Conservatives ARE Smarter Than Liberals

Conservatives ARE Smarter Than Liberals

Liberals love to think they’re smarter than conservatives, but they aren’t. Conservatives are smarter than liberals, and we know this to be true for a variety of reasons. Now, Pew has give us more proof to add to the pile. But before we talk about Pew, let’s consider the proof we already have that conservatives are indeed smarter than liberals.

Here are six reasons why we know liberals are simply not very smart:

1. They support liberalism. No, I’m not being facetious. Liberalism has been an unmitigated disaster everywhere it’s been tried. It has bankrupted countries, destroyed inner city families, and made a mockery of education. Indeed, any area of our culture or economy which is dominated by liberals is a mess. And the more liberal a country is, the more likely it is to be broke with massive unemployment and little idea how to turn itself around. Not to mention that liberalism runs contrary to human nature, and its cousin socialism has slaughtered hundreds of millions of people. Einstein defined insanity as repeating the same behaviors and expecting different results, yet that is exactly what liberals are doing. Hence, anyone who still believes liberalism can work is either stupid or insane.

2. They reject reality. Anyone who ignores facts they don’t like and insists on believing things that are provably false just isn’t very smart. Yet, that describes liberalism to a T. They will believe things which have been debunked and ignore all evidence that disproves their beliefs. And, not only do they ignore evidence they don’t like, they attack the messenger and try to force people to accept their fantasy version of reality over genuine reality through groupthink and political correctness.

3. They accept contradictions. Anyone who can accept a logical contradiction is an idiot because it shows they have no ability to reason and they are willing to believe that which cannot be true just to maintain their worldview. And liberalism is crawling with logical contradictions. My recent favorite is Keynesian thought, which says that spending money helps the economy because it adds to the economy but simultaneously claims that taxes don’t hurt an economy even though taxes pull money from the economy.

4. They lack a principled framework through which to see the world. The liberal decision-making process is emotive and reactionary, it lacks consistency and any sort of framework upon which to base decisions. It is essentially “reasoning through gut feeling.” Inconsistency and lack of problem-solving methodology are evidence of weak, useless minds.

5. They are incapable of seeing the long term. All decisions have short-term and long-term consequences, yet liberals simply cannot grasp the concept of long-term effects. Only being able to grasp half an answer is evidence of stupidity.

6. They “admit” it. Liberalism’s most obnoxious trait is that liberals project their own worst traits onto others. Thus, while they act like racists/sexists/homophobes/ageists/etc-ists, they deny being any of these things and instead project these flaws onto others. They whine about conservatives speaking in code because they themselves speak in code. They accuse people of being liars when they are the liars, they accuse others of being “haters” when they have the hate, and they accuse others of being “fascists” when they are the fascists. So what do we make of liberals accusing conservatives of being closed-minded (a distinctly liberal, but not conservative, trait) and stupid? Hmm. Sounds like an admission to me.

And now we have more from Pew. Every year, Pew asks people a variety of questions to gage the public’s knowledge of various topics. If liberals are indeed smarter as they claim, they should dominate these tests, but they don’t. To the contrary, conservative blow them out.

Here are the results from the 2010 quiz:

● Men did better than women (50% to 35% correct) and in fact beat women on every question.
● College grads did much better than high school grads (61% to 33%).
● Age-wise, those in the 30+ brackets did much better than the 18-20 bracket (50% to 32%).
● And Republicans (50%) and Independents (47%) did better than Democrats (40%).

In fact, it was even worse than it appears for the Democrats. On the 2010 Pew survey, Republicans outperformed the Democrats on 10 of 12 questions, with one tie and the Democrats winning the other question. On this year’s survey it was even worse. This year, Pew asked 19 questions and Republicans outperformed the Democrats on ALL 19 questions. Imagine that.

So these condescendingly smug liberals who see themselves as vastly more knowledgeable than Republicans. . . after all, they watch Stephen Colbert while you hillbillies are watching NASCAR. . . got smoked on 19 out 19 questions. And this continues a trend of Republicans smoking Democrats.

Sadly, the Democrats are probably too stupid to understand what this means, but feel free to try to explain it to them the next time they claim they are smarter than conservatives. I suggest using puppets to make it easier for them to understand.

Liberals love to think they’re smarter than conservatives, but they aren’t. Conservatives are smarter than liberals, and we know this to be true for a variety of reasons. Now, Pew has give us more proof to add to the pile. But before we talk about Pew, let’s consider the proof we already have that conservatives are indeed smarter than liberals.

Here are six reasons why we know liberals are simply not very smart:

1. They support liberalism. No, I’m not being facetious. Liberalism has been an unmitigated disaster everywhere it’s been tried. It has bankrupted countries, destroyed inner city families, and made a mockery of education. Indeed, any area of our culture or economy which is dominated by liberals is a mess. And the more liberal a country is, the more likely it is to be broke with massive unemployment and little idea how to turn itself around. Not to mention that liberalism runs contrary to human nature, and its cousin socialism has slaughtered hundreds of millions of people. Einstein defined insanity as repeating the same behaviors and expecting different results, yet that is exactly what liberals are doing. Hence, anyone who still believes liberalism can work is either stupid or insane.

2. They reject reality. Anyone who ignores facts they don’t like and insists on believing things that are provably false just isn’t very smart. Yet, that describes liberalism to a T. They will believe things which have been debunked and ignore all evidence that disproves their beliefs. And, not only do they ignore evidence they don’t like, they attack the messenger and try to force people to accept their fantasy version of reality over genuine reality through groupthink and political correctness.

3. They accept contradictions. Anyone who can accept a logical contradiction is an idiot because it shows they have no ability to reason and they are willing to believe that which cannot be true just to maintain their worldview. And liberalism is crawling with logical contradictions. My recent favorite is Keynesian thought, which says that spending money helps the economy because it adds to the economy but simultaneously claims that taxes don’t hurt an economy even though taxes pull money from the economy.

4. They lack a principled framework through which to see the world. The liberal decision-making process is emotive and reactionary, it lacks consistency and any sort of framework upon which to base decisions. It is essentially “reasoning through gut feeling.” Inconsistency and lack of problem-solving methodology are evidence of weak, useless minds.

5. They are incapable of seeing the long term. All decisions have short-term and long-term consequences, yet liberals simply cannot grasp the concept of long-term effects. Only being able to grasp half an answer is evidence of stupidity.

6. They “admit” it. Liberalism’s most obnoxious trait is that liberals project their own worst traits onto others. Thus, while they act like racists/sexists/homophobes/ageists/etc-ists, they deny being any of these things and instead project these flaws onto others. They whine about conservatives speaking in code because they themselves speak in code. They accuse people of being liars when they are the liars, they accuse others of being “haters” when they have the hate, and they accuse others of being “fascists” when they are the fascists. So what do we make of liberals accusing conservatives of being closed-minded (a distinctly liberal, but not conservative, trait) and stupid? Hmm. Sounds like an admission to me.

And now we have more from Pew. Every year, Pew asks people a variety of questions to gage the public’s knowledge of various topics. If liberals are indeed smarter as they claim, they should dominate these tests, but they don’t. To the contrary, conservative blow them out.

Here are the results from the 2010 quiz:

● Men did better than women (50% to 35% correct) and in fact beat women on every question.
● College grads did much better than high school grads (61% to 33%).
● Age-wise, those in the 30+ brackets did much better than the 18-20 bracket (50% to 32%).
● And Republicans (50%) and Independents (47%) did better than Democrats (40%).

In fact, it was even worse than it appears for the Democrats. On the 2010 Pew survey, Republicans outperformed the Democrats on 10 of 12 questions, with one tie and the Democrats winning the other question. On this year’s survey it was even worse. This year, Pew asked 19 questions and Republicans outperformed the Democrats on ALL 19 questions. Imagine that.

So these condescendingly smug liberals who see themselves as vastly more knowledgeable than Republicans. . . after all, they watch Stephen Colbert while you hillbillies are watching NASCAR. . . got smoked on 19 out 19 questions. And this continues a trend of Republicans smoking Democrats.

Sadly, the Democrats are probably too stupid to understand what this means, but feel free to try to explain it to them the next time they claim they are smarter than conservatives. I suggest using puppets to make it easier for them to understand.

Conservatives ARE Smarter Than Liberals

View Detail

Liberals Are Intolerant, Who Knew?

Liberals Are Intolerant, Who Knew?

Is it just me or do liberals strike you as intolerant? They don’t engage with conservatives, they attack. Say something they don’t like and they will call you a liar, call you names, try to shout you down, or even try to get you fired. They won’t compete with talk radio, they demand prosecutions and FCC shutdowns. Bloggers? Forget about it, they want those shut down too. They want conservative political ads banned, actors blacklisted, companies boycotted, and churches hounded by the IRS. Not a very tolerant bunch. Here’s more proof.

Pew just did a fascinating poll about tolerance and the internet. And what they found will not shock you: liberals are intolerant of opposing views. Shocker, right?

According to Pew, 52% of liberals have discovered by going onto social networking sites (e.g. Facebook) that their friends have different beliefs than they thought. That’s right, more than half of all liberals were blind to the views of their friends. How did conservatives do? Only 34% of conservatives reported the same thing. And before you say those are roughly comparable, they aren’t. This means liberals are 150% more likely than conservatives to not grasp that their friends don’t share their views.

What would cause this? It’s a combination of two things. First, as anyone who has ever met a liberal knows, they live in bubbles. They believe that everyone thinks like they do, a view which gets confirmed by the MSM and Hollywood. Thus, they are essentially walking egoists without the power to empathize with anyone because they lack the ability to grasp that others are not like them. Hence it never occurs to them that their friends might disagree and they are incapable of seeing the signs that their blathering on about liberalism isn’t going over so well.

Secondly, they are intolerant. We know this because there is clearly something about these liberals which has stopped their friends from being honest with the liberals despite the fact they are apparently willing to otherwise share their views with the world on social networking sites. We also know this from something else Pew found. According to Pew, 28% of liberals have blocked people or unfriended people because they disagreed with something the user said. That's three in ten! Extrapolating that to the liberal population of the US means 34.7 million liberals have tried to silence people they know because they disagree with them. That’s the equivalent of TWICE the entire populations of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Boston combined.

But wait, aren’t conservatives just as bad? Hardly. Only 16% of conservatives reported doing the same. That means liberals are 175% more likely to try to shut people out because of their views. Imagine that.

Of course, none of this should surprise anyone. We’ve all seen the examples in our own lives where liberals assume that everyone in the room must be liberal because they simply can’t conceive of anyone thinking differently. And we’ve seen how shocked, how angry, and how vile they get when they hear that people have different views. And we’ve seen how they ignore all evidence which conflicts with their beliefs and how they dismissing any source which shakes up their world. We’ve seen it where they are incapable of good faith disagreement. We’ve seen it where they think nothing of using government force to impose their beliefs on others. We’ve seen it where they try to make words and thoughts into crimes and where they apply double standards based on their guess about your motives rather than looking objectively at your actions.

These numbers confirm that liberals are indeed what they appear to be: an intolerant group who are so self-centered they don’t understand that their friends don’t share their views and who are so intolerant that their friends are afraid to tell them the truth.

Liberalism is a sad way to live.

Is it just me or do liberals strike you as intolerant? They don’t engage with conservatives, they attack. Say something they don’t like and they will call you a liar, call you names, try to shout you down, or even try to get you fired. They won’t compete with talk radio, they demand prosecutions and FCC shutdowns. Bloggers? Forget about it, they want those shut down too. They want conservative political ads banned, actors blacklisted, companies boycotted, and churches hounded by the IRS. Not a very tolerant bunch. Here’s more proof.

Pew just did a fascinating poll about tolerance and the internet. And what they found will not shock you: liberals are intolerant of opposing views. Shocker, right?

According to Pew, 52% of liberals have discovered by going onto social networking sites (e.g. Facebook) that their friends have different beliefs than they thought. That’s right, more than half of all liberals were blind to the views of their friends. How did conservatives do? Only 34% of conservatives reported the same thing. And before you say those are roughly comparable, they aren’t. This means liberals are 150% more likely than conservatives to not grasp that their friends don’t share their views.

What would cause this? It’s a combination of two things. First, as anyone who has ever met a liberal knows, they live in bubbles. They believe that everyone thinks like they do, a view which gets confirmed by the MSM and Hollywood. Thus, they are essentially walking egoists without the power to empathize with anyone because they lack the ability to grasp that others are not like them. Hence it never occurs to them that their friends might disagree and they are incapable of seeing the signs that their blathering on about liberalism isn’t going over so well.

Secondly, they are intolerant. We know this because there is clearly something about these liberals which has stopped their friends from being honest with the liberals despite the fact they are apparently willing to otherwise share their views with the world on social networking sites. We also know this from something else Pew found. According to Pew, 28% of liberals have blocked people or unfriended people because they disagreed with something the user said. That's three in ten! Extrapolating that to the liberal population of the US means 34.7 million liberals have tried to silence people they know because they disagree with them. That’s the equivalent of TWICE the entire populations of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Boston combined.

But wait, aren’t conservatives just as bad? Hardly. Only 16% of conservatives reported doing the same. That means liberals are 175% more likely to try to shut people out because of their views. Imagine that.

Of course, none of this should surprise anyone. We’ve all seen the examples in our own lives where liberals assume that everyone in the room must be liberal because they simply can’t conceive of anyone thinking differently. And we’ve seen how shocked, how angry, and how vile they get when they hear that people have different views. And we’ve seen how they ignore all evidence which conflicts with their beliefs and how they dismissing any source which shakes up their world. We’ve seen it where they are incapable of good faith disagreement. We’ve seen it where they think nothing of using government force to impose their beliefs on others. We’ve seen it where they try to make words and thoughts into crimes and where they apply double standards based on their guess about your motives rather than looking objectively at your actions.

These numbers confirm that liberals are indeed what they appear to be: an intolerant group who are so self-centered they don’t understand that their friends don’t share their views and who are so intolerant that their friends are afraid to tell them the truth.

Liberalism is a sad way to live.

Liberals Are Intolerant, Who Knew?

View Detail

2012 Election: Predicting The Future

2012 Election: Predicting The Future

The primaries are over, even if Santorum and his media buddies don’t want you to believe that. Let me explain why. . . again. Then I’ll tell you why I know Obama will lose and why I’m ready to call the VP race! Read on!

● The Race Is Over: For Santorum to win the nomination, he must win more than 65% of the remaining delegates throughout the race. But even if you combine all of Newt’s and Rick’s votes, Santoronewt has only hit this magic number in two states: Georgia (66%) and uncontested Kansas (66%). In most states they get 51%.

Further, the math is about to get uglier for Santoronewt because they have just about run out of southern states and small farming states where Santoronewt does well. Consider California. In California, Santoronewt gets only 38%. That means, Santoronewt needs to make up 55 additional delegates in the other states just because of California. That means the 65% average mentioned above goes to 69%, something Santoronewt has never hit. Illinois, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, D.C., Puerto Rico and New Mexico all show similar polling numbers. Hence, it is impossible for Santoronewt to win.

And it gets worse yet because not all of Newt’s supporters will go to Santorum. If 10% of Newt’s supporters stay home, Santorum then needs to average 68% instead of 65%. If they vote for Romney, Santorum needs 71%. If 30% of these people jump to Romney, suddenly Santorum needs 83%. Any analyst who tells you this race can still be won is lying.

Santorum knows he’s finished too, as demonstrated by his new wishful thinking strategy. Indeed, his team said this weekend that they intend to stay in the race despite this math because they are hoping the convention delegates might decide to go against their own voters and choose him at the convention. Yeah, and Satan might fly out of his ass. In the meantime, Santorum continues thrashing about. Now he’s accusing Fox News of “shilling” for Romney (after slandering Drudge as a “cheerleader” for Romney), and he keeps whining about Romney’s money. When you start offering explanations for why you can’t win, then you know you’ve lost. Put a fork in him. . . a pitchfork.

● Why Obama Will Lose: I know Obama will lose. No, I do not have access to a newspaper from the future. If I did, I would be out messing with the timeline! But I do know what motivates voters and I can tell you that Obama has lost. Here’s proof.

(1) I’ve said for some time now that voters have given up on Obama and no longer listen to him. This means he can’t win them back anymore. Here’s proof of that: Obama’s approval ratings are not keeping up with growing consumer confidence (LINK). This means the public is not giving him credit for economic growth. Translation: he’s doomed. Also, 80% of people polled say they are NOT better off than they were four years ago. Translation: he’s really doomed.

(2) According to Rasmussen, 59% of the public view Obama as more liberal than they are. You can be seen as more conservative and still win in this country, but you can’t be seen as more liberal and still win.

(3) Only 37% of voters say their views are more like Obama’s than the GOP contenders (who get a combined 53%). That’s the real approval gap right there, and the Republicans are ahead by 16%. And this is despite all the nastiness of the primary.

(4) In the Oklahoma primary, Obama only got 57% of the vote and he lost 15 counties. This suggests that the left remains upset and disillusioned with Obama. I wouldn’t draw too much from this, except polls also show that the Democrats are suffering an 8% voter enthusiasm gap (53%-46% compared to GOP enthusiasm). Even 2% can cost an election.

● What’s This I Hear About A VP?: Any day now, the race will suddenly end and everyone will start talking about who Romney will pick as VP. I’m confident it will be Marco Rubio. For starters, Rubio is a Tea Party favorite and any candidate who picks him would instantly drive Tea Party enthusiasm through the roof. Romney needs that. He’s also smart, savvy, telegenic, and (most importantly) Hispanic. Romney needs that too.

But there’s more. Romney has shown no interest in many of the other possible VP candidates: Palin, Cain, West, etc. Indeed, he never mentions them and they’ve all attacked him. Rubio hasn’t. It’s also highly unlikely that Romney would pick one of the other jokers in the race. When the question came up about a picking a "conservative" VP, Romney said, “Well, that would preclude, of course, Rick Santorum.” Yes. . . yes it would.

So he could be looking at a Christie, a Nikki Haley or a Rubio. But Christie is a northeasterner and Romney won’t do that. Haley is not especially popular even at home. He might pull a surprise and pick Rick Snyder, the Tea Party governor of Michigan, or Rick Scott, the Tea Party governor of Florida, but they’re both white dudes and also not very popular. He might pick New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, who is also Hispanic, except she’s very raw and she doesn’t bring much cache. So Rubio is the best choice.

But that’s just guess work. If you really want to know what’s going on, follow the money. Rubio has assembled a team to prepare his image for the national stage. This team includes people who handled re-election campaigns for George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. He’s also racing to publish his memoirs this fall, and his publisher has been leaking details to boost his image. He’s even spent $40,000 to hire investigators to investigate his own background so he knows everything that will end up in the Democrat’s opposition research file. These aren’t things someone does unless they expect to be thrust onto the national stage immediately (as compared to 2016). I would bet Rubio is spending this money and rushing his book because he and Romney have already cut a deal and Rubio is vetting himself for a quick announcement once the primary race winds down.

● Finally and unrelated: I don't normally pass on links, but I know many of you are history buffs and these are some incredible Civil War pictures -- high quality, amazing images, well worth the time. (The Atlantic)

The primaries are over, even if Santorum and his media buddies don’t want you to believe that. Let me explain why. . . again. Then I’ll tell you why I know Obama will lose and why I’m ready to call the VP race! Read on!

● The Race Is Over: For Santorum to win the nomination, he must win more than 65% of the remaining delegates throughout the race. But even if you combine all of Newt’s and Rick’s votes, Santoronewt has only hit this magic number in two states: Georgia (66%) and uncontested Kansas (66%). In most states they get 51%.

Further, the math is about to get uglier for Santoronewt because they have just about run out of southern states and small farming states where Santoronewt does well. Consider California. In California, Santoronewt gets only 38%. That means, Santoronewt needs to make up 55 additional delegates in the other states just because of California. That means the 65% average mentioned above goes to 69%, something Santoronewt has never hit. Illinois, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, D.C., Puerto Rico and New Mexico all show similar polling numbers. Hence, it is impossible for Santoronewt to win.

And it gets worse yet because not all of Newt’s supporters will go to Santorum. If 10% of Newt’s supporters stay home, Santorum then needs to average 68% instead of 65%. If they vote for Romney, Santorum needs 71%. If 30% of these people jump to Romney, suddenly Santorum needs 83%. Any analyst who tells you this race can still be won is lying.

Santorum knows he’s finished too, as demonstrated by his new wishful thinking strategy. Indeed, his team said this weekend that they intend to stay in the race despite this math because they are hoping the convention delegates might decide to go against their own voters and choose him at the convention. Yeah, and Satan might fly out of his ass. In the meantime, Santorum continues thrashing about. Now he’s accusing Fox News of “shilling” for Romney (after slandering Drudge as a “cheerleader” for Romney), and he keeps whining about Romney’s money. When you start offering explanations for why you can’t win, then you know you’ve lost. Put a fork in him. . . a pitchfork.

● Why Obama Will Lose: I know Obama will lose. No, I do not have access to a newspaper from the future. If I did, I would be out messing with the timeline! But I do know what motivates voters and I can tell you that Obama has lost. Here’s proof.

(1) I’ve said for some time now that voters have given up on Obama and no longer listen to him. This means he can’t win them back anymore. Here’s proof of that: Obama’s approval ratings are not keeping up with growing consumer confidence (LINK). This means the public is not giving him credit for economic growth. Translation: he’s doomed. Also, 80% of people polled say they are NOT better off than they were four years ago. Translation: he’s really doomed.

(2) According to Rasmussen, 59% of the public view Obama as more liberal than they are. You can be seen as more conservative and still win in this country, but you can’t be seen as more liberal and still win.

(3) Only 37% of voters say their views are more like Obama’s than the GOP contenders (who get a combined 53%). That’s the real approval gap right there, and the Republicans are ahead by 16%. And this is despite all the nastiness of the primary.

(4) In the Oklahoma primary, Obama only got 57% of the vote and he lost 15 counties. This suggests that the left remains upset and disillusioned with Obama. I wouldn’t draw too much from this, except polls also show that the Democrats are suffering an 8% voter enthusiasm gap (53%-46% compared to GOP enthusiasm). Even 2% can cost an election.

● What’s This I Hear About A VP?: Any day now, the race will suddenly end and everyone will start talking about who Romney will pick as VP. I’m confident it will be Marco Rubio. For starters, Rubio is a Tea Party favorite and any candidate who picks him would instantly drive Tea Party enthusiasm through the roof. Romney needs that. He’s also smart, savvy, telegenic, and (most importantly) Hispanic. Romney needs that too.

But there’s more. Romney has shown no interest in many of the other possible VP candidates: Palin, Cain, West, etc. Indeed, he never mentions them and they’ve all attacked him. Rubio hasn’t. It’s also highly unlikely that Romney would pick one of the other jokers in the race. When the question came up about a picking a "conservative" VP, Romney said, “Well, that would preclude, of course, Rick Santorum.” Yes. . . yes it would.

So he could be looking at a Christie, a Nikki Haley or a Rubio. But Christie is a northeasterner and Romney won’t do that. Haley is not especially popular even at home. He might pull a surprise and pick Rick Snyder, the Tea Party governor of Michigan, or Rick Scott, the Tea Party governor of Florida, but they’re both white dudes and also not very popular. He might pick New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, who is also Hispanic, except she’s very raw and she doesn’t bring much cache. So Rubio is the best choice.

But that’s just guess work. If you really want to know what’s going on, follow the money. Rubio has assembled a team to prepare his image for the national stage. This team includes people who handled re-election campaigns for George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. He’s also racing to publish his memoirs this fall, and his publisher has been leaking details to boost his image. He’s even spent $40,000 to hire investigators to investigate his own background so he knows everything that will end up in the Democrat’s opposition research file. These aren’t things someone does unless they expect to be thrust onto the national stage immediately (as compared to 2016). I would bet Rubio is spending this money and rushing his book because he and Romney have already cut a deal and Rubio is vetting himself for a quick announcement once the primary race winds down.

● Finally and unrelated: I don't normally pass on links, but I know many of you are history buffs and these are some incredible Civil War pictures -- high quality, amazing images, well worth the time. (The Atlantic)

2012 Election: Predicting The Future

View Detail

Polls: Doom Hangs Over Obama Campaign

Polls: Doom Hangs Over Obama Campaign

It won’t surprise you to hear that Obama faces a difficult challenge in getting re-elected. It might surprise you, however, just how difficult that challenge may be. I’ve been saying for some times that Obama is looking at a potential landslide loss. Now Gallup agrees with me.

Gallup is not exactly conservative friendly when it comes to polling. In fact, they can always be counted on to skew things 3-5% to the left. So when they predict doom for a Democrat, it bears noticing. And right now they’re predicting doom for Obama. Consider these findings:

● Obama’s approval rating averaged 44% in 2011. This is down from 47% in 2010, which resulted in historic carnage for his party in the November 2010 elections.

● At the start of 2011, Obama’s approval ratings topped 50% in only 16 states.

● By the third quarter of 2011, this had fallen to 10 states.

● Obama’s approval ratings rose only in Wyoming, Connecticut and Maine.

This spells doom for Obama. For one thing, Obama has horrible poll numbers: 44% just isn’t enough to get re-elected. Moreover, they have been consistently low throughout his administration -- confirming the trend. What’s worse, even as his national numbers have largely stabilized (or at least their descent has slowed), his state by state numbers continue to sink. And it is the state by state numbers that really matter because of our electoral college system. In other words, Obama may win California by 17%, but every vote after 50% +1 is wasted. Hence, all that matters is the number of states he can win, and not the margin of victory in any state.

And when Gallup looked at the state by state numbers, it found that if Obama wins only the states where his popularity exceeds his unpopularity (i.e. his approval > his disapproval), he will lose the 2012 election to GenericRepublican in an electoral landslide of 323 electoral votes to 215 electoral votes. Here’s their map showing how the election would look:

Moreover, it turns out that Obama doesn’t actually have the money advantage that people assumed. Remember talk of the “billion dollar war chest”? It may be a lot smaller than that. Indeed, various people who analyze the pace of fundraising say that Obama is actually running behind Bush’s pace from 2004, and that Obama is likely to end up with only $250 million. . . one quarter of the one billion dollars people expected.

But he still has more money than Romney, right? Not really.

Obama has $81.8 million cash on hand. The DNC has $12.6 million. Outside PACs favoring Obama have only about $4 million. It comes to around $98.3 million.

Romney, by comparison, has only $19.9 million in cash. But his super PAC has another $23.6 million. The RNC has $20 million. Along with other groups, this comes to around $94 million.

Further, Obama’s ability to use the bully pulpit of the White House is fading fast. His SOTU speech drew his worst ratings yet and was down 20% from the year before, which was down 20% from the year before, etc. All told, Obama is drawing about half the number of viewers he drew originally and an amazing 27% of those who tuned in left his SOTU within five minutes of starting. This is just more evidence that the people have stopped listening.

Between low ratings and steady poll numbers, I think the public has simply tuned him out. And if that’s the case, then no amount of money will help him. Good luck, President One-Term.

It won’t surprise you to hear that Obama faces a difficult challenge in getting re-elected. It might surprise you, however, just how difficult that challenge may be. I’ve been saying for some times that Obama is looking at a potential landslide loss. Now Gallup agrees with me.

Gallup is not exactly conservative friendly when it comes to polling. In fact, they can always be counted on to skew things 3-5% to the left. So when they predict doom for a Democrat, it bears noticing. And right now they’re predicting doom for Obama. Consider these findings:

● Obama’s approval rating averaged 44% in 2011. This is down from 47% in 2010, which resulted in historic carnage for his party in the November 2010 elections.

● At the start of 2011, Obama’s approval ratings topped 50% in only 16 states.

● By the third quarter of 2011, this had fallen to 10 states.

● Obama’s approval ratings rose only in Wyoming, Connecticut and Maine.

This spells doom for Obama. For one thing, Obama has horrible poll numbers: 44% just isn’t enough to get re-elected. Moreover, they have been consistently low throughout his administration -- confirming the trend. What’s worse, even as his national numbers have largely stabilized (or at least their descent has slowed), his state by state numbers continue to sink. And it is the state by state numbers that really matter because of our electoral college system. In other words, Obama may win California by 17%, but every vote after 50% +1 is wasted. Hence, all that matters is the number of states he can win, and not the margin of victory in any state.

And when Gallup looked at the state by state numbers, it found that if Obama wins only the states where his popularity exceeds his unpopularity (i.e. his approval > his disapproval), he will lose the 2012 election to GenericRepublican in an electoral landslide of 323 electoral votes to 215 electoral votes. Here’s their map showing how the election would look:

Moreover, it turns out that Obama doesn’t actually have the money advantage that people assumed. Remember talk of the “billion dollar war chest”? It may be a lot smaller than that. Indeed, various people who analyze the pace of fundraising say that Obama is actually running behind Bush’s pace from 2004, and that Obama is likely to end up with only $250 million. . . one quarter of the one billion dollars people expected.

But he still has more money than Romney, right? Not really.

Obama has $81.8 million cash on hand. The DNC has $12.6 million. Outside PACs favoring Obama have only about $4 million. It comes to around $98.3 million.

Romney, by comparison, has only $19.9 million in cash. But his super PAC has another $23.6 million. The RNC has $20 million. Along with other groups, this comes to around $94 million.

Further, Obama’s ability to use the bully pulpit of the White House is fading fast. His SOTU speech drew his worst ratings yet and was down 20% from the year before, which was down 20% from the year before, etc. All told, Obama is drawing about half the number of viewers he drew originally and an amazing 27% of those who tuned in left his SOTU within five minutes of starting. This is just more evidence that the people have stopped listening.

Between low ratings and steady poll numbers, I think the public has simply tuned him out. And if that’s the case, then no amount of money will help him. Good luck, President One-Term.

Polls: Doom Hangs Over Obama Campaign

View Detail

Commentarama Endorses!

Commentarama Endorses!

We officially maintain a “no endorsement” policy during the primaries (which doesn’t mean we won’t tell you when your guy is a fool). But these are desperate times and unity is important, so it’s time we made an official endorsement in New Hampshire. For the Republican nomination, Commentarama hereby endorses:

Vermin Supreme

No, that’s not a West Virginia pizza, that’s an actual candidate for the Presidency of our country. Apparently, in New Hampshire all it takes to get on the ballot is $1,000, and Santa brought Vermin and 43 others $1,000 and told them to go forth and inspire the country.

Why did we choose Vermin? Because his platform resonates! He’s wants to legislate mandatory tooth brushing, is concerned about zombie preparedness, and wants federal research dollars spent on time travel so he can “kill Hitler with my bare hands.” But none of that swayed us. What finally swayed us was his promise that if elected, he would give free ponies to all Americans! Never before has any candidate better expressed the principles upon which this country was founded!

So vote for Vermin and get your pony. . . . of course, no matter who you vote for, odds are they will be vermin.


Speaking of the vermin, Romney seems to have overcome his 25% hurdle. In the past, he couldn’t get above 25% in the polls, but two polls now have him at 35% in New Hampshire and (surprisingly) 37% in South Carolina. The next runner up in New Hampshire is Ron Paul, who has been doubling up on crazy pills again. In the last debate he accused the country of filling the military with minority kids (something which has been repeatedly debunked), and he accused the criminal justice system of racism for locking up black criminals. Gingrich and Santorum both slipped below 8% each. Perry remains at 1%, and his promise to re-invade Iraq probably won’t help him. . . maybe he should promise ponies? In South Carolina, Rick Santorum is second with 20%. . . somehow.

Finally, while we were watching the football game debate, we realized this whole process would be better if each of the candidates had a theme song that could play whenever it was their turn to speak. Here are my suggestions, add yours below:

● Mitt Romney: More Than This -- Roxy Music
● Ron Paul: Miracles -- Jefferson Airplane
● Newt Gingrich: Shock The Monkey -- Peter Gabriel
● Jon Huntsman: China Girl -- David Bowie
● Rick Perry: Friends in Low Places -- Garth Brooks
● Barack Obama: You’re So Vain -- Carly Simon

P.S. Anybody else think it’s weird Tebow threw for 316 years yesterday?

We officially maintain a “no endorsement” policy during the primaries (which doesn’t mean we won’t tell you when your guy is a fool). But these are desperate times and unity is important, so it’s time we made an official endorsement in New Hampshire. For the Republican nomination, Commentarama hereby endorses:

Vermin Supreme

No, that’s not a West Virginia pizza, that’s an actual candidate for the Presidency of our country. Apparently, in New Hampshire all it takes to get on the ballot is $1,000, and Santa brought Vermin and 43 others $1,000 and told them to go forth and inspire the country.

Why did we choose Vermin? Because his platform resonates! He’s wants to legislate mandatory tooth brushing, is concerned about zombie preparedness, and wants federal research dollars spent on time travel so he can “kill Hitler with my bare hands.” But none of that swayed us. What finally swayed us was his promise that if elected, he would give free ponies to all Americans! Never before has any candidate better expressed the principles upon which this country was founded!

So vote for Vermin and get your pony. . . . of course, no matter who you vote for, odds are they will be vermin.


Speaking of the vermin, Romney seems to have overcome his 25% hurdle. In the past, he couldn’t get above 25% in the polls, but two polls now have him at 35% in New Hampshire and (surprisingly) 37% in South Carolina. The next runner up in New Hampshire is Ron Paul, who has been doubling up on crazy pills again. In the last debate he accused the country of filling the military with minority kids (something which has been repeatedly debunked), and he accused the criminal justice system of racism for locking up black criminals. Gingrich and Santorum both slipped below 8% each. Perry remains at 1%, and his promise to re-invade Iraq probably won’t help him. . . maybe he should promise ponies? In South Carolina, Rick Santorum is second with 20%. . . somehow.

Finally, while we were watching the football game debate, we realized this whole process would be better if each of the candidates had a theme song that could play whenever it was their turn to speak. Here are my suggestions, add yours below:

● Mitt Romney: More Than This -- Roxy Music
● Ron Paul: Miracles -- Jefferson Airplane
● Newt Gingrich: Shock The Monkey -- Peter Gabriel
● Jon Huntsman: China Girl -- David Bowie
● Rick Perry: Friends in Low Places -- Garth Brooks
● Barack Obama: You’re So Vain -- Carly Simon

P.S. Anybody else think it’s weird Tebow threw for 316 years yesterday?

Commentarama Endorses!

View Detail

Anybody But These Guys: Our Broken System

Anybody But These Guys: Our Broken System

Two weeks ago, Newt Gingrich was cruising toward the nomination. His poll numbers were soaring and his advantage over Romney was growing. He became the inevitable candidate, and that was depressing. But then people actually started listening to him. Now Newt’s lead has collapsed and he’s headed in the other direction. Of course, that doesn’t help with the depression because none of the others are any better. Something is wrong with our system and I blame the media.

First, let us dispatch Newt.

There have been lots of signs Newt was in trouble. For one thing, there was the baggage he never managed to unload. It followed him everywhere. Then, when he started making his positions known -- things like amnesty for illegals and regulating global warming -- his upward moment stopped dead. Soon the nastiness reappeared and the crazy talk, and people were wondering if the old Gingrich was back. In truth he never left.

And that’s been the problem with Newt. The more you know, the more you fear the guy. Newt as nominee shoots from the hip and says stupid, offensive things. He comes across as nasty and is unpalatable to the independents we will need to win the election -- not because he’s a conservative, but because he’s nasty. Newt as President is even scarier. Newt thinks government can be used to remake society so long as the right people are doing the remaking. This is wrong. And with Newt’s ego over principle approach, it’s too dangerous to let him anywhere near the presidency.

The polls are reflecting this. Indeed, the last Gallop poll shows this:
In twelve days, Newt has gone from a 15% lead over Romney to a statistical tie and falling. Some Newt people claim this is only the result of negative ads being run by Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, but those ads are only being shown in Iowa. The truth is, Newt is poison and conservatives know it.

But if Newt is poison, then Romney is white bread -- substance free and bland. He’s no conservative and even if he was, he wouldn’t have the fiber to act on those principles. The rest are even worse. . . idiots and clowns with no understanding of conservatism, no grasp of what America means, and no ability to lead.

How did we get to this point? There has never been a better moment in time to get a genuine conservative elected, and yet there isn’t one in the race. Instead, we have fools and weirdoes. . . conservative pretenders. Why?

I blame the MSM first and foremost. They have turned the election process into a game show designed to find the very people who should never be trusted with power. They seek to destroy, not reveal. They see the candidates as targets to be attacked with phony narratives and dirt dug up from lying sources and then critique their responses. They attack the candidates’ families and harass their friends and business partners. They have turned the primary system into a non-lethal version of The Running Man and no one but megalomaniac scum would subject themselves to that process.

And as if that weren’t enough, the MSM ensure that only those without integrity can win. Indeed, to prevail in this contest, you must be prepared to slander and liable all around you and absolutely must be willing to promise the unpromisable and declare soundbite solutions to the questions that have plagued mankind for millennia. In other words, only the liars and the fools can thrive in this environment.

What’s worse, conservatives are to blame for falling for this. They should know better, yet they go along with it. They lap up all the crap the MSM produces and some even gleefully join this witch-hunt process in the hopes of destroying the competition to help their preferred candidates. It’s like sports fan praying for penalties on the other team rather than excellence from their own.

Candidates should win this process, not be the last man standing!!!

It is despicable that burger companies wage their wars for customers with infinitely more integrity than our politicians handle the electoral process.

Ug.

Sadly, I have no answer on how to fix this except to keep making the point and to hope that people listen. And maybe it’s time to consider serious electoral reform? Maybe it’s time to have all the primaries on one day to stop the endless horse race and pandering? Maybe it’s also time to let politicians sue the media for their tactics. . . no more reporting unsubstantiated rumors, no more stalking politicians’ kids? Maybe it’s also time to end the debates and replace them with interviews? Heck, even infomercials might be better.

What do you think?

Two weeks ago, Newt Gingrich was cruising toward the nomination. His poll numbers were soaring and his advantage over Romney was growing. He became the inevitable candidate, and that was depressing. But then people actually started listening to him. Now Newt’s lead has collapsed and he’s headed in the other direction. Of course, that doesn’t help with the depression because none of the others are any better. Something is wrong with our system and I blame the media.

First, let us dispatch Newt.

There have been lots of signs Newt was in trouble. For one thing, there was the baggage he never managed to unload. It followed him everywhere. Then, when he started making his positions known -- things like amnesty for illegals and regulating global warming -- his upward moment stopped dead. Soon the nastiness reappeared and the crazy talk, and people were wondering if the old Gingrich was back. In truth he never left.

And that’s been the problem with Newt. The more you know, the more you fear the guy. Newt as nominee shoots from the hip and says stupid, offensive things. He comes across as nasty and is unpalatable to the independents we will need to win the election -- not because he’s a conservative, but because he’s nasty. Newt as President is even scarier. Newt thinks government can be used to remake society so long as the right people are doing the remaking. This is wrong. And with Newt’s ego over principle approach, it’s too dangerous to let him anywhere near the presidency.

The polls are reflecting this. Indeed, the last Gallop poll shows this:
In twelve days, Newt has gone from a 15% lead over Romney to a statistical tie and falling. Some Newt people claim this is only the result of negative ads being run by Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, but those ads are only being shown in Iowa. The truth is, Newt is poison and conservatives know it.

But if Newt is poison, then Romney is white bread -- substance free and bland. He’s no conservative and even if he was, he wouldn’t have the fiber to act on those principles. The rest are even worse. . . idiots and clowns with no understanding of conservatism, no grasp of what America means, and no ability to lead.

How did we get to this point? There has never been a better moment in time to get a genuine conservative elected, and yet there isn’t one in the race. Instead, we have fools and weirdoes. . . conservative pretenders. Why?

I blame the MSM first and foremost. They have turned the election process into a game show designed to find the very people who should never be trusted with power. They seek to destroy, not reveal. They see the candidates as targets to be attacked with phony narratives and dirt dug up from lying sources and then critique their responses. They attack the candidates’ families and harass their friends and business partners. They have turned the primary system into a non-lethal version of The Running Man and no one but megalomaniac scum would subject themselves to that process.

And as if that weren’t enough, the MSM ensure that only those without integrity can win. Indeed, to prevail in this contest, you must be prepared to slander and liable all around you and absolutely must be willing to promise the unpromisable and declare soundbite solutions to the questions that have plagued mankind for millennia. In other words, only the liars and the fools can thrive in this environment.

What’s worse, conservatives are to blame for falling for this. They should know better, yet they go along with it. They lap up all the crap the MSM produces and some even gleefully join this witch-hunt process in the hopes of destroying the competition to help their preferred candidates. It’s like sports fan praying for penalties on the other team rather than excellence from their own.

Candidates should win this process, not be the last man standing!!!

It is despicable that burger companies wage their wars for customers with infinitely more integrity than our politicians handle the electoral process.

Ug.

Sadly, I have no answer on how to fix this except to keep making the point and to hope that people listen. And maybe it’s time to consider serious electoral reform? Maybe it’s time to have all the primaries on one day to stop the endless horse race and pandering? Maybe it’s also time to let politicians sue the media for their tactics. . . no more reporting unsubstantiated rumors, no more stalking politicians’ kids? Maybe it’s also time to end the debates and replace them with interviews? Heck, even infomercials might be better.

What do you think?

Anybody But These Guys: Our Broken System

View Detail

Obama's Bad Week Enters 989th Day

Obama's Bad Week Enters 989th Day

Things just keep getting worse for our Kenyan overlord as he nears his 1,000th day in office. The economy hates him. The public hates him. And now the Democrats hate him. Indeed, his administration is suffering one embarrassment after another. What a crying shame. The latest is bad polling (as usual), a new vacation scandal, and a Democratic rebellion. Read on. . .

Polls: Look Out Below!

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll has found that Obama continues his free fall. But even worse for him, those who “strongly disapprove” of Obama have reached new highs at 40%. ABC is interpreting this as both an increase in opposition to Obama and evidence of “hardening opposition” to Obama, i.e. evidence he’s doomed. Said ABC: “He’s like Hitler, only not as well liked.”

In West Virginia, associating the Democratic candidate for governor with Obama closed a 30% gap down to 2%. . . in a state that almost doesn’t have a Republican Party.

Madame O Rides (Free) Again

Here we go again. In June, Lady Obama took another royal tour. This time she and her small staff of twenty-one (including a hairstylist and makeup artist) spent six days touring South Africa and Botswana. The stated purpose of the trip was to encourage young people living in those countries to “become involved in national affairs.” Huh? Who the hell is she to tell people in another country to get involved in their own national affairs?!

Anyway, as you might expect, this was just cover for another vacation. Her “staff” included her daughters, a niece, a nephew and her mother, who were actually listed as “senior staff.” Why? Probably so she could charge their room, board and airfare to the taxpayers. And where did she take her “staff”? They went to historical landmarks, museums, and a private safari at a South African game reserve, where Michelle brought down a Wildebeest with her bare hands. She also got to meet Nelson Mandela and no doubt somebody famous from Botswana. . . if there is such a person.

So what did this vacation cost us simple taxpaying folk? According to Judicial Watch, which had to sue the White House to get this information (which should have been freely released under the Freedom of Information Act), the Air Force plane alone cost us $424,142. No word on what it cost us for food, lodging, in-country ground transportation, and reparations to the family of the Wildebeest.

To put this in perspective, the plane alone absorbed all the taxes paid last year by 72 median-income families. Way to endear yourselves to the taxpayers!

We’re Mad As Hell and We’re Not Going to Take It Anymore!

House Democrats have filed for a divorce from Obama. The last straw came when they stood up to the Republicans on the stop-gap spending measure only to hear that Obama won’t veto it. Democrats also took to the floor of the House this week to whine about Obama’s plan to keep American troops in Iraq for another year. . . wait, I thought they were all home already. . . and to whine about his Afghanistan strategy. . . assuming he has one. Reid and Pelosi made sweet, sweet love while complaining about the free trade deals Obama just sent to Congress after months of complaining that no one had passed them. Reid also refused to schedule a vote on Obama’s “jobs bill” because he thinks it will wipe out the remaining Democrats in the Senate. House Democrats are rewriting the bill because they won’t pass Obama's bill.

And now we hear Ralph Nader will be running against Obama in the primary, with the support of 45 progressive leaders.

Anybody But Obama!

We also have a couple of notes of interest regarding the 2012 election. First, a Rasmussen poll released yesterday told us that any generic Republican now beats Obama 47% to 41%. Most of the named candidates do better.

Finally, for those who spent last night under a rock, Sarah Palin has now opted not to run. With her out and Christie bowing out on Monday, the GOP field is essentially set and conservatives should soon be gravitating toward their choice, which is also bad for Obama.

Things just keep getting worse for our Kenyan overlord as he nears his 1,000th day in office. The economy hates him. The public hates him. And now the Democrats hate him. Indeed, his administration is suffering one embarrassment after another. What a crying shame. The latest is bad polling (as usual), a new vacation scandal, and a Democratic rebellion. Read on. . .

Polls: Look Out Below!

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll has found that Obama continues his free fall. But even worse for him, those who “strongly disapprove” of Obama have reached new highs at 40%. ABC is interpreting this as both an increase in opposition to Obama and evidence of “hardening opposition” to Obama, i.e. evidence he’s doomed. Said ABC: “He’s like Hitler, only not as well liked.”

In West Virginia, associating the Democratic candidate for governor with Obama closed a 30% gap down to 2%. . . in a state that almost doesn’t have a Republican Party.

Madame O Rides (Free) Again

Here we go again. In June, Lady Obama took another royal tour. This time she and her small staff of twenty-one (including a hairstylist and makeup artist) spent six days touring South Africa and Botswana. The stated purpose of the trip was to encourage young people living in those countries to “become involved in national affairs.” Huh? Who the hell is she to tell people in another country to get involved in their own national affairs?!

Anyway, as you might expect, this was just cover for another vacation. Her “staff” included her daughters, a niece, a nephew and her mother, who were actually listed as “senior staff.” Why? Probably so she could charge their room, board and airfare to the taxpayers. And where did she take her “staff”? They went to historical landmarks, museums, and a private safari at a South African game reserve, where Michelle brought down a Wildebeest with her bare hands. She also got to meet Nelson Mandela and no doubt somebody famous from Botswana. . . if there is such a person.

So what did this vacation cost us simple taxpaying folk? According to Judicial Watch, which had to sue the White House to get this information (which should have been freely released under the Freedom of Information Act), the Air Force plane alone cost us $424,142. No word on what it cost us for food, lodging, in-country ground transportation, and reparations to the family of the Wildebeest.

To put this in perspective, the plane alone absorbed all the taxes paid last year by 72 median-income families. Way to endear yourselves to the taxpayers!

We’re Mad As Hell and We’re Not Going to Take It Anymore!

House Democrats have filed for a divorce from Obama. The last straw came when they stood up to the Republicans on the stop-gap spending measure only to hear that Obama won’t veto it. Democrats also took to the floor of the House this week to whine about Obama’s plan to keep American troops in Iraq for another year. . . wait, I thought they were all home already. . . and to whine about his Afghanistan strategy. . . assuming he has one. Reid and Pelosi made sweet, sweet love while complaining about the free trade deals Obama just sent to Congress after months of complaining that no one had passed them. Reid also refused to schedule a vote on Obama’s “jobs bill” because he thinks it will wipe out the remaining Democrats in the Senate. House Democrats are rewriting the bill because they won’t pass Obama's bill.

And now we hear Ralph Nader will be running against Obama in the primary, with the support of 45 progressive leaders.

Anybody But Obama!

We also have a couple of notes of interest regarding the 2012 election. First, a Rasmussen poll released yesterday told us that any generic Republican now beats Obama 47% to 41%. Most of the named candidates do better.

Finally, for those who spent last night under a rock, Sarah Palin has now opted not to run. With her out and Christie bowing out on Monday, the GOP field is essentially set and conservatives should soon be gravitating toward their choice, which is also bad for Obama.

Obama's Bad Week Enters 989th Day

View Detail

For Whom The Poll Tolls

For Whom The Poll Tolls

My next article is up at Big Hollywood! Go take a look: (Linky, Linky)! (It's at the film site too.)



It never rains, it pours when reality intrudes into leftist fantasy worlds. And this week it’s pouring harsh public opinion upon the little world created by Team Obama and the Pelosicrats. Indeed, public opinion has decidedly rejected them forthwith. . .



Let’s do these in bullet point format:



● As you all know, Obama’s approval rating keeps hitting new lows. Gallup has him at 39% approval and 54% disapproval. He's even fading among Democrats, with only 85% of liberal Democrats approving and only 67% of “conservative” Democrats. Maybe he’s just unlucky?



● Not surprisingly, 54% of voters say Obama is more liberal than they are, with only 12% feeling he is more conservative. Another 26% share his ideology. Thus, 38% of the country is stupid. These numbers are virtually identical for Congressional Democrats as well, thereby confirming the stupidity of the 38%.



● And the “generic Republican candidate” continues to beat Obama in a head-to-head match up for the fifth week in a row. Fortunately, we have plenty of generic Republicans hanging around.



● The generic ballot too continues to strongly favor Republicans, 44% to 37%.



● Even worse for the Obamacrats, the public rejects all their plans to fix Obama’s “bad luck” with the economy:

● A vast majority of voters (62% to 20%) say that cutting taxes is better than government spending when it comes to creating jobs. Ironically, that’s the one thing the Democrats won’t consider unless it’s targeted taxes to help certain industries. . . BUT

● 66% of Americans oppose giving targeted tax breaks to help certain companies or industries. They want the government to treat all companies and industries equally. Yeah, the public's funny that way.

● Similarly, Americans now firmly oppose the K Street/Establishment plan of tax code carve outs. Indeed, 64% of Americans want lower tax rates with fewer deductions. Only 16% want higher tax rates with lots of deductions. Somewhere lobbyists are crying right now like that 1970s commercial with the Indian. This is not good news for the establishment and the Democrats who see the handing out of goodies as a means to enrich themselves, and this gives a boost to the Republicans who have been trying to change this (like Sen. Coburn).



● Most Americans also say they are overtaxed. A full 74% say Americans should pay no more than 20% of their income in taxes. Another 55% favor a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage tax on their incomes. The one caveat on this is that 49% oppose eliminating the home mortgage deduction, although 47% favor limiting it to the “size of the average home mortgage.”



● The one good bit of news for the ObamaCrats appears to be that class warfare continues to work to a degree, with 64% of adults wrongly saying that the middle class pays a larger share of its income in taxes than the rich and 50% saying they are more likely to vote for a politician who promises to raise taxes only on the rich. But those results may not be as comforting for team Obama as they seem as they may be a reflection of the public’s anger at the K-Street manipulation of the tax code, with companies like GE managing record profits and yet paying $0 in taxes.

All in all, none of this is good news for the Democrats. The public sees themselves as overtaxed and unfairly taxed. Their solution is not more liberalism, but a flat tax stripped of K Street influence. They see tax cuts as the means to economic success for the country, not dependence on government spending. And they don’t seem to like the Democrats very much.



So much for the Democrat’s 2008 dream of a hard left turn for America.

My next article is up at Big Hollywood! Go take a look: (Linky, Linky)! (It's at the film site too.)



It never rains, it pours when reality intrudes into leftist fantasy worlds. And this week it’s pouring harsh public opinion upon the little world created by Team Obama and the Pelosicrats. Indeed, public opinion has decidedly rejected them forthwith. . .



Let’s do these in bullet point format:



● As you all know, Obama’s approval rating keeps hitting new lows. Gallup has him at 39% approval and 54% disapproval. He's even fading among Democrats, with only 85% of liberal Democrats approving and only 67% of “conservative” Democrats. Maybe he’s just unlucky?



● Not surprisingly, 54% of voters say Obama is more liberal than they are, with only 12% feeling he is more conservative. Another 26% share his ideology. Thus, 38% of the country is stupid. These numbers are virtually identical for Congressional Democrats as well, thereby confirming the stupidity of the 38%.



● And the “generic Republican candidate” continues to beat Obama in a head-to-head match up for the fifth week in a row. Fortunately, we have plenty of generic Republicans hanging around.



● The generic ballot too continues to strongly favor Republicans, 44% to 37%.



● Even worse for the Obamacrats, the public rejects all their plans to fix Obama’s “bad luck” with the economy:

● A vast majority of voters (62% to 20%) say that cutting taxes is better than government spending when it comes to creating jobs. Ironically, that’s the one thing the Democrats won’t consider unless it’s targeted taxes to help certain industries. . . BUT

● 66% of Americans oppose giving targeted tax breaks to help certain companies or industries. They want the government to treat all companies and industries equally. Yeah, the public's funny that way.

● Similarly, Americans now firmly oppose the K Street/Establishment plan of tax code carve outs. Indeed, 64% of Americans want lower tax rates with fewer deductions. Only 16% want higher tax rates with lots of deductions. Somewhere lobbyists are crying right now like that 1970s commercial with the Indian. This is not good news for the establishment and the Democrats who see the handing out of goodies as a means to enrich themselves, and this gives a boost to the Republicans who have been trying to change this (like Sen. Coburn).



● Most Americans also say they are overtaxed. A full 74% say Americans should pay no more than 20% of their income in taxes. Another 55% favor a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage tax on their incomes. The one caveat on this is that 49% oppose eliminating the home mortgage deduction, although 47% favor limiting it to the “size of the average home mortgage.”



● The one good bit of news for the ObamaCrats appears to be that class warfare continues to work to a degree, with 64% of adults wrongly saying that the middle class pays a larger share of its income in taxes than the rich and 50% saying they are more likely to vote for a politician who promises to raise taxes only on the rich. But those results may not be as comforting for team Obama as they seem as they may be a reflection of the public’s anger at the K-Street manipulation of the tax code, with companies like GE managing record profits and yet paying $0 in taxes.

All in all, none of this is good news for the Democrats. The public sees themselves as overtaxed and unfairly taxed. Their solution is not more liberalism, but a flat tax stripped of K Street influence. They see tax cuts as the means to economic success for the country, not dependence on government spending. And they don’t seem to like the Democrats very much.



So much for the Democrat’s 2008 dream of a hard left turn for America.

For Whom The Poll Tolls

View Detail