Hilarious! Montage Of Democrat Left Mocking Romney After His 2012 ‘Russia’ Comments…

Hillary, Obama, Biden, Kerry, the whole gamut of Democrat foreign policy 'experts'...

h/t,The Washington Free Beacon.

Poll: 71% Of Obama Voters, 55% Of Democrats Regret Re-Electing Obama

Buyer's remorse...not that it does any good now.

According to a to a new Economist/YouGov.com U.S. poll, over 70% of all Obama voters and 55% of Democrats are sorry they voted to re-elect President Obama.

This matches up,interestingly enough, with  an November 2013 ABC News/Washington Post poll
that showed Mitt Romney beating Barack Obama if the election were held again then by four points,  49%-45%.

The YouGuv poll is a bit more honest that the WAPO one, in that it actually lists its mechanics. A small sample at 999 respondents, and of course hypothetical, just like the WAPO 2013 poll.

Asked “Do you regret voting for Barack Obama?”, overall, 71 percent said yes, 26 percent no.

— 80 percent of whites said yes, 61 percent of blacks said no and 100 percent of Hispanics said yes.

— 84 percent of women said yes, and just 61 percent of men agreed.

— 55 percent of Democrats said yes, as did 71 percent of independents.

The YouGov poll also has another interesting wrinkle in asking respondents if they would change their votes to the other candidate if there was a do-over. While 90% of Romney voters said they would still vote for Mitt, only 79% of Obama voters said they would. As a percentage of the voters each of them actually got in 2012 (66 million for Obama and 61 million for Romney), that works out to a 3 million spread in Romney's favor, 55 million votes to Obama’s 52 million.

And that's without correcting for the widespread voter fraud that occurred in 2012.

This is pretty much an unprecedented drop for a sitting president. Even George W. Bush retained relatively high numbers until 2006.

How Mellisa Harris-Perry Won My Respect

It's all over the internet by now how Mellisa Harris-Perry and her cohorts over at MSNBC made a racist attack on the Romney family, mocking Mitt and Anne's adopted black grandchild.Standard operating procedure for MSNBC.

 

But then something rather marvelous happened.

Deep inside of her,there's still a core of decency, and it was sickened at what she had done.

The very next day,first thing in the morning, she went on Twitter (and on the air, for all that I know)and issued a heart felt apology, as she put it 'without reservation.' She said there were no excuses for her behavior , and made a point in a subsequent tweet that "I work by guiding principle that those who offend do not have the right to tell those they hurt that they r wrong for hurting. Therefore, while I meant no offense, I want to immediately apologize to the Romney family for hurting them"

She also tweeted, "I apologize to all families built on loving transracial adoptions who feel I degraded their lives or choices."

In other words, a real apology, not a Barack Obama-style 'sorry if you were inconvenienced or something because I lied' apology.

I know for a fact that she wasn't ordered to do so by the suits at MSNBC, who've let far worse stuff go.And it's not like the Romneys had any ratings clout like Sarah Palin does. She simply did it because it was the right thing to do.

And I respect that.It would have been far easier for her to just wallow in the 'attagirls' from her Leftist cohorts and say nothing.

The apology, hopefully, is just a first step for her.Real teshuvah, repentance involves not only recognizing what you've done and doing your best to fix it,but to learn something from it so you don't repeat your misdeed, to spend some soul time thinking 'Why did I do that? How can I avoid doing it again'?

Whatever else we might disagree with, I have a feeling I and Ms. Harris-Perry would agree on that. So I wish Melissa Harris-Perry the very best in that endeavor of self-examination.

Why Mitt Romney Lost The Election

In my earlier piece on yesterday's unfortunate events, I concentrated on the big picture issues, the meaning behind them and where things are likely going.

But I also promised you that I'd go into the political and strategic reasons later behind Obama's victory and Romney's defeat, and a few lessons we can learn.

I want to be very clear here. Mitt Romney, for the most part ran a disciplined and impressive campaign, and conducted himself well. However, he made several unforced errors that were blown out of proportion as they would be for any Republican, and there were a couple of big things he simply had no control over.

First, one of the big things he had no control over was what I call the media filter.From the every beginning a significant element of the media had obviously chosen sides, and until the first debate, President Obama had virtually free rein to cement a negative image of Governor Romney in his half of the electorate.

Examples? Here are a few of the more important ones:

The WAPO's fraudulent article on Romney's tenure at Bain Capital that even their own fact checker gave 4 Pinocchios to that started the whole 'Romney as heartless plutocrat' theme of the Democrat campaign.

ABC's George Stephanopoulos pulling an unrelated question about banning birth control out of thin air while he was supposedly moderating a GOP debate that was the kickoff for Sandra Fluke and the 'GOP War on Women' campaign that started a month or so later.

Candy Crowley's obvious pre-debate tip off from the Obama campaign on the 'act of terror' line that the president had obviously rehearsed and that Crowley claimed she had a transcript available for.

As a matter of fact, the president's claim that he called Benghazi an 'act if terrorism' during his Rose Garden speech was in fact false (he made a brief, general allusion to 'acts of terrorism' the next day after the Rose Garden speech, at a fund raiser in Colorado)and Crowley herself admitted she'd made a mistake, conveniently after the debate was long over.

But it was enough to knock Romney off his stride for ten minutes or so and change the entire perception of the debate. Even worse, Romney didn't respond publicly and make an issue of it publicly, using the actual transcripts. And he downplayed Benghazi afterwards, with the media happy to go along with him.

CBS did something even more egregious, cutting out footage from an interview with the president the day after the Benghazi attack where the president refused to call it a terrorist attack, and then holding that footage until the day of the election.

Had I been Governor Romney, I would have realized that the fix was going to be in after Obama's failure and cancelled the second and third debates, saying simply that I saw no further purpose to them. And I would have been hammering Benghazi from day one.Lesson to be learned? Control the media and the agenda, not the other way around.

The second big thing Governor Romney had no control over was Hurricane Sandy. Fully 42% of the voter said that Barack Obama's little photo op affected their vote because he suddenly looked 'presidential' again. especially after that oaf Chris Christie essentially endorsed him.

But just imagine if Governor Romney, instead of waiting for Chris Christie's invitation had simply gone to the hurricane victims with relief supplies for his own photo op and his own camera men. Were they going to turn him down? True, Christie wouldn't have been along for the ride, but given his attitude, I see that as a plus. Lesson? Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Third, Governor Romney was far too gentle when it came to exposing how President Obama, the so-called 'middle class warrior' was actually crushing the middle class with higher taxes and prices on energy, food and goods. Governor Romney never adequately articulated that for President Obama to pay for his socialist nirvana, to fund ObamaCare, the student loan boondoggle, the green energy scams, the entire agenda, he was going to have to punitively tax not just 'the rich' but the middle class.

In fact, the governor's oppo research staff was either ridiculously inept or Governor Romney refused to take advantage of what they gave him to paint Obama in entirely different colors.

Instead of shying away from the president's chest thumping about 'saving the auto industry', Romney should have nailed him on the $80 billion it cost to gift GM to the president union political allies that the taxpayer will never see again.

Instead of allowing the president to get away with lying about how he 'funded' Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system, he should have revealed that the president actually wanted to cut it to the bone, and that it was congress that revolted and insisted on funding it.

He could have asked the president why he fought so hard to deny medical care to infants that survive an abortion.He could have even made a campaign ad out of it, featuring the president's own voice.

And those are just a few of many,many examples. Lesson learned? There's a fine line between appearing presidential and allowing your opponent to get away with murder. Find their weaknesses and don't shy away from exploiting them.

Fourth, the governor dropped the ball totally on a large group of Latino voters. Governor Romney got most of the Cuban vote and some of the Caribbean Latino vote, but he failed when it came to most Mexicans and central Americans. And it was totally unnecessary.

Here's a clue.Some of these people are grifters, a few are leftist ideologues, but the vast majority are hardworking, socially conservative religious people who came here for the same reason most other immigrants did - economic opportunity and the chance to raise their children in a free society with upward mobility.And very pro-military and national defense, by the way. We have lots of Hispanic veterans and more Hispanic Medal of Honor winners than any other group.

In other words, a natural conservative constituency. In fact, after a generation or so, a lot of them start drifting that direction anyway.

If I were Mitt Romney, instead of talking about people 'self-deporting' I'd have been on Telemundo and Univision talkng about the issues that matter to them. Explaining why ObamaCare was going to lead to rationing and less availability. Touting school choice and vouchers, a hot button issue for Latinos with children now stuck in the dysfunctional public schools. Talking about the good paying blue collar jobs and lower gas prices that would result from my energy program.Explaining how Obama's HHS mandate attacks their religious freedom, and revealing the president's position on infanticide for newborns who survive abortions. I'd speak to them about how lower taxes equal prosperity and economic freedom an dhow Obama's policies limit it.

And I would have made a promise most of them already know Barack Obama failed to keep. I would have promised to work with congress on a bill to address immigration reform as a priority during my first term.

Most of the Latinos concerned about the issue of migration come at it from the standpoint of family members and friends from the old country who are here illegally or want to be here. I'd refuse to commit to details so as not to make promises I couldn't keep, but I'd mention things like guarantors to allow pending but legal status, increased opportunities to earn citizenship in the military or other forms of national service, use of E-verify, even a realistic and fair points system to allow clear guidelines.

And I'd be doing rallies in their neighborhoods, with Latino Republicnas.

Had Romney done that, sincerely and humanely, I have no doubt he would have taken a chunk of the Hispanic vote. According to the exit polls, they were ten percent of the electorate.

Lesson learned? Don't be afraid to talk to anyone honestly about the issues that concern them. Find the areas you agree on and build on that consensus. Because you might have more in common with them than you think.

Mitt Romney would have been a superb president for this country. His defeat was unfortunate, to say the least, but as education it's priceless.

Mitt Romney At Red Rocks...Simply Amazing

I think we can say that Colorado is going Republican this year.

Gallup: Romney Leads In Early Voters 52-45

Remember all the Obama Media tooting about how the president was leading among early voters?

Ummm, no.

Gallup says that around 15% of all likely voters have already cast their ballots, and out of those voters, guess what? Mitt Romney is leading 52% to 45%, a full 7 points.

Or to quote Gallup, 'that is comparable to Romney's 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup's Oct. 22-28 tracking polling.'

That is a 22 point drop from where President Obama stood at this point in the election back in 2008.

It's also worth recalling that Gallup's 2008 survey of early voters interviewed only 1,010 registered voters. Yesterday's early voter poll interviewed a huge survey of over 3,300, which makes the 2012 poll a lot more accurate.

Reactions To Sandy Point Out A Key Difference Between Romney And Obama

 

Hurricane Sandy points out yet another key difference between President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney.

With the huge storm coming in, both candidates have suspended campaign events for the next few days.But that's where the similarity ends.

Unlike his reaction to the Benghazi debacle, President Obama has said he's canceled campaign appearances and is going to 'monitor the situation'.

Mitt Romney? He's not 'monitoring' anything. He's filled his campaign bus up with emergency supplies and having them delivered to storm relief centers for those in the path of the hurricane.And knowing his past performance in these kinds of circumstances, I'm sure it's more than one bus.

Barack Obama 'monitors' things, waits and calculates what's to his political advantage before doing anything. He's a talker, always concerned with saying what's right..for his political agenda.

Mitt Romney sees what's needed and makes it happen. He's a doer, more concerned with doing what's right.

A small thing, but it reveals a lot.

I know which  kind of neighbor I'd rather have living next door to me if I needed help. And what kind of man I'd rather have in the White House.

What To Expect In Tonight's Debate

First of all, expect Bob Schieffer to 'moderate' even more in Obama's direction than Candy Crowley did.The above clip should give you a pretty good idea what we're dealing with, and Michelle Malkin has a few more example of how biased and partisan this shill is.

Mitt Romney will end up with all the tough followups and will be interrupted frequently whenever he starts to make traction. Expect President Obama to end up with significantly more speaking time.

However, Romney may very well make a couple of good hits on Obama's foreign policy record. There's certainly plenty of targets.

Bob Schieffer will try to lure Romney into a soundbite that the Obama media can magnify into a gaffe or talking point. Do not be surprised if the president is fairly smooth tonight, as the questions will likely have been leaked to the White House in advance to allow him to rehearse some answers. Expect a lot of variations on 'I got bin-Laden'.

With all that, barring a major gaffe by either candidate, I'd be surprised if this particular debate had much impact. Barack Obama needs a knockout, to mak e Mitt Romney appear unpresidential and I doubt he's going to get it.

Americans are primarily concerned about the economy, the president's abysmal mismanagement of it is pretty well known, and in the end that's what the election will come down to..that, and turnout.

Romney Does Stand Up Last Night At The Al Smith Dinner!!

The Al Smith dinner is an annual gala event held every year at this time in New York by the Al Smith Charitable Foundation, a Catholic charitable organization named after New York's former governor, the first Catholic ever to run for president as a Democrat in 1928. It's a $2,500 a seat fundraiser for the foundation.

In keeping with its namesake's sharp wit, noted goodwill and friendship for people on both sides of the aisle, the dinner is a bi-partisan affair noted for barbed humor and witty byplay by the speakers..and all in a good cause.

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both spoke to the assembled bi-partisan crowd and I note with interest the difference in tone, the sense of humor, the difference in their ability to laugh at themselves and the way their remarks were received.

To me, Mitt Romney seemed confident, comfortable and loose. The president did not. See what you think.



( thanks and a hat tip for the Romney video to Wolf Howling via Dr. Sanity)

U Of CO Study That Correctly Predicted The Last 8 Elections Updates, Still Says Romney Will Win

You might recall a piece I wrote back in August about a University of Colorado study that has correctly predicted the winner of the last 8 elections. Unlike most such studies, the model used by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.

The track record on this study,published in the journal of the highly respected American Political Science Association is pretty impressive. They've gotten every election right since 1980, including two years when independent candidates ran in 1980 and 1992.

Back in August, Professors Bickers and Berry predicted a victory for Mitt Romney. They gave themselves wiggle room because the data they used then was taken five months in advance of the election, and they promised to to update it with more current economic data in September.

Well their update is out:

An update to an election forecasting model announced by two University of Colorado professors in August continues to project that Mitt Romney will win the 2012 presidential election.

According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction -- and short of the 270 needed to win.

The new forecast by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver is based on more recent economic data than their original Aug. 22 prediction. The model itself did not change.

“We continue to show that the economic conditions favor Romney even though many polls show the president in the lead,” Bickers said. “Other published models point to the same result, but they looked at the national popular vote, while we stress state-level economic data.”

While many election forecast models are based on the popular vote, the model developed by Bickers and Berry is based on the Electoral College and is the only one of its type to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions. They included economic data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.{...}

The Bickers and Berry model includes both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors. The new analysis includes unemployment rates from August rather than May, and changes in per capita income from the end of June rather than March. It is the last update they will release before the election.

Of the 13 battleground states identified in the model, the only one to change in the update was New Mexico -- now seen as a narrow victory for Romney. The model foresees Romney carrying New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. Obama is predicted to win Michigan and Nevada.

In Colorado, which Obama won in 2008, the model predicts that Romney will receive 53.3 percent of the vote to Obama’s 46.7 percent, with only the two major parties considered.

Like last time, the professors make a point of stating that that states very close to a 50-50 split may fall in what they term 'an unexpected direction.' But they still predict a solid Romney win.

My take? While I love the results shown, I think they're a bit optimistic.For instance, I see Mitt Romney winning either Ohio or Pennsylvania, but not both, and Barack Obama winning Minnesota. And I'm not sure about Wisconsin. That still gives Mitt Romney a win with 285 electoral votes even if Obama takes Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.

And I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Obama losing a couple of those states, especially Nevada, where unemployment is out of control.

Personally, I see Romney winning the popular vote and getting something in the low 300's electorally,(I'll be making in depth predictions closer to the election) but this study, given its track record is definitely good news.

Obama Won On Points? That's Not What The Polls Say

I find the polls on last nights debate interesting.

CBS says its polls gave the win to Obama, among registered voters 37-30. And CNN's registered voters gave it to Obama 46-39. Not likely voters, but registered voters, only 2/3 of whom bothered to vote last time out.

And then you get into these polls' internals.In CNN's case, they won't even reveal the numbers, but say:

According to the survey, Obama had a 47%-41% edge on which candidate was more likeable. But on some key issues, Romney came out on top, including an 18-point lead on the economy, 54-40.

"Mitt Romney was seen as better able to handle the economy, taxes, and the budget deficit among the debate audience, but it seems that issues were trumped, or at least blunted, by intangibles, including the expectations game," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

Romney also won out in CNN's poll on who appeared to be the stronger leader(49%-46%) and over 60% saying President Obama didn't offer a clear plan for solving the country's problems.

The CBS poll, which also showed Obama 'winning' was even more revealing. It showed Romney ahead 65-34 on the economy, 51-44 on taxes,and 59-36 on the deficit.

Translation? When it comes to what I'll call the Jerry Springer factor, people were willing to give President Obama some ground, especially since expectations were what they were. But on the actual issues that are going to determine the election, the pocketbook issues, Romney won big.

The latest Gallup? Mitt Romney 51%, Barack Obama 45%.

Round Two - Decision, Romney

Well , the second debate is history. If I were scoring this round as a prize fight, I'd call it 10-7 Romney, even though President Obama was a bit more animated this time.

While each side is going to claim victory, in fact this was a classic example of ObamaFail. To check Romney's momentum, the president needed to take out Mitt Romney, and he simply failed to do so, even with moderator Candy Crowley's active assistance and a number of questions that were very likely plants.

On the other hand, what Mitt Romney needed to do was build on his knockout performance last time out, score some decent shots on Obama and appear confident,poised and presidential. He succeeded.

Candy Crowley was slightly better than Marsha Raddatz, but only slightly, which is to say that her bias was readily apparent. That's apparently the new normal for 'moderators' now. She actually bailed the president out of two important issues he obviously didn't want to discuss much, Libya and Fast and Furious. She allowed the president to get away with not answering at least two questions directly without challenging him (why he didn't push immigration reform during his first two years when he had a Democrat majority in congress, and what he wanted voters to know about him that was different than how he'd been portrayed).

Even worse, she aided and abetted the president in an outright lie.

President Obama said that he appeared in the Rose Garden the day after the attack and called the killing a terror attack. When Romney argued that it was not true, moderator Candy Crowley stepped in pipe up than yes, the president did say that.

Except he didn't.

Within seconds, ABC Reporter Jake Tapper tweeted a link to the actual transcript of President Obama's remarks and nowhere did he refer to what happened in Benghazi in that fashion.

He referred to it as 'an outrageous attack' and 'senseless violence' along with the expected remarks about how ' the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others', a reference to the original nonsense about how this was all about some video, but nothing there about a terrorist attack.

To quote a pungent old Yiddish saying, 'Ein liegt an die andere schwören' or 'One lies and the other swears to it.'

Even Mike Allen from the left leaning Politico caught this one.

Candy Crowley herself admitted that Governor Romney was 'mostly right' - after the debate,

The good part, of course, is that this little bit of bias by Crowley is going to lead to a lot more discussion about Libya...not something I imagine the president wanted.

Crowley also did her best to allow the president to go overtime while cutting Romney off. The president ended up with over 4 minutes more speaking time than Mitt Romney, a difference of 9%.

President Obama's actual performance was more animated than last time (I doubt it could be less) but he was laboring, like an actor trying to remember a script he hadn't memorized. I expected a few new tricks after all that expensive debate prep in a five star resort at the taxpayer's expense. It didn't happen.

President Obama stuck to the same tired talking points - class warfare, blame Bush. eat 'the rich'. In short, hey, better the devil you know this scary Mormon Republican guy! He also finally threw the 47% line in at the end of his closing statement, when Romney was unable to respond.

Among his more spectacular gaffes was insisting that gas prices were so much lower when he took office as opposed to today because we were in a recession back then! What does he call today, good times?

Another was this gem, in response to one of the questions that was likely planted, one on gun control: "Weapons designed for soldiers in war do not belong on our streets."

Obviously, they belong on Mexico's streets according to this president, but when Romney segued nicely into a mention of Fast and Furious, Crowley cut him off.

Romney kept punching at Obama's failed record on the economy, and the president frankly didn't have much of a defense besides the class warfare drum and a few obvious falsehoods. Particularly poignant was Romney's response to a young college student who was worried about whether he was actually going to have a job when he graduated. The president responded with the usual platitudes. Romney explained to him how growing the economy was going to result in a better future for everyone and ended by asking him when he was going to graduate. When the young man responded 2014, Mitt Romney looked at him, smiled and said 'when I'm president, you come see me and I'll see you have a job.'

And you know what? I bet he would.And even more, I think the young student, who maintained eye contact with Romney for an instant believes it too.

Romney also scored heavily on energy, on the Keystone pipeline, on trade, and on his understanding of how to build an economy and how government can facilitate job growth. And his close was particularly good:

In the nature of a campaign, it seems that some campaigns are focused on attacking a person rather than prescribing their own future and the things they’d like to do. In the course of that, I think the president’s campaign has tried to characterize me as — as someone who’s very different than who I am.

I care about 100 percent of the American people. I want 100 percent of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future. I care about our kids. I understand what it takes to make a bright and prosperous future for America again. I spent my life in the private sector, not in government. I’m a guy who wants to help with the experience I have, the American people.

My — my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God. And I believe we’re all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I — I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years. I’ve sat across the table from people who were out of work and worked with them to try and find new work or to help them through tough times.

I went to the Olympics when they were in trouble to try and get them on track. And as governor of my state, I was able to get 100 percent of my people insured, all my kids, about 98 percent of the adults. I was able also to get our schools ranked number one in the nation, so 100 percent of our kids would have a bright opportunity for a future.

I understand that I can get this country on track again. We don’t have to settle for what we’re going through. We don’t have to settle for gasoline at four bucks. We don’t have to settle for unemployment at a chronically high level. We don’t have to settle for 47 million people on food stamps. We don’t have to settle for 50 percent of kids coming out of college not able to get work. We don’t have to settle for 23 million people struggling to find a good job.

If I become president, I’ll get America working again. I will get us on track to a balanced budget. The president hasn’t. I will. I’ll make sure we can reform Medicare and Social Security to preserve them for coming generations. The president said he would. He didn’t.


President Obama's essential problem was that he tried, and he had help, but he didn't really lay a glove on Mitt Romney tonight. The left will love it that he was more aggressive, petulant and animated, and they'll write it up as a draw or even an Obama win.

It will be to those who are convinced and motivated Obama voters. But to the undecideds, independents and people with soft support for this president, it was anything but that.

The State Of The Race, With Three Weeks To Go

 

With the November 6th election 3 weeks off, it is worth taking a look at where things stand now. What does it tell us about what's likely to happen in November?

The story to date is that after President Obama's disastrous performance in the first debate, Governor Mitt Romney has not only apparently caught up to him but seems to have a degree of momentum.The usual spin doctors are attempting to dampen this, especially since the race remains close, but that's essentially where things stand at the moment.

The second debate between the president and Governor Romney tomorrow is being looked at by most of the pundit class as a harbinger of whether President Obama retakes the lead with a strong performance or whether Governor Romney continues to surge.

Ignoring most of the polls (which are all over the place and as I've pointed out before, frequently cooked) let's look at the big picture and see what it tells us.

First off, disregard any polls that talk about who's leading nationwide head to head. What's going to happen on November 6th is going to be 50 separate elections, and it's 270 electoral votes to win.

President Obama starts out with a distinct advantage here from the jump.The very blue West Coast, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, the mid Atlantic states of New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland, DC, and the New England states except, possibly, for New Hampshire were always almost certainly going to vote Democratic except in a blow out election. That gives the president 194 electoral votes, better than two thirds of the total he needs. He also will likely take Minnesota and New Mexico, adding another 15 electoral votes for a total of 201.

Governor Romney has been steadily increasing his numbers.He can count on the Red states in the mountains except for the battle ground states of Colorado and Nevada, Utah and Arizona, Texas and the plains states of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska, Alaska, the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia, all the southern states except Florida and Virginia, and Indiana. This gives him a total of 206 electoral votes.

As you'll notice, the two are almost tied.

One of the results of the first presidential debate is that Mitt Romney was able to be seen by a record number of viewers without the media filter the Obama campaign had spent so much time, money and influence with their media lackeys cultivating of a heartless plutocrat.Instead of that, they saw someone who was humane, likeable, involved and, well, presidential. Whereas President Obama definitely wasn't. And Americans now had something they had been looking for they didn't have before - a reason to not just vote against Barack Obama but for Mitt Romney.

Oddly enough, one of Mitt Romney's biggest problem this election has been successful Republican governors. In the crucial battle ground states of Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia, GOP Governors have been markedly successful in balancing the budget, easing regulations, cutting spending and improving the economy to the point where that status quo looks a lot better than it does in a number of Blue states.Some of that seems to have been overcome by Governor Romney's debate performance.

Aside from raising Governor Romney's favorability levels, the debate had the effect of putting several battle ground states in play that weren't before, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Michigan.It translated into a lead for Romney in Colorado, Florida and Virginia, and caused him to surge in Ohio and basically tie that race up.If Governor Romney manages to take Florida, Virginia, Colorado and either Ohio, Pennsylvania or Michigan, or Wisconsin plus Nevada or Iowa, both of which are essentially tied, he's at the magic number and becomes the next president.

By contrast, assuming Romney takes Florida, President Obama would need to either win Virginia, both Ohio and Pennsylvania and either Wisconsin or Michigan.Or assuming Romney wins Virginia as well, both Ohio and Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and either Nevada or Iowa.

President Obama is going to try and arrest that momentum, and David Axelrod and his crew have promised us 'a much more aggressive President Obama' in the next debates.

How likely is that?

Anything's possible, but barring a major Romney gaffe, what's more likely at best is a draw where both sides claim victory. Romney has to know that no matter what, unless President Obama turns in the same sort of performance he did last time (highly unlikely) the compliant Obama Media is going to trumpet it an Obama victory.

The President will very likely try and borrow some tricks from Joe Biden's Joker act, but there's a limit to how far he can go, even though Candy Crowley is likely to give him plenty of license and concentrate on trying to undermine Romney
.

As Michelle Malkin reminds us, CNN has played this game before.

However, Mitt Romney is a much more seasoned debater than Paul Ryan, and he's unlikely to get rolled in this fashion.Barring a major gaffe or a deer in the headlights moment, the best spin the president can hope for is a draw, with each side's partisans claiming victory.

Will that be enough?

There are several factors that explain why it might not be.

VP Joe Biden's performance last week wasn't watched by that many people, but the media coverage, clips on the internet and GOP ads showing him acting out have had a definite effect on independents and 'soft' Obama support. Only True Believers saw this as a positive. The rest of America is increasingly concerned that this buffoon is a heartbeat away from the president.Particularly turned off were women, a major Obama demographic that is now split evenly between the two candidates. Women tend to not like bullies or buffoonery.

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, the White House backing up Joe Biden's nonsense about the White House not being informed by the State department about the intel on the Benghazi debacle essentially is an attempt to hang the blame for the sordid scandal around Hillary Clinton's neck. Not only have the continuous lies and misrepresentations about the Benghazi attack shocked a great many Americans, but the attempt to shift the blame to Mrs. Clinton looks to have alienated an important Obama campaign ally, the ex-president.

Another factor percolating under the wire is President Obama's declining support with Hispanics.A key factor was the president's interview with Spanish language station Univision, which was seen by a large audience and saw President Obama castigated for the Fast and Furious coverup that left hundreds of Mexican nationals dead at the hands of the weaponry the Administration shipped across the border.

While President Obama will still take a majority of the Hispanic vote, the latest polls show his support slipping. The Univision interview and the declining economy are the factors, with Romney getting support of 40% plus of this demographic in a number of battleground states.

To sum up, the debates, no matter how they turn out may not have the decisive effect the president is expecting them to unless Mitt romeny makes a major error. At present the momentum is going Romney's way, and it will tale something major to arrest it.

Obama Campaign Previews Their Next Debate Strategy

 

Count on seeing a more aggressive, much less civil President Obama, and a lot of beating of the class warfare drum.And oh yes, a lot of effort by the president to demonize his opponent and recast him as a heartless plutocrat:

As President Obama began to hunker down at a plush resort here for three full days of debate prep, his campaign team signaled the incumbent may steal a page from Vice President Joe Biden and show a more aggressive tone in Tuesday's second face-to-face showdown with Republican Mitt Romney.

"Gov. Romney has been making pitches all of his life and he knows how to say what people want to hear whether that was during his time at Bain or during the dozens of town halls he did during the primary," said Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Saturday.{...}

"The American people should expect to see a much more energized President Obama making a passionate case for why he is a better choice for the middle class," she told Fox News. "He will continue to hold Mitt Romney's feet to the fire on the facts about his policies, whether that is his 5 trillion tax cut plan that will leave the burden on the middle class, his plans to voucherize Medicare or his belief that women should not be able to make choices about their own healthcare."

Same old talking points...Bain Capital, War on Women, Taxing The Rich, Romney's going To Eliminate Medicare and force Old People to Eat Dog Food. Likely aided and abetted, of course, by CNN's Candy Crowley, who will handpick who gets to ask questions in Tuesday's town hall format.

Will it work? Yes, it will give President Obama the chance to trot out the shopworn talking points, but it also gives Mitt Romney the chance to respond to this horse manure free of the usual media filter. He can starkly outline the differences between American free enterprise and Barack Obama's crony socialism. As Romney said in the last debate, the president not only wants to pick winners, but losers.And a few mentions of fiascoes like Solyndra should emphasize that what this president has picked are almost entirely losers..at least for the American taxpayer if not for the president's well connected donors and bundlers who owned these companies.

The president will undoubtedly try to borrow a few tricks from VP Biden's Joker act, but there's a limit to how far he can go and still look presidential. Gi8ven how thin skinned this president is, he may very well cross that line, as he did in the last debate when Jim Lehrer politely reminded him his time was up. And in Mitt Romney, he's facing a seasoned debator, not a rookie.

Bain Capital? Again, let's hope the president goes there. Again, Mitt Romney will have the chance to explain Bain to the country without the media filter and emphasize the meme of “trickle down government” President Obama specializes in.

Mitt Romney can patiently explain to the president and the nation what growing the economy means, that President Obama's tax plan victimizes the 'middle class', every family with a gross income of $200,000 ($150,00 for individuals), that even confiscating every penny owned by the 'millionaires' isn't enough to run the bloated Obama government for more than a few months.

He can explain to the American people that Obama's raiding Medicare, Medicare Advantage and the TriCare program 12 million veterans depend on to pay for ObamaCare ensures the failure of these programs and the herding of the elderly into one size fits all ObamaCare, where 15 unelected bureaucrats get to decide whether granny gets that badly needed operation or not. And that simply reducing what Medicare pays simply ensures that less doctors and hospitals will accept it.

Most importantly, no matter what the moderator does, Governor Romney needs to take control and see to it that the debate follows his agenda, not the president's.

I think Governor Romney's up to the challenge, but we'll see.

Tuesday will be an interesting night. No matter what this president does, look for the compliant Obama Media to call it a draw at worst.

It will also be interesting to see how many Americans tune in.

Romney At VMI Hits Obama Hard On Foreign Policy

Governor Mitt Romney chose Virginia Military Institute the site for a major speech on foreign policy.Actually, there were only a few differences in his previous speech at the Citadel and today's, but they're worth noting.

Romney sees the current War on Jihad very much as a vital struggle along the lines of the Cold War that must be won, which makes perfect sense in many respects. He referred to it as "a struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair."

In both speeches, he said exactly what needed to be said about the Iranian threat, the hollowing out of our military, and the need to increase our Navy from unsafe levels it hasn't been at since 1916.

The new strategies he's proposing here are interesting.

He proposes a much tighter vetting of who gets U.S. aid, and the use of that aid as a carrot for pro-U.S. behavior and the safeguarding of our interests. And he wants to use free trade in the same way much more aggressively, pointing out that the Obama Administration has not signed a free trade agreement in four years.

Governor Romney made the salient point that in Iran and in Syria, President Obama has simply not attempted to vet the players and to aid the forces of real pro-western democracy. Romney pledges to change that:

The greater tragedy of it all is that we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East—friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm us. Unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our President is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As one Syrian woman put it, “We will not forget that you forgot about us.”

These are all good ideas worth pursuing, although in dealing with Islamist countries,a President Romney may find that his successes are mixed,because Islam trumps all.Still, I doubt that a Romney Administration would be funding, aiding and abetting the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood at home or abroad.

Governor Romney went over the various hot points in the world, and by and large seems to have a pretty firm grasp of global strategy and an awareness of the big picture and the way both our friends and our enemies perceive us that President Obama has always lacked.He sees our allies hungry for the American commitment and leadership that's been missing for the past 4 years, and I think he's entirely correct on that.

In the Middle East particularly, the return of the perception of America as the strong horse will do a great deal to change things on the ground and help destroy our enemies.

Governor Romney made a particular point of saying that he's committed to missile defense, and slapped President Obama's hit mic leak earlier this year to Russian President Medvedev by quipping that he, Romney, will not be more flexible with Vladimir Putin over that.

He also made a pro forma remark about U.S. commitment to a prosperous and democratic Palestinian state. That isn't going to happen because there's no potential for it, but I suppose his foreign policy team urged the governor to stick something in his speech about it somewhere.

On Afghanistan, Governor Romney said that he will continue to pursue a transition to Afghan forces by 2014, but will not write it in stone, saying:

..the route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11. I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation.

Here, I think Governor Romney is perhaps kidding himself a bit. Barring a massive change in rules of engagement, our attitude towards the Kharzai government and a real strategy to defeat the Taliban both in Pakistan and Afghanistan, I think Governor Romney will find that there are far better uses for our troops, time and money than Afghanistan. After all, if the Taliban, Lashkar-e-taiba and al-Qaeda want to find a failed state to foment terrorism from, there's one right next door in Pakistan.

All in all though, a sensible and statesmanlike speech,no matter what the usual suspects say.

America leads...what a concept.

Why Obama Got His Clock Cleaned Last Night

(H/T for the graphic, Pamela)

The Left is in absolute meltdown today over last night's debate.

And of course, they're looking for excuses

The latest victim of the Two Minute Hate is poor old PBS lefty Jim Lehrer. Every one from Obama campaign honcho Stephanie Cutter to the usual suspects at MSNBC apparently want him shot after torture.

"Why didn't he fact check Romney? Why did he give Romney so much more time? Why didn't he mention the 47% tape? Waaah!"

In other words, they wanted an impartial moderator to do President Obama's job for him. And in fact, President Obama spoke for five minutes more than Romney.

Of course, what they really wanted was not a moderator, but an ally who would help Barack Hussein Obama.

And you know, Jim Lehrer tried, he really did.He constantly tried to throw Barack Obama lifelines on how to respond. In the early part of the debate, there was only one candidate Jim Lehrer was interrupting, and it wasn't Barack Obama. At one point, when the president was stymied, he actually ordered Lehrer to move on to another topic, and Lehrer complied. Lehrer really only substantially interrupted the president once during the debate to tell President Obama that his time was up and Barack Obama's response tells volumes.

He glared at Lehrer with real animosity and snapped at him "I had five seconds left until you interrupted me." And Lehrer visibly paled and backed down.

Therein lies part of the answer.

Barack Obama actually resented the fact that he had to debate. He resented the idea that he, in all his awesomeness, had to stoop to talking to the likes of Mitt Romney, who represents everything he hates - white, successful, mature, a leader in the private sector, a Republican who favors free enterprise and American exceptionalism.

He resented the fact that anyone would challenge his reign, or question the scam he's been running for years. Barack Obama is not used to being challenged about anything.

That's why he wouldn't deign to look at Romney, why his posture and attitude were casual and dismissive, and why he erupted at Jim Lehrer. He was in a situation where even his media lackeys couldn't filter anything for him. And many Americans, for the first time, saw his arrogance, his immaturity and his unfitness for the office he holds. The Emperor's new clothes were revealed in all their egotistical irrelevance and intellectual poverty.

To me, one key turning point in the debate was when President Obama, the man who has run up more debt than almost every president before him combined, the president who has yet to produce a budget kept repeating a nonsensical talking point he pulled out of a nether part of his anatomy about a supposed $5 trillion dollar tax cut Romney wants to impose.

John McCain or the president's surrogates would have nodded solemnly and let it pass. Mitt Romney smiled at him and simply told him, and his fellow Americans that it was absolute nonsense that had no basis in fact.

"I have five boys Mr. President. I'm used to hearing people repeat something that isn't true in hopes that I'll eventually believe it."

What Romney was saying, in essence was 'I've dealt with children with your tactics before.'

Anyone in America who has ever raised a child got it immediately, and with that one line, Mitt Romney nailed the essence of whom Barack Obama is.

Oh, and the 47% line? I really do hope the president goes there. Aside from the fact that much of what Mitt Romney had to say that day in response to a specific question was reasonably correct, if we're going to talk about old tapes, there are a number of them that have surfaced recently featuring this president talking about how he loves redistribution of wealth and what a major and beneficial influence Jeremiah Wright was in his life. Not to mention a number of others my readers are familiar with on topics like Israel, this president's support for denying babies who survive an abortion medical care, and hollowing out the U.S. military.

The 47% line only works as a dishonest campaign ad. In a debate, it would be swatted out of the park.

The simple fact is this. Barack Obama won in 2008 because the media adored him and refused to vet him, he faced an inconsequential candidate following a vastly unpopular incumbent, his actual resume was almost non-existent, and he spoke in broad platitudes and was marketed so that people could project anything they wanted on him.

Now, he's facing a competent and intelligent candidate who isn't going to ignore his abysmal record or defer to him, and there's no secret anymore about whom Barack Obama is or what he stands for.

Mitt Romney was willing to portray the differences between Barack Obama's vision of America and his own in eloquent terms last night and to trust the American people to make their own judgements. The media was unable to protect this failed president and filter information to keep it off the country's radar for once, and what we saw was not a 'bad night' for Barack Obama, but a clear picture of whom he really is.

President Obama can come out for the next debate more aggressive and nasty, which is exactly what the Left wants. It will only serve to reinforce the impression Americans got of him last night.

As for Mitt Romney, two pieces of advice. Treat last night not as the impressive win it was but as an opening battle, and stay hungry. And second, heed Sarah Palin's advice about vigilance. There nothing Barack Obama and his minions will not do to stay in power.

Debate Polls Roundup - Romney Destroyed Obama

 

Well, the tribe has spoken, and the long and the short of it is that no presidential candidate, let alone a sitting president has ever taken this kind of decisive beating before.

The CNN-ORC polls, courtesy of Instapundit. On who won the debate, Romney 67%, Obama 25%.

In a CBS poll of uncommitted voters, 56% say opinion of Romney changed for the better, versus 13% for Obama. Their CBs News poll also has 46% saying Romney won versus 22% for Obama, with the rest calling it a draw.

Keep in mind that I'm certain these outlets did everything they could to skew their polls...but Barack Obama simply didn't give them anything to work with, and they  still have a fragment of a reputation as legitimate news sources to uphold.

Then there's Frank Luntz, a pollster with over two decades of experience, who put together a focus group for the debate of consisting of undecided Colorado voters:

At least half a dozen focus group members who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 now say they will vote for Romney. Virtually everyone in the group said that Romney won the debate and exceeded their expectations.

Luntz, who has been in the polling business for at least two decades, says he has never seen such a dramatic shift in opinion as a result of a debate.

Of course, the ultimate voices showing how big Mitt Romney won came from Obama partisans. For instance, most of MSNBC seemed like they should be on suicide watch...especially Chris Matthews:

Debate Results...Brutal

ROMNEY BOOM MAH YE!



When even leftist loons like Bill Maher and Obama's boyfriend Andrew Sullivan are saying Romney won, you know how bad it was.

Even Jim Lehrer interrupting only one candidate and doing his best to cover Obama didn't help.

Money quotes from Bill Maher via twitter after listening to Obama stumble around - "I guess he really does need a tele prompter"

Money quote from Obama fan boy Andrew Sullivan @ 10.29 pm. "How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight."

Link included only because watching Sully melt down is pretty funny. Especially the parts when this odious little tool, against his will, says Romney is coming across like Reagan.

As I mentioned before, Romney has an uncanny ability to channel Ronaldus Maximus when he gets his game on. Tonight, he did.

Barack Obama's meandering and downright dishonest answers bored even many of his partisans, while Romney was on point for the most part, and appeared warm, compassionate, human and most of all, presidential.

One missed opportunity...when Obama kept blathering on about college students and how the feds took over student loans, Romney could have broadsided him with an explanation of exactly how that nightmare is yet another trillion dollar time bomb in our economy, and how Obama and the Democrat's idea for creating the funding for his plan is exactly what you'd expect from them - raise taxes prohibitively on millions of the nation's small businesses.

Expect the Obama media and their tame 'factcheckers' to try and bail President Obama out as best they can, but I don't think it's going to be enough. People saw what they saw and heard what they heard.

But overall, a great night.Governor Romney may just have sealed the deal with the American people, especially if future debates go this well..especially the one of foreign policy.

Paul Ryan's destruction of Joe Biden in couple of weeks should also be both entertaining and constructive as well.

Whaddya Know? Polls Now 'Changing' To Show A Dead Heat

This would be comical if it wasn't so insidious.

The same polls that showed President Obama ahead by ten, even 15 points are now issuing new polls that show a dead heat, almost overnight.

How 'bout that?

What's happening is that with the election a little over a month away, these bogus polls need to tighten things up if they want to preserve a shred of their reputation. Expect that to continue.

By the way, I don't suggest that 2012 will be a replay, but its worth remembering that at this point in 1980 Jimmy Carter was leading Ronald Reagan by 8 points in the polls. And Ronaldus Maximus still ended up having the last laugh.

American voters are going to be watching the debates, and in spite of the usual partisan leftist moderator, Mitt Romney is going to be able to make his case unfiltered directly to the American people for a change.That's going to have a lot to do with what happens in November.

Ah, Those Polls...The New Campaign Tool

Usually, I limit the attention I pay to polls, because I realize that there's only one that counts, and it happens on Election Day.

But we're seeing a new development here, and it's insidious and worrisome.

Sometimes in past elections, you'd see an outlier poll or three that was obviously skewed. What new this year is that we are seeing an organized attempt to corroborate seriously cooked polls commissioned by the Obama Media with a serious media narrative by those same outlets that keeps working on drumming in the message that Mitt Romney is losing badly and that President Obama is inevitable.

The idea, of course is to dampen Republican voter enthusiasm, fundraising  and turnout.

Aside from oversampling Democrats, the Obama Media polls are getting the results they're getting from overestimating Democrat turnout.Let's examine how this works.

In 2008, the electorate that elected Barack Obama was 39% Democrat, 32% GOP and 29% Independent, a  D+7 electorate. And Barack  Obama defeated McCain by 7 points, the same margin.
In 2004, the electorate was 37% Democrat, 37% Republican, and 26% Independent.. President Bush beat John Kerry by 3 points nationally.

What alomost every Obama Media poll is doing is assuming to get their results is that the  Democrats equal or increase their share of the electorate over 2008, which was their largest in decades. That isn't going to hasppen.

2008 was a special year, with a seriously unpopular lame duck Republican in teh White House, with economic anxiety that was primarily created by the Democrat congress but was manipulated by their friends in the media to cast a taint on the GOP nominee that year, John McCain.

The Democrats had a young, charismatic Barack Obama selling hope n' change to camouflage his non-existent resume, someone who was a mirror for whatever people wanted to see in him.Since he had no real record, he was able to run on promises. And to add to the mix, John McCain was a flawed candidate disliked by much of his own party, ran one of the worst campaigns in living memory and,because McCain opted for public financing while Barack Obama famously broke his word on that subject and went private, McCain was outspent roughly ten to one.

None of these factors exist today. President Obama has a record he needs to run from, the financing is pretty much a level playing field this year, Barack Obama has a muchg tougher candidate to face  and Republican enthusiasm is a lot higher than it was in 2008, with higher percentages of Republicans and independents in the battle ground states and lower percentages of registered Democrats. Recent polls from AP, Politico and the daily tracking polls from Rasmussen and Gallup all figure in what will be a relatively lower turnout of Democrats in 2012 as compared to 2008, and they all  show the race essentially tied. Only those polls showing an electorate with Democrat affiliation equal or greater than 2008  show Obama with any sizable lead.

The proof on the ground  of this is that we're seeing President Obama speaking at smaller venues to smaller crowds than he did in 2008. If he was really pulling away, he be speaking tol arger crowds in bigger venues.

Another factor driving things is that the Obama Campaign spent a massive amount of money on ad buys right after their convention, while the Romney forces held off for the stretch. That may or may not have been a wise strategic decision, but we'll see.

My sense of this is that the country is divided right now, and that there's a great deal of flux in at least 10-15% of the electorate. In spite of the media's best efforts to keep it out of the news, a lot of Americans are waking up to the fact that the country is in dire economic straits and that things are getting worse, not better. And the economy is going to be the main issue of this election.

Mitt Romney has yet to sell  at least a part of the electorate that he is the man to lead us to an economic recovery, and the Obama Campaign's 'look a squirrel' strategy has done a decent job of distracting people from the president's own abysmal record, with the active participation of the ever helpful Obama Media.

However, in the debates, even though they are being hosted primarily by Obama partisans, Governor Romney  will have a chance to talk to the American people unfiltered and President Obama will likewise have to face up to his dismal performance.Americans are going to watch the debates and make up their minds.

One thing you can expect, of course, is that no matter how well Governor Romney actually does in the debates, the Obama media will call it for the president and release new polls showing the president 'won'. Expect skewed exit polls showing President Obama winning handily and early calls of states ala' Florida in 2000 to occur in a final effort to suppress GOP turnout.

Many of these people refer to themselves as journalists when  in fact,they're just campaign operatives.

Most of them have no idea how damaging this is.

Distrust of America's media is at an all time high, and what's even worse in many ways is the fact that a significant part of the media no longer evenmake an effort to hide thei rbias any more.

That's a very dangerous place for a free society to be in.