So Steve Bannon is an anti-Semite even though many Jews came out an defended him (leftist Jews, Orthodox Jews, secular Jews, and higher ups in Israeli political parties. NOW, Jess Sessions is in cahoots with the KKK even though he fought the Klan in court as well as being key in desegregating schools… but he is a Stormfront racist. Um… okay [/sarcasm]
The left is going to make attacking Jeff Sessions the cornerstone of its early resistance to Donald Trump. Elizabeth Warren, a possible presidential contender in 2020, sounded the call almost immediately, asserting a moral imperative to block Sessions’ confirmation.
The alleged moral imperative is based on stale and, in some cases, disputed claims of mildly racist comments that were alleged 30 years ago when Sessions was denied confirmation for a federal judgeship. Warren stated:
Thirty years ago, a different Republican Senate rejected Senator Sessions’ nomination to a federal judgeship. In doing so, that Senate affirmed that there can be no compromise with racism; no negotiation with hate. Today, a new Republican Senate must decide whether self-interest and political cowardice will prevent them from once again doing what is right.
But did the Senate get it right 30 years ago. Arlen Specter, who cast the deciding vote against Sessions, later concluded it did not. Specter, who has never big on confessing error, called his vote a “mistake” that “remains one of my biggest regrets.”
Specter was right. Let’s look beyond disputed allegations about stray remarks to Sessions’ record.
As a U.S. Attorney, [Sessions] filed several cases to desegregate schools in Alabama. And he also prosecuted the head of the state Klan, Henry Francis Hays, for abducting and killing Michael Donald, a black teenager selected at random. Sessions insisted on the death penalty for Hays.
When he was later elected the state Attorney General, Sessions followed through and made sure Hays was executed. The successful prosecution of Hays also led to a $7 million civil judgment against the Klan, effectively breaking the back of the KKK in Alabama.
In Warren’s terms, Sessions refused to compromise with racism and negotiate with hate.
[….]
The Democrats don’t have the votes to block Sessions’ confirmation. Thanks to rules changes pushed through by Harry Reid, it no longer requires 60 votes to confirm presidential appointees….
Here is more on that “deciding vote” by Arlen Specter that he regrets as one of the biggest miss-voted in his career (TOWNHALL):
…Also, the late Arlen Specter (D-PA), who had switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat in order to better his chances of re-election, said in that same year that his vote to oppose Sessions’ judicial nomination was wrong (via Politico):
Specter told reporters that out of the 10,000 votes he has cast, he can now recall one that he regrets.
“I don’t expect everybody to agree with all my votes, and I don’t agree with all my votes, either, at this point … and I was asked the other day what vote I regretted, and I couldn’t’ think of one that I wanted to publicly state, but I’m prepared to do that now in response to your question,” Specter said. “My vote against candidate Sessions for the federal court was a mistake.”
Asked why, Specter said, “because I have since found that Sen. Sessions is egalitarian.”
Yes, there are still racists in this country, but before we tar and feather someone, let’s see the evidence that isn’t part of the made up, arbitrary, and politically correct criteria of the social justice warrior….
In this short clip Larry Elder examines the reasonableness in asking if being a disenfranchised group is really all that bad. I mean Obama said he was from outside the country… Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill claimed to be Native American, and Rachel Dolezal claimed to be black? Am I missing something?
As a side-not, Clifford Thies notes Rachel Dolezals disconnect when she criticised Christian Bale for playing Moses:
According to Afro-centric nonsense, white people have been expropriating black culture for centuries. For example, white people claim that Jews and Egyptians are white when everybody knows Jews and Egyptians are black. Among the Afro-centric voices protesting the continuing expropriation of black culture was black-face girl (Rachel Dolezal).
In an interview back in October 2014, black-face girl said about Christian Bale portraying Moses in the movie “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” “it’s highly offensive to the people that actually were living during that time and also to people today, it’s robbing and shredding their ancestry and history,”…
This is a discussion between myself and a black, lifelong Democrat. He intimated to me that he would never vote Republican because of the party’s racism. Okay. I asked him to provide me with one example or evidence of racism from Republican leaders. He offered me “birthirism.” Birthers are people who believe Obama was born in Kenya, and thus, not able to be President. The below is my response to him, one may also want to read my more recent conversation with a Democrat who likewise posited racism. Let us begin
What are our options with birtherism? Options:
a) Either the conspiracy theories are true, or; b) He lied to gain access and recognition at Occidental College/Harvard/Columbia an/or at his publisher… similar to Elizabeth Warren; c) The media made this up whole cloth.
Why do I only allow for the above two options? Let me explain and then we will continue with the response.
FIRSTLY, I truly believe Obama was born in Hawaii. In other words, I am NOT a birther in the true sense of the words meaning.
That being said, I do believe he lied about this in order to get more opportunities for educational as well as more opportunities to get published. I say this BECAUSE of the following evidence, which is: that only a few months after Obama threw his hat officially into the 2008 Presidential run, his publisher scrubbed their site of the following. And mind you, the following could not have happened without Obama’s consent/knowledge:
Obama’s literary agent changed Barack Obama’s bio page in April 2007, two months after he announced his run for President of the United States in February 2007. Before that, Obama’s bio said he was born in Kenya.
So, we can rid option “c” from above… we now know this was not a “hit job” by a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Here is an highlighted portion of the above which was on Obama’s publishers website from 1995-to-2007(to the right).
The media is not that smart to foresee into the future like that and plant said evidence with full-knowledge of Obama. So we have “a” and “b” left.
a) Either the conspiracy theories are true, or; b) He lied to gain access and recognition at Occidental College/Harvard/Columbia an/or at his publisher… similar to Elizabeth Warren;
Again, to be clear, I reject birtherism (“a”), but doing so doesn’t mean that common sense can say the following:
Obama was the first “birther.”
In 2003 for instance, when his publisher published Barack Obama’s book, Dreams of My Father, they wrote that Barack Obama was born in Kenya in their own promotional material (Gateway Pundit). Either way there is “some splainin’ to do Lucy.”
Back to the aforementioned Elizabeth Warren. Ann Coulter’s comments on Warren:
“Warren’s lie is outrageous enough to someone like me, who isn’t a fan of race-based affirmative action programs. Still, she is a liar, and she stole the credit of someone else’s suffering. For liberals, it should be a mortal sin: Elizabeth Warren cheated on affirmative action.”
If true of Obama… he would be doubly guilty of this mortal sin. One commentator on my FaceBook made this astute point that “Either way, Joe Wilson was right! He lies!”
BACK to the options.
a) Either the conspiracy theories are true, or; b) He lied to gain access and recognition at Occidental College/Harvard/Columbia an/or at his publisher.
We know the more modern theory was started by the Hillary camp during the contentious campaign between her and Obama (audio to the right). We also have the long-form birth certificate… as well as the birth announcements of Obama from Hawaii when he was born (from two papers: [1961] Honolulu Advertiser; and, [1961] Star Bulletin). So we can exclude “a,” that the conspiracy theories are true.
So, I am inclined to believe “b,” but more importantly… over the years I have been inundated with the “racist” label by those assuming I am a “birther.” So this is why I wanted to expand my thinking on this.
Let us expose the “racism” portion of this a bit more with an example from ThinkProgress (the title of the article is “9 Most Racist Moments of the 2012 Election“) that racism is in the root cause of this conspiracy rather than hyperbole. For instance they quote in their #1 example the son of a Republican, Jason Thompson:
Jason Thompson told a crowd of supporters at a brunch that “we have the opportunity to send President Obama back to Chicago — or Kenya.” Thompson is the son of former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson, who is now running for Senate. In attendance at the brunch was Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee.
This is obviously hyperbole. But let’s say Jason really believed Obama was born in Kenya… I still cannot see “racism” in this remark. But this claim of racism cuts both was, as we will see. So, here are the four areas I will compare this “racism” claim made about being a birther and this being the best example a life-long Democrat can use to show “Republican racism.”
Dem vs. Repub % of belief in conspiracies;
what type of conspiracy?;
Who believed these conspiracy theories;
What is my point?
1) PERCENTAGES
(Speaking to my Democratic detractor) You are aware, I am sure, that the birther story was first started by a Democrat and the story made popular via Hillary Clinton. For instance, Politico says this in one of their classic articles:
…Where did this idea come from? Who started it? And is there a grain of truth there? The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama. The theory’s proponents are a mix of hucksters and earnest conspiracy theorists, including prominently a lawyer who previously devoted himself to ‘proving’ that the Sept. 11 attacks were an inside job. Its believers are primarily people predisposed to dislike Obama. That willingness to believe the worst about officials of the opposite party is a common feature of presidential rumor-mongering: In 2006, an Ohio University/Scripps Howard poll found that slightly more than half of Democrats said they suspected the Bush Administration of complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks….
So not only would Obama in 1995 would have to of intimated the idea that he was born in Kenya in 1995, here [above] Politico traces the “birther” beginnings to a Democrat. Let us digest this a bit.
I am combining the above with polls from Rasmussen (and others compiled at WIKI) that show an amazing thing. What is this “amazing thing,” you rightly ask?
Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.
Not sure? Not sure? To be clear, Democrats by over a majority believed Bush either knew directly or they said they were [basically] “still on the fence.” Here is more:
I’ve been looking for a good analogue to the willingness of Republicans to believe, or say they believe, that Obama was born abroad, and one relevant number is the share of Democrats willing to believe, as they say, that “Bush knew.”
There aren’t a lot of great public numbers on the partisan breakdown of adherents to that conspiracy theory, but the University of Ohio yesterday shared with us the crosstabs of a 2006 poll they did with Scripps Howard that’s useful in that regard.
“How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?” the poll asked.
A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was “very likely.” Another 28.2% called it “somewhat likely.”
That is: More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks….
What is the percentage of Republicans that believed (at it’s height of belief) Obama was not born in America?
31% of Republican think/thought that Obama was not born in the states…
How many Democrats?
15% of Democrats believe the same… [well as 18% of Independents]
However, a third who believe him to be born out of the country approve of him (ABC-News and my RPT post).
2)WHAT KIND OF CONSPIRACY?
So we have two conspiracies to compare and contrast: 9/11 culpability, and birtherism. What do they show? Are their differences? Let’s work through these. One, birtherism, has a belief held that a person was born out of country, and that other people covered this up.
In other words… when Obama was a child/infant other adults made this happen. He, Obama, was powerless to affect it. Obviously, he was an infant or child. In fact, assuming the conspiracy true and giving the most leeway of the options behind it… Obama may not have known about this until his Presidential run.
What about 9/11?
This conspiracy asserts that a leader of these United States knew of the coming attack and allowed it to happen, thus killing fellow citizens and going to war over it [for oil, a myth]. Thus, murdering more Americans in a war over a conspiracy to profit.
Many of these Democrats also believe Bush was involved in making this happen (HotAir). So this conspiracy would be considered — if we had an evil scale — much more “evil” because it is an American in the highest office basically directly culpable for the death of innocent people.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist for an outside observer to say, “whoa, whoa, whoa… calm down DEMOCRATS! Yeah this other conspiracy [birtherism] is nuts, but it doesn’t posit such an overtly evil act.”
in other words a much larger number of Democrats are on the “fringe” and would be called racist if they were Republicans, for their crazy opposition to a black President. LIKE Republicans are called racist for their birtherism position. Which would also include the 15% of Democrats being equally racist who believe in this birther theory.
3) MAGAZINES, PUNDITS, AND LEADERS
Here is what the Left believes to be a radical, extreme right pundit, Ann Coulter. Her point is instructive, which is, no one in the major influence of the conservative/Republican believes this conspiracy (see Ann Coulter reject birtherism — to the right):
NOTE: not a single mainstream right-wing talk show host believed this (I should stipulate that I listen to Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, and Larry Elder). None of these conservative talk show hosts believed this. In fact, Michael Medved typically takes calls that disagree with him — which led to some great excoriation of this birther conspiracy (here are some of those calls).
In the original challenge by a friend, he stated that Republicans have racist tendencies, provable by their support of birther conspiracies. So my new question is this:
“If Obama used this canard [that he was born in Kenya] in order to receive more accolades or recognition at Harvard and/or his publisher, would this be evidence that he is racist”?
I tackled the subject back in 2010 on my old blog, it on my old blog as well as my new site. And I am as conservative as you can get!
The next LOGICAL question becomes who in congress or Democratic leadership believed Bush knew? To name a few: Rep. Dennis Kucinich; Rep. Cynthia McKinney; Congressman Alan Grayson, etc.
4) What Is My Point?
Simply my point is this:
1) The complexity of the seemingly simple “around the cooler” accusation that birtherism equals racism is never addressed. If Republicans are painted as racist, then so to must Democrats since a large percentage of them are “birthers,” not to mention Obama was the O.G. birther and recent birtherism was pushed by Hillary Clinton’s camp.
Simply painting your opponent as bigoted or racist sounds good if one wishes to label and dismiss opposing viewpoints. It is the easy way out for the lazy of mind.
2) If such beliefs make Republicans racist or bigoted, how much more are Democrats with their larger fringe group pushing a theory that infers Bush was personally involved with this act?
3) Since almost all major conservative/Republican magazines, pundits, radio hosts, and Congressmen reject “birtherism,” and many more liberal/Democratic magazines, pundits, radio hosts, and elected-officials believed their own 9/11 theories AND birtherism to some extent… how does this paint the people pushing these conspiracies?
In other words, Republicans at least say Obama was lying about his place of birth in order to get special preference in educational and publishing opportunities; at most saying that Obama later found out about other peoples lies in getting him over to America as a child and tried to cover it up for his Presidential run.
On the other-side of the coin, you have Democrats saying that [at least] Bush knew about the pending attack and allowed it to happen in order to financially profit from a war[s]. At most they say he was actually involved in the taking down of the Trade Towers in order to go to war. BOTH options Bush is culpable for the murder of innocent and military lives.
Like Obama’s lies about many aspects in his book, to Elizabeth Warren’s lies, to Wendy Davis… when you on on policies driven by emotion… you tend to emotionally driven fairy tales by said people:
CNN is actually looking into this, where other places, ahem… *MSNBC*… are not:
(From an older post) Some new information about Obama’s grandfather and his treatment by the British may be another lie penned by Obama. Mail Online has this:
A new biography of Barack Obama has established that his grandfather was not, as is related in the President’s own memoir, detained by the British in Kenya and found that claims that he was tortured were a fabrication.
‘Barack Obama: The Story’ by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book ‘Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance’. The 641-page book punctures the carefully-crafted narrative of Obama’s life.
One of the enduring myths of Obama’s ancestry is that his paternal grandfather Hussein Onyango Obama, who served as a cook in the British Army, was imprisoned in 1949 by the British for helping the anti-colonial Mau Mau rebels and held for several months.
Obama’s step-grandmother Sarah, Onyango wife, who is still living, is quoted in the future President’s memoir, as saying: ‘One day, the white man’s askaris came to take Onyango away, and he was placed in a detention camp.
‘But he had been in the camp for over six months, and when he returned to Alego he was very thin and dirty. He had difficulty walking, and his head was full of lice. He was so ashamed, he refused to enter his house or tell us what happened.’
In a 2008 interview, Sarah Obama claimed that he was ‘whipped every morning and evening’ by the British. ‘They would sometimes squeeze his testicles with metal rods. They also pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together. He was lucky to survive. Some of his fellow inmates were mutilated with castration pliers and beaten to death with clubs.’
But Maraniss, who researched Obama’s life in Kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii and the mainland United States, found that there were ‘no remaining records of any detention, imprisonment, or trial of Hussein Onyango Obama’. He interviewed five people who knew Obama’s grandfather, who died in 1979, who ‘doubted the story or were certain it did not happen’.
This undermines the received wisdom that Obama’s grandfather was a victim of oppression, an assumption that has in turn fuelled theories that Obama harbours an animus towards Britain based on a deeply-rooted rage about the way Onyango was treated.
John Ndalo Aguk, who worked with Onyango before the alleged imprisonment and was in touch with him weekly afterwards said he ‘knew nothing’ about any detention and would have noticed if he had gone missing for several months.
Here are 5 faux Indians listed by Reason, I add one at the end #6:
1. Chief Jay Strongbow 2.F-Troop‘s Hekawi Tribe 3. Ward Churchill 4. Chief Seattle’s Phony Speech 5. Iron Eyes Cody, a.k.a. The Crying Indian 6. Obama
Breitbart has the genealogical crime scene of Elizabeth Warren’s family line:
Cherokee genealogist Twila Barnes has discovered an August 17, 1906 article from the Muskogee (Oklahama) Times Democrat which states that John H. Crawford, the great-grandfather Elizabeth Warren claims was part Cherokee, shot and probably mortally wounded an Indian who had attacked his son.
The 1906 article, which can be seen here, clearly states that Crawford is white. As Barnes describes it:
Elizabeth Warren is the granddaughter of Hannie Crawford, daughter of John H. Crawford. Warren says the Crawfords were Cherokee.
“Rosco Crawford, Hannie Crawford’s brother, told (his granddaughter) that as a young boy living in the Creek Nation of Indian Territory, the Indians were “pretty mean.” Once, when a Creek was hitting Crawford’s younger brother, their father shot and wounded the Indian, according to her biography, on file at California State University at Fullerton.”
The story Hannie’s brother, Rosco, told his granddaughter is true.
William Jacobson at Legal Insurrectionelaborates: “This clipping also helps further debunk the elopement story, as Warren’s mother’s family was identified as white even in the local paper.”
I recently post on my FaceBook my “states in the red category” prediction in November (*not* the map above). One friend wrote that:
“I wish I could share your optimism”
Which is true, I am going big, granted. But the following is my small “booster” for the conservative at heart — even if it is fleeting:
I will give you some indicators… but mind you… I am going BIG and will most likely be wrong. But I am confident that we will win:
★ Flashback: Gallup Had Carter Up 4 Points Over Ronald Reagan in September 1980 http://tinyurl.com/9xwbr64
Alert!
I was thinking it was only a 4% lead that Carter had… in fact, three weeks BEFORE the election Carter rose to 47% and Reagan dropped to 39%! Remember, Reagan took 44-States, he blew Carter out of the water! Then doc Rove shows the lopsided polls in regards to Democrats and Republicans. WOW!
(Click above graphic to enlarge: h/t to Gay Patriot)
Some people see that “God” and “Jerusalem” (the Jewish vote) being re-added (wrongly I might add) is a BIG deal. So the black vote and the Jewish vote will change a bit. Others see the emphasis on abortion at the DNC this year (See for instance: http://tinyurl.com/8w7olch). It was pushed incessantly, and because of Akin, others have heard Obama’s voting record on infanticide. So the women vote will change. Still others note the odd line-up of speakers:
A man who was accused by 15-women of either unwanted sexual advances or rape, Bill Clinton (yeah, Republican war on women); A women who in one breath will say “keep government out of my bedroom,” but then in the next want government to pay for her contraception via acts in the bedroom… who also wants government to pay for sex-change operations, Sandra Fluke (radical genderist); A women caught lying about her ancestry and stories from it, Elizabeth Warren (Obama also falsely tied himself to Native-American ancestry); A racist involved deeply in what would be the White Pride movement if he were white… and has close ties to the Chicano version of the KKK, who’s mom founded both movements in her town (chapters of, so-to-speak), Julian Castro (for some reason Democrats think you cannot be racist if a minority, see: http://tinyurl.com/99ua58z).
So moderates and independents are going to vote a bit more for the RR2. These are just a few reasons to be optimistic… but maybe not as much as me.
The Magic Is Gone:
UPDATED:
A recent PEW POLL puts Romney (yes, Romney) up by 4-points. The Dem/Repub/Indie split was 39/29/30, respectively.
The most recent WaPo/ABC POLL has Obama up by 1-point Dem/Repub/Indie split is 35/26/33, respectively.
A poll from a month or so ago by CBS/NYT had Obama up and Democrats polled at 9% more. My boss came in one day and said Romney was down 10-points in Ohio… the Democrats were sampled at 35%, and Republicans at 27%. So while the race is close in swing-states, it IS close, and swaying to Romney.
So when Romney and the Left is surprised by it… you know why… they trust the Legacy Media.
The bipartisan Battleground Poll, in its “vote election model,” is projecting that Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama 52 percent to 47 percent. ~ Weekly Standard
“Romney currently leads Obama 52 percent to 45 percent among voters who say they have already cast their ballots,” Gallup reported. “However, that is comparable to Romney’s 51 percent to 46 percent lead among all likely voters in Gallup’s Oct. 22-28 tracking polling.” ~ Gallup
Very early on, before this campaign started in earnest, live or die, I publicly cast my lot with Gallup and Rasmussen. As a poll addict going back to 2000, these are the outlets that have always played it straight. It’s got nothing to do with politics and everything to do with credibility and not wanting to kid myself. So when an outlet like Gallup tells me Romney is up seven-points, 52-45%, among those who have already voted, that’s very big news.
Just as Gallup did with their bombshell survey showing that 2012 is looking like a year where Republicans will enjoy a record three-point turnout advantage over Democrats (a ten-point shift from 2008), for whatever reason, they buried the lede with this latest bombshell, as well. When you consider the fact that the CorruptMedia’s been talking for weeks about how Obama’s crushing Romney in early voting, you would think Gallup proving that Narrative a big fat phony lie would be news. Instead, though, they bury this explosive news at the bottom of a piece headlined: “In U.S., 15% of Registered Voters Have Already Cast Ballots“.
Sounds like a nothing story, right?
Except waaaaay at the bottom we learn this:
Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate.
Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney’s 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup’s Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.
When Gallup says early voters don’t seem to be swaying the election, presumably what they means is that because Romney is ahead by five points nationally, an early voting advantage of seven-points isn’t going to “sway the election.”
Romney’s early voting lead in Gallup may not jive with the CorruptMedia narrative, but it does with actual early vote totals that have been released and show Romney’s early vote totals either beating Obama in swing states such as Colorado and Florida or chipping away at the President’s advantage in the others. For example, here’s what we know about Ohio’s early voting numbers, thus far:
But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.
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?
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….
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.
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).
Obama and Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren have more in common than just their liberal political ideology, Harvard Law pedigree, and Democratic Party affiliation. Both claim Cherokee ancestry, and neither can prove it.
