BRA
First, the polls …
(1) Rasmussen has Romney taking a 2 point lead in Ohio.
(2) Gallup has Romney back up to 51 percent in the national poll of likely voters. We’re now eight days from the election. Has a sitting president ever won reelection with 46 percent of the vote over a challenger who is getting 51 percent?
(3) There has been a lot of talk about the Star Tribune poll which only has Obama up 3 in Minnesota.
(4) The Battleground Poll projects a 52 to 47 victory for Romney.
(5) The Rasmussen swing state tracking poll has Romney at 50 percent and Obama at 46 percent in the swing states.
(6) Romney’s SuperPAC is now pushing into Pennsylvania. Biden will also be campaigning in Pennsylvania.
Now the recriminations …
(1) In The New York Times, an Op-Ed called “The Price of a Black President.”
(2) In Salon, an article called “The Progressive Case Against Obama.”
(3) Andrew Sullivan is still blaming the Confederacy and America’s Cold Civil War.
(4) BRA’s eunuch Jonathan Capehart at the Wash Post on “The Rise of Hate in the Age of Obama.” We have already speculated that the Left might have an apoplectic fit over “White racism” if Obama loses because Romney gets over 60 percent of the White vote.
(5) Chris Cillizza in the Wash Post on Obama losing independents by 16 to 20 points to Romney.
Doesn’t this raise the inevitable question? How is Obama supposed to win with Republicans solidly against him and more enthusiastic about voting, Independents swinging to Romney by 16 to 20 points, a shrinking “gender gap,” a greater percentage of elderly voters, and disaffection in the Democrat base among Hispanics and younger voters who aren’t supporting Obama at anything near their 2008 numbers?
(6) Derb’s old friend Alex Pareene is really, really scared of a Romney victory.
(7) The Los Angeles Times is blaming a lack of enthusiasm among younger voters.
(8) Finally, even Nate Silver at the New York Times is blaming Hurricane Sandy for its potential to depress Democrat turnout in the Northeastern Blue states.
(9) Obama is sending Bill Clinton to Minnesota to do damage control. This is reminiscent of McCain having to campaign in Indiana in 2008.
(10) In SFGate, Dems nervous, GOP upbeat as vote nears. Liberals are taking xanax and Nate Silver until election day.
Note: The Politico Battleground Poll has Obama with a 49 to 48 lead over Romney.
Why don’t the democrats just appeal to white voters? it seems like theres a lot of them, might be worth their while.
Too right it’s the Confederacy.
Sullivan is correct in fact, the intent is malicious though.
Is this the closing of an era though? If it can be blamed on the Confederate vote, then perhaps CREDIT can also be claimed by the Unreconstructed Confederate.
How dare whites split 60/40. Don’t they know that blacks listen to all sides and vote 50/50! Why it’s unfair!
The Democrats must have forgot to cut a “White Folks for Obama” ad.
Obama: He’s a half white!
Phnar Phnar Phnar.
If Bill Clinton is doing damage control in MN, lock up your Scandinavian Farmer’s Daughters- he can have the Somali shiksas, though.
And if the STRIB has Obummer at 3 points, as the second most liberal/loonie paper in the US, after the JEW York Times, in MN, I’m looking on the bright side.
For ANYONE to have cut through the Liberal Mindlock in Frozen MN, it means that the LEFT is DYING. The party of HHH, and Mondull is dying, dying, dying.
It’s a good thing to see a (Jewish) witch melt before your eyes. Isn’t it, MN. native Frances Gumm?? (Judy Garland) And Mn’s own ‘Don’t trust the Jews, Des Moines 9/11/41,’ Lucky Lindy? You betcha!! WWWD? Lose, that’s what!
HA!
May it only increase, and may Michele Bachmann’ visibility, and Kurt Bill’s Senate campaign, begin to chip away at the Minnestroika’s monolithic Moronic mindset.
Yah, sure.
http://wvwnews.net/story.php?id=11343
Why don’t the democrats just appeal to white voters? it seems like theres a lot of them, might be worth their while.
Good question! I can’t imagine why the zero would act like winning his base and exceeding his 2008 turnout among them is his only path to victory. Can anyone explain that for me?
Remember when Howard Dean when he ran back in 2004 I think said he wanted to also represent guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks? The Democrats had a fit and he quickly back peddled. Now they can’t even reach out to white voters unless the whites are a member of another special interest such as homosexuals or feminists. The Democrats can’t use the carrot to attract generic white votes. They can only use the stick by calling them ‘racist’ if they don’t support Obama. Truly pathetic.
Hunter, you should add this important article by Steve Sailer to your list of links:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/obama-fringe-vs-romney-core
Sailer breaks down the data culled from this month’s Reuters polls and comes up with some very interesting statistics. For example, the marriage gap (between married/widowed and single/divorced) in voting intentions is 17 points among men and 24 points among women, far bigger than the much-touted gender gap.
He classifies Obama’s voters as the “coalition of the absurd”, or the “fringe” versus Romney’s “core of the nation” supporters. Or the Deviants vs the Normals as I would call them: angry and disgruntled minority groups, both high and low, against the severely normal middle.
He breaks down Reuters’ data into various micro-groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, etc. Blacks support Obama over Romney 96-4, no surprise there. But he also provides the voting intentions breakdown of Muslims, the first I’ve ever seen. Muslims support Obama 88-12 over Romney.
Gays also support Obama 88-12, with bisexual support somewhat less. Hispanics support Obama 63-37, less than I would have thought. Sailer doesn’t have any stats for Asians as a whole, but Hindus, one of the wealthiest ethno-religious groups in the US, support Obama by 75-25.
Speaking of angry, disgruntled and very wealthy ethno-religious groups, Sailer breaks Jews down into four separate groups, married men/women and single men/women, but doesn’t provide the stats for Jews as a whole. Going by the numbers he did provide, I would estimate that Jews as a whole support Obama by about a 70-30 margin. Which is better (from a Republican perspective) than the 78-21 breakdown in 2008, but not by much.
The good news is that white Protestants break for Romney by a 70-30 margin, as do white Catholics by 59-41. The most pro-Romney group broken down by Sailer, no surprise here, are the Mormons, by an 87-13 margin. BTW, the reason all these numbers add up to exactly 100 is because he eliminated all the third party supporters in order to make it a strictly Obama vs Romney breakdown.
Check it out.
I like the news story about gangs organizing a looting spree via twitter after Sandy passes. Thanks Drudge, and god bless our vibrant colored folk.
White & Confederate:
In some sense I suspect the cultural Marxists (aka mostly jews and their fellow travelers) have outmaneuvered themselves. You try to tie together a disparate collection of parasites and grievous mongers on the premise (albeit false) that “diversity” is the goal. Diversity is only the goal of the jew, not the blacks, Mexicans, etc. Blacks and Mexicans, for example, want a monochromatic group, their own group. Therefore, as you get closer to “diversity” it becomes clearer to even an idiot (or an idiotic group like blacks) that there is trouble in the promised utopia. If you even remotely try to appeal to white men, who you have claimed are responsible for all evils that befall your group incidentally, then trouble begins brewing on the multicultural plantation. It seems to me that most of the larger voting blocks on the dem plantation (e.g., blacks and “hispanics” especially) overall goal is basic economic and political hegemony. If they suspect they might get a better deal elsewhere, you are in trouble (this is almost what has happened to the Tea Party and the repubs; and why the repub “leaders” freaked out so much about it until the 2010 elections). In fact, probably the worst thing that can happen is that the economic collapses and you are unable to bribe the restless hordes of blacks, Mexicans, etc. At that point all you have left is political power and without the “obamaphones” and electronic food (e.g., EBT cards) that is not worth staying on the weird multicultural plantation. Ultimately, the average dem these days asks what is in it for them and their group (and the repub corporate donors, and the public union donors, etc.), and if there isn’t anything in it for them that they can’t get for themselves as a group, why work through the dem party? There is strong political stickiness, but the logical outcome for a one vote one man “democracy” is that the wolves always vote to eat the sheep and the foxes vote to eat the chickens and the wolves vote to each the foxes. Diversity doesn’t stop being a weakness because we are applying it to political parties; in fact, diversity is very much a weakness for a political party. Why do you think the Nazis of Communists were so feared, because they were diverse? It isn’t just people that are strengthened by similar bloodlines, but political parties as well; which is why I smile when the RINOs and the jewish media warn the repubs against being “the party of white people”. Being the party of white people is strength not a weakness, always has and always will be; and the dems diversity gambit can only work as long all sides believe it isn’t. Why do people fear Golden Dawn? Because it is fragmented/diverse and incoherent? No, they fear it because: (1) it is one people representing that same group of white people, and (2) the economy is crashing and they have some answers that make basic sense (e.g., help your own people first).
it’s sad to think romney voters are the core of the nation. romney voters being the core means this is an anti White, pro beaner leftist nation. Not as anti White and as far to the left as obama, but still leftist and anti White
Stonelifter:
Yes, it is currently anti-white but the current and future economic downturn/destruction will not be kind to that theme because much of the fuel that fires the discrimination against especially founding stock Americans is our own money and treasure. As that has been, and what’s left of it continues to be, pissed away the tide should come back somewhat in our direction. The blacks have always and will always be anti-white, especially if we show weakness. The other groups will tend to exploit weakness, ours or any other groups’. The key is to stop being diverse and thus weak, and to cut off the funding of our own destruction, then I would expect the anti White stuff will die a natural death as opposed to its wholly artificial current state of affairs.