International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Posts tagged ‘Presidential Campaign’

Look! If we tilt the poll to this extreme, it comes to a Draw!

This is worse than bad, it’s obscene.

Romney has gained 3 points since the last time CNN ran its poll, in late September, when Obama led 50%-47%. That is good news for the Republican ticket, especially since the poll was conducted after Hurricane Sandy.

Yet there is something odd–and even ridiculous–in the poll’s sample: of the 693 likely voters in the total sample of 1,010 adults polled, “41% described themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans.”

In other words, the poll is a D+11 outlier. It presents a picture of an electorate that is far more pro-Obama than it was in the historic 2008 election. That is extremely unlikely.

That’s putting it mildly!

Moreover, the polls’s crosstabs indicate that Romney is winning self-described independent voters by a giant 59%-37% margin. A 22-point lead among independents virtually guarantees victory for Romney. Yet Democrats are so heavily over-represented in the CNN poll that Romney’s 22-point lead becomes a mere 49%-49% tie.

I’d suggest that his margin among independents suggest this is going to be a massive Republican victory.

Some Democrats have argued that their party will still show up to the polls in significantly greater strength than Republicans–either because of the increased presence of Latino voters, who currently favor the Democrats; or because, they argue, many of the voters that say they are independent are really disgruntled Republicans.

But none of these explanations points towards a Democrat turnout exceeding that of 2008, which the CNN poll assumes. Republicans are far more motivated, and Democrats are somewhat less motivated, in 2012.

And it is absurd to suggest anything else. Obama’s supporters can at best claim (unconvincingly) that he kept things from getting worse. Certainly the anti-war crowd isn’t going to rush out and vote for him, and even the Sandy situation is counting against Obama as people wait in vain for help.

The idea that Democrats are motivated just doesn’t hold water.

On the other hand, Republicans believe strongly that Obama has been a terrible president. They point to… well just see my last post and it’s “part 1” for reasons! The Tea Party got conservatives riled up like never before.

In fact, we’re seeing the first election for quite a while where conservatives are a whole lot more motivated than Democrats.

And yet the poll, absurd though it is, shows that Romney will be able to overcome even a staggering partisan disadvantage, and that he will win the independent voters who typically decide elections.

And then there’s the early polling numbers coming out of Ohio, the Democrats are inadvertently admitting are true:

For those without video: Chris Wallace points out that early voting in Ohio kind of, well, sucks for the Democrats – as in, ACCORDING TO THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN (this is important), it’s at the point where the net gain for the Republicans will wipe out Obama’s 2008 margin of victory in Ohio. This is important because Republicans traditionally do better on Election Day voters than Democrats; if that holds true (which is quietly conceded by pretty much everyone), then Ohio is going to go for Romney.


Get that? The numbers suggest strongly that Romney has already wiped out Obama’s lead during voting which usually favours Democrats. So when polling day proper arrives, instead of having a mild deficit to make up to win, Romney will simply increase his lead.

I don’t know if this will turn into a bloodbath. It’s possible.

We’ll know for sure very soon.


Obama Caught Out – this is huge (or should be)

By all rights, this should have a major impact on Obama’s re-election.

But that assumes the media are interested, and let’s face it, they are activly not interested in holding Obama to any sort of reasonable standard.

The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.

I think a lot of people who hated George W Bush did so origionally because of his accent. Obama knows this full well, and hence makes sure he talks more properly. But in the video, he drops that.

Obama gave the speech in the middle of a hotly-contested presidential primary season, but his remarks escaped scrutiny. Reporters in the room seem to have missed or ignored his most controversial statements. The liberal blogger Andrew Sullivan linked to what he described as a “transcript” of the speech, which turned out not to be a transcript at all, but instead the prepared remarks provided by the campaign. In fact, Obama, who was not using a teleprompter, deviated from his script repeatedly and at length, ad libbing lines that he does not appear to have used before any other audience during his presidential run. A local newspaper posted a series of video clips of the speech, but left out key portions. No complete video of the Hampton speech was widely released.
The media knew about this, but ignored it. Not exactly suprising, given the media also covered up for Hillary after Bill Clinton had (another) affair while she was running for president.

Obama begins his address with “a special shout out” to Jeremiah Wright, the Chicago pastor who nearly derailed Obama’s campaign months later when his sermons attacking Israel and America and accusing the U.S. government of “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color” became public. To the audience at Hampton, Obama describes Wright as, “my pastor, the guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader. Not just in Chicago, but all across the country.”

By the time Obama appeared at Hampton, Jeremiah Wright had become a political problem. Wright told The New York Times earlier that year that he would no longer be speaking on the campaign’s behalf because his rhetoric was considered too militant. And yet later in the Hampton speech Obama explicitly defends Wright from unnamed critics, a group he describes as “they”: “They had stories about Trinity United Church of Christ, because we talked about black people in church: ‘Oh, that might be a separatist church,’” Obama said mockingly.

Wright was about the only thing the media investigated on Obama. But it’s clear now that not all the media were interested in fully reporting what was going on.

It’s a remarkable moment, and not just for its resemblance to Kayne West’s famous claim that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” but also because of its basic dishonesty. By January of 2007, six months before Obama’s Hampton speech, the federal government had sent at least $110 billion to areas damaged by Katrina. Compare this to the mere $20 billion that the Bush administration pledged to New York City after Sept. 11.

Moreover, the federal government did at times waive the Stafford Act during its reconstruction efforts. On May 25, 2007, just weeks before the speech, the Bush administration sent an additional $6.9 billion to Katrina-affected areas with no strings attached.

As a sitting United States Senator, Obama must have been aware of this. And yet he spent 36 minutes at the pulpit telling a mostly black audience that the U.S. government doesn’t like them because they’re black.

Politicans telling big fat lies to friendly audiences is not a new thing. The media deliberatly turning a blind eye… I’m guessing that happens a lot less – and almost never if you’re on the right.

But he was also playing to the ignorance of his audience. Most people were aware that the Bush administration was trucking obscene amounts of money into Katrina hit areas – small government conservatives were livid about it

In the prepared version distributed to reporters, Obama’s speech ends this way:
“America is going to survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, 15 years ago, thousands of years ago.”

That’s not what he actually said. Before the audience at Hampton, Obama ends his speech this way:

“America will survive. Just like black folks will survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, or 15 years ago, or 300 years ago.”

Three hundred years ago. It’s a reference the audience understood.

The Daily Caller (who is breaking the story) have also got a story on the media response. basically, many members of the media were already claiming there was nothing to it before the story was even published.

Which means that they’re not going to report it.

A few weeks ago, we had the respective party’s conventions. At one, a couple of racist idiots got kicked out for saying something racist. This generated thousands of news articles (though not one from Fox news as far as I can tell – which is something they should be ashamed of).  One Julia Rodriguez stated she would like to kill the opposing candidate (and that’s only one example). That little outburst (and watch the video – she really meant it) generated barely a blip on the radar. I searched Google News the day after it became news, and got a mere handful of mentions. I can’t even find if she was disciplined, I assume not.

(MSNBC and CNN news sites give no hits on a search for her name.)

Let’s see if this story get the same treatment.

Crazy like a fox?

I was going to post on how the US media are up to their old tricks again, blaming Romney’s habit of making statements for their inability to hold the president to account. It’s not that Romney said anything stupid – actually the president agreed with him – but the press are able to make the public believe he’s said something stupid so somehow that makes their inability to do their job Romney’s fault.

If you can follow that you’re doing better than I am. I’m still trying to work out what why Romney taking his dog on holiday was a big deal.

But I was looking up a link I saved earlier in the week, and I re-read this:

Jim Bennett compares Mrs. Thatcher’s response to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Rushdie fatwa with Obama’s to the Muslim Brotherhood’s demands. Salman Rushdie had been a vicious critic of the Conservative party and the prime minister — he called her “Mrs. Torture” — but Her Majesty’s Government has provided him with safe houses and Special Branch protection for almost a quarter-century. By contrast, within 72 hours of Morsi’s demands, Mr Nakoula is in a jail cell — “rounded up at midnight by brownshirted men for making a movie that embarrasses El Presidente.”

I still agree with Mark Steyn that the US government is doing the precise opposite of what it should be doing, and that action is of massive concern.

But re-reading that, I am wondering if the US government might just have saved themselves, and the victim(Mr Nakoula), a quarter-century of protection? I suppose in one sense that was their intention all along. But I do remain unconvinced that their actions were intended to be in the best interest of Mr Nakoula.

The Obama Campaign should be running a mile from this… but won’t

This is a bit scary. Not new, but scary that they’re actually prepared to put it in print.

The danger, according to Capehart, is that this narrative may remove the race card as a factor (emphasis mine):

By telling potential voters “It’s OK to make a change,” the RNC is acknowledging all that I mention above. It’s OK to like the guy personally but not vote for him again. This is not a popularity contest. It’s OK to vote against the black guy. You gave him a shot. He gave it his best shot. He failed. And the most effective message is: “It’s OK to make a change” — and not be thought of as a racist.

Throughout Obama’s presidency, I’ve received more than a few e-mails and tweets from folks complaining that they are branded racist if they disagree with anything the president says or does. And it doesn’t help matters that I have seen more than a few e-mails and tweets from ardent Obama supporters doing exactly that. I have also seen instances of this on television and in print.

That’s why the “It’s OK to make a change” ad is the most dangerous for Obama’s reelection efforts. It give those few, yet crucial, undecided voters the pass they might be looking for to vote against Obama.

Think about what Capehart is saying.

What keeps some voters in line for Obama – fear of falsely being accused of racism — may not work this time, and the removal of that fear is the most dangerous threat to Obama’s reelection.

That is why we are seeing an all-out attempt to portray Romney as racist, as evidenced by yesterday’s “Anglo-Saxon” feeding frenzy.

Basically, there’s an admission that false accusations of racism are (or should be) used as a way of convincing people to vote a certain way.

Utterly disgraceful. Like I say, the Obama campaign should be running a mile from this emotional blackmail tatic, but there’s no way they will, given that the Democrats have been using the “our opponents are all racists” line against the Tea Party movement and other critics for years.

It’s just a bit shocking to see such a blatant admission in print.

Churches are important – if you’re Republician

Daily Kos (via LGF, I don’t read this crap normally) opines on Palin’s church.

A look at the home website of Palin’s church tends to be revealing.  Among other things, a particular Assemblies buzzword associated frequently with Hillsong A/G and New Zealand Assemblies churches shows up (“Destiny”, here, is a buzzword for “Joel’s Army”, and is being preferred even as the phrase “Joel’s Army” is getting enough negative spin that even the Assemblies is now having to do some rather massive spin control); cell churches are promoted (of the same sort that are linked to short-term and longterm psychological damage and are among the most coercive tactics ever documented in spiritually abusive groups).  The church, like a number of other large Assemblies churches, is the center of a dominionist broadcast TV center whose programming is carried across multiple channels in Alaska.

I had a quick look at the site. There’s a link that uses the word “destiny”. That’s about all.

Frankly I can’t be bothered with all the links above. My experience tells me that I’ll spend upward of 30 min reading those links, and will have to do hours more reading to get the background to that. Once I’ve sifted through all the claims they’ll all boil down to stuff that you’ll only be upset by if you have the “right” biases to start with.

What it boils down to is that some people think that a church that actually preaches to the converted should be shut down and the members thrown in jail (in the name of protecting religious freedom usually), and they’ll exaggerate their case through lengthy (mostly meaningless) essays until they make their case.

Like I say, I can’t be bothered with this when we’ve spent months listening to the left telling us that Wright (a guy who tells his congreation that the goverment has a secret plan to kill black people) is no reason to oppose Oama.

So I guess churches are only important if you’re Republician, if you’re democrat they’re just for show.

Obama – just inflate your tires and all will be fine

This is absolutely insane. How on earth did this guy get the nomination of a major party? How come the MSM is ignoring this?

Power Line does the maths.

Just for fun, I did the math. Properly inflating your tires can improve gas mileage by 3%. Of course, many people already keep their tires properly inflated, and many more are at least close to being properly inflated. Let’s be generous and assume that one-half of the total possible savings would be realized if we all inflated our tires properly; that’s a net gain of 1.5% fuel efficiency.

Americans drive approximately 2,880 billion miles per year. If we average 24 mpg, we use around 120 billion gallons of gasoline in our vehicles. If, through perfect tire inflation, we improved our collective fuel efficiency by 1.5%, that would be 1.8 billion gallons. A barrel of oil produces around 20 gallons of gasoline, so the total savings available through tire inflation is approximately 90,000,000 barrels of oil annually.

So, on the above assumptions, it would take only 11,308 years of proper tire inflation to equal “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling.”

Obama is a curious case. He gives the impression of being an intelligent guy, but through his unscripted comments we have learned that he knows little about history, science or mathematics. He also seems rather shockingly short on common sense, as this most recent gaffe illustrates.

Coudn’t have put it better myself. Those unscripted comments are piling up thick and fast.

Actually, a lot of the scripted ones aren’t that crash hot either.

How Obama could loose

Obama could quite easily loose, and loose a lot if he continues to pull this sort of stupid stunt.

People know that McCain is a decent guy, and Obama smearing him is only going to bring Obama down.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but does it not seem as if Obama just said McCain and his campaign — presumably the “they” in this construct — are saying that Obama shouldn’t be elected because he’s a risk because he’s black and has a foreign-sounding name?

The Obama campaign says no, no, no, certainly not, he was talking about his “opponents” in general, writ large, the talk radio hosts and smear artists and such.

Then in Union, Mo., this evening, Obama seemed to specifically accuse McCain and the GOP of peddling racism and xenophobia.

Obama said that “John McCain and the Republicans, they don’t have any new ideas, that’s why they’re spending all their time talking about me. I mean, you haven’t heard a positive thing out of that campaign in … in a month. All they do is try to run me down and you know, you know this in your own life. If somebody doesn’t have anything nice to say about anybody, that means they’ve got some problems of their own. So they know they’ve got no new ideas, they know they’re dredging up all the stale old stuff they’ve been peddling for the last eight, 10 years.

“But, since they don’t have any new ideas the only strategy they’ve got in this election is to try to scare you about me. They’re going to try to say that I’m a risky guy, they’re going to try to say, ‘Well, you know, he’s got a funny name and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills and, and they’re going to send out nasty emails.

…There’s a lot of racist xenophobic crap out there. But not only has McCain not peddled any of it, he’s condemned it.

While I have no doubt there will be a bunch more racist, xenophobic, and other ignorant drek coming our way courtesy of the Internet and perhaps the occasional cable news network, it’s important to determine where it’s coming from. Is it from a specific campaign or party? A third-party group? A third-party group with direct ties to establishment figures? This all matters.

I’ve seen racism in campaigns before — I’ve seen it against Obama in this campaign (more from Democrats than Republicans, at this point, I might add) and I’ve seen it against McCain in South Carolina in 2000, when his adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget was alleged, by the charming friends and allies of then-Gov. George W. Bush, to have been a McCain love-child with an African-American woman.

What I have not seen is it come from McCain or his campaign in such a way to merit the language Obama used today. Pretty inflammatory.

About that 200,000 figure…

…at Obama’s German rally – it seems it’s not quite what is being reported locally.

Barely five minutes before the speech was supposed to start, ZDF Berlin studio chief Peter Frey added, “We do estimate that 20,000 [literally, “a couple of ten thousand”] people have turned out.” Frey’s tone, like that of Gelhard, reflected the gap between the relatively modest number cited and the lofty predictions that had preceded the event. Moreover, while the ZDF live images showed that the “Fan Mile” was indeed populated from one end to the other, they also appeared to reveal patches of thinness and pedestrian traffic flowing easily on the half of the boulevard closer to the Brandenburg Gate (i.e. furthest from the “Victory Column”).

It’s not like they don’t know what they’re talking about.

As the Berlin-based writer Christian J. Heinrich notes: “During the big anti-Bush demonstration after the fall of Baghdad, there were 250,000 people. And it looked totally different from yesterday. Then, you couldn’t move all the way from the Brandenburg Gate to the Technical University [on the western side of Tiergarten park, another kilometer beyond the Siegessäule].”

I think people are going to come to quite a crash when they realise just how often Obama has lied to them. Far from being a new sort of politician, he is in fact one of the worst old sort.

Obama is King

I had a conversation with some non-political types a few weeks ago, and they wondered why there was no coverage of Republican candidates. I told them I though it’d get better after the Dems decided their candidate.


For years Chris Matthews has been proclaiming defeat in Iraq, on an almost nightly basis, on “Hardball” but on Tuesday night he finally admitted the success of the surge that John McCain supported. However, the MSNBC host claimed it would be Barack Obama that would get to enjoy the spoils.

After Newsweek’s Howard Fineman suggested, “We’re not losing,” and pointed out the surge success would make it easier for a troop pullout, Matthews admitted the following:

MATTHEWS: Senator McCain wanted the surge to work, it worked politically and Barack Obama is the beneficiary. Not exactly the right development, politically, for him.


Some of my more paranoid friends on the right see “liberal bias” in the decision of the New York Times to reject John McCain’s op-ed about Iraq. As their “evidence” they cite the fact that, just one week ago, the same paper published Barack Obama’s op-ed on the same topic.

But New York Times editor David Shipley has made it clear that the paper wasn’t rejecting any op-ed by McCain, just the one he wrote.]


In contrast, she pointed out, as if CBS News couldn’t have done anything about it, that “last night John McCain arrived in Manchester, New Hampshire” and was greeted by just “two journalists waiting on the tarmac.” She also noted that “his campaign has revealed a contest: Two videos featuring what they claim is a media love affair with Obama.” They “claim”? How about they “illustrate.”

Earlier in the newscast, she set up the second segment of the interview with Obama, which she traveled to Jordan to conduct: “Senator Obama hopes this trip will enhance his credibility as a world leader, something I asked him about in our exclusive interview earlier today.”

McCain’s three-minute interview, done via satellite from New Hampshire, delivered 18 times more coverage time than he received from the CBS Evening News during his trip to Iraq. When McCain visited Iraq the week of March 16, the MRC’s Kyle Drennen documented, the CBS Evening News allocated “only 31 words, a grand total of 10 seconds, to the Republican nominee’s Iraq visit during the entire week.”


Oh, and did I mention that even after being proved wrong, he still thinks he was right to oppose the surge.

This guy has to be the king of idiots. First get your platform of anti-war and a campaign of hope, change, and pulling the troops out. After this, turn around and praise the success of a strategy you were against and change your position about troop withdrawal. After getting beaten with the backlash of your own base, go back to the original anti-war position and say something idiotic like calling a successful strategy a bad one. Don’t forget to throw in utter arrogance by stating that your plan of surrender might of, could of, should of, perhaps worked as well if certain imaginary factors might have played out differently. Also give credit for the success of the strategy you call bad to decisions made by the enemy, and belittle the U.S. military’s role as much as possible. If anything will get you elected as Commander in Chief, this will, especially if you act like an arrogant rock star on a world tour the whole time.

Obama’s Paper Trail

LGF has it (or lack thereof).

Jim Geraghty: “Does it bother anyone that a guy with political ambitions for his entire adult life has not left a paper trail?

Tag Cloud