Mitt Romney responded tonight to the leaked fundraiser video by Mother Jones.
Romney told reporters that the leaked video was from a question and
answer session where he was asked about how he planned on winning the
campaign this year. He admitted it wasn’t elegantly stated. Romney then went on to explain his free market vision for America versus Obama’s big government approach that has put more people on disability than in jobs. He was brilliant. He put the focus back on Barack Obama’s failed policies.
Look for the state-run media to attack him for daring to speak out in his own defense.
Brilliant, brilliant! And he needs to tell them he wants to give them money with a job….a hand up instead of a handout. Dignity.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Demoralized as Hell, The poll the media isn’t talking about edition by Datechguy | September 17th, 2012
For the last two weeks we have been treated to the narrative that
Barack Obama is surging at the polls, Mitt Romney is in trouble and
unless there is a massive change in direction it is all over.
Simply put this is a lie.
Of all the polls you have seen, there is one poll that has gotten no attention, it is a poll that has been taken monthly. It is the Rasmussen Poll of party identification.
They have party identification results online dating back to 2004. Here are the 2012 numbers through August
That shows a GOP advantage in registration this year but you might say: “Hey, Datechguy, you’ve been hitting polls all year, why can’t THIS poll be wrong?”
That’s a good question, we can answer it by asking another question: Does this poll of party identification correspond with the results of national elections?
Lets take a look:
2004 George Bush wins re-election
The closest the Republicans come to democrats in registration is Sept at a .6 in September. On election day Democrats had a registration advantage of 1.5. Yet not only did George Bush win re-election with that disadvantage but the GOP took 3 senate seats and 3 House seats over 2002.
2006 Midterms Revenge of the left:
In January the GOP was the closest they would be .6 off but by November the Mark Foley scandal was still big news and on election day Democrats had a spread of 6.1 points. This carried them to a net gain of 31 house seats & 5 seats.
2008 The coming of Barack Obama
The year of hope and change. The closest split was 5.6 in January & in September after the Palin Pick but by election day not only was the split 7.6 for Dems but for the first time (Feb) A party had identification over 40%. The Democrats kept that number over 40% 8 out of 12 months that year reaching a high of 41.7% the largest number in this 9 year sample for either party. With these figures it’s should be no surprise that Barack Obama win but Democrats picked up 8 seats in the Senate & 21 Seats in the house.
2010 Midterms The Rise of the Tea Party
2010 proved conclusively that timing is everything for the first time in the nine years, the GOP took an advantage in poll registration from -2.9 to plus 1.3 in one month, and that month was November.
Additionally the 37.0 figure for the GOP was the highest for the party since Dec 2004. At the very same time the 33.7 figure in December was the lowest figure for democrats EVER.
Correspondingly the GOP gained 6 Senate seats (not counting the Jan Scott Brown Race) and in the house picked up 63 seats more than democrats picked up in 2006 & 2008 combined.
These results since 2004 seem to indicate the poll is reliable. So what has it said lately, lets start with 2011 lets look at 2011
This is the year of the great fights between the GOP House & the president and it’s the most interesting year of the lot. The lead changes hands 6 times during the year as the country tries to figure out what it wants and for the first time EVER Other was in the lead, (Aug) tied with the GOP (33.5) ahead of democrats (33.0) other was ahead of the GOP 3 times in 2007.
Now lets look at that 2012 chart again:
At no time during the year do the Democrats have a registration advantage vs republicans, the gap closes in July & re-separates in August. The low point for the GOP was July for 34.9 and the high August at 37.6 For democrats the high was 34.0 in June & July the low was 32.4 in Feb
What does this mean for November? It means a lot.
The Democrats won 2 election in this period 2006 & 2008 with a 6.9 advantage in 2006 & a 7.6 advantage in 2008.
There is no example of the Democrats winning since 2004 with an advantage less that 6.9.
The GOP won two elections in this period 2004 with a -1.6 disadvantage & 2010 with a 1.3 advantage. This means the GOP has proven it can win with not only a small lead but with an actual disadvantage. Additionally with an advantage of only 1.3 they pulled off the biggest house swing in my lifetime.
Can these number change? Well the biggest 1 month swing I’ve seen is 4.2 Oct-Nov in 2010 the biggest 3 month swing was Dec 2007-Feb 2008 6.9 in favor of Democrats at the rise of Obama.
Tell me with the economy in the tank, and the new trouble in the Middle East, what is the prospect of a swing of that size to the Democrats happening again right now? Moreover even if that record registration swing repeated itself right now this would give democrats an advantage of only 2.6 points.
I’ve covered a lot of national polls on this site over the last year and all those polls ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX have one thing in common.
Not a single one of those polls had a sample with a GOP advantage.
As Rush would say: Zip, Zero Nada.
Not only have none of these polls had a GOP advantage but the closest we saw was a D+4 poll.
A great chart that I’ll reprint here:
In every single poll showing Barack Obama ahead on this chart the sample is at least D+4 Even if the biggest swing in history takes place in the next 3 months toward the left that is 1.4 points above what the party split will be.
All of the figures I’ve cited are from a source publicly available. The Media know these figures, the left knows these figures and the Networks know these figures.
Yet they are still using polls with huge democrat samples and representing them as real.
I don’t know what that tells you but I sure know what it tells me
Update: CBS belowns itself, D+13 REALLY?
Hey I can take a photo of the sky to prove it’s blue, if all these polls skew GOP you would think you can produce at least 1 to show it, but not this is the left I’ve said it so it MUST be true.
Talk about hide the decline.
Simply put this is a lie.
Of all the polls you have seen, there is one poll that has gotten no attention, it is a poll that has been taken monthly. It is the Rasmussen Poll of party identification.
They have party identification results online dating back to 2004. Here are the 2012 numbers through August
That shows a GOP advantage in registration this year but you might say: “Hey, Datechguy, you’ve been hitting polls all year, why can’t THIS poll be wrong?”
That’s a good question, we can answer it by asking another question: Does this poll of party identification correspond with the results of national elections?
Lets take a look:
2004 George Bush wins re-election
The closest the Republicans come to democrats in registration is Sept at a .6 in September. On election day Democrats had a registration advantage of 1.5. Yet not only did George Bush win re-election with that disadvantage but the GOP took 3 senate seats and 3 House seats over 2002.
2006 Midterms Revenge of the left:
In January the GOP was the closest they would be .6 off but by November the Mark Foley scandal was still big news and on election day Democrats had a spread of 6.1 points. This carried them to a net gain of 31 house seats & 5 seats.
2008 The coming of Barack Obama
The year of hope and change. The closest split was 5.6 in January & in September after the Palin Pick but by election day not only was the split 7.6 for Dems but for the first time (Feb) A party had identification over 40%. The Democrats kept that number over 40% 8 out of 12 months that year reaching a high of 41.7% the largest number in this 9 year sample for either party. With these figures it’s should be no surprise that Barack Obama win but Democrats picked up 8 seats in the Senate & 21 Seats in the house.
2010 Midterms The Rise of the Tea Party
2010 proved conclusively that timing is everything for the first time in the nine years, the GOP took an advantage in poll registration from -2.9 to plus 1.3 in one month, and that month was November.
Additionally the 37.0 figure for the GOP was the highest for the party since Dec 2004. At the very same time the 33.7 figure in December was the lowest figure for democrats EVER.
Correspondingly the GOP gained 6 Senate seats (not counting the Jan Scott Brown Race) and in the house picked up 63 seats more than democrats picked up in 2006 & 2008 combined.
These results since 2004 seem to indicate the poll is reliable. So what has it said lately, lets start with 2011 lets look at 2011
This is the year of the great fights between the GOP House & the president and it’s the most interesting year of the lot. The lead changes hands 6 times during the year as the country tries to figure out what it wants and for the first time EVER Other was in the lead, (Aug) tied with the GOP (33.5) ahead of democrats (33.0) other was ahead of the GOP 3 times in 2007.
Now lets look at that 2012 chart again:
At no time during the year do the Democrats have a registration advantage vs republicans, the gap closes in July & re-separates in August. The low point for the GOP was July for 34.9 and the high August at 37.6 For democrats the high was 34.0 in June & July the low was 32.4 in Feb
What does this mean for November? It means a lot.
The Democrats won 2 election in this period 2006 & 2008 with a 6.9 advantage in 2006 & a 7.6 advantage in 2008.
There is no example of the Democrats winning since 2004 with an advantage less that 6.9.
The GOP won two elections in this period 2004 with a -1.6 disadvantage & 2010 with a 1.3 advantage. This means the GOP has proven it can win with not only a small lead but with an actual disadvantage. Additionally with an advantage of only 1.3 they pulled off the biggest house swing in my lifetime.
Can these number change? Well the biggest 1 month swing I’ve seen is 4.2 Oct-Nov in 2010 the biggest 3 month swing was Dec 2007-Feb 2008 6.9 in favor of Democrats at the rise of Obama.
Tell me with the economy in the tank, and the new trouble in the Middle East, what is the prospect of a swing of that size to the Democrats happening again right now? Moreover even if that record registration swing repeated itself right now this would give democrats an advantage of only 2.6 points.
I’ve covered a lot of national polls on this site over the last year and all those polls ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX have one thing in common.
Not a single one of those polls had a sample with a GOP advantage.
As Rush would say: Zip, Zero Nada.
Not only have none of these polls had a GOP advantage but the closest we saw was a D+4 poll.
A great chart that I’ll reprint here:
In every single poll showing Barack Obama ahead on this chart the sample is at least D+4 Even if the biggest swing in history takes place in the next 3 months toward the left that is 1.4 points above what the party split will be.
All of the figures I’ve cited are from a source publicly available. The Media know these figures, the left knows these figures and the Networks know these figures.
Yet they are still using polls with huge democrat samples and representing them as real.
I don’t know what that tells you but I sure know what it tells me
“Ride right through them, they’re demoralized as hell”!
The election of Barack Obama was the biggest con ever perpetuated on the US Public, the polls the media is reporting these days is a close second.Update: CBS belowns itself, D+13 REALLY?
Hey I can take a photo of the sky to prove it’s blue, if all these polls skew GOP you would think you can produce at least 1 to show it, but not this is the left I’ve said it so it MUST be true.
Talk about hide the decline.
U.S. intel cable warned Cairo embassy — but not Benghazi consulate — of possible violence on September 10; Update: Susan Rice caught lying?
Just a little something to break up the monotony of “ROMNEY SAID WHAT?” concern-troll coverage that you’ll be submerged in tomorrow.
I take it this cable is what the Independent had in mind in its blockbuster last week about a 48-hour warning for U.S. intelligence.
But maybe the State Department had reason to know about a threat to the Benghazi consulate beforehand after all:
Update: A commendable bit of reporting here from NBC Nightly News. Yesterday Rice cited the two American contractors killed in the Benghazi attack as proof that Stevens and his staff did have some security. But NBC says she was wrong: The contractors weren’t part of the consulate’s regulate security detail. Apparently Stevens had nothing except a security supervisor and a local militia. Why?
I take it this cable is what the Independent had in mind in its blockbuster last week about a 48-hour warning for U.S. intelligence.
The cable, dispatched from Washington on September 10, the day before protests erupted, advised the embassy the broadcasts [of the Mohammed movie] could provoke violence. It did not direct specific measures to upgrade security, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.The reason they didn’t send the cable to other American missions across the region was, supposedly, because clips from the movie were broadcast on a cleric’s show in Egypt and therefore the possibility of violence was somehow “specific to Egypt.” I sure hope that’s a government lie, because if they seriously believed after the international demagoguery of the Danish Mohammed cartoons that this would be contained to a single country — on the anniversary of 9/11 — we’re in deeper trouble than I thought.
However, under standard diplomatic procedures, Egyptian government officials and security forces were notified of U.S. concerns, since host governments are responsible for ensuring the security of foreign diplomatic missions on their soil, the sources said.
Copies of the cable were not sent to other U.S. outposts in the region, including the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, where violence took the life of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. The ties between the Benghazi violence and the crude anti-Muslim film are still unclear.
But maybe the State Department had reason to know about a threat to the Benghazi consulate beforehand after all:
Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.It’s no surprise that security would be dodgy in Benghazi. NBC has a nifty piece today revisiting the area’s recent past as an incubator for international jihadis, from rank-and-file mujahedeen in Iraq to numbers two, three, and four in the Al Qaeda food chain. If there’s any consulate in the world where you’d want a little extra security, it’s Benghazi, especially with the new Libyan government pitifully weak right now. Instead, Chris Stevens had next to nothing. Why? Exit question: Was the protest of the Mohammed movie outside the consulate a diversion for the attack on the building? Or was there actually … no protest at all? Because if it’s the latter, that puts a big hole in Susan Rice’s claim yesterday that Benghazi was all about local demonstrations over a movie that got out of hand.
Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security…
“The situation is frightening, it scares us,” Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.
Mabrouk said it was not the first time he has warned foreigners about the worsening security situation in the face of the growing presence of armed jihadist groups in the Benghazi area.
Update: A commendable bit of reporting here from NBC Nightly News. Yesterday Rice cited the two American contractors killed in the Benghazi attack as proof that Stevens and his staff did have some security. But NBC says she was wrong: The contractors weren’t part of the consulate’s regulate security detail. Apparently Stevens had nothing except a security supervisor and a local militia. Why?
Obama team tries to lower expectations for debates
President Barack Obama's
re-election campaign doesn't want to talk about what the Democrat is
doing to prepare for the fall debates with Republican Mitt Romney. But
aides are readily setting expectations - and not surprisingly, they want
to keep them low for Obama while raising the stakes for Romney.
"While Mitt Romney has done 20 debates in the last year, he has not done one in four years, so there certainly is a challenge in that regard," Jennifer Psaki, Obama's campaign spokeswoman, said of the president on Monday.
With Obama edging slightly ahead of Romney in public polling seven weeks from Election Day, the three October debates could be one of the Republicans' best opportunities to break through with voters. But the high-profile events are just as crucial for Obama, who was an uneven debater during the 2008 Democratic primaries.
In that way, some of the Obama campaign's tactical lowering of expectations is also rooted in the truth. Aides say the structured - and time-limited - nature of the debates isn't a natural fit for Obama, who often is long-winded when answering questions during news conferences or town hall-style meetings.
Obama's campaign purposely has been vague about how he is getting ready for the debates and aides refused to discuss details of his preparations publicly.
But those preparations are well under way. Obama has held multiple practice sessions, some with Massachusetts Democrat Sen. John Kerry, who is playing the role of Romney. One of the president's practice spots is at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters a short drive from the White House.
Romney, on the other hand, has not hidden that he's been in the midst of intense debate preparation since early September. That's when aides announced that the GOP nominee would spend much of the week of the Democratic National Convention off the campaign trail huddling with advisers in private debate sessions.
Romney got started early in part to help him get accustomed to the one-on-one format he'll face next month. Most of his numerous debates during the GOP primary featured several other candidates.
The Republican nominee is doing timed, mock debates with Ohio's Republican Sen. Rob Portman playing Obama. Longtime adviser Peter Flaherty is standing in as the moderator, asking questions about both domestic and foreign policy.
Top Romney advisers, including strategist Stuart Stevens, longtime aides Eric Fehrnstrom and Beth Myers, and senior adviser Ed Gillespie, then dissect the sessions.
Among the locales Romney has picked for debate preps are a friend's home in rural Vermont and a Marriott hotel in Burlington, Mass. Obama may also practice at the presidential retreat at Camp David, besides using DNC headquarters.
Obama's campaign has tried to use Romney's intense public preparations to ramp up expectations for the Republican.
"We know that Mitt Romney and his team have seemed to prepare more than any candidate in modern history," Psaki told reporters traveling with Obama in Ohio on Monday. "They've made clear that his performing well is a make-or-break piece for their campaign."
Romney's campaign countered Monday by noting that the president will be the only one on the debate stage in November with experience in three general election debates.
But the Republican nominee, a former Massachusetts governor, has tried to tamp down expectations, too.
During a Friday night flight to Boston, Romney and Portman walked to the back of the airplane to offer birthday greetings to two reporters covering his campaign. "Can you tell us a little bit about debate prep? How's he doing?" a reporter asked Portman. The senator replied, "He's doing great."
Romney, laughing, quickly interjected. Turning to Portman, he said: "Say nothing more."
The candidates will meet for three debates: a domestic policy debate in Denver on Oct. 3; a town hall-style debate in Hempstead, N.Y., on Oct. 16, and a foreign policy debate in Boca Raton, Fla., on Oct. 22.
Vice President Joe Biden and GOP running mate Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin will meet for one debate in Danville, Ky., on Oct. 11 that will touch on both domestic and foreign policy issues.
"While Mitt Romney has done 20 debates in the last year, he has not done one in four years, so there certainly is a challenge in that regard," Jennifer Psaki, Obama's campaign spokeswoman, said of the president on Monday.
With Obama edging slightly ahead of Romney in public polling seven weeks from Election Day, the three October debates could be one of the Republicans' best opportunities to break through with voters. But the high-profile events are just as crucial for Obama, who was an uneven debater during the 2008 Democratic primaries.
In that way, some of the Obama campaign's tactical lowering of expectations is also rooted in the truth. Aides say the structured - and time-limited - nature of the debates isn't a natural fit for Obama, who often is long-winded when answering questions during news conferences or town hall-style meetings.
Obama's campaign purposely has been vague about how he is getting ready for the debates and aides refused to discuss details of his preparations publicly.
But those preparations are well under way. Obama has held multiple practice sessions, some with Massachusetts Democrat Sen. John Kerry, who is playing the role of Romney. One of the president's practice spots is at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters a short drive from the White House.
Romney, on the other hand, has not hidden that he's been in the midst of intense debate preparation since early September. That's when aides announced that the GOP nominee would spend much of the week of the Democratic National Convention off the campaign trail huddling with advisers in private debate sessions.
Romney got started early in part to help him get accustomed to the one-on-one format he'll face next month. Most of his numerous debates during the GOP primary featured several other candidates.
The Republican nominee is doing timed, mock debates with Ohio's Republican Sen. Rob Portman playing Obama. Longtime adviser Peter Flaherty is standing in as the moderator, asking questions about both domestic and foreign policy.
Top Romney advisers, including strategist Stuart Stevens, longtime aides Eric Fehrnstrom and Beth Myers, and senior adviser Ed Gillespie, then dissect the sessions.
Among the locales Romney has picked for debate preps are a friend's home in rural Vermont and a Marriott hotel in Burlington, Mass. Obama may also practice at the presidential retreat at Camp David, besides using DNC headquarters.
Obama's campaign has tried to use Romney's intense public preparations to ramp up expectations for the Republican.
"We know that Mitt Romney and his team have seemed to prepare more than any candidate in modern history," Psaki told reporters traveling with Obama in Ohio on Monday. "They've made clear that his performing well is a make-or-break piece for their campaign."
Romney's campaign countered Monday by noting that the president will be the only one on the debate stage in November with experience in three general election debates.
But the Republican nominee, a former Massachusetts governor, has tried to tamp down expectations, too.
During a Friday night flight to Boston, Romney and Portman walked to the back of the airplane to offer birthday greetings to two reporters covering his campaign. "Can you tell us a little bit about debate prep? How's he doing?" a reporter asked Portman. The senator replied, "He's doing great."
Romney, laughing, quickly interjected. Turning to Portman, he said: "Say nothing more."
The candidates will meet for three debates: a domestic policy debate in Denver on Oct. 3; a town hall-style debate in Hempstead, N.Y., on Oct. 16, and a foreign policy debate in Boca Raton, Fla., on Oct. 22.
Vice President Joe Biden and GOP running mate Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin will meet for one debate in Danville, Ky., on Oct. 11 that will touch on both domestic and foreign policy issues.
Separated at Birth?
As the Chicago teachers strike enters its second week, another lookalike has been found for the personification of greedy, lazy, utterly unreasonable teacher’s unions, Karen Lewis:
Another graphic, — note which teachers work the fewest hours:
Chicago teachers also get the highest pay. Plus their state is going bankrupt.
But none of that will put the brakes on the runaway greed of public
sector unions, which are devouring the country from within like a
monstrous tapeworm. Even while sending their own children to private schools
at a rate of 39% due to the inferior quality of their own instruction,
Chicago teachers will not settle for anything less than a 30% increase
on their already grotesquely extravagant salaries.
For anyone who thinks they are only being greedy on behalf of the 400,000 children they are walking out on, this graphic shows where the money goes; it’s an Illinois State Board of Education pension chart:
This shows a pension liability of almost $1 billion for the top 100 overpaid educrats in Illinois. But so long as someone else can be forced to pay for it, it will never be enough.
For anyone who thinks they are only being greedy on behalf of the 400,000 children they are walking out on, this graphic shows where the money goes; it’s an Illinois State Board of Education pension chart:
This shows a pension liability of almost $1 billion for the top 100 overpaid educrats in Illinois. But so long as someone else can be forced to pay for it, it will never be enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
FORE!!!!
