Ditto

Friday, November 2, AD 2012

The Las Vegas Review Journal, the largest paper in Nevada, in its endorsement of Mitt Romney for President minces no words:

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in a well-planned military assault on their diplomatic mission in Benghazi seven weeks ago, the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So why are details surfacing, piecemeal, only now?

The Obama administration sat by doing nothing for seven hours that night, ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, less than two hours away. It has spent the past seven weeks stretching the story out, engaging in misdirection and deception involving supposed indigenous outrage over an obscure anti-Muslim video, confident that with the aid of a docile press corps this infamous climax to four years of misguided foreign policy can be swept under the rug, at least until after Tuesday’s election.

Charles Woods, father of former Navy SEAL and Henderson resident Tyrone Woods, 41, says his son died slumped over his machine gun after he and fellow ex-SEAL Glen Doherty – not the two locals who were the only bodyguards Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration would authorize – held off the enemy for seven hours.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Ditto

  • U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in a well-planned military assault on their diplomatic mission in Benghazi seven weeks ago, the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So why are details surfacing, piecemeal, only now?

    Because it’s a really, really, REALLY bad idea to try to blame the CIA when you screw up.

  • I expect better of American Catholic than linking to an opinion piece with no sources and few quotes as somehow a reference on what really happened.

  • I have written on this site extensively about the Benghazi attack Jeff, and I see absolutely nothing in this editorial that is not in accord with the facts as they have painfully been coming out, with zero help from a stonewalling White House.

  • Jeff’s failed obfuscation aside, what else can be said about this scandal except that it’s treason? Sacrificing the lives of Americans, denying them help, and for what? Because you’re afraid a rescue will fail and hurt your election chances? Beyond pathetic… Obama is a coward and possibly the worst president of all time. Spin that NY media.

  • “Obama is a coward and possibly the worst president of all time.”

    Possibly? Do you have a contender in mind? Who could it be? I rack my brains and I cannot guess who might have been worse.

  • Woodrow Wilson was no prize as a President or a human being given his devious segregationist policies, autocratic behavior and megalomania. He did do a few reforms here and there so that leftist historians could ooh and aah about him.

  • “I cannot guess who might have been worse.”

    A lot of historians consider James Buchanan, Lincoln’s immediate predecessor, the worst president of all time because he did nothing to stop the nation’s slide toward civil war in the late 1850s. His predecessors, Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce, weren’t much better.

  • Elaine and Rozin,

    What I see as the difference between Buchanan(/Fillmore/Pierce) and Obama is like the difference between a sin of omission and one of commission.

    Buchanan’s presidency led to a transformed United States because he failed to do what was necessary. Obama has laid the groundwork for a transformed United States by positive design.

    His motivation for the purposeful transformation is due, unlike with Wilson, to a dislike of the idea of the United States of America. (I admit I’m speculating, but his policies suggest it to me strongly.) Wilson, as far as I know, did believe in a certain American exceptionalism, derived from the exceptionalism of the Anglo-Saxon race.

    Furthermore, Buchanan and Wilson were undoubtedly Men of Their Times. They were following the general mood of the nation. Obama, on the other hand, is governing counter to the general mood of the nation. He is trying to impose his will, which would not be accepted except for the complicit, duplicitous aid of the mainstream media.

    For these reasons, I think that Obama is not only the worst president we’ve had, but the most dangerous.

  • Nicholas,

    There is no right answer we should all agree. Your response is thoughtful but would only be valid IMO if Obama were to lose in a popular vote landslide. I was thinking of worst President in both political and personal terms also. I don’t think Buchanan was the worst or even second worst President. He suffers by comparison with Lincoln. Fillmore, Pierce and Andrew Johnson had even less going for them. It’s fair to say that a below average series of presidents did nothing to stop the slide towards secession. Wilson was in many ways a duplicitous and detestable person and his betrayal of his own African American supporters illustrates that. Obama’s betrayal of his African American supporters is by neglect rather than malice

    Obama is simply a mouthpiece for the general views of many Democrats today. I have heard nothing from him that I haven’t heard from them previously. That’s why his defeat would not stop his viewpoint. The Democrat nominees in 2016 and 2020 will think no differently than he does.

  • Rozin,

    Let us pray that Tuesday’s results, building on the 2010 midterm elections, and continuing in the 2014 midterms, force a change in the leadership of the Democrat party.

    If Tuesday’s election can become a national repudiation of the current Democrat viewpiont – the way that we saw in 2010 Congressional and state elections – then moderate Democrats (indeed, maybe moderate pro-life Democrats) might be able to take on leadership roles heading into the 2020 election cycle.

    We can pray.

  • Yes Nicholas that’s what I was doing. Even if it takes until 2024 for the Democrats to return to Life I will still be overjoyed.

Why Polling Skews Against Political & Religious Conservatives

Tuesday, October 23, AD 2012

Some 20 years ago as I was finishing graduate school, I worked for a polling company. It was longer than I wanted to but it gave me some valuable insights on that business before I moved into the line of work that I wanted. I got to know the man who ran the company; he ran polls for national and international companies and occasionally dabbled into political polling. He was meticulous and it became very clear that this job was his life. Now I don’t know his politics but I would guess that he was left of center, at least on social issues. However, he was nearly fanatical about being impartial and getting the true response. Some twenty years later, all of this helps me to understand how political polling works, and believe me it is very difficult. In other words, if political polling isn’t done exactly right it becomes a terrible slanted mess.

Here’s how live polling works. Automated computer dialers call randomly generated phone numbers, which are often are disconnected, faxes and or not in service. In a four hour shift you would be lucky to get 8-10 complete surveys per poll taker in a hotly contested political race. Now mind you that was 20 years before cell phones, my understanding is that now because of cell phones and caller id many polling agencies are using brief computer automated voices to ask questions. Most polling agencies have given up on live survey results on such things as your favorite bar of soup, breakfast cereal, shoe company etc. Believe me there were nights that we would put in a four hour shift and call over 150 people and get one or two complete surveys concerning your favorite shampoo.

When it comes to political polling my old boss (who is a Ph.D and widely respected across the country) would fret about the way we ask each question, our tone and our attitude. He would drill into us that he needed unbiased surveys for his clients. He would remind us, and this is very important in today’s world, that conservative oriented people don’t like polling as much as liberals because liberals believe in proselytizing their views while conservatives feel their views are a reflection of their values, as well as their cultural and religious upbringing. This is why liberals tend to be oversampled in polling. By and large they don’t hang up on pollsters and surveys because they view it as their duty and mission to get the word out. Again, my boss was not a conservative and he could see this 20 years ago.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Why Polling Skews Against Political & Religious Conservatives

  • More recently, there’s the “there are a lot of nutjobs on the other side, and they’ve already proven willing to try to ruin someone’s life over political differences. Nope, not taking the risk that this number blocked guy who claims to be taking a “totally anonymous” political survey is for real” effect.

    As I told the poor guy before I hung up– “no, sorry, no political polls. I like my car.”

  • My one encounter with exit polling was when I was working at a polling place for a candidate, and a pollster was assigned to the same location. He had very specific procedures to randomize the voters he questioned, but he always seemed to end up talking to the young women. I’d bet that anything short of automated calling of random phone numbers, some guy is going to figure out a way to use it to hit on gals.

  • As Mr Hartline implicitly shows, accurate polling of “future behavior” is very difficult and expensive. However, since the Left has thrown off the mask and become much more menacing, as Foxfier notes, it does introduce yet another reason for skewed polling. It’s gotten to the point where anything advanced by the Left including polling (and most pollsters are Leftists) has to be viewed as agitprop unless independently verified. It will be interesting to see if the University of Colorado (Bickers and Berry) model of state (Electoral College) voting ends up more accurate than the public pollsters this cycle. It would even more interesting to see if the “internal” polls of the two Parties matched the model back in the summer.

  • Pinky, believe it or night there was a theory floated around the political blogosphere that in the midterm election of 2010 and earlier this year in the Scott Walker recall election, that male graduate students who were sent to do exit polls were asking an inordinate amount of women exit poll questions. Also the theory states, that female graduate students were asking too many other single female students to exit polls thus skewing the results. As you can imagine there was a lot of egg on pollsters faces after that fiasco.

    Rozin, yes some of the polls are nothing more than agenda driven polls. To save their own reputational skins, I can’t imagine that the final CBS/NY Times poll will have an Ohio sample at +9 Democrat. This number would be something you would expect to see in Oregon, Washington or Minnesota, though a Rasmussen poll today had the race there at 51 Obama 46 Romney. The last Republican to win in Minnesota was Richard Nixon, needless to say that poll has put the fear of God into Chicago HQ.

  • This conservative family can testify to not picking up calls from pollsters. We’ve had more than a few calls during the dinner hour from one or another questionable phone numbers. Since Maryland isn’t a battle ground state, I suspect that the polls are about one of the ballot initiatives. The gambling question seems to be the most well funded. We already had someone come to our door to ask where we stood on that one. I suppose Democrats don’t mind interrupting dinner or the kids’ bedtime to answer questions? I did actually answer a poll call a few months ago, and I found the questions confusing and poorly worded. I suspected that my answers would be twisted to mean whatever the pollster wanted. So I’ve been even more reluctant than usual to pick up any new calls.

  • I just got a call last night from someone wanting to know if I cared to answer “four brief questions” regarding a Democratic candidate for local office. I said no because I suspected that with that few questions, it was probably a “push poll” meant to contrive a certain result and I didn’t care to participate in that game. I’ve only responded to one poll this year, which turned out to be quite lengthy and asked about multiple races. Also, I made the mistake of responding to a poll in the mail that claimed I was a “carefully selected” voter and ever since I’ve been pummeled with junk mail and spam from the RNC and similar groups, so I’m kind of reluctant to encourage them further.

  • Two years ago, the first question they asked me when polling me is asking me about my religion. After telling them I was Catholic, the person hung up. At another time, my husband was asked the same question & when he wouldn’t answer the question, the same thing was done. I was polled once, again about 2 yrs. ago, by Rasmussen but was not asked about religion.

  • Exit polls do not require a likely voter screen and, as they are conducted in person, have a much higher response rate than telephone polls. Still, exit polls conducted in 2004 had some systemic error incorporated within them that proved decisive in context (and led knuckleheads at Harper’s magazine to promote the idea that Republican operatives had hatched some sort of insidious super-secret conspiracy to rig the tabulation machines). I think we have reached a point where anticipatory polling is so unreliable we really do not know what is afoot (but repeated instances of Mitt Romney tallied as leading among non-aligned voters but losing among the sum of voters are … inneresting).

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • Polling is much more sophisticated than 20 years ago. Surveys can get the phone numbers of registered voters from the database at the state’s Secretary of State.

    Some of the polls you get aren’t “push polls.” Rather, they are conducted by interest groups seeking information about voters so they can then follow up at a later point with mailed materials or a visit to your door. They probably put you in a database for future use.

    If you tell the “Obama for Colorado” surveyor you don’t like Obama, they won’t waste their time trying to get you to the polls or trying to persuade you. If you are on the fence, they might work on you some more.

    If you don’t reply, they won’t know enough about you to do one thing or another.

  • Surveys can get the phone numbers of registered voters from the database at the state’s Secretary of State.

    It would be the county Board of Elections in New York. I am not even sure the standard form has a space for a phone number, and it would be your landline number on the date of registration if they did. For thirteen years I voted from the same address on Rochester’s south east side. In that time period, I had five different apartments and four different landline phone numbers.

  • Actually Kevin J though polling may be more sophiscated than it was 20 years ago because of more advanced software, the same methods that were used 20 years ago are used today. Pollsters don’t want to call from voter registration lists, they want random numbers because as Art Deco has stated your phone number is not always provided or accurate on voter registration materials. Pollsters would rather get a variety of disconnects, faxes etc than just deal with provided lists that may miss substantial segments of the populace, i.e those who just have cell phones or those who have moved since they registered.

  • I’d have to completely disagree. I was called by a religious pollster who told me there three questions. When I disagreed with the first question about the definition of marriage, the call was discontinued. Only one question. It is hard to get an accurate poll when those doing them refuse to continue the calls that don’t give them the answers they want.

    There is a saying, “There are liars, damned liars, and then there are statisticians.” Whomever does them skews them in favor of their views. ALL OF THEM regardless of affiliation.

  • Or, possibly, they were polling for a group that you weren’t part of.

    Good heavens, haven’t you ever heard of a selection questions? That’s like claiming all polls are horrible because you’re asked if you’re registered to vote, then if you plan to vote, and saying “no” on either one means they stop asking questions.

    There are inherent flaws to polling, there are induced flaws, and there’s a difference!

Who Was Presidential?

Tuesday, October 23, AD 2012

I have to give the Republican National Committee credit this year when it comes to being quick off the dime in producing web videos.  The above was put out immediately in the aftermath of the debate contrasting the calm demeanor of Romney from the somewhat frenetic and combative stance of Obama.  This clip was typical of the entire debate:

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Who Was Presidential?

  • I thought Obama bin Laden did as well as expected.

    The night went to the SF Giants 9-0 !

    The suit has no president . . .

  • Once again the liberal darlings who call themselves pro-nuclear bloggers at Atomic Insights and NEI Nuclear Notes refuse to recognize that Romney (in the video above) mentions the word “nuclear”, but not his opponent who has given billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to now bankrupt renewable energy companies. Oh, by the way, under Barack Hussein Obama, Dominion has just announced the closure of 556 megawatts of clean, safe, inexpensive electrical energy from the Kewanee Nuclear Power Plant. Solar power companies like Solyndra that received Obama funding are now bankrupt and nuclear power plants are shutting down. We cannot afford another four years of this.

    http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2012/10/statement-from-nei-president-and-ceo.html

  • I didn’t watch the debate and it sounds like I didn’t miss much. Oh well, according to this cartoon I just stumbled across (titled “The United Swing States of America”), it doesn’t matter anyway since I live in one of the “everyone else can just sit back and have a beer” states:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-15/united-swing-states-america

  • Mr. ‘wrong and wreckless’ in the Oval Office accusing someone, who wants to serve there, of the same was – well – wrong and wreckless.

    In line with many actions of his fishy foreign policy and many choices of his political liasons, he failed to speak with sincerity about his history of contemptuous dismissal of American government process and its allies.

    Seems like the faded purpose of the UN is more his ambition than leading one USA.

When the Believers Lose Their Faith In The Religion Of Big Government

Sunday, October 21, AD 2012

President Barack Obama’s debate performances could never equal the expectations of the secular faithful. Many on the far left envisioned an American society where religion was about as important to the populace and politically influential as it is in Sweden. The land of the midnight sun has been a great hope to liberals ever since religion began to erode there in the 1950s and abortion became commonplace in the 1960s. Governor Michael Dukakis famously poured over Sweden’s great Welfare state enterprise to see what he might learn, which of course led to his electoral demise in 1988.

With all of his rhetorical skills, President Obama could never make Americans have a come to Pierre Trudeau, Willy Brandt, Jose Luis Zapatero (pick your favorite Western Democratic Socialist) moment like many Americans have a Come to Jesus moment over failings in their lives. Instead of realizing that not everyone can be suckered into buying Big Government swampland, the Left has taken their frustrations out on the President. If only he were talking more about rising and falling oceans and making them believe we are the ones we have been waiting for; the Left attacks the messenger and not the message.

Frank Rich, the New York Times columnist laments about this in a long New York magazine  article. The writer for the Old Gray Lady states the Americans are somehow too dumb to become like Europeans and surrender their lives to government and not God. He sees little hope and concludes the Tea Party will always prevail in the American persona rather than government control. Talk about a brain trust, can you imagine the anti-religious nuggets thrown around the water cooler when Bill Keller, the former New York Times editor was present. You may recall Keller infamously dubbed himself a “Collapsed Catholic,” fortunately reported to us by former Newsweek Religion Editor Kenneth Woodward, who is not Catholic and hardly a friend of conservatives, but a principled man who couldn’t take any more of the Times’ hypocrisy directed at the Church. I would strongly suggest you read this The New York magazine article for if conservatives mouthed these same thoughts about minorities instead of suburbanites and rural residents, we would be blacklisted.

In my just released book, The Catholic Tide Continues to Turn, I note how the Left turned on Al Smith (the first Catholic standard bearer) after he formed the Liberty League in the mid and late 1930s and told Americans he could no longer support President Roosevelt. This startling development occurred after a number of questionable instances came to light including the Supreme Court Packing Case and the Roosevelt 1938 purge of Conservative Democrats. By 1940 unemployment was still at 14% and if had not been for World War II who knows how long unemployment would have remained in double digits.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to When the Believers Lose Their Faith In The Religion Of Big Government

  • 1. “President Barack Obama’s debate performances could never equal the expectations of the secular faithful. ”

    They could but only if the polls said he won. The content or reality is not important to the Leftist.

    2. “The writer for the Old Gray Lady states the Americans are somehow too dumb to become like Europeans and surrender their lives to government and not God. ”

    This is so Last Generation. Today’s Leftists have moved on to adoring Castro, Chavez and the Chinese Politburo with a longing look at Islamic jihadists.

    3. “Perhaps the President’s lackluster and uneven debate performance comes from a man who no longer believes in what he is selling.’

    He still believes it but he has always been a lazy goofoff expecting other people to translate his TOTUS talk into stirring deeds.

    4. “The Left has morphed into a powerful money machine.”

    The Leftists only hide beyond populist rhetoric, they always prefer the limousine. And they have always been part of the well to do class.

    5. “Socialist thinker Joseph Schumpter (Shortly after World War II) believed that Socialism could eventually win because Capitalism would give the people all of their material needs while weaning them off religion.”

    Sometimes academics top the Stupid list. He could have seen that Socialism would promptly take away all that Capitalism had provided.

    6. “Some on the Left see it all slipping away, they will never have the 2008 perfect storm opportunity at least within my lifetime.”

    Never underestimate the ability of termites.

  • Once again another informative post Rozin. As I have indicated in previous articles (and perhaps should have for this one,) I have always believed there are two sorts of leftists. The first being the utopians (small in number) they cling to the 1960s as their model. They are the ones I wrote of living at one time in cramped apartments and VW buses. However, the second group (and larger of the two) are the true radicals (often dressed as if they were indeed the man himself) those who adhere to the ideals of the French Revolution and the tactics of Saul Alinsky.

    An electoral loss for the radicals would be devestating, whereas the utopians would take it in stride. In some ways the Utopians still haven’t recovered from Bob Dylan going electric, the end of the Summer of Love, along with the demise of the Eugene McCarthy candidacy.

  • Pingback: Age of Unbelief | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: MONDAY MORNING GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • I thank you for bringing the new god to the readers attention, I hope more are listing, because our Creator is watching this culture of greed and death spread. Do you think He is going to stand back and not get our attention about almost 4000 babies a day killed in the US out of greed ? Do you think if this continues and other things you have talked about He will allow, not make, something happen that will make 9-11 look like a spark, that will bring us back on our knee’s to Him ? JMJ

  • I get the feeling that if I sat down with Frank Rich for ten minutes I could explain politics to him. He understands that political movements adapt, and that predictions of impending ideological collapse are faulty. But he doesn’t apply that to his own thinking, that the moderate Republican is disappearing and that Republicans can’t win women or minorities.

    You don’t have to be a fortune-teller to see that in a two-party system, each party is always going to present itself as nearly in the middle but a bit over to one side. On a four-mile stretch of road, the best position for one gas station is at the two-mile marker. The best position for a rival gas station is at just about the two-mile marker, but a little up or down the road (to be the closest gas station for 50% of the market). Three or more gas stations, there are different strategies, but with two it’s inevitable. The same is true with politics.

  • Being a faithful Catholic means being neither Left nor Right. Sure, we are to reject the extreme statism of the Far Left, but we must also equally oppose Ayn Rand atheistic capitalism, which is nothing more than libertarian anarchy. Both ideologies challenge and contravene Catholic faith and morals.

    God bless for this terrific article!

  • One question as to the role of Big Government and consistent ideology. The author presumably opposes abortion in all forms and promotes the abolition of that sinister practice. I concur. How would the author go about achieving this goal? Would it be through the use of Government to interject itself in the medical field and forcibly ban abortion?

    So, if it is acceptable to prevent the deaths of the unborn through the use of Big Government, why is it also not acceptable to utilize the power of government to prevent deaths of living people outside of the womb, vis a vis health care reform?

  • Benjamin a very interesting question with regard to the role of government. The single most important role of government is to protect her citizens. We naturally think of a foreign invasion, or a terrorist attack (The War of 1812, or 9-11-01.) However, we don’t have to go to far into the realm of history to see an era when lawlessness had the nation living in fear. For example, because of Prohibition outlaws were roaming the countryside (John Dillinger, Ma Barker, Pretty Boy Floyd) because the cities were teaming with mobsters shooting it out over liquor territory. Law enforcement, much like their current compatriots in Mexico, were hopelessly outgunned. Something had to be done, which is why J Edgar Hoover established the FBI.

    In our modern era, though there are far fewer abortions (Thank God due to the relentless efforts of pro-life forces) somewhere between 1-2 million of our citizens are killed in abortion facilities. The Constitution established the courts to administer the laws and law enforcement to enforce the laws. Once Roe has properly run her course (it was wrongly argued and established in the first place) the courts and law enforcement will remedy the situation.

    As for Government Health Care, this is not promised by our forefathers, as was Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If one says the government is responsible for you being happy one could argue health care could make you happy, or some illegal vice. Does that mean the government should provide you with that as well? This is a slipperly slope. The Catholic Church has always said health care is a right, but they never said it was a right to be provided for by the government. In the Renaissance era, the elite of the Church would provide hospital space for the poor and indigent. We should be our brothers keeper, not the state.

2 Responses to Libya Lies

I Was Watching a Townhall and a Fight Broke Out

Tuesday, October 16, AD 2012

 

 

 

Predictably Obama was very aggressive tonight.  Less predictably perhaps, Romney was just as aggressive.  Here are some thoughts:

1.  Wired Obama-Obama came loaded with talking points and spoke rapidly throughout the debate to get them all out.

2.  Face Time-Classic political theater with Obama and Romney having a few face to face clashes during the debate.

3.  Crowley Hearts Obama-Candy Crowley attempted to come to the rescue of the President in misstating that Obama blamed the Benghazi attack on terrorism in his rose garden statement.  That is incorrect.  The operative phrase in Obama’s statement:   Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.  Crowley’s intervention indicated that she was not a moderator but rather an Obama partisan.

4.  Romney the Good-Romney gave another good debate performance and I expect he will do just as well in the third debate.  If Obama is hoping for Romney to stumble or commit a gaffe, I think he will wait in vain.

5.  Boxing match-Although the back and forth got a bit tiresome to me after a while, I did like the way in which both candidates talked directly at each other.  Romney did make the mistake of asking too many questions of Obama, as if he were going to get any forthright answers.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to I Was Watching a Townhall and a Fight Broke Out

  • I do think Obama was pretty slick in getting in the 47% dig in his closing remarks without Romney being able to respond.

  • I just want to point out that the big question is not really how soon (or not) Obama put the label “act of terror” on Libya– to me the really big point is about his LACK of ACTION. he might have (or not) said the right things. He is a talker after all. But he should have immediately taken some kind of action in our defense; not even beginning investigating for how long!

  • “I just want to point out that the big question is not really how soon (or not) Obama put the label “act of terror” on Libya– to me the really big point is about his LACK of ACTION. he might have (or not) said the right things. He is a talker after all. But he should have immediately taken some kind of action in our defense; not even beginning investigating for how long!”

    Romney gonna have a golden opportunity to fact check exactly what Obama said and rub his nose in it during Monday’s debate because Monday’s debate is entirely on foreign policy and national security.

  • 1. #3. paved the way and helped her favorite consistently. No F & F n’ stuff needed.
    Bet he got a handle on his four year term in the resort where he was trained for days for ‘townhall’ – in all but sincerity.

    3. Unprofessional. Broke rules. Not a moderator. Can just hear the screams if the shoe were on the other foot. The rule book would be on the table with condemnations forever.

    6. Mitt Romney striving for clarity and fairness, but incumbent wasn’t as usual.

    4. Very strong man to be able to withstand the cheating.

    7. Obama’s free pass from the media spoiled him – resents being questioned while he can continually point at and blame what is diverse from him. Playground bully, backroom thug.

    10. Too bad these debates are reported like sports scores. People see behavior and character, which hopefully helps them sort through truth and lies.

  • To me it was all about tone. Obama sounds angry, petulant. Romney exudes calmness, stability — what you want in a crisis. These debates demonstrate why I’ve supported Romney since the primaries. He’s going to win.

  • Watched the debate. Despite some sayind Obama won, i can’t agree. In my high school years I was on our class debate team. In my 20’s i was the leader of our debatng team in Jaycees. The key to winning a debate, is making your point strongly and believably – even if it is wrong – and being able to effectively counter any rebuttal to your argument. Romney was head and shoulders above Obama again tonite, although Obama came out fighting – unlike last time, and gave a much better performance. But he focussed on trying to tell everyone what Romney was “:really” saying – he had no positives for his own vision for America – because his record in four years is dog poo.
    I won’t say that Romney has gained further momentum from this, but has certainly held up his gains from last debate. Next week, I think that he will be able to close the gate on O’Bumbler when the porkies that O’Bumbler came out with will be confirmed by the media at large – not just Sean Hannity 🙂
    I’m beginning to agree with your assessment Don – that Romney will win in a lesson to the Dems. We have been having a debate here on our local Catholic blog about the US elections – and some are saying “so what?”
    Thepoint is, that what happens in the US has a major influence in the rest of the world – in particluar the western Anglo-Saxon- Celtic world, because we hold a common heritage and mindset different to the rest of world cultures, and the US, whether people like it or not, is the leader in this culture.
    I do really hope that Romney kicks O’Bumbler’s arse (ass in ‘mericaspeak) 🙂

  • Pingback: Candy Crowley Grudgingly Admits That Romney Was Right | The American Catholic
  • As long as Obama is defeat, that is all that matters. I am glad Romnry acquitted himself well again. I see many main stream news outlets saying Obama won, but they are liberal and that is to be expected.

  • I was walking Buddy (try to be the person your dog thinks you are) and snoring.

    Couldn’t bring myself to watch the Yanks roll over, either.

    Glenn Beck (on Imus) said, “Romney kindly emasculated Obama.” heh

    Old Chinese adage, “A liar is not believed even when he tells the truth.” Obama and his imbecilic worshipers have divorced themselves from facts and truth.

    Re: energy: Mitt missed his opportunity to ask why gas prices are so high during slow driving season, and for Obama’s advice to Americans choosing between buying gas to get to their jobs or eating.

    Benghazzi. . . 100+ recent violent episodes . . . repeated requests for security upgrades . . . spontaneous protest . . . 200 gomers armed with AK’s and RPG’s . . . for five days it was caused by an obscure YouTube video . . . video producer still in jail . . .

  • “video producer still in jail” . . . thanks for that info.

  • The amazing thing is how little discussion is being had in these debates and in the election in general about Obamacare. One would think that the signal achievement of Obama’s first term – the one that our esteemed Vice President called a “big f’n deal” would be trumpeted a bit more by President Obama. Curious.

  • Re: Obamacare and its invisibility

    The Left simply goes “underground” when there is public opposition to anything they are doing. They let the bureaucracy and activist judges carry the ball forward. The same thing is going on with the EPA etc. The Repubs have a candidate who doesn’t want to mention Obamacare that much either.

The Data and Demographics That Detail Why Romney Will Defeat Obama in Ohio

Sunday, October 7, AD 2012

 I am going to take a break from promoting my just released book, The Catholic Tide Continues to Turn to write about another interest of mine; election polling and demographics in my home state of Ohio. Lately my dander has been raised more than once by polls which are totally inept in their sampling rational. This article will attempt to explain why at this point Governor Mitt Romney is in the driver’s seat in my home state. Full disclosure; I did not vote for Governor Romney in the GOP primary, my vote went to Senator Rick Santorum. Also until the mid 1990s I was a conservative Democrat; my political work began in the 1980s as in intern in the Ohio State House and then continued for the Democratic Leadership Council on Capitol Hill in 1994-95. I saw no hope for conservative Democrats like myself after my stint in Washington DC. I view myself not as a Republican, but a conservative.

The 2008 General Election was a perfect storm for Democrats across the country and Ohio was no exception. By 2010, the gains the Democrats made had evaporated and the GOP returned to the levels it had enjoyed in the 1980s. However, political polling across the country has not reflected this change. Obviously this makes a huge difference in Midwestern swing areas, especially suburban locations, the area of most states that continue to grow, even if that state’s total growth is stagnant.

For example in Ohio the area surrounding Franklin County (Columbus) and the area surrounding Hamilton County (Cincinnati) are the fastest growing areas of the state. These areas generally go GOP 65%-35%. Conversely, the Democratic strongholds of Lucas (Toledo,) Cuyahoga (Cleveland,) Summit (Akron,) and Mahoning (Youngstown) are the areas of the state that have seen a freefall in residents since the late 1970s.

While many people are aware of this statistic, one area few seem to realize is the age demographic, Democratic voters are dying off faster than the younger (40 and 50 something) Reagan era GOP voters of the fast growing GOP strongholds of suburban Columbus and Cincinnati.

Now let’s take a look at raw voter counts in Ohio and what we can expect after the polls close at 7:30 PM on November 6. A cursory glance of the 2004 and 2008 election results in the Democratic strongholds in the northern part of the state might make one reason that a serious error had occurred. How could Massachusetts Senator John Kerry possibly get more votes than the first African American standard bearer, then Illinois Senator Barack Obama in areas like Cuyahoga County which is over 30% African-American, the highest percentage in the state?

The answer is simple, thousands of voters had died or moved from that area of the state in those four years, and many more thousands have done so since the economic meltdown of 2008. For example in 1980 Cuyahoga County had 1,500,000 residents compared to 1,280,000 in 2010, Lucas County had 471,000 in 1980 compared to 441.000 in 2010 and Mahoning County had 290,000 residents in 1980, compared to 239,000 in 2010. Many left for southern and western states. As recent as a few days ago (early October 2012) election officials had reported a huge drop off in eligible voters for this Democratic rich area of the state.    Let’s give the President the benefit of the doubt and say his numbers in Cleveland, Toledo and Youngstown only drop 5% (due to shifting demographics) this is still a nightmare scenario for the Obama-Biden ticket when one realizes that Romney-Ryan ticket will certainly gain at least 5% in the Columbus and Cincinnati fast growing suburban areas.

Now let’s take a look at the GOP strongholds of suburban Columbus and Cincinnati. In 1980 Butler County (outside of Cincinnati) had 258, 000 voters compared to 368,000 in 2010 and Warren County directly north of Cincinnati had 99,000 residents in 1980 versus 212,000 in 2010. Let’s look at Columbus, Delaware County which for years was the fastest growing county in the Midwest had 53,000 residents in 1980 compared to 174,000 in 2010 and Fairfield County had 93,000 residents in 1980 versus 146,000 in 2010.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to The Data and Demographics That Detail Why Romney Will Defeat Obama in Ohio

  • Too bad none of what you cite will make any difference, since we have a criminal administration willing, and certainly capable of stealing this election. And should this not succeed, there are Obama’s minions – The Muslim Brotherhood, ACORN, The New Black Panters, etc., ready to riot, claiming WE stole the election. Then, of course, the Dictator in Chief will use his self-appointed powers to declare martial law, and void the election.

  • That all worked real well for the Democrats in 2010. Most of the states now have Republican governors, including all the swing states. This election is not going to be decided by the margin of fraud.

  • The thing that has me worried, is that in our town–once a bastion of conservatism–there are Obama/Biden signs everywhere. I’ve never, ever seen this many signs for a Democrat president. Heck, I’ve never seen that many signs for a Democrat anything. It could simply be that a local Catholic (“seamless garment” type) is running for state house on the Democratic ticket. She is very well organized and well known among the liberals, social justice community and her own parish (which may still be the largest in our diocese although it’s population has been declining over the past few years).

  • “in our town, once a bastion of conservatism, there are Obama-Biden signs everywhere”

    Well, I’m seeing far FEWER Obama signs in Central Illinois today than I saw four years ago. I’m seeing plenty of signs for local level Democratic candidates (Congress, state legislature) but hardly any for Obama. I don’t see all that many Romney signs either, though.

  • Re: Edie Eason – I wouldn’t put anything past Comrade Barry, or more precisely the Axelrod/Peoples’ Democratic Party inner cluster. The phrase “cyber security” keeps popping up lately . . . I won’t really relax until the Oath of Office is taken by a non-incumbent on Jan 20, 2013. And even then I’m not going to be totally off guard.

  • From Instapundit:
    “DEMOCRATS GONE WILD: Obama supporters ‘key’ cars displaying pro-Romney bumper stickers.” …
    Posted at 11:59 am by Ed Driscoll

    Young, footloose, and ‘care’free under the influence of media and – well … .

  • @Elaine:

    Thanks; need the boost. Think I will chalk it up to union politics (the unions have a proposal on the ballot. An important one) and the local democrats being amazingly organized. One of the funniest yard displays I’ve seen though is one for Obama, the democratic state representative, and then our representative to Washington. Obama and the local democrat are hard left; our representative to Washington is well to the right of middle.

  • Thanks WR Aiken, I did see that and that is the reason I wrote this article. I did not want on Election Night to say, I told you so when I didn’t do anything about it. My article is an attempt to spell out everything I have been seeing, reading and hearing around me. As I wrote in the article, I dare say Ohio isn’t the only state that fits the criteria of which I wrote.

    The anti-suburb and anti-rural pitch has been the clarion call of the far left for some time. This is not your Flower Power Left but a more aggressive and wealthly Left which I describe in my book; “The Catholic Tide Continues to Turn.” Whereas the old left admired the Berrigan Brothers, Father Cool and Sister Sunshine; this new left is fimly in the camp of Saul Alinsky and Richard Dawkins.
    http://www.aquinasandmore.com/catholic-books/catholic-tide-continues-to-turn/sku/94383

  • Pingback: The Catholicism of Joe Biden and Paul Ryan | The American Catholic
  • Hopefully there is political action aimed at convincing Catholic democrat voters to abstain from voting for Nobama. Even if they vote an otherwise democrat ticket. Direct action outside RC church’s on Sunday should urge Catholics to abstain on behalf of the Church. This could peel off enough votes to win the Ohio. Lets face it; blind loyalty prevents many old-timers from voting for any GOP canidate. But appealing to their conscience & love of Church might sway them & reduce turnout for the vile Nobama.

  • _________________________________________________________________________________

    FIRST THINGS FIRST: VOTE LIFE!
    _________________________________________________________________________________

    STRONG BISHOPS GIVE CLEAR, MORAL GUIDANCE TO CATHOLIC VOTERS

    “The question to ask is this: Are any of the candidates of either party, or independents, standing for something that is intrinsically evil, evil no matter what the circumstances? If that’s the case, a Catholic, regardless of his party affiliation, shouldn’t be voting for such a person.” – Archbishop William Lori, Diocese of Baltimore, Maryland

    Journalist: “is it ever licit for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? Is it ever valid?”

    “No. You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb. Where you don’t have a candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion (voters may) choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country. But you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes it should be available to everyone.” – Cardinal Raymond Burke

    “I certainly can’t vote for someone who’s either pro-choice or pro-abortion. Jesus tells us very clearly that if we don’t help the poor, we’re going to go to hell. But Jesus didn’t say the government has to take care of them, or that we have to pay taxes to take care of them. Those are prudential judgments. You can’t say that somebody’s not Christian because they want to limit taxation. To say that it’s somehow intrinsically evil like abortion doesn’t make any sense at all.” – Archbishop Charles Chaput, Diocese of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    “One might argue for different methods to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments, not intrinsic evils… You need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in jeopardy.” – Bishop Thomas Paprocki, Diocese of Springfield, Illinois

    “Other pieces of legislation touch on the building of a good and just society and may be open to prudential judgement, … (but) ‘Forming Consciences’ tells us that in the political debate today there is no other issue that rises to this level of moral certitude: Abortion is always wrong. To support political platforms that protect so-called ‘abortion rights’ is to participate in the inexorable conclusion: many, many innocent unborn children will be killed. Sometimes a single issue will be so important it overrides a whole range of lesser issues.” – Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, D.C.

    “Could a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion when there is another choice of another candidate who does not? Could a voter’s preference for the candidate’s positions on the pursuit of peace, economic policies, health care, etc., overcome a candidates support for legalized abortion? The Catholic voter must ask and answer the question: What could possibly be a proportionate reason for the more than 45 million children killed by abortion? We cannot conceive of such a proportionate reason.”- Archbishop Joseph Naumann & Bishop Roger Finn, Diocese of Kansas City, Kansas

    “In all of Church teaching, the Life issues, particularly the protection of unborn children against the crime of abortion, has to be our greatest priority. This is an ongoing slaughter of 4,000 children every single day for the last 40 years. If we support and promote persons who have pledged to extend it and intensify the slaughter, then we bear great responsibility with them.” – Bishop Robert Finn, Diocese of Kansas City, Kansas

    “A committed and convinced Catholic is always pro-life on the issue of abortion and euthanasia, and that includes in the voting booth.” – Archbishop Dennis Schnurr, Diocese of Cincinnati, Ohio

    “The failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful.” – _U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

  • The bishops calling to vote for “life” means that Catholics should vote for candidates that support quality life for impoverished, medically fragile, disabled, illiterate, marginalized, disenfranchised, and homeless in the way Jesus served humanity, right? Voting for candidates that support “pro-life” are the candidates who work to make things equitable and fair for people who are not born into privilege or luck. I am a Catholic “pro-life” who is supporting the Obama/Biden ticket because they support “life” for all Americans regardless of the way they come into this world.

  • “because they support “life” for all Americans regardless of the way they come into this world.”

    Actually they are against a great many Americans coming into this world at all, those whose mothers decide to slay them through child murder euphemized with the term abortion.

  • Pingback: Soon To Be Released Polls Show Religious & Midwest Voters Moving To Romney | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: When the Believer Loses Their Faith In The Religion Of Big Government | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Why Polling Skews Against Political & Religious Conservatives | The American Catholic