Nate Silver publishes a daily number that represents Barack Obama’s chances of being re-elected. As I write this on October 27, Silver’s magic number is 74%.
Polls do influence elections. That’s why people like Nate Silver and some of the writers at Business Insider are doing somersaults over Gallup’s Daily Presidential Tracking numbers.
For over a week, Gallup has shown a tidal wave for support for Mitt Romney. Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight tried to discredit Gallup by blogging about outlier results it’s shown in past years. Here’s the conclusion Business Insider reached:
Bottom line: Gallup swings wildly and it frequently has results not in line with other pollsters.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-on-the-gallup-poll-showing-huge-lead-for-mitt-romney-2012-10#ixzz29yPJ4rHE
But here’s what Silver and BI aren’t telling you: Romney’s 7-point lead in Gallup (52-45 as of October 21) is not a wild swing. Not by a long shot.
Instead, Gallup is showing a consistent move toward Romney ever since the first debate. For example, over the past four days, Romney has led by 6, 7, 6, and 7 points. Before that, he move from 4 points to 6 points over the course of four days.
True, Rasmussen and WSJ/MSLSD show Romney and Obama tied. But that’s not enough to toss out Gallup the way Silver and BI attempt.
Now the reason polls matter is because low-information voters tend to break toward the candidate they think will win. If Romney’s cavernous 7-point lead holds steady, those late deciders will break for Romney. That could result in a landslide.
Combine all this with the latest RCP Electoral Map showing Romney up by 5 in the electoral vote count, and you can understand why liberals will say anything to discredit the polls.
Don’t bother blaming it on poll questions designed to lead respondents. Never mind that it’s a long way until the election. And stop whining about the White House fudging the numbers on unemployment. The fact is that Obama’s surging at just the right time. His re-election chances are now above 50 percent. His intrade.com chances of winning are near 60 percent. And he’s raising more money than al of the Republican candidates combined.
Here’s everything you need to know.
Republicans Advertise; Democrats Market: For decades, conservatives have held marketers in disdain. They’ve done the same for the fields that support marketing: creative writing, acting, music, art, education, soft sciences, and entertainment. As a result, fewer and fewer casual voters feel emotionally connected to Republicans.
Unless the GOP figures out how to stop shouting and start connecting, they’ll take a drubbing in November.
Team Obama Will Do Anything to Win: Of course they’ll cheat and break the law. They pretty much tell us so. That can also work against them. To turn the tide, though, Republicans have to show the cheating, not whine about it.
When Mike Tyson bit off Evander Holyfield's ear, everyone became a Holyfield fan and turned against Tyson. Had Holyfield blamed the bite for every bad thing that happened thereafter, we’d have tired of him very quickly. And if we hadn’t seen the bite in slow motion, we’d never have believed him.
Be patient. Record everything. Show, don’t tell people. People will the do the right thing.
Commitment Kills Apathy: (Yes, I’m sort of in this boat myself. Sort of.) Casual voters take their cues on whom to support from the passionate politics wonks they know. If you’re one of the wonks and you’re showing apathy, you’re sending a strong signal to the causals. You’re saying, in effect, “Go ahead and vote for Obama; we’ll try again in 2016.”
Two problems with this approach: first, if your party isn’t ready to field a viable candidate for President every four years, your party should probably disband. Second, if we give Obama another 4 years, there might not be an election as we know them in 2016.
If you’re still not committed and you’re still not enthused, then buy a ticket for the 3rd Anniversary Tea Party anyway. Maybe someone there will inspire you.
Of course, you can always just give up and blame someone else. That’s becoming the new American way.
I’ll be honest with you: I’ve lied. Usually out of desperation. I’ve lied to those closest to me—those most willing to forgive the thing I lied about.
I’ve also told the truth to my own detriment. In the long run, the latter works best. In fact, telling the truth works best in the short run, too.
So maybe Obama’s desperate. Maybe he knows that the debt ceiling debate is the beginning of the unraveling of Americum Sovieticum, his life-long dream. In desperation, then, he’s simply making stuff up.
How do I know Obama’s lying?
The last time 80 percent of America agreed on something, the question was whether or not to get baby Jessica McClure out of the well. So when I hear that 80 percent of Americans support something, I assume it involves human life.
But somewhere, somehow, Barack Obama has found data revealing that 80 percent of Americans want—demand—a tax increase.
For the life of me, I cannot find these people.
I can find this Rasmussen poll indicating that 55 percent oppose a tax increase as part of a debt ceiling package.
I can also find a Gallup poll that finds only 32 percent would agree to tax increases as part of a deal.
Maybe the President saw this Quinnipiac University poll – with a questioned designed to elicit a particular response. The question enticed 62 percent of 2,311 registered voters to accept some taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
So, perhaps, Obama merely took that 62 and round up to the nearest . . . 80?
But there’s also the media defensive panic.
When conservative presidents are caught lying or being morons, conservatives tend to admit, well, maybe he shouldn’t have said “mission accomplished.”
When leftists find their leftist president being a deceitful dolt, they obfuscate. Huffington Post, New York Times—all the usual suspects—have scrubbed their sites of references to the President’s lie. (At least, my searches found nothing. Then, again, I try to not to spend too much time on those sites.)
Instead, the left talks about this being the time to bring taxes into the equation.
Two people who get it . . . clearly: Mark Steyn and Charles Krauthammer.
Steyn, as usual, picks apart the stupid in “No Bargaining With Obluffer.”
Krauthammer destroys Obama’s credibility by pointing to Obama’s long and recent history of demanding more debt at any cost.
How about last December, when he ignored his own debt commission's recommendations? How about February, when he presented a budget that increases debt by $10 trillion over the next decade? How about April, when he sought a debt-ceiling increase with zero debt reduction attached?
All of a sudden he's a born-again budget balancer prepared to bravely take on his own party by making deep cuts in entitlements. Really? Name one.
So I lied again. Eighty percent of Americans don’t read Hennessy’s View every day. Not yet, anyway.
Rasmussen's weekly report shows the Tea Party message of limited government and lower taxes is hitting home with voters. Tax Cuts: More voters than ever now say tax cuts help the economy. Over 60 percent now agree with JFK, Reagan, Bush, and the undeniable facts of economic history: cutting taxes increases GDP and personal wealth.
A separate survey released earlier today found that 66% of voters think the president is likely to raise taxes on those who make less than $250,000 per year.
Obama Approval: Obama's net favorability is down to +4 from + 30 after his inauguration. Rasmussen notes that Obama's flurry of exposure--The Tonight Show, 60 Minutes, primetime press conference, townhall--did not increase his favorability at all. In fact, it's fallen 2 points since last week.
Nationalized Banks: Only 11 percent believe the government can do a better job running banks.
If these trends continue, Obama will be unable to influence key Democrats in Congress, and he will be a 3-year lame duck. That's the best the country can hope for.
You can help by spreading the word: Obama's plans for a socialist dictatorship are dangerous and un-American.
Stop him! Stop him, now!
The New York Times, believe it or not, has this story in its campaign blog:
The story cites an NYT/CBS Poll that showed America support for war in Iraq rose to 41% in July from 35% in May. You will not see this story on the CBS Evening News or on the front page of America's most un-American paper, though. The results do not fit either organization's political agenda.
You can see the result here, on a friggin' PDF buried deep in the bowels of the NYT web archives.
The blog entry rightly gives credit to President Bush's persistence in requesting patience and tenacity in our fight on terrorism.
The blog piece, even its title, would make you think the up-tick in support for Bush's policy was microscopic. Six percentage points in two months is a major move, folks. That's a 17 percent change in support. Had the numbers been reversed, with support falling from 41 percent to 35 percent, what would the headline be? Try "Americans Abandon War Effort."
My Take: American like offense. For two years, the administration had our forces hunkered down in ditches. With the surge, we're back on the offensive, killing the dirty rotten bastards by the bushel. Americans love it. If we wipe out a couple hundred terrorists in the next few weeks, support for the war will be back above 50 percent.
Bush should have this Patton quote soldered to eyeball: "When in doubt, attack!"
And after the attack, check out the Beltway Traffic Jam
Q and O poses the question: "Anyone want to take a wag at why there's a 10 point drop in the latter category since May?" referring to opposition dropping from 61 percent in May to 51 percent in July. As I stated above, the reason is the surge and the offensive. People like winners, attackers, champions, fighters.