It Be Da Winker Night At Drudge

Ohio Poll Showing Obama +10 With "Likely Voters" Prepares The Way For The Lord

The Ohio poll by Quinnipiac/CBS/NewYorkTimes here showing Obama +10 over Romney is of "likely voters", not telling us how many Democrats are represented in the results. They could be legion, in view of the fact that Rasmussen's latest poll in Ohio showed the race to be +1 Obama just days before this poll. Has anything significant happened in recent days to cause such a dramatic swing?

Despite the significance of the auto bailouts for the prognostications of local Democrat officials in Ohio, the fact that early voting in Ohio begins next week helps explain why it is necessary for Democrat sympathizers to release a favorable poll now to prepare the way of the lord.

Bailout Takers To Give Obama The Margin Of Victory In Ohio

Is Romney wrong to write-off voters who depend on direct government assistance?

Alec MacGillis for TNR, here:

When I was in Toledo last week, I asked Lucas County Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz, a Democrat, what he made of Obama’s strong position, and he didn’t hesitate. “It’s the bailout," he said. "It’s not just the Jeep plant in Toledo and that they build the Chevy Cruze in Youngstown. But more than that -- we have 88 counties, and in 82 of them there are supplier plants to the larger ones. When you start talking about 82 of 88 counties that have some sort of direct, literal, positive impact from this rescue, I think that on the margins has the ability to tweak the numbers.”

The moral hazard of bailouts doesn't affect just the outcome for a business, but also the outcome for the politician responsible for it.

Gov. Romney should have considered that the contributions of bankers who were helped through TARP bailouts which he supported may be outnumbered by the votes of workers whose jobs the auto-bailouts he opposed preserved. 

Real Clear Politics Puts Ohio In Obama Column: He's 5 Votes Away From Victory

Real Clear Politics has put Ohio in the "leans Obama" column, here, which puts Obama 5 Electoral College votes away from clinching victory, according to the polling and math as presented.

Recent discussion of polling has included charges that polling is oversampling Democrats, that polling amounts to "in-kind contributions" to Democrat campaigns by news organizations biased toward liberalism, that polling is campaigning in another form, that polling is disinformation designed to suppress the turnout of the Republican opposition, etc.

So remember this map after the election is over, the only poll that counts.

Missouri Republicans Finally Stand Up For Rep. Todd Akin

So Reuters, here:

But the chairman of the Missouri Republican Party, David Cole, who had issued a statement soon after the rape remarks that questioned Akin's decision to remain in the race, said on Tuesday the state party supported Akin.

"We are confident that Todd will defeat McCaskill in November, and the Missouri Republican Party will do everything we can to assist in his efforts," he said.

Mike Huckabee has been there for Akin from the beginning. Newt has stepped up. Missouri Republicans are stepping up, following Newt's lead. Even Demented Jim's Senate Conservatives Fund is thinking about it.

What's to think about, Jim?

Meanwhile Reince Priebus of the Republican National Committee is still running away from Akin as fast as he can. That guy is as clueless as was his predecessor, Michael Steele.

Establishment Republicans are hopelessly clueless.

In Your Face, America!

Seen In Grand Rapids Last Week

Politics Is The Art Of The Possible

Madonna's Black Muslim In The White House

Reported here:

“Y’all better vote for f–king Obama, OK? For better or for worse, all right? We have a black Muslim in the White House! Now that’s some amazing s–t,” Madonna said. “It means there is hope in this country. And Obama is fighting for gay rights, so support the man, g-damnit.”

Good Soldier Newt Gingrich Campaigns For Todd Akin In Missouri

USA Today has the story here:

"If verbal mistakes mattered, Joe Biden couldn't be vice president," Gingrich said in the radio interview, adding he is supporting Akin because the congressman "admitted he made a mistake and apologized for it."

Republicans have cut-off funds for Akin, which tells the electorate all it needs to know about the Republican Party.

Republicans Still Don't Get It: Obama Is Not Carter Redivivus

Until the Republican Party comes to grips with the fact that the Bushes were two of the very worst presidents for the economy in the post-war period, it is never going to understand the current problem and offer America a decent alternative, which is that Obama is continuing in the Bushes' footsteps and is actually worse than them, if that were possible.

Obama is the second coming of George Bush, not of Jimmy Carter.

If only we had an economy like Jimmy Carter's, lousy as it was for its time. But total household net worth never increased more as a percentage than under his short tenure, and he ranked third best in the post-war period for increasing housing values. Those two categories, incidentally, were also where his successor Ronald Reagan shined the brightest as well.

Erick Erickson should know better:

"There are a lot of elitist Republicans who have spent several years telling us Mitt Romney was the only electable Republican. Because the opinion makers and news media these elitists hang out with have concluded Romney will not win, the elitists are in full on panic mode. They conspired to shut out others, tear down others, and prop up Romney with the electability argument. He is now not winning against the second coming of Jimmy Carter. They know there will be many conservatives, should Mitt Romney lose, who will not be satisfied until every bridge is burned with these jerks, hopefully with the elitist jerks tied to the bridge as it burns."

Mitt Romney is a fiscally conservative social liberal who doesn't really have a home in either of the two major political parties, which is why he's being attacked from all sides. It is not because of his social liberalism but because of his fiscal conservatism. Which is to say that both parties have expunged that idea from their lexicons since LBJ and no one really knows what it even means anymore.

But Romney may indeed know, and always gives the impression of knowing, which is why he is having a likeability problem. He comes off as the bad banker who won't increase your credit limit until you start catching up on your payments.

No one really likes a guy like that, but that is the kind of guy whom we most need right now, holding the veto pen. If he loses, fear of that will be the reason.

No one likes a spending party pooper.

The Worst Presidents For The Economy Club

1

2

3

4

4

5

5

On a scale of 7 to 70, 7 being best and 70 being worst, these guys score the following:

Obama 53, Bush the Younger 51, Bush the Elder 50, Nixon/Ford 48, Carter 42, Reagan 42.

The Best Presidents For The Economy Club

1

2

3

4

4

On a scale of 7 to 70, 7 being best and 70 being worst, their scores are:

Truman 21, Clinton 24, Eisenhower 26, JFK/LBJ 29.

Live Long And Prosper . . . Sans Nuts

Men supposedly live a lot longer, on average, minus the family jewels.

Story here.

Jeffrey Lord Doubts This Race Is Close

In The American Spectator, here:

After the election, Ed Rollins ran into the Washington Post's blunt-speaking editor Ben Bradlee and "harassed" Bradlee "about his paper's lousy polling methodology."

Bradlee's "unrepentant" response?

"Tough sh…t, Rollins, I'm glad it cost you plenty. It's my in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign."

Got that? ...

How does one explain a president who, like Jimmy Carter in 1980, is increasingly seen as a disaster in both economic and foreign policy? How does a President Obama, with a Gallup job approval rating currently at 49% -- down a full 20% from 2009 -- mysteriously win the day in all these polls?

How does this happen?

Can you say "in-kind contribution"?

Election 2012: The Dilettante Radical Or The Conservative Liberal?

Can Liberals Count? Can Liberals Remember?

George Bush won Ohio in 2004 by 118,000 votes, but Andrew Sullivan remembers it differently, here:

"At this point in 2004, one recalls, George W. Bush was about to see a near eight-point lead shrivel to a one-state nail-biter by Election Day."

The real nail-biters were in Iowa, where Bush won by just 10,000 popular votes (7 electoral college votes), and in New Mexico, where Bush won by just 6,000 popular votes (5 electoral college votes), neither of which separately or together would have given victory to Democrat John Kerry.

Be that as it may, the real point of Sullivan's story is this:

"If Obama wins, to put it bluntly, he will become the Democrats’ Reagan."

Ah, no, he'll become the Democrats' W, or maybe their George H. W. Bush. Or if he's really really lucky maybe their Richard Nixon.

Obama's economic performance in the next four years would have to improve by 40 percent in seven key categories of economic measurement in comparison with all previous presidents to achieve the fair-to-poor record achieved by Ronald Reagan, whom I have shown elsewhere scored a lousy 42, just like Jimmy Carter.

President Obama's current score after 4 years is already 2 points worse than George Bush's score of 51 after 8 years, the worst two records in the post-war period. That means Obama would have to pull out  of his hat a veritable golden age to make him look as good as Reagan, which as I've said isn't saying much. To do it Obama would have to score a 32 in the next four years just to average out to a 42.

Can you imagine an Obama second term turning in an overall performance roughly close to that of JFK/LBJ, who rank 4th best out of 10 since WWII? Because that is what it would take.

Obama would have to go from worst for unemployment to 4th (think Clinton and W), starting tomorrow. He would have to go from worst to 4th for GDP (think Reagan and Eisenhower), for the next four years. He would have to go from worst to 4th for housing values (think Harry Truman). Only George Bush has been worse for the increase in Americans' total household net worth than Obama has been. To address that Obama would have to restore at least 1960s levels of prosperity to the country, if not Clinton era levels.

Fat chance.

Despite all the ruin which one man can rain down on a country through sheer incompetence and arrogance, the American people are a resilient lot and things will improve no matter who gets elected. The economy adjusts and moves on, and in many respects there is only one way to go but up. But if it's Obama who is elected again, I don't expect him to finish much better than a 48 after 8 years overall, because the first 4 have been such a disaster.

Romney Is Right: People Who Pay No Taxes Pay No Attention

Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

The way to make them pay attention is to make them pay.

If America Can Re-Elect George Bush In 2004 . . .

. . . it can re-elect Barack Obama in 2012, the two worst presidents, back to back no less, since WWII.

Naked Capitalism Knows A Rival Ideology When It Sees One

It's an amusing attack on the libertarian ideologue Megan McArdle by the anarchist communist ideologue Yves Smith, here, at Naked Capitalism, if you think of it as a cat fight.

The comments are so disturbing to "Strelnikov" (appropriately continuing to use the pseudonym "Yves") that she's thinking of closing down free speech in the comments section for her "shaming" posts only. Call it perestroika.

(image source)