Skip to content

How Mitt Romney is actually defeating Barack Obama in the presidential race

September 25, 2012

TAKE THE POLL..  at the bottom of the page:

Despite all the noise created by all those media-commissioned skewed polls that appear to have President Obama leading, Mitt Romney is actually winning the presidential race as of today. The newest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Daily Tracking poll released today shows Obama 47 percent to Romney 46 percent, and shows them tied at 48 percent when leaning voters are included. The Gallup tracking poll, which is based on a sample that tends to favor Democrats by a few points, released today shows Obama leading just two percent, 48 percent to 46 percent. The QStarNews Daily Tracking Poll released today shows a Romney lead of 51 percent to 45 percent.

Polling data and analysis of voting patterns indicates that Romney is going to win most of the key swing states including the five surveyed by Purple Strategies just a few days ago. The last QStarNews analysis and projection of the electoral college covered in this column predicts Romney winning 301 electoral votes, 31 more than needed for election as president.

As former Clinton political consultant Dick Morris and others have pointed out, the undecided vote in a presidential election will always heavily favor the challenging candidate by election day. A reasonable figure to use as a factor on this is to estimate that approximately 75 percent of the current undecided voters, who are voters that have already decided they will not vote for Barack Obama but have not finalized a decision to vote for Mitt Romney, will break for Romney at some time between now and election day.

Looking at the Rasmussen poll showing leaning voters with the candidates tied at 48 percent, leads to a conclusion of Romney winning 51 percent to 49 percent. The Gallup poll, unskewed, would produce a difference similar to this earlier Gallup poll unskewed that indicated a five percent Romney lead, very similar to the Romney lead reported in today’s QStarNews Daily Tracking Poll.

But many still wonder how the other polls can show such varying results for the presidential race. This is because the mainstream media-commissioned polls over-sample Democrats to produce skewed results that favor the Democrats. The recent CNN/ORC poll was based on a sample that included 50.5 percent Democrats. The makeup of the electorate, according to exit polls, in 2008 was Democrats 39 percent to Republicans 32 during an election in which Barack Obama won the race 53 percent to 46 percent over John McCain. Even if one assumes the 2012 electorate will match that, which most analysts consider highly unlikely, a poll sample including 50.5 percent still over-samples Democrats by 11.5 percent.

The electorate in 2010 was made up of 35 percent registered Democrats and Republicans with almost all the rest being independents. Rasmussen Reports partisan data measured from hundreds of thousands of voters by Rasmussen Reports, which measures the partisan percentages at 37.6 percent Republicans, 33.3 percent Democrats and 29.2 percent independents.

If we assume that Romney will win 56 percent of the independent vote to Obama’s 44 percent, a conclusion that is quite reasonable given most of the polling data available, we can look at how the race turns out at varying levels of weighting of the Democrats and Republicans.

Using Rasmussen’s 37.6 percent Republicans to 33.3 percent Democrats, Romney would win the election with a 54.10 percent to 45.90 percent margin.

Using a weighting that assumes Republicans and Democrats will be 35 percent each in the actual electorate that votes in the election, Romney would win the race 51.8 percent to 48.2 percent.

If the electorate is Republicans by two percent, meaning 36 percent Republicans to 34 percent Democrats, Romney would win 50.70 percent to 49.30 percent.

If the electorate is Democrats by two percent, meaning 36 percent Democrats to 34 percent Republicans, Romney would win 52.90 percent to 47.10 percent.

Democrats will have to have a four percent edge among the voting electorate, meaning 37 percent Democrats to 33 percent Republicans, for Obama to win the popular vote by a very narrow 50.40 percent to 49.60 percent majority. Assuming those numbers and adding just a five percent higher turnout level among Republicans would wipe out that Obama margin and give Romney a slim lead.

If one believes the real election day results are somewhere near the middle of the range in the above scenarios, that points to an electorate that is even to possibly one or two points in favor of the Democrats, which nonetheless still translates to Romney being announced president-elect on election night. Romney is winning this election right now.

Let your voice be heard, take the QStarNews Daily Tracking Poll, just a few quick questions, and the full QStarNews Poll with many interesting questions.

See where the candidates really stand in the polls at

The average of unskewed polls.

The Examiner


Barack Obama Goes All-In On Muslim Sympathy During Speech To United Nations

Ulsterman on September 25, 2012

Looking bored at times, President Barack Obama engaged in his side-to-side speechifying skills to remind Muslim leaders assembled this week at the United Nations that it is Muslims who have suffered the most from extremism. Yup – he said it.

President Surreal refused to meet with world leaders this week – including most infamously, a rebuke of the request coming from Israel. Instead, Barack Obama took himself to the friendlier pro-Obama confines of network television – ABC’s The View where he chatted and chortled on the couch with the likes of Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters.

This morning he took to the podium of the United Nations with the events of the Middle East embassy attacks and resulting chaos very much another presence in that room. Obama proceeded to give a rambling and often apologetic speech that at times, bordered on a verbal bow to the Muslim world. Despite such events as 9-11, the Benghazi attacks, and countless suicide bombings that have rendered limb and life from thousands of American soldiers,

President Barack Obama took time out to convince the world that it is Muslims who “have suffered the most at the hands of extremism.”

Nothing generates respect and fear in the Muslim world like open groveling – and that is what Barack Obama once again gave radical Islam yet again.

Oh – and in very much related news, there was a memorial service for slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens a few days ago – held in Libya.

No word on services in the United States. No word on a cause of death report from doctors in the United States. Was the Ambassador brutalized prior to his death as some reports suggest? What of the other three slain Americans?

There has been no word on these very simple and basic questions.

“That means cover-up folks.” LINK

  1. September 26, 2012 6:13 pm

    UM starts the ball rolling… with questions like… what is Obama hiding?

    LC and UM are working in tandem together…

    Report Confirms – Obama LIED After Americans DIED

    by Ulsterman

    A just published report from the The Daily Beast indicates intelligence officials knew within 24 hours the fatal attacks against Americans in Libya were the work of terrorists and not random violence associated with an largely unknown anti-Islamic video. And yet, it was not until just last week that the Obama White House admitted that fact. Why the lies? Why the cover-up? What is Barack Obama hiding?



    U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates

    Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.

    …Nonetheless, it took until late last week for the White House and the administration to formally acknowledge that the Benghazi assault was a terrorist attack.

    …The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate.

    A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment for the story. But another U.S. intelligence official said, “I can’t get into specific numbers but soon after the attack we had a pretty good bead on some individuals involved in the attack.” LINK


    It is very interesting to note that this damaging information against Barack Obama is coming directly from U.S. intelligence agencies. Perhaps the men and women of these agencies, whose lives have been put at risk time and again by the arrogance and incompetence of the Obama presidency have finally had enough?

    Let us hope so…


    ALL RIGHT ALREADY! WE GOT IT! WHEN IS SOMEONE IN THE HOUSE GONNA GIVE OBAMA THE BOOT? When will these Republicans learn, it’s the early bird that catches worms like Obama? Don’t think Obama doesn’t have moles in the House… because he does! And we’ll be left as collateral damage if they don’t act soon…

  2. September 26, 2012 8:39 pm

    fair fight


    Rome Burns


    pants down



    The TAX PAYER MONEY we send as AIDE to the Middle East is returned to Obama in the form of DONATIONS! .. gotcha!



  3. September 26, 2012 10:08 pm


    take a look at Elizabeth Warren’s wiki..

    think she is connected… much?

  4. September 27, 2012 2:11 am



    The title befitting the deed..

    Clinton Suggests Link to al Qaeda Offshoot in Deadly Libya Attack :

    September 27, 2012 at 12:26 am

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday suggested there was a link between the Qaeda franchise in North Africa and the attack at the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the American ambassador and three others. She was the highest-ranking Obama administration official to publicly make the connection, and her comments intensified what is becoming a fiercely partisan fight over whether the attack could have been prevented.

    more at above link..

  5. September 27, 2012 2:21 am

    This does tell you something about the state of races but also the state of the whole state, look where DCCC is calling off advertising….also remember what i said about Pennsylvania 12th district, strong conservative democrat area that went 49/49 split in 2008. Obama losing in a big Dem district and the DCCC now cutting off funds to the race…….

    DCCC Moving TV Resources to More Competitive Races

    House Democrats shifted resources away from six races as the party continues to move money to more promising targets.

    According to two sources who monitor ad buys, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee cut its reservations in the following GOP-leaning House districts during the week of Oct. 9:

    Florida’s 16th district, where the DCCC originally reserved $229,800 in the Tampa market. Roll Call rates this race as Leans Republican.
    Indiana’s 2nd district, where the DCCC originally booked $56,300 in the South Bend market. Roll Call rates this race as Leans Republican.
    North Dakota’s at-large open seat, where the DCCC originally reserved $76,600 in the Fargo market. Roll Call rates this race as Likely Republican.
    Ohio’s 10th district, where the DCCC originally reserved $66,100 in the Dayton market. This is the committee’s second cancellation in this market in as many weeks. Roll Call rates this race as Safe Republican.
    Virginia’s 2nd district, where the DCCC originally reserved $77,700 in the Norfolk market. Roll Call rates this race as Leans Republican.
    The DCCC trimmed — but did not cancel — in Pennsylvania’s 12th district, where Rep. Mark Critz (D) is in a tough race. The committee plans to continue with $160,000 worth of advertisements that week. Roll Call rates this race as a Tossup.

    The DCCC shifted resources to target the following House races instead:

    Rep. Dan Lungren’s (R) race in California’s 7th district. Roll Call rates this race as a Tossup.
    Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle’s (R) race in New York’s 24th district. Roll Call rates this race as a Tossup.
    Rep. Bill Johnson’s (R) race in Ohio’s 6th district. Roll Call rates this race as Leans Republican.
    The open-seat race for retiring Rep. Timothy Johnson’s (R) seat in Illinois’ 13th district. Roll Call rates this race as Leans Republican.
    Rep. Mike McIntyre’s (D) race in North Carolina’s 7th district. Roll Call rates this race as a Tossup.

    Democrats pointed out the National Republican Congressional Committee has not reserved any airtime during the same week in the districts where the DCCC is pulling back reservations. But the cancellations come just a few days after the DCCC pulled additional reservations in North Carolina and Florida races.

  6. nomobama permalink
    September 27, 2012 5:24 am

    Tellurian on September 26, 2012 at 3:40 pm
    “If the electorate is Republicans by two percent, meaning 36 percent Republicans to 34 percent Democrats, Romney would win 50.70 percent to 49.30 percent.”

    ” If the electorate is Democrats by two percent, meaning 36 percent Democrats to 34 percent Republicans, Romney would win 52.90 percent to 47.10 percent”.


    Ok, it’s pretty simple. How could Mitt Romney win by a higher percent when the Democrat total is increased by 2%? In other words, when the Democrat total increased from 34% to 36%, Mitt Romney’s victory percentage should have gotten smaller, but instead, your article showed Romney to have gained in his total percentage of votes. One would think that the actual results should have tightened up. All that needs to be done to correct the article is for the final result’s percentages to be swapped so that when the percentage of Democrats goes from 34% to 36%, Romeny’s win goes from 52.9% to 50.7%, with Obama’s loss percentages also being adjusted accordingly.

    I also understood that you were calling Islam a cult even though you neglected to use the word “cult” in the appropriate place. I only mentioned it because other people reading the comment may have thought that you were writing that all religions including our Roman Catholicism, were fanatical. At least that is how I read your comment. I knew that there was no way in Chicago that you were attacking the Christian religion, but others may have not understood your comment as written.

  7. September 27, 2012 5:53 am

    Yes, thanks, nomobama.. When you think about it, every ‘cult’ has it’s punishment for disobedience, Islam’s being the most unforgiving and severe in modern history.

  8. September 27, 2012 6:04 am

    Cover Up: Report Says U.S. Knew Al-Qaeda Behind Libya Attack Within 24 Hours

    If these reports are true, and I suspect we all know they are — what we have here is nothing more than a scandalous White House cover up and Obama’s Media Palace Guards so terrified of Obama losing, they refuse to give it the coverage it demands, the attention it
    deserves, or to make Obama pay a political price for his role and responsibility.

    According to Eli Lake of the Daily Beast, 24 hours after the assassination of Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens, and a four full days before Obama sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice out to all the Sunday shows to blame what happened on a protest gone bad over a YouTube video, the American government had already concluded al-Qaeda was behind the attack:

    Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya. …

    The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”

    Every day it becomes more and more obvious that fearing headlines that screamed “Al-Qaeda Assassinates American Ambassador,” the Obama administration and the media colluded to push the narrative about a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video.

    Moreover, the media aided and abetted this cover up by turning Romney’s valid criticism of the Cairo Embassy apology into a week-long narrative meant to distract from Obama’s collapsing foreign policy in the Middle East, the ignoring of direct threats from al-Qaeda in advance of the attacks, and not beefing up security on the anniversary of 9/11..

    As a result, thus far, the Obama Administration has gotten away with outright lies, likely security lapses that proved fatal, and the trotting out of our UN Ambassador to look Americans and the media in the eye and say what she and the government knew wasn’t true.

    We expect this from politicians.

    What we don’t expect is for the media to be such a willing a co-conspirator.

  9. September 27, 2012 7:07 am

    Monday will be the interesting day, it is the day that all pollsters will shift to the LV model, anyone who does’nt, forget about them.

    Rasmussen has already announced that from Mon 1st Oct, they will only show the LV model they use including leaners which currently stands at 47% each.

    Any poll from Mon that does not use the LV model, do not use it.

  10. September 27, 2012 8:47 am

    Holy Crap the Washington Post actually called Obama out on his Libya lies.

    From video to terrorist attack: a definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack

    devastating blow by blow account of lying for political purposes.

  11. September 27, 2012 8:53 am

    Bad news for Bambi day……

    Obama’s economy: Q2 GDP just got revised downward from 1.7 to 1.3

  12. September 27, 2012 8:55 am

    Durable goods drop 13%…..gets even better for Obama i see today, when the unemployed figures out…..

  13. September 27, 2012 9:00 am

    A key measure of the economy, especially in manufacturing, just had the bottom fall out. Orders for durable goods dropped 13.2% in August, the worst decrease in almost four years, and a large signal that the American economy is diving into a recession:

    New orders for manufactured durable goods in August decreased $30.1 billion or 13.2 percent to $198.5 billion, the U.S. Census Bureau announced today. This decrease, down following three consecutive monthly increases, was the largest decrease since January 2009 and followed a 3.3 percent July increase. Excluding transportation, new orders decreased 1.6 percent. Excluding defense, new orders decreased 12.4 percent. Transportation equipment, down following four consecutive monthly increases, had the largest decrease, $27.8 billion or 34.9 percent to $51.9 billion.

    The news was even worse for capital goods, indicating that businesses have stopped investing in themselves:

    Nondefense new orders for capital goods in August decreased $18.5 billion or 24.3 percent to $57.7 billion. Shipments decreased $1.2 billion or 1.7 percent to $69.5 billion. Unfilled orders decreased $11.9 billion or 2.0 percent to $580.5 billion. Inventories increased $1.5 billion or 0.9 percent to $171.9 billion. Defense new orders for capital goods in August decreased $4.1 billion or 40.1 percent to $6.1 billion. Shipments decreased $0.1 billion or 1.7 percent to $8.1 billion. Unfilled orders decreased $2.0 billion or 1.2 percent to $165.6 billion. Inventories increased $0.4 billion or 1.8 percent to $21.4 billion.

  14. September 27, 2012 9:41 am

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows both President Obama and Mitt Romney attracting support from 46% of voters nationwide. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. See daily tracking history.

    When “leaners” are included, it’s tied at 48% apiece. Leaners are those who are initially uncommitted to the two leading candidates but lean towards one of them when asked a follow-up question. Beginning October 1, Rasmussen Reports will be basing its daily updates solely upon the results including leaners.

  15. September 27, 2012 9:51 am

    Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year, perks questioned in new book

    Read more:

    Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.

    In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.

    Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.

    Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”

    “The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.

    “The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC.

    Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.

    read on…………………

  16. September 27, 2012 10:13 am

    Thats both WSJ and the WaPo are actually doing some journalism.

    WSJ: The more we learn, the more Benghazi looks like a gross security failure

    In his United Nations speech on Tuesday, President Obama talked about the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and declared that “there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice.” What he didn’t say is how relentless he’ll be in tracking down the security lapses and intelligence failures that contributed to the murders. Let’s say there’s some doubt about that.

    None of the initial explanations offered by the White House and State Department since the assault on the Benghazi consulate has held up. First the Administration blamed protests provoked by an amateurish anti-Islam clip posted on YouTube. Cue Susan Rice, the U.N. Ambassador and leading candidate for Secretary of State in a second Obama term: “What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction . . . as a consequence of the video, that people gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent.”

    Administration officials also maintained that the diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt, the site of the first attacks this September 11, were properly defended and that the U.S. had no reason to prepare for any attack. “The office of the director of National Intelligence has said we have no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last week, calling the security measures in place there “robust.”

    Cell phone video footage and witness testimony from Benghazi soon undercut the Administration trope of an angry march “hijacked” by a few bad people. As it turned out, the assault was well-coordinated, with fighters armed with guns, RPGs and diesel canisters, which were used to set the buildings on fire. Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation. Briefing Congress, the Administration changed its story and said the attacks were pre-planned and linked to al Qaeda.

    You’d think this admission would focus attention on why the compound was so vulnerable to begin with. But the Administration wants to avoid this conversation. The removal of all staff from Benghazi, including a large component of intelligence officers, would also seem to hinder their ability to investigate the attacks and bring the killers to justice.

    Journalists have stayed on the case, however, and their reporting is filling in the Administration’s holes. On Friday, our WSJ colleagues showed that starting in spring, U.S. intelligence had been worried about radical militias in eastern Libya. These armed groups helped topple Moammar Ghadhafi last year but weren’t demobilized as a new government has slowly found its legs. As we’ve noted since last winter, the waning of American and European interest in Libya could have dangerous consequences.

    Deteriorating security was no secret. On April 10, for example, an explosive device was thrown at a convoy carrying U.N. envoy Ian Martin. On June 6, an improvised explosive device exploded outside the U.S. consulate. In late August, State warned American citizens who were planning to travel to Libya about the threat of assassinations and car bombings.

    Despite all this, U.S. diplomatic missions had minimal security. Officials told the Journal that the Administration put too much faith in weak Libyan police and military forces. The night of the Benghazi attack, four lightly armed Libyans and five American security offices were on duty. The complex lacked smoke-protection masks and fire extinguishers. Neither the consulate in Benghazi nor the embassy in Tripoli were guarded by U.S. Marines, whose deployment to Libya wasn’t a priority.

    Rummaging through the Benghazi compound, a CNN reporter found a seven-page notebook belonging to Ambassador Stevens. According to the network, the diary said he was concerned about the “never-ending” security threats in Benghazi and wrote that he was on an al Qaeda hit list. In deference to the family’s wishes, CNN didn’t quote directly from the diary and didn’t divulge any private information in it.

    His worries are newsworthy, however, and can inform America’s response. But Mrs. Clinton’s long-time and closest media adviser chose to attack CNN. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines called the network’s conduct “disgusting.” He then deployed words not fit for a family newspaper in an exchange with a reporter for the Web site BuzzFeed. Mr. Reines may wish to protect his boss’s legacy for her 2016 Presidential run, but that won’t be enhanced by the appearance of a cover-up.

    Imagine the uproar if, barely a month before Election Day, the Bush Administration had responded to a terrorist strike—on Sept. 11 no less—in this fashion. Obfuscating about what happened. Refusing to acknowledge that clear security warnings were apparently ignored. Then trying to shoot the messengers who bring these inconvenient truths to light in order to talk about anything but a stunning and deadly attack on U.S. sovereign territory.

    Four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi in a terrorist attack that evidence suggests should have been anticipated and might have been stopped. Rather than accept responsibility, the Administration has tried to stonewall and blame others. Congress should call hearings to hold someone accountable for this debacle.

  17. September 27, 2012 10:22 am

    In the 11 swing states, the president earns 46% of the vote, and Mitt Romney is supported by 46%. Four percent (4%) are not sure, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

    The candidates have been tied or in a near tie every day but one for the past three weeks.

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

    When “leaners” are factored in, Romney leads the president 48% to 47%. Leaners are those who are initially uncommitted to the two leading candidates but lean towards one of them when asked a follow-up question.

  18. September 27, 2012 10:36 am

    Very true…..

    VA GOP guys: Mitt “proved in the primary that elections are won & lost in the last 2 weeks & on the ground.”

    Romney Focusing on Final Weeks and GOTV?

    One of my guys plugged into GOP circles in Virginia reaches out to me with the opening declaration, “Short attention spans.”

    “That is the reason Team Mitt is holding back right now,” he says. “They know, as they proved in the primary, that elections are won and lost in the last two weeks and on the ground.”

    Here the evidence has a few exceptions, as Romney was pretty steady in New Hampshire, but the former Massachusetts Governor did come back strong in the closing weeks and days of primaries in Florida, Ohio, and Michigan, and showed a modest closing bump in Iowa,

    “With modern information overload, its not inconceivable for any candidate to turn things around in days. That was never the case prior to 2004 or 2008,” my source says. “If Mitt goes on an offensive over the next two weeks and performs well in the first debate, people will forget why they were down today AND Mitt will drive the comeback kid narrative.”

    At first glance, one might worry about holding back for the final two weeks in an era of early voting. As NBC News notes this morning, “voters in 30 states — including the battleground states of Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Virginia — are now casting ballots, either via absentee or early in-person voting, per NBC’s Kyle Inskeep. Today, early in-person voting begins in Iowa and Wyoming, while absentee ballots are now being sent to voters requesting them in Alabama, Wyoming, North Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois. By the end of next week, voters in five more states, including Ohio and Florida, will join this list.”

    However, think about who votes early: the diehards, the most enthusiastic, the folks whose party loyalty is so strong that their vote was almost guaranteed before the campaign began. Paul Gronke, the Director of the Early Voting Information Center. told NPR the early voters are “the decided – they’re partisan, they’re ideological, better educated, higher income.”

    So the mission for the Romney campaign and the GOP right now is make sure your base is getting their absentee ballots in the mail, showing up for early voting, and so on, while readying the final pitch to those fickle undecided. As mentioned earlier, the remaining undecideds and persuadable voters are generally demographically favorable to Romney – male, white, married, disapproving of Obama and deeply pessimistic about the current direction of the country.

    Looking at his home state, this former GOP official declares, “I like what I’m seeing on the ground in Virginia. We have reversed Democrats advantages’ from four years ago. We have eight Republican Congressmen. If they gin up their turnout, we should be fine. And, as you pointed out, much of the time and effort (rightly) is being spent on get-out-the-vote. From all signs, it looks like we are way ahead of where we were in that regard four years ago.”

    Obama won Virginia by 232, 317 votes, or 6.3 percentage points, four years ago, so the Republican GOTV effort has to be way ahead of 2008 for Romney to have a chance.

  19. September 27, 2012 10:44 am

    Breaking: Fox News confirms Obama admin designated Benghazi sacking a terror attack within first 24 hours

    Who told Susan Rice to deliberately lie?

    Fox News follows up on Eli Lake’s excellent reporting on the intel after the assassination of Ambassador Chris Stevens, confirming from their own sources that the US knew within the first twenty-four hours that the sacking of the Benghazi consulate was no “spontaneous demonstration” that spun out of control. In fact, they already suspected al-Qaeda of masterminding the planned terrorist attack on the compound days before even admitting that it had been a terror attack at all — and had designated the incident as terrorism in order to pursue one suspect:

    U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, sources told Fox News — though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it.

    The account conflicts with claims on the Sunday after the attack by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the administration believed the strike was a “spontaneous” event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film.

    Two senior U.S. officials said the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect.

    Four days later, the White House sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice to five different Sunday talk shows to claim that the sacking and assassination sprang from a “spontaneous” demonstration. That no longer can be explained as initial confusion over conflicting reports; it is now clearly a lie told by the White House. Jennifer Rubin pointed this out at the Washington Post even before the Fox report, and wondered where the national media that screeched at every claim by George W. Bush has suddenly become so comfortable with an administration that flat-out lies to them:

    read on…..

  20. September 27, 2012 10:59 am

    The parasitic trash in full flow…..and this is everything thats wrong with America today,

    Warning, gruesome Obama voter trash screaming at camera.

  21. September 27, 2012 1:20 pm


Comments are closed.