Today's Daily Presidential Tracking Poll at Rasmussen shows President Obama with a 1-point lead of over Mitt Romney. But Rasmussen also provides this bit of information.
Romney is supported by 86% of Republicans, while Obama gets the vote
from 85% of Democrats. The GOP hopeful has a four-point edge among
voters not affiliated with either major party.
So Rasmussen has Romney with a 4-point lead among independents and he attracts a higher percentage of Republican voters than Obama's percentage of Democrats. The only way I can see Obama with a lead under these circumstances is if there are quite a few more Democrats than Republicans and quite a few more Democrats than Independents in the poll sampling.
This would be at odds with other Rasmussen polling in which a higher number of people
identify themselves as Republicans than Democrats, which they've been doing
all year long. In the latest poll, August, people said they were Republican 37.6% of the time, compared to 33.3% Democrat and 29.2% who said they were neither Republican nor Democrat.
I'm not a Rassmussen subscriber so I can't look very deeply into the
poll samplings. I don't understand why he expects a higher
turnout of Democrats than Republicans and Independents unless he is counting on some degree of apathy among Tea Partiers. I'm not sure I'd count on that if I were an Obama supporter.
Looking into the Presidential Approval Index for today we find that only 48% approve of the job Obama is doing while 51% disapprove and 43% strongly disapprove. As we head closer to election day I have a hard time imagining that there are many, if any, left-wingers among that strongly disapproving group. I think it's mostly conservatives and Tea Partiers, like the ones who showed up in DC three years ago this month. They were a motivated group then, and they're a motivated group now.
In both Ohio and Florida, Barack Obama’s “clear leads” all come from heavy over-sampling
of Democrats, not from winning the crucial Indie vote. In fact, most of
the polls that show Obama with big leads also show Romney handily
winning Independent voters. Yet, somehow, Obama manages to increase his
performance from 2008 despite Independents now opposing him. Let's take a look at how Romney is competing among Independents in recent polls:
Ohio – Leads Among Independents
Ohio Newspaper Organization – Romney +28
CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac – Romney +1
American Research Group – Romney +16
Fox News – Romney +4
We Ask America – Romney +3
Public Policy Polling – Romney +2
Florida - Leads Among Independents
CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac – Romney +3
Gravis Marketing – Romney +4
We Ask America – Romney +2
American Research Group – Romney +1
Florida Times Union – Romney +4
Fox News – Obama +2
Remember, these are states Obama won by small margins in 2008, primarily
by winning Independents by 7 and 8 points. If Barack Obama were winning
with Independents in every poll, it’s clear the media would be talking
about it just as they did, to the point of annoyance, four years ago.
WASHINGTON — The Commerce Department said Thursday that the United
States economy grew at an annual pace of just 1.3 percent in the second
quarter of the year, showing that the recovery came close to stalling in
The revision was down from the 1.7 percent rate the government reported
in August. The economy grew at a 2 percent pace in the first quarter of
the year and 3 percent at the end of 2011.
With just 40 days to go until the election, the weak growth figure was
sure to take on a strong political valence. Mitt Romney has battered
President Obama for failing to foster a robust recovery and has pinned
the economy’s weak jobs growth on his policies. Mr. Obama has conceded
that the recovery has been anemic, but has argued that his
administration put the economy on the right track after the worst
recession since the Great Depression.
underscored that the recovery has proved insufficient to pull down the
unemployment rate, which has been stuck between 8.1 percent and 8.3
percent all year.
While the word "unexpected" was unexpectedly missing from the article, it was noted that economists had not anticipated such a steep drop in durable goods orders.
A separate report Thursday showed the manufacturing sector, one of the
brightest spots in the recovery, contracting as well. The Commerce
Department said that durable goods orders, a key measure of
manufacturing strength, plunged 13.2 percent in August, far more than economists had anticipated and the steepest drop since the worst of the recession in the winter of 2009.
Not to worry, though. This pathetically weak growth is not Obama's fault.
Much of the downward revision to the second-quarter figures was because
of the effects of the nation’s worst drought in 50 years. Farm
inventories dropped in the second quarter, after falling in the first as
More broadly, cuts to state and local government spending have held down
growth, and private firms have hesitated to invest during the poor
business climate, despite the attraction of low interest rates on loans.
Oddly enough the article did not add George W. Bush to the list factors causing such lackluster second quarter growth. You'd think a Times article would have included him, knowing that it would give a campaigning Obama support for his continued insistance that everything is all Bush's fault.
Remember when candidate Hillary Clinton raised the frightening prospect of the 3:00 A.M. phone call to rookie President Barack Obama in the White House?
Well, it was 3:00 A.M. with both Hillary and Barack on the job, and somehow or other they missed the call. And now the administration is in full damage control mode.
This morming Betsy Newmark has a post explaining why the State Department is attacking CNN for reporting what was in Ambassador Christopher Stevens's journal. CNN found it in the ruins of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya nearly a week after the terror attack that took the ambassador's life. State refuses to answer any questions.
So put this together. We had intelligence officers in the area because
we knew it was such a dangerous area, but we allowed our diplomats to be
in the region with below-standard security protections.
This isn't a crime investigation. It's a major security failure that goes
right back to the State Department. No wonder CNN has become the enemy
for daring to publish information they got from the ambassador's diary.
No wonder they tried to blame the video for a week. Anything to
distract from the failures of Hillary Clinton's State Department.
Ideologues at State and in the mainstream media are now working overtime to shield not only Barack Obama, but now Hillary Clinton as well. Her tenure at State was supposed to give her the impeccable foreign policy credentials that would make her the prohibitive presidential favorite in 2016. She won't be the favorite if Mitt Romney wins, which I believe he will.
But the press apparently does not, so we have a cover up going on. It would be one thing if we were looking at the type of scandal that the press of another day would have swept under the rug. In the old days the press would ignore a scandal if it was unrelated to the functioning of government. FDR and JFK both carried on affairs that the press chose to disregard because they judged them to be nothing about policy.
The murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and his staff is a scandal of a different nature. This was a failure of individuals in their execution of policy and, arguably, a failure of the policy itself. It was a catastrophic security failure and a catastrophic intelligenct loss.
Among the more than two dozen American personnel evacuated from the city
after the assault on the American mission and a nearby annex were about
a dozen C.I.A. operatives and contractors, who played a crucial role in
conducting surveillance and collecting information on an array of armed
militant groups in and around the city.
“It’s a catastrophic intelligence loss,” said one American official who
has served in Libya and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because
the F.B.I. is still investigating the attack. “We got our eyes poked
If there were all these intelligence gathering assets on the ground before the terrorists attacked, why didn't the administration know that it needed to provide security for the ambassador? Were the White House and State caught
by surprise? Were they not paying attention? Ambassador Stevens knew he was in danger. He even wrote in his
journal that he was in danger. Is there any reason to suspect that he
didn't communicate his fears up the chain of command? It's hard to imagine.
Maybe the White House and State simply ignored warnings. I can certainly imagine Obama in denial over
the prospect of anti-american rioting. That sort of thing wasn't supposed to happen after the
inauguration of Barack Obama. Muslims were going to see America in a
This is a monumental scandal. One that other administations might not survive. What happened to the ambassador's 3:00 A.M. phone call for help? Will our watch dog media bother trying to find out? They should. This is a huge failure.
Update: "Sources say intelligence agencies knew within a day that al Qaeda affiliates were behind the attacks in Benghazi, Libya—they even knew where one of the attackers lived. Eli Lake reports."
Another U.S. intelligence official
said, “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours.
These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide
variety of things we could do.”
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.”
unclear whether any of these suspected attackers have been targeted or
arrested, and intelligence experts caution that these are still early
days in a complex investigation.
question of what the White House knew, and when they knew it, will be
of keen interest to members of Congress in the election year. Last
Thursday, the Obama administration formally briefed House and Senate
members on the attack. Those briefings however failed to satisfy many
members, particularly Republicans. “That is the most useless, worthless
briefing I have attended in a long time,” Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was quoted as saying.
While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from
many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come
to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr.
Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected
significantly more negligence than has been disclosed.
So George Bush, who attended every one of his daily intelligence briefings by the way, should have prevented the attacks when nobody knew where and when al Qaeda would strike. Can we expect Mr Eichenwald to put his investigative skills to good use and find out why Barack Obama, who attended maybe half of his daily intelligence briefings by the way, didn't prevent the attack in Benghazi when his ambassador there knew he was in danger? Let's just say I won't hold my breath.
Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who has
made fighting for workers a focus of her Senate campaign, was a hired
legal gun for a steel conglomerate trying to dodge paying health and
pension benefits to thousands of retired coal miners, records show.
Warren represented LTV Steel in 1995, when she was a Harvard Law
professor, aiding the bankrupt company’s bid to overturn a court ruling
forcing it to pay its former employees and dependents $140 million in
Warren was one of two LTV lawyers who wrote a petition to the U.S.
Supreme Court challenging the appellate court decision siding with the
coal miners, documents obtained by the Herald show. The high court never
took up the case.
Warren’s work for LTV did not keep her from slamming the company 11
years later. In a 2006 PBS interview, she upbraided LTV for treating
employees “like paper towels. You use them and you throw them away.”
Warren did not mention in the interview she was a paid lawyer for LTV.
What a piece of work. I'm speaking of Elizabeth Warren, herself. But her work as a lawyer is also quite "a piece of work," since it may have been illegal work. Warren was never admitted to the Bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Bill Jacobson of Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion explains:
I confirmed with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers by
telephone that Warren never has been admitted to practice in
Massachusetts. I had two conversations with the person responsible for
verifying attorney status. In the first conversation the person
indicated she did not see any entry for Warren in the computer database,
but she wanted to double check. I spoke with her again several hours
later, and she indicated she had checked their files and also had spoken
with another person in the office, and there was no record of Warren
ever having been admitted to practice in Massachusetts.
Warren’s own listing of her Bar admissions is consistent with not being licensed in Massachusetts. In a June 25, 2008 CV Warren listed only Texas and New Jersey.
Warren's legal representation of LTV occurred "when she was a Harvard Law
professor" according to the Boston Herald. That would put her in Massachusetts, practicing law, and without a license.
Based on the sound bytes coming from his campaign, Barack Obama has a 4-point economic plan that he hopes to implement upon re-election.
2013 -- $1 trillion-plus in deficit spending
2014 -- $1 trillion-plus in deficit spending
2015 -- $1 trillion-plus in deficit spending
2016 -- $1 trillion-plus in deficit spending
I've heard nothing to suggest any other course of action, campaign ads notwithstanding. You know which one. The one where he says we need to ask "the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way."
"Pay down the debt in a balanced way?" Who is he kidding? Clever sound byte, but there's no plan to pay down anything. Just plans to spend.