncher

I wanted to do a quick note about Ohio polls. As of 10/15, the RCP average is a 2.2% lead for Obama, which is down from a 5.6% lead just a few weeks ago. The debate changed the trajectory of the race, and just as before there are some key elements to look at when analyzing the Ohio polls.

1. Party ID is more skewed than you think: This is a somewhat complicated issue that I highlighted in a pre-debate Ohio post. You can read the whole article at, but to keep this brief I just wanted to focus on the 2008 exit poll.

2008: This was a wave election and Barack Obama took Ohio by 4.6%, 51.5 to 46.9. The exit polls show a split of 39% Democrats, 31% Republicans, and 30% Independents.  When you take that breakdown and put it against the exit poll results of vote per party, Obama would win 52.8 to 45.6 – 7.2% victory.  This means that the exit polls were off a little, which is normal since they are, after all, a poll.  On the plus side, having an *actual* vote total to compare to makes it easier to work with.  If you mess around with the exit poll party % against the share of vote for each party, you come out with this breakdown: 37.5% Democrats, 32.5% Republicans, and 30% Independents.  That gives you a vote of 51.6% for Obama and 46.9% for McCain – pretty close to actual results. That means that while the 2008 exit polls show an EIGHT point Dem advantage, in reality it was likely closer to 5%. That is a huge difference when looking at the current polls.

What this means is that when you’re comparing to current polls, you should be looking at party breakdown of Democrats +5 if you’re comparing to 2008 turnout. Of the seven current Ohio polls, five of them have D+4 or greater. For the most part, that means that current Ohio polls are assuming 2008 turnout or greater which is growing more unlikely with each passing day.

2. Romney is leading with independents. This one is pretty simple: In 2008 Obama beat John McCain by 8% among independents.  That was part of propelled him to victory nationwide, and it played a huge role in Ohio as well. Of the six current RCP polls that give independent #s, Romney is up by an average of 5.1%. That is a 13% swing in independents from 2008 to Romney.  It is very hard to win indys by 5% and lose the overall race unless democratic turnout can match 2008 levels.

3. The current polls are showing turnout matching or exceeding 2008 levels. This is the last point, but it works off the first two. Of the seven current RCP polls, the average democrat advantage in party ID is 5.4%. If you work off a D+5 2008 advantage as outlined above, that means the average poll in Ohio right now assumes the same turnout as 2008.  While anything is possible on 11/6, there are not many on either side thinking Obama can match his 2008 advantages for a number of reasons.  Here are the two most obvious reasons to not work off of a 2008 turnout model:

1. Romney is going to keep up or outspend Obama on TV in the last month. In 2008 McCain limped to the finish line with cash because of taking public financing.  This is not a problem this year, and can make a difference on the margins in the final days.

2. In 2008 McCain had trouble getting more than a few thousand people to see him at campaign rallies.  While Palin was able to generate larger crowds, the enthusiasm was not apparently for McCain and it hurt him on election day.  Since the debate, Romney has been pulling crowds that Jeff Zeleny of the NYT referred to as “Obama sized crowds.”

The large Romney rallies point to a larger problem for Obama this year – GOP enthusiasm is outperforming Democratic enthusiasm with three weeks to go. This will translate to more volunteers in the state, higher base turnout, and a much more robust GOTV effort.This is clearly hard to translate before the election happens, but sometimes common sense prevails when Obama won in 2008 largely because of a highly enthused base turning out votes combined with a healthy lead with independents. Right now Romney is leading with independents, has a more enthusiastic base and is drawing crowds that rival Obama in Ohio. While he is down 2%, the average poll is assuming 2008 turnout which is unlikely to repeat itself this year. As if that was not enough, Obama is stuck at 48.3% which is not a great place to be when the challenger has momentum in the final days of a campaign.  Not bad for a candidate declared dead in the state just a few weeks ago.

Turn Off The Lights - Teddy Pendergrass

Turn off the lights and light a candle
Tonight I'm in a romantic mood, yeah

Let's take a shower, shower together, yeah

I'll wash your body and you'll wash mine, yeah
Rub me down in some hot oils, baby, yeah
And I'll do the same thing to you

Just turn off the lights, come to me

Girl, I wanna give you a special treat, you're so sweet
Turn off the lights and let's get cozy
See, you're the only one in the world that I need

I wanna love you, love you all over, yeah

Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again
Whisper sweet words of love in your ear
Show you I much I missed you, missed you, my dear

Turn ‘em off and come to me

Tonight, I'm in a sexy mood, baby
And light a candle
Girl, there's something that I-I wanna do to you, I wanna do, I wanna do to you, baby

Would you mind if I asked you to

Would you rub me down
Would you rub me down in some, in some burnin' hot oils, baby, yeah
I swear I can do the same thing, the same thing to you, baby

Turn ‘em off and let's get cozy

I wanna give you a special treat, you've been so sweet
Turn ‘em off and come closer
You're the only one in this whole wide world that I'd ever need

Turn ‘em off and light a candle

You see, there's somethin' I, somethin' I, somethin' I, somethin' I
Somethin' I wanna do to you, baby

I'm lyin' here waitin', my dear

You can get what you want any time you want it
I'm lyin' here waitin', my dear
Come get what you need, give me what I need

Tell me what you wanna do (There's somethin' I)

Tell me what you wanna do, babe
(There's somethin' I, somethin' I wanna do to you, baby)
Tell me what you wanna do (Yeah)
Tell me what you wanna do, babe (Yes)

Tell me what you wanna do (I've got somethin' in my mind)

Tell me what you wanna do, babe
(Somethin' that I've been wantin' to do all the time, yeah, yes
Tell me what you wanna do (I wanna give you a special treat)
Tell me what you wanna do, babe (‘Cause you've been so sweet, yeah, yes)

(Anything that you want, anything that you need, I got it, I got it)

Tell me what you wanna do (I can do it)
Tell me what you wanna do, babe (I'm willin')
Tell me what you wanna do
Tell me what you wanna do, babe (I'm willin' to try)

Obama’s Independent Problem

By Josh Jordan 
For all of the talk this year about party-ID breakdowns in polling (of which I am guilty myself), there is an underlying statistic that should have Team Obama extremely worried about their prospects: Mitt Romney leads with independents in every single national poll.

This is no small feat — in 2008 President Obama took independents by 8 percent. 

Today Romney’s lead with independents is, on average, 8.3 percent. That’s based on ten current national polls that provide independent head-to-head numbers (Gallup and UPI are the only two that do not): The 8.3 percentage lead with independents helps to overcome the 4.5 percent sample advantage Democrats have in those same polls, which is the reason Romney is able to scratch out a razor thin .2 percent lead:

To give a bigger sense of why this is such an important number for Romney, consider this: In 2008 Obama won the national popular vote by 7.2 percent overall. If you assume equal turnout in 2012 as 2008 (39 percent Democrats, 32 percent Republicans, and 29 percent independents) but take Obama’s 8 percent win with independents and give it Romney, that 7.2 percent 2008 margin drops to 2.6 percent. If Romney can get Obama’s lead down to 2.6 percent before they even chip away at the giant turnout advantage Democrats had in 2008 (or win over some Democrats to Romney), it is going to be almost impossible for Obama to win.

There is still time for Obama to change the course of independents, but what was originally a slim lead for Romney has become much stronger since the first debate. If Romney can hold on to independents in the same numbers he has now, he would only need to diminish the Democratic turnout advantage from 2008 in order to be the next president. Based on polls showing higher enthusiasm across Republicans nationwide, it’s been very apparent that the tightening in party breakdown was going to happen regardless. No amount of Big Birds or binders will be able to be able to change that.

— Josh Jordan is a small-business market-research consultant. You can follow him on Twitter @Numbersmuncher.

RuPoll, The Obama Poll-Troll

"NO ONE believes ABC/WaPo because EVERYONE knows that it is secretly controlled by Rupert Murdoch and his evil, gold-crusted-roasted-over-slow-flames-newborn-eating son.  IBD/Tipp is another outfit that you JUST SHOULD NOT PAY THE SLIGHTEST HEED even though I said last week that it was the "gold standard" when it comes to polling.  Another thing, Intrade must have been taken over by Richard Mellon Scaife and his buddies because there is NO WAY that Romney's odds of winning should be ANYWHERE in the 40s and moving higher.  Zip.  Zilch.  Zero.  Nada.  None.

Gallup, like PPP, is a Republican-leaning polling outfit funded by the Koch-sucking Brothers. This is even more so since Obama and Axelrod had Holder sue them. Gallup is intentionally doctoring the sample by adding more African-Americans and Hispanics, which is always going to lead to a more Romney favourable result.

Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Darth Cheney, Justice Scalia, that House 'igga, Clarence Thomas, and Ahnta Jemima, Condi Rice, are part of a cabal that control the real forces behind the American Research Group and Susquehanna.  Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who believes that Obama isn't winning Pennsylvania by 157 points and Oiho by 458 is a damn lunatic!  I know because I had lunch with some "very popular" politicians in Wisconsin today and they are "in the know," if you know what I mean.

CNN is more conservative than even Faux News. Candy is a complete Republican stooge and threw the ultimate lifeline to Romney. The people in the audience were all a bunch of conservative plants and asked questions written for them by the Romney campaign.

Romney is NOT leading Obama by 6 nationally…and do NOT even get me started on Rasmussen – that, that Sheldon Adelson outfit. If Ras is claiming 4 for Romney, that means Obama will win 40,000+ electoral votes.

 Josh Jordan of NumbersMuncher is a Republican operative, who is playing all of you like violins.  Disregard the fact that I used to trumpet his poll analysis when Obama was winning and a "sure thing."  He is nothing but a hack now that he is claiming that Romney actually has a chance of winning Ohio and the election.  Hack!  Hack!  Hack!

He’s NOT leading in the swing states. Romney is NOT gaining in Pennsylvania. There will NOT be a landslide in ANY bitterclinger county in America much less the overwhelming majority.

Obama IS leading in Texas, Utah, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas by more than 20 points in each state.

You people are D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L!

 By the way, did you see the new poll from Kim Jong-un POLLitech University? It has Obama up by 63 points nationally with a R +74. Oh, and the Castro-Guevara-Chavez Battleground Poll of the Swing States has Obama wiping Romney’s blood off the floor with a 75 point lead and has a sample of 2/3,798/468 (D/R/I).

You wankers had better catch up! Even true cons are voting for my Dear Leader!”

    – RuPoll a/k/a gumbyandpokey of, Assistant Press Secretary, Ministry of Truth

PS: Media Matters is about to break a huge story! Frank Luntz is actually a NorKo op. He is using a form of MK-ULTRA to get non-sexist, racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, totalitarian theocrats to become sexist, racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, totalitarian theocrats so that Obama will be defeated…leaving Kim Jong-un the undisputed kewlest, hipsterest leader on the planet.  So there!

Hey, Gumby, try not to trash too many more polls, networks, etc, that I have to add to your growing list of “Do Not Believe A Word Of What They Are Saying” has tripled since the second debate!  All you are going to be left with is the poll deciding what the colour theme should be for Lennox Middle School prom and your MiniTru post is going to consume all of the available bandwidth.

Pic of the Day: Crap

Death of the Obamabots

M2RB:  Blue Öyster Cult

Come on baby...don't fear the reaper
Baby, take my hand...don't fear the reaper
We'll be able to fly...don't fear the reaper
Baby, I'm your man

By The Editors at Taki's Magazine

Mitt Romney kicked Barack Obama’s ass so thoroughly Wednesday night, Attorney General Eric Holder has considered charging him with a hate crime.

This gives us throbbing levels of immensely transcendent galaxy-tripping joy not because we think Romney is anything to write home about or that any substantial issues were raised during the debate, but because Obama’s lapdogs and water boys and bootlickers and lawn jockeys and Fourth Estate concubines have been trying their gosh-diggety-darndest to declare that Romney had already lost the election.

September had been an awful month for Romney, mainly because the overwhelmingly left-leaning media had insisted it was. Ever since the Democratic Convention adjourned and Obama built up an obviously insurmountable two-to-five-point lead in national polls, it seemed as if every headline on Yahoo! and Google News was some slight iteration of “Romney in Serious Trouble,” “Dark Clouds for Romney,” “Americans Say ‘Rom-NO,’” “Epic FAIL for Romney,” “Romney is Losing Badly,” and “Romney—Whatta Loser!” You would think they’d have learned something from the DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN debacle, but no.

You’d also think that journalists would actually occupy their time doing what journalists are supposed to do—you know, digging for dirt on both candidates until their knuckles bleed. Asking difficult questions. And most importantly, NOT TAKING SIDES in some prematurely triumphalist brainwashing scheme.
“September had been an awful month for Romney, mainly because the overwhelmingly left-leaning media had insisted it was.”

Instead, the repugnantly slanted media—hey, there’s documented evidence they conspired to get Obama elected during the last go-round—eagerly displayed their confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance by trotting out endless polls about how their caramel-colored American Idol was going to win this time, too, thus exonerating them from having to admit he’s been a failure on the level of Ishtar or Gigli.

To think that this wasn’t some sort of intentional and possibly orchestrated campaign to create an aura of invincibility around Obama’s greying head and thus discourage undecided voters and Romney supporters from even bothering to yank the lever on November 6 is, quite candidly, a sign of either naiveté, denial, or Down syndrome. Possibly all three.

The reprehensibly fat and oily prog-pundit smarmball Cenk Ugly Uygur of The Young Turds Turks went so far as to declare on Monday that “This Election is Already Over – Obama Won.”

But after Wednesday night, when Romney made creamed corn out of Obama, it is our sincerest wish that Uygur is curled up in a ball in the shower, trying to wash away all the shame while attempting to eat his own body fat.

The sclerotic and possibly senile Jim Lehrer, looking as if croissants had been surgically implanted under his eyes, briefly returned from the crypt to moderate Wednesday’s debate. Obama looked nearly as fatigued as Lehrer, but at least he used his “white” accent and left his blackness in the dressing room. Entirely absent was the corn-shucking Kingfish inflection he used while sucking up to Reverend Jeremiah Wright in front of an adoring black crowd in 2007. Still, at times he acted a bit too uppity for our tastes and behaved like someone who clearly didn’t understand his place in society.

Romney was so sharp and presidential and commanding and on-point that even Obama’s fiercest supporters pooped their diapers and were forced to admit that their choco-messiah had clay feet.

Van Jones, the Ming the Merciless of contemporary black American communists, conceded that “Romney was able to ‘out-Obama’ Obama. On the connection piece, on the authenticity piece, on the being able to tell the story.”

“What was Romney doing?” MSNBC’s Chris “The Tingler” Matthews asked, looking as if he’d been robbed by a dozen Colombian hookers. Then, offering to answer his own question, Matthews said, “He was winning.” Matthews desperately opined that the only way for Obama to win the next debate was for him to emulate the insane lesbians, obese blowhards, and smirking champagne socialists that people his cable network.

Bill Maher, who is rumored to be slightly over one meter tall and dropped a solid mil of his own money to support an Obama Super PAC, Tweeted that “Obama made a lot of great points tonight. Unfortunately, most of them were for Romney.” 

Andrew Sullivan, who is married even though his partner has a penis, live-blogged his despair as the Obama legend officially crumbled before America’s eyes:

Romney is kicking the president’s ass….This is a rolling calamity for Obama. He’s boring, abstract, and less human-seeming than Romney!...Romney is dominating Lehrer. And the debate. Just in pure alpha male terms….Obama looked tired, even bored….He may even have lost the election tonight.

Manatee-sized documentarian Michael Moore, who lives in an area so secluded that the village’s only black person runs a shoeshine stand on Main Street, went into as many conniptions as his enlarged heart could handle, re-Tweeting someone else’s comment that “If Romney keeps this up…Obama is going to vote for him!” Moore ultimately blamed Obama’s drubbing on the fact that he’d prepared for the debates by sparring with the cadaverous John Kerry.

Even Nicholas Kristof, Obama’s professional fluffer at The New York Times, lamented that our mulatto commander-in-chief appeared to be “constipated.”

In every US presidential election since 1788, the constipated-looking one has lost. This is surely an ominous sign for Obama.

When you run a campaign entirely on charm but then somehow lose your charm as if it was an iPhone you accidentally left at a swingers’ club, you’re in trouble.

Seriously, this was the most fun we’ve had since Rocky Balboa beat Apollo Creed. 

Don't Fear The Reaper - Blue Öyster Cult

All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
Seasons don't fear the reaper
Nor do the wind, the sun or the rain..we can be like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper
Baby take my hand...don't fear the reaper
We'll be able to fly...don't fear the reaper
Baby I'm your man...

Valentine is done

Here but now they're gone
Romeo and Juliet
Are together in eternity...Romeo and Juliet
40,000 men and women everyday...Like Romeo and Juliet
40,000 men and women everyday...Redefine happiness
Another 40,000 coming everyday...We can be like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper
Baby take my hand...don't fear the reaper
We'll be able to fly...don't fear the reaper
Baby I'm your man...

Love of two is one

Here but now they're gone
Came the last night of sadness
And it was clear she couldn't go on
Then the door was open and the wind appeared
The candles blew then disappeared
The curtains flew then he appeared...saying don't be afraid
Come on baby...and she had no fear
And she ran to him...then they started to fly
They looked backward and said goodby...she had become like they are
She had taken his hand...she had become like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper

18 October 2012

Joe Biden, Foreign Policy Expert


“I can see American troops fighting in Tehran from the Naval Observatory!”

– Vice-President Joe Biden, 18 October 2012

"Me, too! Well, I mean from my pomegranate farm where I read cowboy poetry and get phone calls about Mitt Romney’s failure to pay taxes from imaginary friends!”

- Senator Harry Reid, 18 October 2012

Say It Ain't So, Uncle Joe: Fack-Checking Joe Biden


Binders: Unlike Democrats, Who Just Talk About It, Romney Actually Put Women In Positions Of Power

M2RB:  Shania Twain

Let's go girls! Come on.

I'm going out tonight-I'm feelin' alright

Gonna let it all hang out
Wanna make some noise-really raise my voice
Yeah, I wanna scream and shout
No inhibitions-make no conditions
Get a little outta line
I ain't gonna act politically correct
I only wanna have a good time

The best thing about being a woman

Is the prerogative to have a little fun

A list of Romney’s cabinet members over the entirety of his tenure shows 11 women and 16 men, for a percentage over his term of 40%.


President Obama: 36%

Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland: 20%
Five women of 24 Cabinet members

Gov. Bev Perdue of North Carolina: 9%
One woman of 11 positions

Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware: 25%
Four women of 16 positions

Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont: 25%
Six women of 24 positions

Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington: 24%
Seven women in 29 positions

Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana: 29%
Five women of 17 positions

Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois: 20%
Five women of 24 positions

Gov. Dan Malloy of Connecticut: 40%
18 women of 45 positions

Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York: 25%
Seven women in 28 positions

It seems that Romney actually put women in positions of power instead of just talking about it.  

Man! I Feel Like A Woman! - Shania Twain

Let's go girls! Come on.

I'm going out tonight-I'm feelin' alright

Gonna let it all hang out
Wanna make some noise-really raise my voice
Yeah, I wanna scream and shout
No inhibitions-make no conditions
Get a little outta line
I ain't gonna act politically correct
I only wanna have a good time

The best thing about being a woman

Is the prerogative to have a little fun

Oh, oh, oh, go totally crazy-forget I'm a lady

Men's shirts-short skirts
Oh, oh, oh, really go wild-yeah, doin' it in style
Oh, oh, oh, get in the action-feel the attraction
Color my hair-do what I dare
Oh, oh, oh, I wanna be free-yeah, to feel the way I feel
Man! I feel like a woman!

The girls need a break-tonight we're gonna take

The chance to get out on the town
We don't need romance-we only wanna dance
We're gonna let our hair hang down

The best thing about being a woman

Is the prerogative to have a little fun

Oh, oh, oh, go totally crazy-forget I'm a lady

Men's shirts-short skirts
Oh, oh, oh, really go wild-yeah, doin' it in style
Oh, oh, oh, get in the action-feel the attraction
Color my hair-do what I dare
Oh, oh, oh, I wanna be free-yeah, to feel the way I feel
Man! I feel like a woman!

The best thing about being a woman

Is the prerogative to have a little fun (fun, fun)

Oh, oh, oh, go totally crazy-forget I'm a lady

Men's shirts-short skirts
Oh, oh, oh, really go wild-yeah, doin' it in style
Oh, oh, oh, get in the action-feel the attraction
Color my hair-do what I dare
Oh, oh, oh, I wanna be free-yeah, to feel the way I feel
Man! I feel like a woman!

I get totally crazy

Can you feel it
Come, come, come on baby
I feel like a woman