PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated

Previous 10 Next 10 
From: LindyBill5/14/2012 11:03:25 PM
4 Recommendations   of 658862
The Romney Campaign Fires Back
by John Hinderaker
(John Hinderaker) What conservatives fear more than almost anything else is Republican politicians who won’t help us defend them. This happened in W’s second term, when his administration failed to respond to one crazed left-wing attack after another. It happened in 2008, when John McCain seemed to prefer running a gentlemanly, after-you-Alphonse campaign to winning (not that he could have won in any event, after the financial meltdown in September). But it isn’t happening in 2012.

The Romney campaign–so far, at least–is quick, agile and aggressive. There is no sign that activists will be left in the lurch by a hunkered-down, defensive organization. On the contrary: the Romney campaign looks to be the most effective Republican operation since the Reagan administration. Seriously.

Yesterday the Obama campaign launched a really stupid attack, accusing Romney of having laid off a number of employees of a steel company in which Bain Capital invested. It turned out that the layoff occurred two years after Romney (but not one of Obama’s major bundlers) had left Bain. The Romney campaign responded immediately with a good video about a company, Steel Dynamics, that created far more jobs than the other company lost:

In fact, Steel Dynamics is now the fifth largest producer of carbon steel products in United States. Later in the day, the Romney campaign put up a web site called GST Steel: Get the Facts that constitutes a comprehensive rebuttal of the Obama campaign’s claims. Which is rather impressive; obviously, the Romney campaign saw this one coming and had its response ready to go. Insiders in the campaign have told me that they have analyzed every investment made by Bain during the time Romney was there, and are ready with a similar response to any know-nothing attack Obama might launch.

Ideas dominate at the end of the day, but in the meantime, money is important too. Early this morning, I attended an organizational meeting of the Romney financial organization in Minnesota. The campaign’s fundraising goals are lofty–if they are met, it is conceivable that, for once, the Republican candidate will actually have more money spent on his behalf than the Democrat. That may seem inconceivable, but in 2012 it might be a reality, especially if Obama’s fundraising falters as seems to be the case so far.

So, based on everything we have seen to date, I don’t think conservative activists should be at all reluctant to get behind the Romney campaign 100%. Every indication is that the campaign will vigorously pursue a conservative agenda and will aggressively carry the fight to our opponents.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: LindyBill5/14/2012 11:07:26 PM
5 Recommendations   of 658862
CBS/NYT: Romney 46, Obama 43 Among Registered Voters
from RedState by Dan McLaughlin (Diary)

In a long election season, it’s never wise to get too high or too low over any one poll. Presidential elections are won at the state level, but statewide polling is fairly sporadic at this stage of the race, so we’re stuck reading national polls a lot. But the latest poll is bad news for President Obama.

We all know the major issues by now to look for with individual polls: some polls are adults, and are totally useless, because only registered voters can vote. Polls of likely voters, in turn, are vastly more accurate and less Democratic-biased than polls of registered voters, many of whom also don’t show up to vote. Most polls are also reported after weighting to achieve some guesstimate of the partisan breakdown of the general electorate among Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Even polls that don’t feature egregious hackery are an inexact science, because they rest on the pollster’s current assumptions about the D/R/I split and the ‘screen’ they use to decide who is a likely voter. If the shape of the electorate is not as projected, the poll will be wrong.

Polling averages tend to be steadier than individual polls conducted over a few hundred respondents, and they show a tight race – the RealClearPolitics average shows Obama up 46.5%-45.1%, while the left-leaning TPMPolltracker average shows Romney up 46.1-44.2. Those averages smooth out possible outliers like last Friday’s jaw-dropping Rasmussen poll showing Romney up 50-43 among likely voters. And the averages themselves get more reliable as more of the pollsters start polling likely voters – right now, Rasmussen is virtually the only pollster reporting regularly conducted polls that is polling likely rather than registered voters. Looking at RCP, Rasmussen’s mid-April poll is the last likely voter poll showing President Obama in the lead.

All that said, the Obama campaign cannot be happy with the results of the latest CBS/New York Times poll – a poll of registered voters done by two organizations notoriously unfriendly to Republicans* – showing Mitt Romney leading Barack Obama 46-43. Some breakdowns below the fold.

1. This is a registered voter poll, which as noted above means it tends to favor Democrats. The weighted party-ID split is 36% D, 30% R, 34% I.

2. The trend is negative for Obama – 48-42 lead in February, 47-44 in March, tied 46-46 in April, down 43-46 in May. Whatever the methodology, if you use it consistently and show a clear trend, that says something.

3. Gender gap? Romney leads 45-42 among men, actually down from a 49-43 lead last month, but after all the “war on women” hoo-ha, Obama’s 49-43 lead among women has flipped to a 46-44 Romney lead.

4. Oddly, Obama for once is polling behind his approval rating, which is up to 50% in this poll. One of the common themes of the past few years is that he tends to poll above his approval rating – people tend to like him or say they do, but don’t think he’s getting the job done. This, compared to the general personal and political unlikeability of Mitt Romney, is one reason why I tend to agree with Michael Barone’s third scenario that there’s a good chance that undecided voters wait until the last minute to resign themselves and break for Romney, much as happened in the primaries among reluctant voters who felt they had run out of better options.

The poll dropped some of the questions in last month’s survey about Romney, but that poll had him tied even though voters said by 60-34 that they can’t relate to him and by 62-27 that he says what people want to hear, not what he believes. In other words, it’s only Romney’s inherent flaws as a candidate that are even keeping this race close – people neither especially like nor trust Romney but are still dissatisfied enough with Obama to give him a shot. The longer the polls look tied, the worse things get for Obama, because it means voters haven’t bought his various efforts to make Romney radioactive. Remember, all this occurs against a backdrop of voters unhappy with the direction of the country and thus predisposed to change horses.

5. Despite its near-unanimous popularity among the media, entertainment and academia, Obama’s support of same-sex marriage is not an asset; by 25-16 (22-14 among independents), more voters say they are less likely rather than more likely to vote for Obama after his change of position on the issue, whereas by 23-17 (20-20 among independents), voters say they are more likely to vote for Romney as a result. Just under 60% of voters don’t consider the issue a factor. Notably, the poll found that the public, by 50-46 (50-47 among independents) favors amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Meanwhile, by 67-24, voters think Obama’s change of position on the issue is politically expedient rather than principled. In other words, the voters think he’s being political and doing something unpopular. This is not where you want to be in an election. Yet another reason why I refer to Romney-Obama as the collision between a resistible force and a movable object.

6. 62% of voters named the economy as the number one issue and another 20% named the budget, the deficit or health care. This race will be dominated by the big-picture domestic issues, not foreign policy or social issues, as much influence as those have on the baked-in partisan divides.

* – The National Journal has some thoughts on the oddities of the CBS/NYT poll’s methodology.

POSTSCRIPT: Bad polling news for Obama is also bad for his campaign for another, more immediate reason. Both of these candidates are unusually dependent on raising vast sums of money. Obama, as a number of press accounts recently have noted, has mostly lost the confidence of Wall Street fundraisers, who were a huge element of his fundraising in 2012. Romney, by contrast, as a former private equity guy, has a natural base of support throughout the financial industry. But many potential donors are terrified of donating to Romney and seeing Obama win, given this White House’s well-known efforts to target and intimidate private citizens who donate to the opposition. Perceptions shifting away from an inevitable Obama victory could have a disproportionate effect on the fundraising balance of power.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: LindyBill who wrote (487108)5/14/2012 11:39:16 PM
From: Alan Smithee
2 Recommendations   of 658862
Judge Napolitano was all over this today on FoxNews.

We have to nip this in the bud, here and now. No matter who is in the White House, we don't need our government spying on us.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (487115)5/14/2012 11:49:00 PM
From: Tom Clarke
16 Recommendations   of 658862
"...I would predict, I'm not encouraging, but I am predicting that the first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down that's been hovering over his house is going to be a folk hero in this country," Krauthammer said tonight.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (4)

From: simplicity5/14/2012 11:51:35 PM
13 Recommendations   of 658862
From a friend: 'Next time they want to steal my Scott Walker sign, they'll need a ladder!'

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Sr K5/15/2012 12:13:29 AM
   of 658862
In case this was not posted yet.

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger got a TSA pat-down.
(Paul Sancya - Associated Press)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: average joe who wrote (487058)5/15/2012 12:56:49 AM
From: Brian Sullivan
   of 658862
I'm surprised that California permited the reopening of the mine.
How come the Serra Club isn't stopping this?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: FUBHO who wrote (487075)5/15/2012 1:04:00 AM
From: Brian Sullivan
   of 658862
Haven't you heard yet
Romney is the new Reagan
and Obama is Carter

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Brian Sullivan who wrote (487119)5/15/2012 1:04:35 AM
From: average joe
   of 658862
Professor Norgaard is working on treating the mine as a symptomatic illness of high tech society and is trying to get it shut down on public health grounds.

Too bad the mine wasn't inside Nevada a few miles...

Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor

Global warming alarmist equates climate denial with racism

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, March 30, 2012

Comparing skepticism of man-made global warming to racist beliefs, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies has labeled doubts about anthropogenic climate change a “sickness” for which individuals need to be “treated”.

Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argues that “cultural resistance” to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.

Norgaard equates skepticism of climate change alarmists – whose data is continually proven to be politicized, agenda driven and downright inaccurate – with racism, noting that overcoming such viewpoints poses a similar challenge “to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.”

“Professor Norgaard considers that fuzzy-studies academics such as herself must stand shoulder to shoulder with the actual real climate scientists who know some maths in an effort to change society and individuals for their own good. It’s not a new idea: trick-cyclists in Blighty and the US have lately called for a “science of communicating science” rather reminiscent of Isaac Asimov’s science-fictional “Psychohistory” discipline, able to predict and alter the behaviour of large populations,” reports the Register.

As Jurriaan Maessen documented yesterday, the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ confab at which Norgaard is appearing to push this insane drivel is nothing other than a strategy session for neo-eugenicists to hone their population control agenda.

A statement put out by the scientists behind the event calls for humans to be packed into denser cities (eco-gulags?) so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature. It’s a similar idea to the nightmare ‘Planned-Opolis’ proposal put out by the Forum for the Future organization last year, in which human activity will be tightly regulated by a dictatorial technocracy in the name of saving the planet.

The mindset of this gaggle of arrogant, scoffing elitists in their drive to micro-manage the human race, which they regard as a plague on the earth, is best encapsulated by the following quote from ‘Planet Under Pressure’ attendee and Yale University professor Karen Seto.

“We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together],” Seto told MSNBC.

The effort to re-brand legitimate scientific dissent as a mental disorder that requires pharmacological or psychological treatment is a frightening glimpse into the Brave New World society climate change alarmists see themselves as ruling over.

Due to the fact that skepticism towards man-made global warming is running at an all time high, and with good reason, rather than admit they have lost the debate, climate change alarmists are instead advocating that their ideological opponents simply be drugged or brainwashed into compliance.

Norgaard’s effort to equate climate skepticism with racism as a disorder that requires “treatment” also serves as a reminder of the story we covered earlier this month about the establishment’s efforts to push the pharmaceutical heart drug Propranolol as a “cure” for racist thoughts.


Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: LindyBill who wrote (487109)5/15/2012 1:28:08 AM
From: Brian Sullivan
   of 658862
The [poll] results reinforce the concerns of White House aides and Democratic strategists who worried that the sequence of events leading up to the announcement last week made it look calculated rather than principled.

Um, that's because it was obviously calculated, even the NY Time reports about how the original plan was for Obama to announce this right before the Convention, but because of old slow Joe they decided that they needed to move up the presidents announcement.

Calculated, Yes, and reported by the NY Times as calculated.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.