International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Posts tagged ‘Presidential Hopefuls’

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’s aura is gone – and his presidency is almost over

The Daily Caller has a great article which sums up really nicely the end-to-end embarrassment that is Barack Obama’s presidency.

No one, not even the president’s most breathless, fervent supporters, could argue that Barack Obama was elected in 2008 on the strength of his resume. It wasn’t strong. Obama could boast a little about his academic achievements, but, without releasing his college records, he couldn’t say too much. His legislative career wasn’t impressive either. And he had never held an executive position. Never. This is a truth that cannot be overstated. The most powerful nation on Earth elected to its highest office a man who had never managed, directed or overseen anything anywhere — not a brigade, not a business, not a committee, not even a campaign for the Illinois state senate. In the autumn of 2008, the entirety of Barack Obama’s leadership experience consisted of running a local voter drive in 1992.

But he won.

Obama’s first real, contested election victory was the Democratic party primary race. The fact that such a rank amateur would be embarrassing were the other top two contenders a guy who spent $400 on haircuts while running a poverty campaign, and a woman who rode the coattails of her husband’s presidency into the senate.

But hey, he wrote two books about himself. He must be good, right?

For various reasons that revealed more about the country than the candidate, Obama was vaulted to the highest echelons of power on little more than a promise of change. He was an unknown, a blank slate onto which 53% of the nation projected their hopes. More than half of the electorate — millions of sensible, smart Americans, accomplished people with degrees and wealth and private property — participated in contemporaneous mythmaking about their candidate’s potential and greatness and potential greatness. With vague but soaring rhetoric, Barack Obama rode those myths to victory, and, in so doing, fulfilled and crystallized a strange aura of inevitability.

Obama delivers a set speech really, really well. But when it comes to off the cuff remarks, he is frequently mocked for his “uh’s” and “um’s”. Certainly he’s not as bad as Bush in that regard, but Bush got a lot of stick for his lack of ability, Obama has received a pass.


The very fact that he was elected president became the reason he should be president. It was somehow proof of his excellence and genius. Yes, he had the entire media apparatus at his back, singing his praises, but the electorate wasn’t stupid. The electorate was complicit in the mythmaking, stitching their best wishes over their candidate’s blemishes. Obama voters became invested in these myths — many still are — because they felt virtuous by voting for him.

When he won, they won. And he kept winning. Despite the dismal economy, the unemployment rate, despite unpopular legislation, foreign policy snafus, despite gaffes and open mike embarrassments, Obama was still winning, still leading in the polls. Despite everything, an Obama victory was still inevitable.

The media’s fawning over Obama in 2008 was one of their most disgraceful episodes. (For example, remember how his senate seat was being auctioned off by his mate the governor  Sure, but do you remember the media pointing out that the governor was his mate? No way.) One could put that down to hysteria and hype but for the fact that after 4 years, they were still refusing to do their job.

And then he lost.

Over the last four years, Obama’s faithful could and did blame third parties — the banks, the rich, Bush, Congress, Israel, the tea party, the Olympic committee, etc. — for nearly all of the president’s failures. They were fighting for themselves as much as they were fighting for Obama. But many gave up the fight on October 3.

Who won a debate is usually in the eye of the beholder, and the second two debates generally followed that pattern. But even if you give them as narrow victories to Obama (as most do) the first debate debacle simply did far, far too much damage.

And the fact it was entirely self-inflicted made it all the more devastating.

Now, America is being forced to wake up and slowly realise that the man they put so much trust in is simply not worthy of their highest office.

McCain is a Genius

The more I hear and think about McCain’s choice of VP, Sarah Palin,  the more I am convinced that the man is a political geniuses.

  • She’s a woman, so the minority appeal is there to counter Obama
  • After the Democratic convention, a lot of women who were threatening to vote McCain now have a serious challenge to the call to unity that occurred during the convention. I mean, do all those feminists really want to vote for an all-male ticket?
  • She’s from Alaska, a strong Republican state so that shores up many conservatives
  • She has oodles of real life experience, including 5 children one of whom has special needs. That’s going to be a fantastic pull on disabled voters, having someone who knows their issues like that in the White House
  • It completely spikes the “McCain is old” arguement, as his replacement is a women, the Women vote is actually going to get stronger the more the Democrats argue that point!
  • Arguably the best presidents come from governorships, where there is experience in managing, as opposed to the Senate, where the experience is only in making laws. This make the Republican ticket the only ticket with actual governing experience.
  • Like McCain, she has strong ethical credential having blown the whistle on fellow party members. This while Obama is trying to shut down opponents who point out that he’s best mates with an unrepentant terrorist.

Oh, and try finding a picture of Obama with an injured solder. All you find is stories about how he blew off the troops.

Love it!


Mulholland Drive quote:

And you know that he’s made the right choice when the Guardian is freaking out about it, and has to resort to the lie that she was “tainted by corruption in Alaska” when she was the one who was fighting it!

Pretty desperate stuff.

Paul Buchanan on separation of Church and State and Obama

Paul Buchanan doesn’t let truth get in the way of a good story.

In declaring independence from Great Britain, the founding fathers were also declaring independence from the Church of England. After all, their forbearers fled religious persecution from the (Protestant) Crown.

This is somewhat true… but read on.

They consequently swore to never allow the State to be overcome by religious doctrine. Instead, they envisioned the State as secular and agnostic, rooted in but not reducible to any single religious belief, and in fact devoted to upholding freedom of worship regardless of the nature of the God or Scripture in question.

This, is absolutely not! The very first document of government in the United States was the Mayflower Compact. It hardly reads like a “secular and agnostic” breakthrough.


Tag Cloud