Larry Elder Interviews Professor Malcolm On Gun-Control

Larry Elder interviews Joyce Lee Malcolm, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, a few days after the Mandalay Bay Sniper (sprayer) killed 59-people in Vegas. As usual, this 2nd Amendment historian sheds light on this right enumerated in the Constitution. You can listen to a previous interview with Dr. Malcolm via Larry Elder (May, 2014).

Gun-Control Advocates Bump Up Against Hard-Facts

Funny how “Putting politics aside” means “Advancing the Democrat Left Agenda.”

| GAY PATRIOT |

I would be remiss to NOT add this by BEN SHAPIRO (for the transcript read THE DAILY WIRE):

Some must read articles and stats — the first is an article by GAY PATRIOT, who quotes a WAPO article (which I will include in full, below). Here is GP referencing about the Washington Post article:

In a rare moment of honesty on the left, a left-wing statistician went through the evidence scientifically and without bias and came to the conclusion that none of the left-wing’s favored policies would put a dent in gun deaths.

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

It’s like us Right-Wing Nut Jobs were saying all along. The policies of the left will fail, and may perhaps even be designed to fail so that their failure will make the case for ever increasing levels of gun control leading ultimately to what the left actually wants: to outlaw the private ownership of firearms.

By the way, the correlation between gun ownership and homicides is actually inverse.

There are actually two policies that would make a difference, but they are politically unpalatable to the Progressive Left.

The majority of gun deaths in the USA are suicides – about two-thirds of all of them….

I want to pause here and break down the suicide numbers a bit… and this is really for all the people that support assisted suicide. Why does it have to be assisted? The biggest demographic that shoots themselves are the geriatric. Many of whom are in the throes or chronic pain or were diagnosed with a life threatening disease with no hope of overcoming. Here are the suicide by gun numbers:

It is sad, but using the Left’s argument FOR suicide… why is this bad? CONTINUING with Gay Patriot

…The great majority of the gun homicides in the USA are committed by young male criminals in urban areas. The Democrats who run these urban areas are loathe to crack down on this violence for fear of riling “community activists” who claim that stopping young urban males from committing crimes is a conspiracy to re-enact slavery via the “Prison Industrial Complex.”

So, for whatever reason, the only “politically palatable” solutions involve restricting the rights of non-criminal people to possess lawful means of self-defense…..

Mmmm… that brings up a different stat. I wouldn’t know where to look for such a study, but, I bet if one were to quantify those who are Democrat and those who are Republican using guns in homicide activity… I wonder what the comparative percentages would be.

For instance, one can see many more Republicans own guns, but more inner-city gang members use them illegally.

Last I remember from being in jail myself, most minority criminals are Democrats in regard to who they support.

Also, as people buy more guns, the death rate has dropped. If one were to believe the rhetoric of the Left… this should be the exact opposite:

Dennis Prager is right… this and other arguments from the Left are driven by emotions:

Here is the promised article… Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, and a Leftist!

I Used To Think Gun Control Was The Answer My Research Told Me Otherwise

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn’t even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

In this meme a point is made that I think is worthy… and that is…. there are already laws on the books to make murder illegal. What law can you pass that will stop a person from really committing this horrible act? If laws like this work, why haven’t they?

More than 64,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2016. Over 11,500 deaths by homicide are gun related each year [+/-]. Has the war one drugs and all the regulations and laws (local, county, state, and federal) stopped this? No. The answer is no. NEITHER would any law have helped less people die in Vegas. The next media presentation is prefaced by POLITISTICK:

Democrat Congressman Henry Cuellar from Texas admitted something tonight on FOX News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight that you will rarely — if ever — hear from a modern-day Democrat that has taken a hard-left turn the past eight years under Obama, funded by anti-American globalist billionaire George Soros.

In the aftermath of the Las Vegas massacre in which dozens of people were murdered and hundreds more injured by a madman shooting from a high-rise hotel — at a time when most progressive leftist’s knee-jerk reaction was to blame Second Amendment rights — Henry Cuellar admitted that gun control doesn’t work…..

The following is from an family friend-of-a-friend who was in law enforcement for 35-years:

Here are some very interesting statistics on gun violence, gun deaths, and lots of other causes of death that we deal with every day. Yet no one gets too concerned unless the cause of death is by a firearm. And yes the math is correct. 

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

  • 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
  • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
  • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
  • 3% are accidental discharge deaths.

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.

  • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
  • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
  • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
  • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

Basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause. This leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1. Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals. But what about other deaths each year?

  • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
  • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
  • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

Now it gets good:

  • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
  • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides, simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple: Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”

Pundits Saying Polling Must Be Fixed! (UPDATED)

No, two polls got it right, copy their models:


SOME POLLS


A couple polls that match up:

Final IBD/TIPP Poll Results:

  • As voters go to the actual polls to cast their ballots in what has been an unprecedented presidential election, Republican Donald Trump held onto a 2-point lead over his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton — 45% to 43% — in a four-way matchup, according to the final IBD/TIPP presidential tracking poll. Libertarian Gary Johnson captures 8% support from likely voters, while Green Party candidate Jill Stein gets 2%. In a two-way matchup, Clinton leads Trump by 1 point — 43% to 42%.


Electoral College Guesses


November 3rd

Election Day

 

CNN Poll Shenanigans: They Say Tied but Sampled Dems at +11 and Didn`t Factor In the 22-Point Lead with Indies

Via Twitchy. from Drudge Report:

The poll, released earlier tonight, shows a 49-49 tie among likely voters. But to get that result CNN had to use one of the most skewed samples we’ve seen this campaign (see page 29):

Among those likely voters, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans.

A D+11 sample! By comparison, the electorate in 2008, when Obama-mania was at its peak, was merely D+7, according to exit polls.

There’s more. The poll shows Mitt Romney beating President Obama among Independents 59-37, an incredible 22-point lead.

Does anyone seriously believe Romney can win Indies by more than 20 points and still come out tied in the popular vote?

Some more Drudge poll links:

ABCWASHPOST: O 49% R 48%...
GALLUP SWING: O 48% R 48%...
CNN: TIED [WITH D+11]...
PEW: O 48% R 45% [WITH D+6]...
FL: R 52% O 47%...
MI: R 47% O 46%...
VA: O 48% R 47%...

Karl Rove and Dick morris Dissect the CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Poll (Florida, Ohio, Virginia)

CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac poll:

  • (Florida) Democrats sampled at 37%/ Republicans sampled at 30%/Independents sampled at 29%
  • (Ohio) Democrats sampled at 37%/Republicans sampled at 29%/Independents sampled at 30%
  • (Virginia) Democrats sampled at 35%/Republicans sampled at 27%/Independents sampled at 35%

Hot Air shows how this poll and the mixing of 2008 stats (enthusiasm levels) do not jive. Dick Morris as well does a bang-up job on discussing this poll as well, “Why The NY Times Poll Is Wrong.”

—————————–

Another aspect is the voting blocks. Obama has all his blocks down. A great video to make the point is this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdTihf2_GGM&feature=share&list=UUKCXRhi-1Z4eCnsNJujlbmQ). I think many are finally — hopefully — realizing in the inner cities (even Michigan was tied up in the polls) that the monopolies of union control over education and liberal policies in inner-cities that have been in place for 40/50 years are to no avail. That they merely create a victim class that are rendered powerless, except as pawns for political purposes.

More: the Jewish vote is down (http://tinyurl.com/98ok3yo), the black vote (http://tinyurl.com/9uwyxmf), women (http://tinyurl.com/c62xfa8), young (http://tinyurl.com/925xenw)… they are all down for the Dems. It doesn’t mean they will vote for Romney. It may mean they won’t vote at all. But Republicans are more jazzed about this vote than Dems (http://tinyurl.com/9joxzgj).

 

Dick Morris is right for once!:

….Here’s the deal. The Times is weighting the raw survey data to reflect the ratio of Democrats to Republicans who voted in 2008.  True, if we get the same massive turnout among minorities and young people that propelled Obama to victory in 2008, he will win this election and carry these states. But we won’t. All the polling shows that the electorate is now much more Republican and that GOP voters are much more motivated to turn out than their Democratic counterparts.

If we weight the Times results for the average turnout of the past four elections: 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010, we find Romney winning all three states. Republican pollster (the best of them all) John McLaughlin and I used exit polls from the past four elections to figure out how many Democrats and Republicans actually voted and then we averaged them together. Here are the real numbers:

FLORIDA

  • NY Times results: Obama +1
  • Dem/Rep ratio in Times poll: Dems +7
  • Average ratio Dem/Rep past four elections: Reps +1
  • Times overstates Dem vote by 8 points

Correct poll result: Romney +7

OHIO

  • NY Times results: Obama +5
  • Dem/Rep ratio in Times poll: Dems +8
  • Average ratio Dem/Rep past four elections: Dems +2
  • Times overstates Dem vote by 6 points

Correct poll result: Romney +1

VIRGINIA

  • NY Times results: Obama +2
  • Dem/Rep ratio in Times poll: Dems +8
  • Average ratio Dem/Rep past four elections: Reps +1
  • Times overstates Dem vote by 9 points

Correct poll result: Romney +7

And even these results don’t tell the full story. The Gallup Poll finds that the 2012 election will actually have more Republicans and fewer Democrats voting than any of the past four elections. In 2008, the electorate had 12 points more Democrats and Republicans….

…read more…

By The Numbers ~ Digging in the Weeds of the Recent Much Touted Polls (Combined Posts from my FaceBook)

RECENT POLLS BROKEN DOWN:

The Ohio poll (Cincinnati Enquirer/Ohio News Organization Poll) that has the 49% vs. the 49% close race, is a great example of what I have been talking about here-and-there about the disparity of proper representation of Party affiliates in these polls. For instance, in the poll used by many to show the tie, here is the breakdown:

★ The party breakdown of the randomly selected respondents: 47 percent Democrats, 44 percent Republicans, 10 percent independents.

We know that Independents are tracking more with the Republicans this year, about 54 percent (R/R) to 40 percent (O/B). And of course the difference is obvious in Democrat/Republican, as shown above. If there were a more even sampling between all three… Romney would be up, and by a few percentage points!

Likewise, the Minnesota poll that shows a statistical dead-heat is broke down thusly:

★ The poll comes as more Minnesotans identify as Republicans, which could add to Romney’s support. A month ago, the poll’s sample was 41 percent Democrat, 28 percent Republican and 31 percent independent or other. In this survey, 38 percent of respondents identified themselves as Democrat, 33 percent Republican and 29 percent independent or other.

NOW, the important part for my California readers. Yes, this state will go blue… but it is a duty for all Republicans to vote. Why? Because I believe that we will win this election, but a larger popular vote win will give R/R a moral high road for their agenda. The wider the gap the better.

[….]

Okay, the Gravis Marketing Poll (Ohio) which has Obama up 1 in Ohio ~ 50 Obama, 49 Romney… Dems are sampled 8% more (also remember Independents are going for Romney in larger numbers). Here is how the poll breaks down:

⚑ Democrat – 40
⚑ Republican – 32
⚑ Independent or in another party – 28

[….]

PPP’s newest Ohio poll finds Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney 51-47, up from a 49-48 margin a week ago. How does this newest poll break down?

⚑ Democrat – 43%
⚑ Republican – 35%
⚑ Independent/Other – 21%

[….]

Two new polls out that are nationwide averages (not specific state polls) are the Rasmussen poll and the Washington Post-ABC News Poll

The Washington Post-ABC News Poll has Romney at 49, Obama 48. Here is the break down:

⚑ Democrats sampled – 35%
⚑ Republican sampled – 28%
⚑ Independents sampled – 34%

Rasmussen has Romney at 49% and Obama at 47% — nation wide average. I can never find the in-depth breakdown… I think you have to be a paying member to do so. At any rate, here is one of their articles in part:

———————————————-

The full Swing State tracking update offers Rasmussen Reader subscribers a combined view of the results from 11 key states won by President Obama in 2008 and thought to be competitive in 2012. The states collectively hold 146 Electoral College votes and include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

In the 11 swing states, Mitt Romney earns 50% of the vote to Obama’s 46%. Two percent (2%) like another candidate in the race, and another two percent (2%) are undecided.

Romney has now led for 11 straight days with margins of four to six points most of that time.

In 2008, Obama won these states by a combined margin of 53% to 46%, virtually identical to his national margin.

Nationally, Romney remains at the 50% level of support in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll….

(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_swing_state_tracking_poll)

————————————

Its all about the swing states!

(OHIO) Romney 50% ~ Obama 48%

The race for Ohio’s Electoral College votes remains very close, but now Mitt Romney now has a two-point advantage.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Ohio Voters shows Romney with 50% support to President Obama’s 48%. One percent (1%) likes some other candidate, while another one percent (1%) remains undecided. 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president

And, from the Weekly Standard:

New Projection of Election Results: Romney 52, Obama 47

The bipartisan Battleground Poll, in its “vote election model,” is projecting that Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama 52 percent to 47 percent. The poll also found that Romney has an even greater advantage among middle class voters, 52 percent [Romney] to 45 percent [Obama].

While Obama can close the gap with a strong voter turnout effort, “reports from the field would indicate that not to be the case, and Mitt Romney may well be heading to a decisive victory,” says pollster Ed Goeas.

Should Romney win by 5 percentage points, it would increase Republican chances of gaining control of the Senate. His coattails would help elect GOP Senate candidates in Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. “Republicans are now certain to hold the House,” Goeas said, “regardless of how the presidential race turns out.”

The poll’s election model takes into account variables including voter intensity, age, and education, and voters who are certain in their vote. The race “remains very close in the surface,” Goeas said, “but the political environment and the composition of the likely electorate favor Governor Romney.”

The projected outcome by the Battleground Poll is close to that of the Gallup Poll. Last week, Gallup said Romney leads Obama 49 percent to 46 percent in its model of the electorate’s composition on November 6.

The Battleground Poll is conducted by Goeas of the Tarrance Group and Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners. Goeas is a Republican, Lake a Democrat. The survey is affiliated with Politico and George Washington University.

Taken last week, the poll found that only 37 percent of voters believe the country is headed in the right direction. For an incumbent president to win reelection, that number normally must exceed 40 percent. “Everyone but the core Democratic constituencies holds the strongly held feeling that the country is off on the wrong track,” Goeas said.

For the first time this year, Romney has a majority favorable image. His favorability rating is 52 percent, Obama’s is 51 percent. According to the poll, Romney is viewed favorably by a majority of independents (59 percent), seniors (57), married voters (61), moms (56), college graduates (54), middle class voters (56), and middle class families (61).

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-poll-projects-romney-52-obama-47_658066.html

Mitt Romney Storms Into The Lead Over Obama

Business Insider zeroes in on this LARGE jump

In a shocking one-month swing, Mitt Romney stormed into the lead over President Barack Obama in a new  Pew Research poll conducted after Romney’s consensus victory in the first presidential debate.

The poll finds a 12-point swing among likely voters. In Pew’s last poll, conducted in the middle of September, Obama led Romney 51-43 among likely voters. Now, Romney leads 49-45. 

The shift is due to Romney shoring up key areas of strength among likely voters and improving his overall image, much of which can be attributed to his strong debate performance. Sixty-six percent of voters thought Romney won the debate, compared with just 20 percent who said Obama won. Among Independents, Romney won by an astounding 78-14 margin.

…read more…

Business Insider notes as well Andrew Sullivan’s despair:

Daily Beast blogger Andrew Sullivan is not happy about the latest Pew Research poll, which shows Republican presidential candidate surging 12 points to hold a 49 percent to 46 percent lead over President Barack Obama. 

Here’s what Sullivan had to say about the poll: 

“The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 – 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 – 45 lead. That’s a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in all of them. Obama’s performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing.

Romney’s favorables are above Obama’s now. Yes, you read that right. Romney’s favorables are higher than Obama’s right now. That gender gap that was Obama’s firewall?”

He continues: 

“Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That’s terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion. He still has some personal advantages over Romney – even though they are all much diminished. Obama still has an edge on Medicare, scores much higher on relating to ordinary people, is ahead on foreign policy, and on being moderate, consistent and honest (only 14 percent of swing voters believe Romney is honest). But on the core issues of the economy and the deficit, Romney is now kicking the president’s ass.” 

He ends: 

“I’ve never seen a candidate self-destruct for no external reason this late in a campaign before. Gore was better in his first debate – and he threw a solid lead into the trash that night. Even Bush was better in 1984 than Obama last week. Even Reagan’s meandering mess in 1984 was better – and he had approaching Alzheimer’s to blame.”

Sullivan, a moderate conservative-turned-Obama fan, was one of the harshest critics of the President’s debate performance last week, and the Pew numbers bear out his doomsday take on Obama’s onstage collapse. 

…read more…

Survey: `55% of physicians reported they would vote for Romney while just 36% support Obama`

The America’s Medical Society mentions that some questioning should happen at the debates:

Mr. President, please explain how you plan to maintain the same level of  medical acuity and acumen, when, within a mere two years, there will be tens of  millions of additional patients added to waiting rooms nationally?

They continue,

The President should have a prepared answer to this key concern of healthcare  providers and patients. It’s inconceivable that any question could be more  primary to the intrinsic workings of our health systems in the United States.  With all other concerns aside, nothing really matters if there are not properly  trained physicians available to evaluate and treat the added influx of thirty  million new patients.

Let’s assume that the polls are wrong, and that anywhere from thirty to  sixty-five percent of practicing doctors will not, indeed, cut back their hours or retire early in the next decade. Let’s answer this question then, honestly,  for the President in a stand-alone textbook-style essay response. There is  really only one–albeit vague and evasive–answer that the President can  give:

“…We will rely on ancillary healthcare personnel [non-physicians: nurses,  technicians, physician’s assistants] to step up and do more of the supporting  work now done by doctors.”

This is the answer that Mr. Obama’s handlers have likely prepared for him.  There is only one problem, however, with this answer: it is disingenuous and  factually incomplete.

First of all, the President’s men know very well that the decades-old slow  decline in inflation-adjusted income of physicians has already squeezed every  ounce of efficiency out of non-physician helpers in the workforce. There is no  way these ‘non-M.D.s’ can be asked to simply ‘give more’ without sacrificing  quality.

What will really happen in Obama’s new world medical order is that  non-physicians will be charged with higher levels of functioning in patient  care—assessment, treatment, and even prescription-writing, as more nurse  practitioners and (state law depending) others are required to practice medicine  without the benefit of a medical training and degree. Essentially, some will be  given the equivalent of a medical degree through legislative and executive fiat.  In other words, time-honored requirements and benchmarks for medical training  will be lowered.

…read more…

Obama-Care, however, is already crumbling and has two more times to visit the Supreme Court (HHS and the “Exchanges” between states). Here is one state that took the law into their own hands, as Walter William would say, Constitutionally:

Missouri voters dealt Obamacare a significant setback yesterday, approving a statewide ballot measure with an overwhelming 71 percent of the vote.

The vote was the first time citizens had an opportunity to cast a ballot on the unpopular health care law. Missouri’s measure prohibits the federal government’s enforcement of the individual mandate to buy health insurance. The victory sends a strong message about Obamacare in a bellwether state.

…read more…

A recent survey from the the third largest health care staffing company in the United States shows that most doctors are for either “repeal and replace” or “implement and improve.” These feelings work out towards the candidates in the following way:

A new survey shows Mitt Romney with a commanding lead over President Barack Obama among doctors, with Obamacare helping to sway their votes.

If the election were held today, 55 percent of physicians reported they would vote for Romney while just 36 percent support Obama, according to a survey released by Jackson & Coker, a division of Jackson Healthcare, the third largest health care staffing company in the United States

Fifteen percent of respondents said they were switching their vote from Obama in 2008 to Romney in 2012. The top reasons cited for this change was the Affordable Care Act and the failure to address tort reform.

Leadership style, failure to follow through on campaign promises, unemployment and the general state of the economy were also factors.

“Doctors are highly motivated this year to have their voice heard, particularly after passage of the Affordable Care Act,” said Sandy Garrett, president of Jackson & Coker. “No doubt, the health care law has stirred many passions in the medical community.”

Fifty-five percent of physicians said that they favored “repeal and replace” Obamacare, while 40 percent said “implement and improve”.

A Gallup poll from July found that 46 percent of Americans feel Obamacare is more harmful than helpful to the economy; 36 percent responded the opposite.

…read more…

Romney Up In Ohio!?

Libertarian Republican has a good post showing that multiple polls actually has Romney up in Ohio:

In Ohio, the RealClearPolitics average of the public polls currently favors Obama by 6 points. Supposedly, Obama is going to win this state by a wider margin than he did four years, when he won the state by 5 points….

NOT!

Based on my average of thirteen polls conducted during the prior thirty days in Ohio, I have Romney currently ahead by 2.2 points, 47.6 to 45.3, with the remainder undecided or in favor of a third-party candidates.

…read more…

The Coach is Right has this astounding post that also shows their is some fuzzy math going on in the legacy media:

Media fraudulent pollsters you’ve been busted. Your fake numbers have been exposed by two very unlikely and probably unwilling sources. Last Friday the Leftist cheer leaders at the Third Way “think tank” made what had to be a very sad announcement for them. They told the world their researchers had found Democrat registration has fallen by 490,000 in just Ohio alone and without going into finer numbers had also declined by significant numbers in other important states. Florida Democrat registration is down 4.9% Iowa Democrats have lost 9.5% and remember that “thisclose” swing state of New Hampshire, the one that flipped its entire government just two years ago – Democrat registration is down 19.7%! More than this Third Way also found Republican registration was down only a 10th of the Democrat decline and that Independents (who favor Mitt Romney by 14 points) had grown in numbers.

The full story from Ohio must be chilling for Democrats because 44% of these Democrat registration drops come from the Cleveland (Cuyahoga County) area cutting deeply into their lead over local Republicans. Hamilton and Franklin counties, both huge Democrat strongholds have seen steep declines in the number of registered Democrats as well. The combined decline of all three counties accounts for about 79% of the now “missing” Ohio Democrats.

[…]

The second blow to the false polls we constantly see is the just released Gallup report showing Republicans 16% (64/48) more enthusiastic about voting than Democrats are. Remember these numbers when you read the next fraudulent poll. Added to the sharp drop in Democrat registration they prove Barack Obama is on his way to a landslide defeat next month.

…read more…

And the Daily Caller is reporting that an internal Ohio Romney memo says the state is up for grabs.

Polls Lie ~ Sorta: You Have To Dig To Find Poll Information (Are Republicans Really Down 10% In Ohio?)

Misleading Stats ~ You Have To Dig To Find the Real Stats!

A good example of this is the recent poll my boss came in and disparagingly said “Romney’s down 10% in Ohio.” I waited till I got home and found out that the poll sampled Democrats at 35%, and Republicans at 27%. So while the race is close however, Obama is not leading by 10% — which is why it is categorized as a swing state.

See also:

More Fuzzy Math from the Polls: http://tinyurl.com/9df4a99
Karl Rove Explains the 1980 Polls Regarding the Carter/Reagan Race (3-weeks before the Election, Carter was at 47%, Reagan at 39% ~ Reagan won 44-states): http://tinyurl.com/925t9uh


More Fuzzy Math from the Polls

Via Breitbart:

A Marist Poll on Thursday found President Barack Obama with an astounding eight-point lead over Mitt Romney in Iowa, even as the RealClearPolitics average had the state tied and a Rasmussen Reports poll on Thursday found Romney leading by three points. 

Marist says the breakdown of likely voters in its poll Iowa is 36% Democrat, 31% Republican, and 33% independent. Democrats only had a one-point advantage in 2008, when enthusiasm for Obama was at its peak. 

But when among those 33% who are independent are broken down even further, 12% leaned Democrat and 10% leaned Republican, giving Democrats a two-point advantage among independents Marist polled. This means Democrats actually have a seven-point advantage in the poll. 

In 2008, Democrats only had a one-point advantage over Republicans on election night in Iowa. Democrats made up 34% of Iowans who voted in the presidential election in 2008. Republicans made up 33%. Independents made up 33%. …

[…]

The Marist poll found forty-nine percent of Iowans thought the country was headed in the wrong direction while 43% thought the country was headed in the right direction. This means Obama is in trouble if Democrats don’t give him a seven-point advantage over Republicans at the polls in November, which seems highly unlikely.