Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Trump Won with the Working Class Voters the GOP Forgot

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/Smyth

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

by JOHN HAYWARD10 May 20161,454

Where did all the Trump voters come from, and where did the Cruz evangelicals go?  One of the great mysteries of the 2016 primary is how so many assessments of the Republican electorate turned out to be wrong.  The primary electorate that gave us Donald Trump as the presumptive nominee was dramatically different from the one that chose Mitt Romney in 2012.

Jeb Bush thought there was a huge, quiescent moderate majority nostalgic for a return to the Bush era, or looking for a doggedly inoffensive candidate like himself, blessed with endorsements from all the right people and a campaign war chest so huge it was supposed to scare other candidates out of the race.  Senator Rand Paul thought the GOP’s libertarian moment had arrived, driven by young voters who were deeply concerned about privacy issues in the online era and weary of interventionist for Bush and Obama alike.  Senator Marco Rubio thought he had crossover appeal to every faction of the Republican Party and so much electability that GOP voters would be crazy to turn him down.  Governors like Rick Perry and Scott Walker thought voters in other states would be impressed by their successful resumes.

Most baffling was the miscalculation of Senator Ted Cruz, who was counting on a Southern conservative and evangelical firewall that should have made him an early front-runner.  Cruz had every reason to think those voters were out there and every reason to suppose they would be unwilling to support Donald Trump, on both moral and policy grounds.

Instead, Trump cleaned up with evangelicals, and his eventual victory in the primary was heralded by many observers as a death knell for “movement conservatism.”  At the very least, we were told, conservatives were in such disarray that they couldn’t unite around a candidate who could stop Trump, even though well over half the party didn’t want him as the nominee.

The alternative theory of Trump’s primary victory is that he’s bringing new voters into the Republican primaries, and it’s clearly not just a few saboteurs looking to set Hillary Clinton up with her preferred GOP opponent.

NBC News is the latest outlet to run a story on Trump bringing new voters into the GOP fold, noting that the 2016 Florida primary saw tens of thousands more votes cast than Mitt Romney’s take in the 2012 general election, and the lion’s share of the new votes went to Trump.  In Establishment-friendly Northeastern races, Ohio Governor John Kasich pulled vote totals comparable to Romney’s primary vote in 2012, but Trump’s new voters swamped him.

Mitt Romney, accompanied by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fl at the University of Miami, Wednesday, Oct. 31, 2012, in Coral Gables, Fla.
Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics suggested in January that neglected white working-class voters were coming back to the GOP after taking a pass on Mitt Romney in 2012.  Trende described them as “mostly lower-income, blue-collar voters who lived in areas that had also voted for Ross Perot,” who had been turned off by “Mitt Romney’s wealth and upper-class demeanor.”

As Trende noted, President Obama’s re-election campaign shrewdly exploited this sense of distance, through such measures as an Ohio ad blitz that rather blatantly asserted Romney was “not one of us,” while Obama’s friends in the media slammed Romney as “a car-elevator-owning businessman who made statements such as ‘I like being able to fire people.’”  (Notice how the same media is now serenely untroubled by the fabulous wealth and opulent lifestyle of Hillary Clinton, who somehow raked in multi-millions without any positive economic activity or job creation whatsoever, as detailed in “Clinton Cash.”)

“Missing voter” theories abound after big elections, because so much of the eligible American electorate consistently chooses not to vote.  With voter participation well under 60%, even in big presidential elections, the “missing electorate” is big enough to be a theoretical game-changer in virtually every race.  It’s arresting when a missing electorate returns, as Trende suggests is happening with Trump.

Along the way, he makes the point that Ted Cruz was fundamentally wrong about who the missing voters were, as he frequently quoted analysts who misunderstood what Trende was saying in his 2012 election post-mortem.

They weren’t evangelicals miffed that Mitt Romney was a Mormon, or a moderate.  The missing voters weren’t mainly conservative Christians at all, since Trende notes that that cohort has always maintained a level of voter participation far above the national average.  Many of the missing voters disengaged from politics long before 2012, and it’s mostly because they didn’t think either party had anything to offer them.

The key to understanding this theory is to remember that Ross Perot brought a lot of disengaged working-class people into politics too, and besides his famous disdain for deficit spending, the big planks in his platform were opposition to illegal immigration and criticism of big trade deals, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement, which both Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush supported.  In the second presidential debate in 1992, Perot famously spoke of “a giant sucking sound going south” to describe the effect NAFTA would have when American jobs went to Mexico.

advertisement

Ross Perot speaks at the “No To This NAFTA” rally on Saturday, Sept. 18, 1993 on the steps of the state Capitol in Lansing, MI. (AP Photo/Lennox McLendon)

It’s no surprise that Donald Trump is talking about NAFTA too, and getting a huge response at his campaign rallies, even as analysts on the Left and Right scratch their heads and wonder why he’s talking about a “settled issue” from two decades ago after Bill Clinton signed it into law.

To the missing voters, NAFTA has never been a settled issue, or a forgotten one.  They’re still hurting from the shift of jobs and opportunities out of the country.  They were told not to worry about it, because new high-tech jobs with better pay and working conditions would replace the “jobs Americans just won’t do”… and then thosejobs got sent overseas as well, or filled with H1-B visa workers.

There is a line of argument from free trade enthusiasts that insists such policies are good for the country overall.  We’re told that controlling legal immigration, or even cracking down on illegal immigration could significantly damage the U.S. economy.  These grand strategies overlook the fact that the people who have been getting clobbered for decades to provide this higher level of national prosperity are tired of being the designated losers.  On both the Left and Right, there is anger from people who believe they have been exploited to make others wealthy.  That’s the fundamental argument of liberal ideology, but Republican leaders really should have noticed when a substantial number of theirtraditional constituents began feeling that way.

These disaffected working-class people are especially weary of master plans that deliberately injure Americans for the benefit of big U.S. investors and foreign interests.  That’s why a willingness to speak frankly about immigration was such a powerful signal to the missing voters, a sign that Trump was aware of them, in a way that few other Republicans were.

Trump supporters at a Reno, Nevada, rally (AP Photo/Lance Iversen)

advertisement

The core element of any fair deal for neglected American workers is the acknowledgement that America exists, and its government understands that it has a unique responsibility to American citizens.  There is nothing inherently hostile or xenophobic about that understanding.  The put-upon citizens of the most open and generous country in the world are tired of being insulted as selfish and hateful for insisting our national priority should be our nation.

For decades now, our central government has asserted the wisdom and moral stature to pick “winners and losers.”  Those assertions are especially loud from Barack Obama, but he wasn’t the first to make them.  The people who feel they’ve been picked as losers, for generations, are tired of it.

Trende talked about the shifting “priorities” of these voters, which could go a long way toward explaining why Cruz didn’t get the support he was looking for in the South.  It’s not so much a question of those votersrejecting Constitutional conservatism, as their political priorities shifting to more immediate concerns.

They’re under attack by the federal government, and they want relief.  Intellectual discourse on the Constitutional basis for freedom of religious expression has less political value when the federal government is sending a battalion of lawyers to escort men into the women’s restroom.  They still care about our future of unsustainable government debt, but their more immediate concern is getting the economy moving for their regions and income brackets again.  Abstract discussion about the proper limits of government gives way to more concrete concerns: What will you do to bring the jobs back, nourish our wages back to health, and make us feel like something more than targets?

Romney got creamed because he couldn’t appeal to these disenfranchised working-class voters.  He should have been able to do it, because his message of creating a business-friendly environment where jobs could flourish was reasonable and consistent with what the missing voters want.  They’re looking for opportunity, not food stamps and welfare checks.

The problem was that Romney never made his message directly relevant to the alienated working class.  He didn’t speak their language or act like he personally cared about them, the way Trump does.  Romney was so thoroughly defined by the Obama campaign’s early attacks that he would have needed enormous populist charisma to overcome it.  He had no detectable populist energy at all.

Romney would bring a hundred entrepreneurs onstage to support him, but not their employees.  For some reason, it didn’t occur to his campaign that they could repel Obama’s foolish assault on venture capitalism by deploying an army of regular folks whose jobs had been saved by capital investment.  He took great umbrage at Obama’s “you didn’t build that” speech, http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/10/trump-won-working-class-voters-gop-forgot/

Monday, April 25, 2016

Exclusive Data Analysis: Donald Trump Wins More Than 2 Million More Votes Than Mitt Romney in 2012 in States Voting So Far -

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Breitbart



www.breitbart.com
Data compiled since the New York GOP primary shows that billionaire Donald Trump’s popular vote total in 2016 in states that have voted so far significantly exceeds the vote totals that Mitt Romney, the 2012 nominee, had in those states in total.
All in all, in the contests that have been had so far in 2016, Trump towers over Romney—having won more than 2 million more votes in the 2016 GOP primaries. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the next closest vote-getter to Trump this cycle, falls just under 300,000 votes short of Romney’s totals in the 2012 cycle.
In total, Trump has received 8,776,586 votes so far this year in states that have already held primaries or caucuses or conventions. In those same states in 2012, Romney received 6,654,029 votes—a whopping 2,122,557 votes less than Donald Trump. That means Trump has gotten a 31.79 percent increase over Romney’s totals.
Meanwhile, Cruz, in states that have voted already in 2016 has received an impressive 6,452,032 votes. While admirable, that’s still 201,977 votes less than Romney’s 2012 totals in those states—a decrease of 3.04 percent from Romney’s 2012 votes.
The analysis shows that of the nearly 40 contests so far, Trump’s 2016 vote totals have demolished Romney’s 2012 vote totals in most places.
In Alabama, for instance, Trump’s 373,721 votes in 2016 were 193,385 votes more than Romney’s 180,336 votes in 2012. In Arizona, Trump won 47,576 more votes than Romney. Trump beat Romney by more than 300,000 votes in the swing state of Florida—which Romney lost to President Obama in the general election in 2012—and Trump similarly outperformed the former Massachusetts Governor in the critical state of Ohio by more than the margin Romney lost Ohio to Obama in the general election. Trump, in the 2016 primary, won 713,404 votes in Ohio—252,573 more than Romney’s 460,831 in the 2012 primary. Romney lost Ohio to Obama in the general election in 2012 by only 166,214 votes. Trump even beat Romney in his home state of Massachusetts by more than 46,000 votes.
In Trump’s home state of New York, too, the real estate developer finished well more than four times better than Romney did four years earlier. Romney in 2012 only received 118,912 votes in the Empire State while Trump in 2016 received 515,091 votes.
The analysis shows national competitiveness on Trump’s part, meaning that like Romney—and better than Romney so far—Trump can win everywhere in the country, rather than just regionally like Cruz.
Trump outperformed Romney in the following states and territories: Alabama, Alaska,Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. It’s worth noting that Idaho went from a caucus in 2012 to a primary in 2016, so Trump probably got a boost in turnout due to that shift in system.
States and territories where Romney’s 2012 vote totals outperformed Trump’s 2016 totals were: Washington, D.C., Utah, North Carolina, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, Texas, Vermont, Wyoming, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It’s worth noting that D.C. went from a primary in 2012 to a convention in 2016, something that significantly decreases turnout. Kentucky went from a primary in 2012 to a caucus in 2016. Utah, a Mormon stronghold very favorable to Romney, also went from a primary in 2012 to a caucus in 2016. And while Romney did better than Trump in North Carolina, Trump still won the state back on March 15. What’s more, part of Trump finishing in 2016 lower than Romney in 2012 in the state of Texas is a result of Cruz being in the race—and being the U.S. Senator from Texas.
A Romney spokeswoman didn’t respond to a request for comment. Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who appeared on Breitbart News Saturday this weekend, made the point that Trump doing significantly better than Romney did—while Cruz isn’t doing better—is a good sign for the businessman should he make it to the general election.
“If Ted Cruz were to be nominated, there is no state that Mitt Romney lost last cycle that Ted Cruz can win. That’s not the case with Donald Trump,” Lewandowski said. He argued Trump could potentially win Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, New York, California, and Massachusetts in the general election, when Romney couldn’t in 2012. “We have the ability to expand the map,” Lewandowski said.
Cruz did finish higher than Romney in several states when comparing the Texas senator’s 2016 vote totals up against the former Massachusetts Governor’s 2012 totals, but not nearly as many as Trump did.
Cruz beat Romney in the following contests: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Again, with this one, the shift in Idaho’s system from 2012 caucuses to 2016 primaries probably benefitted Cruz just like it probably helped Trump’s totals versus Romney’s totals.
There are several more contests, however, where Romney’s 2012 numbers are much greater than Cruz’s 2016 finishes. They include: Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Nevada, the Northern Mariana and U.S. Virgin Islands.
Cruz has forged an alliance with Ohio Gov. John Kasich in upcoming states, in several of which including Oregon, Indiana and New Mexico they plan to collude to try to stop Trump. It’s unclear if they’ll be successful, especially if Trump continues on this tear he’s been on all year.
Breitbart News compiled this data analysis from information purchased from Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. That data, available at USElectionAtlas.org, is widely used by academics and media organizations including the New York Times, the Economist, Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, and many more reputable organizations. Technically, Breitbart News did not include Colorado in these totals for Trump, Cruz or Romney since voters in Colorado were not afforded an opportunity to be heard at a caucus or primary.
This is the second in a multi-part series in Breitbart News’ election metadata analysis. The first examined a massive spike in GOP primary turnout in 2016.
COMMENTS

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Romney sends out anti-Trump robo-calls for Rubio, Kasich | Fox News

Listen To Military Veteran Talk Radio


www.foxnews.com

Mitt Romney is blasting out robo-calls on behalf of Marco Rubio and John Kasich -- and against Donald Trump -- in the states voting Tuesday, marking his most direct appeal yet on behalf of any candidate since he delivered a scorching condemnation of Trump’s candidacy last week.
Voters are going to the polls Tuesday in Republican contests in Michigan, Mississippi, Idaho and Hawaii.
Romney’s team still insists the party’s 2012 presidential nominee is not endorsing any candidate, describing the latest robo-calls as more a bid to combat Trump than an indicator of support for Rubio or Kasich. Romney reportedly did pro-Rubio calls in all four states holding contests Tuesday, and recorded a pro-Kasich call in Michigan only. 
"Gov. Romney has offered and is glad to help Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Gov. John Kasich in any way he can,” a source close to Romney said in a statement. “He's been clear that he believes that Donald Trump is not the best person to represent the Republican Party and will do what he can to support a strong nominee who holds conservative values to win back the White House. "
Romney, though, is walking a fine line as he launches his anti-Trump campaign.
He insists he’s not endorsing anyone, and is not entering the race himself -- and only wants to boost Trump’s rivals in states where they have a chance of beating the Republican front-runner, with the apparent goal of depriving Trump of the delegates needed to clinch the nomination.
The robo-calls indeed are more about Trump than any rival candidate.
According to a copy of the pro-Rubio message obtained by The New York Times, which first reported the story, Romney indicates that he’s calling on behalf of Rubio and then urges voters to support “a candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton and who can make us proud.”
“If we Republicans were to choose Donald Trump as our nominee, I believe that the prospects for a safe and prosperous future would be greatly diminished — and I’m convinced Donald Trump would lose to Hillary Clinton,” Romney reportedly says.
Still, it’s unclear why Romney chose to record most the calls on behalf of Rubio. 
Rubio is trailing in the polls in Michigan -- which offers the biggest delegate prize among primaries being held on Tuesday. Trump has held the lead there, but faces the closest challenge from Ohio Gov. Kasich and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
Rubio has won only two of 20 contests to date – Puerto Rico and Minnesota – but is banking on winning his home state of Florida next Tuesday. Trump, though, continues to lead in the polls in the Sunshine State and is working hard to knock out Rubio next week.
Fox News’ Serafin Gomez and Jessica O'Hara contributed to this report.
COMMENTS

Poll: Mitt Romney Helped Donald Trump, More Voters Now More Likely to Support the Billionaire

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio


by ALEX SWOYER8 Mar 2016Washington, DC26
Former Republican Party nominee Mitt Romney’s speech last week, trashing GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, did little to dissuade voters from supporting the New York real estate mogul.
Thirty-one percent of Republican voters, after Romney called Trump “a phony,” said they are now more likely to cast a vote for Trump and 30 percent of the voters who supported Romney in 2012 said they are more likely to vote for Trump, according to a new Morning Consult poll released Tuesday.
Roughly 20 percent of GOP voters said they’re less likely to support Trump. Forty-three percent of the voters said they didn’t think Romney’s criticisms had an impact.
The Morning Consult poll also suggests Republican voters favor Trump over Romney, as the real estate mogul has a slightly higher favorability rating.
The poll suggests Trump has a 55-42 favorability rating, while the former Massachusetts governor’s favorability rating is 51-41.
Only five percent of Trump supporters polled said they are now less likely to support the frontrunner.
Despite Romney’s speech having little to no effect on Trump, the poll did find that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is closing in on the billionaire.
According to the poll, Cruz increased eight percentage points and is now within 17 points of Trump.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) remained in third place with 14 percent. Ohio Gov. John Kasich ranked fourth at 10 percent; however, his support has doubled since the previous poll.
The poll questioned 2,019 registered voters online from March 4th to March 6th. It has a margin of error of plus or minus two percent.
Read More Stories About:

Ted Cruz Receives Mitt Romney's Seal Of Approval (Where's the disavowal?)


Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

3/03/2016 | Brices Crossroads 

Posted on 3/3/2016, 4:12:53 PM by Brices Crossroads
Generally speaking, your enemies' actions will tell you who or what they fear. Mitt Romney's windy tirade, on behalf of the Establishment and against Donald Trump, is no different. The Establishment fears Donald Trump and not because he might lose. The Establishment is very adept at losing, having lost the popular vote in five of the last six Presidential elections. No. They are afraid of Donald Trump because they not only believe he might win; the actually believe he WILL win. His victory would end their gravy train and suspend, as well as expose to scrutiny, the rackets they have been involved in for the last quarter century. From the GOP Establishment's point of view, a Hillary Clinton victory is infinitely preferable to that.

I have listened for months now as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, among others, have repeatedly lumped Ted Cruz together with Donald Trump as the two threats for which, the Establishment has equal and unmitigated disdain. I think many of us knew that Ted Cruz was no threat to the Establishment but was a cog in its machinery. Willard Mitt Romney, the latest Establishment sacrificial lamb, has now revealed that Ted Cruz is, in fact, an Establishment operative in good standing. At his Trump bashing event, Romney said the following:

"If the other candidates can find common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism. Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state."


By giving Cruz his imprimatur, Romney provided a very valuable service to any voter who is torn between which of the two anti-Establishment candidates, Trump or Cruz, to support. The fact is there is, and always was, only one anti-Establishment candidate, and it was never Ted Cruz. Someone needs to let Rush and Sean know that they can now drop the line that Cruz is anti-Establishment. Unless, of course, Cruz wants to repudiate Romney's endorsement.

Come to think of it, since we are hearing many calls for repudiations of support/endorsements from this person or that group, perhaps it is not too bold to ask: Can we get a disavowal, Ted?
Didn't think so.

Seeing Trump as Unstoppable, GOP elites now eye a contested convention

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com


www.washingtonpost.com
PARK CITY, Utah — The presentation is an 11th-hour rebuttal to the fatalism permeating the Republican establishment: Slide by slide, state by state, it calculates how Donald Trump could be denied the nomination.
Marco Rubio wins Florida. John Kasich wins Ohio. Ted Cruz notches victories in the Midwest and Mountain West. And the results in California and other states are jumbled enough to leave Trump three dozen delegates short of the 1,237 required — forcing a contested convention in Cleveland in July.
The slide show, shared with The Washington Post by two operatives advising one of a handful of anti-Trump super PACs, encapsulates the newly emboldened view of many GOP leaders and donors. They see a clearer path to stopping Trump following his two losses and two narrower-than-expected wins on Saturday.
In private conversations in recent days at a Republican Governors Association retreat here in Park City and at a gathering of conservative policy minds and financiers in Sea Island, Ga., there was an emerging consensus that Trump is vulnerable and that a continued blitz of attacks could puncture the billionaire mogul’s support and leave him limping onto the convention floor.
But the slow-bleed strategy is risky and hinges on Trump losing Florida, Illinois and Ohio on March 15; wins in all three would set him on track to amass the majority of delegates. Even as some party figures see glimmers of hope that Trump could be overtaken, others believe any stop-Trump efforts could prove futile.
This moment of confusion for the Republican Party is made more uncertain by the absence of a clear alternative to Trump. Cruz, Rubio and Kasich each are collecting delegates and vowing to fight through the spring. Among GOP elites, the only agreed-upon mission is to minimize Trump’s share of the delegates to enable an opponent to mount a credible convention challenge.
“It’s one thing if [Trump] goes to the convention and he’s got 48 percent, 49 percent of the delegates,” Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam, a Rubio supporter, said in an interview here. “Then it’s a hard thing to see if there’s a convention floor battle. But if he goes to the convention and he’s got 35 or 40 percent, that’s a whole different thing.”
Other governors voiced exasperation not only at the prospect of a Trump nomination, but at the political culture that gave rise to his candidacy.
“We’ve got this Enquirer magazine mentality,” Utah Gov. Gary Herbert said in an interview. “We are subject to this reality TV voyeurism that is taking place. Fast-food headlines, no substance, all flash. The Twitter atmosphere out there, snarky comments on email, Snapchat. Everything is superficial.. . .We’ve got to wake up, America.”
Similar conversations were underway in Sea Island, where the American Enterprise Institute think tank held a policy forum.
“Despite the fact that the story right now is panic in the streets, throw the baby out the window and hope the firefighter catchers her. . .hope springs eternal,” said Arthur C. Brooks, the AEI president. “Nothing is inevitable.”
Trump could get a bounce on Tuesday with the Michigan and Mississippi primaries, which he is expected to win though there are signs of tightening. But next Tuesday is seen as the more decisive moment, with winner-take-all Florida as ground zero — and where polls show Trump’s lead slipping.
The “Stop Trump” movement’s leading super PAC, Our Principles PAC, is adopting what its operatives call a “surround sound” strategy in Florida: More than $3 million in television advertisements, plus direct mail pieces, digital ads, phone banking and emails — all designed to sow doubts about Trump’s character, convictions and fitness for office.
“There is now a silver bullet,” said Brian Baker, a strategist involved with planning the super PAC’s activities. “It’s the cumulative effect of all of these messages.”
Baker also advises the political work of the billionaire Ricketts family, whose matriarch, Marlene, gave $3 million in seed money to Our Principles PAC. Baker and Michael Meyers, president of TargetPoint Consulting, developed the delegate count slide show that was shared with The Post.
Our Principles PAC is also eyeing an aggressive push into Ohio, where Kasich is governor, and has prepared a possible television ad casting Trump as an outsourcer because his branded clothing is made in China and Bangladesh, the group’s advisers said.
Katie Packer, the super PAC’s president, said, “His path to 1,237 goes through Florida, Ohio and Illinois. If he can’t win at least two of those places, it’s going to be very, very tough for him to get to 1,237.”
The super PAC is attracting new donors, including Randy Kendrick, wife of the Arizona Diamondbacks owner, who said she was moved to act by Trump’s provocative rhetoric. “Dictators arose because good people did not stand up and say, ‘It’s wrong to scapegoat minorities,’” Kendrick said.
Some party establishment figures are assisting the super PAC, including former New Hampshire governor John Sununu, who confirmed that he has been calling friends urging them to make donations.
A separate group, American Future Fund, also is trying to take Trump down on the Florida airwaves with $2.75 million in a series of ads there. Some spots feature people who claim they were duped by Trump University while others star veterans speaking out against him or characterize some of Trump’s business associates as shady.
A third group, Club for Growth, is advertising against Trump in Florida and Illinois and is assessing a possible barrage in Ohio as well. David McIntosh, the Club for Growth’s president, said donors recently were hesitant to fund anti-Trump ads, but have come around the past couple of weeks.
“After South Carolina, I got questions — ‘Can he be stopped? You’re running a fool’s errand,’” McIntosh said. “My answer was, ‘It worked [in Iowa], and even more importantly, it has to be done. We can’t just cede this ground.”
Trump retaliated Monday with atough ad depicting Rubio as a fraud and ticking through the greatest hits in the senator’s opposition research file. The narrator calls Rubio, “another corrupt, all-talk, no-action politician.”
For Cruz and his allies, the intensity of the anti-Trump ad campaign is welcome relief. Their main target, at least in Florida, is Rubio, hoping that a home-state loss would force him to drop out.
“There is so much anti-Trump messaging out there, it’s flooded,” said Kellyanne Conway, president of Keep the Promise I, a pro-Cruz super PAC. “What could we say that isn’t out there?”
Some Republican donors are not on board with trashing Trump, however.
“There’s a group that thinks, look, Trump is likely to be inevitable here and let’s not tarnish him,” said Fred Malek, the RGA’s finance chairman.
Strategist Liz Mair said she has found it difficult to convince many donors to pony up to Make America Awesome, her anti-Trump super PAC.
“Republican donors are acting like the parents of teenage alcoholics,” Mair said. “They see all the signs of problems, but they don’t really want to admit and address the problem because that would entail them acknowledging that they didn’t do the right things along the way.”
Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, who met with many donors in Park City over the weekend, said he heard “a lot of concern” about the GOP’s fracturing.
“There’s people that always say, ‘You’ve got to go negative,’ and I really struggle with that,” Otter said in an interview. “To, in a gentlemanly way or a lady-like way, point out the other person’s record is one thing. But to get into some kind of a name-calling deal I don’t think is very beneficial.”
But Haslam, the Tennessee governor, reiterated the urgency of slowing Trump now before he accumulates too many delegates. Otherwise, party elites risk the appearance of trying to steal the nomination from him at the convention.
“That is probably the most dangerous situation for the Republican Party,” Haslam said. “If he gets there with not a majority but close to a majority of the [delegates] and doesn’t get the nomination, that’ll be very difficult. He could say, ‘I’m going to ask all of my folks to sit this one out to show them how big we are.’ Who knows?”
Matea Gold in Washington contributed to this report.
COMMENTS

Monday, March 7, 2016

Mitt Romney won’t rule out accepting GOP nomination at contested convention

We also talked about this in great detail on Sunday night show listen to SmythRadioadio for all the breaking details.


By S.A. Miller - The Washington Times
Sunday, March 6, 2016


Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, refused Sunday to rule out becoming the nominee again this year at a brokered convention, though he insisted he couldn’t imagine that happening.
“I don’t think anyone in our party should say, ‘Oh no, even if the people of the party wanted me to be president, I would say no to it.’ No one is going to say that,” Mr. Romney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press
Speculation abounded that Mr. Romney was setting himself up for a surprise nomination last week when he unleashed a brutal denouncement of front-runner Donald Trump, urging voters to support anyone but the billionaire real estate mogul in upcoming primaries to force a contested convention this summer in Cleveland, Ohio.
Mr. Romney lambasted Mr. Trump as “a fraud, a phony” in a speech Thursday. “He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat.”
On the Sunday talk show, Mr. Romney said he isn’t running and plans to endorse one of Mr. Trump’s three rivals — either Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Ohio Gov. John Kasich or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
“I can tell you this: I’m not a candidate. I’m not going to be a candidate. I am going to be endorsing one of the people who is running for president,” he said. “One of the four is going to be the Republican Party nominee. Three of the four are people I would endorse. But I’m not running and I’m not going to be running

SIKHS AND MUSLIMS Hold Rally in DC in Support of DONALD J. TRUMP

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio

Jim Hoft Mar 7th, 2016 12:25 am
Sikhs and Muslims gathered in a suburb of Washington DC this weekend.
They group supports Donald J. Trump for President.
Muslims and Sikhs join the Trump Train–

The group had “Muslims for Trump” and Sikhs for Trump” signs made for the event.
A representative of the Trump campaign addressed the gathering.
The event organizer told reporters, “We agree with Donald Trump” and that, “We should not bring people into the country before we can vet them.”
IBN Live reported on the event.
A group of Sikhs and Muslims mostly from South Asian countries have joined the Donald Trump bandwagon in the US state of Maryland, asserting that the Republican presidential frontrunner is “not against” their communities.
Under the banner of “Sikh Americans for Trump” and “Muslim Americans for Trump” scores of Sikhs and Muslims held their first meeting in a suburb of Washington DC in Maryland, wherein a representative from the Trump campaign addressed them.
Organisers of the event – from both the Sikh and Muslim communities – argued that the view of Trump about minority community has been “twisted” and “taken out of context” by the mainstream media and claimed that the 69-year-old billionaire real estate magnet would create more jobs in the country which would benefit he minorities.
“He (Trump) is not at all against the Sikhs or the Muslim community. What he says is given spin. The mainstream media gives a spin. Because they are scared of him. He is not the status quo. He is not taking anybody’s money,” said Jasdip Singh, who helped organised the “Sikh Americans for Trump” in Maryland.
A prominent member of the Sikh community, Singh is Chairman of the Maryland Governor’s Commission on South Asian Affairs and Chairman of the Board of Sikh Associations of Baltimore.
“When he talks about Muslims, he does not talk about all Muslims or American Muslims. He spoke in the context of the refugee crisis that was happening in Syria. We (Sikhs) agree with him. Muslim (Americans) agree with him that we should not bring people into this country before we can vet them. And this was a temporary measures proposed by him,”Singh said.

Thursday, March 3, 2016

Some in Crowd ‘Excited’ for Romney; Others Say ‘Abhorrent’

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Joel Pollak / Breitbart News
by JOEL B. POLLAK3 Mar 20161,538
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah — Hundreds of people stood outside in line for over an hour to attend Mitt Romney’s speech at the University of Utah against Donald Trump — and not all of them were happy with Romney’s intervention in the presidential race.
“I find it abhorrent that Mitt Romney would pull this stunt,” said “Max,” a Trump supporter wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat, who did not want to be named.
“After the support that Trump gave Romney in 2012, this is just absolutely hypocritical and below the Republican Party. It’s below the Democrats, for that matter.”
Others, however, were happy to hear Romney’s perspective.
“I wish Romney would run,” said Andrew Drechsel, 32, of Salt Lake City, saying he looked forward to hearing Romney’s rebuke to the “kids” in the GOP. He added, however, that he is supporting 
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
16%
 for president: “I would never vote Republican.”
Paul Garder, 69, of Park City, is also a Sanders supporter — but he was unhappy with Romney’s appearance.
“It’s just another episode of the Republican clown show. I’m astonished that after his poor showing in 2012 that Romney would suggest Trump will do a worse job.”
University of Utah student Catherine Warner, 19, is a supporter of 
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
97%
 and was excited to hear Romney speak.
“In my dream, he would endorse Ted Cruz,” she told Breitbart News. But since that was unlikely, she said, she hoped Romney would hint at joining the race, because it might slow Trump.
Navy veteran and history student Andrea Bryant, 30, who described her views as libertarian, said her expectations for Romney’s speech were low.
“I thought he might endorse Rubio. But if he does now, it is too little, too late.”
She noted that Romney’s new toughness against Trump had been lacking in his own campaign. “This is a departure from how I wish he would have been in 2012.”
“Max,” meanwhile, wanted to sent a message to the former Massachusetts governor.
“I want him to see this,” he said, pointing to his hat. “I want him to know that there are people here who disagree.”

Romney calling Trump 'phony,' urging Republicans to shun him

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
bigstory.ap.org
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney charged into the increasingly divisive 2016 GOP White House sweepstakes Thursday with a harsh takedown of front-runner Donald Trump, calling him a "phony" and exhorting fellow Republicans to shun him for the good of the country and party.
"His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University," Romney said in a speech readied for delivery to a University of Utah audience.
In turning up the rhetoric, Romney cast his lot with a growing chorus of anxious Republican leaders — people many Trump supporters view as establishment figures — in trying to slow the New York real estate mogul's momentum.
"Here's what I know: Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud," Romney said in his talk, set for delivery later Thursday.
Trump, in turn, disparaged Romney in a series of tweets: "I am not a Mitt Romney, who doesn't know how to win," ''Romney, who ran one of the worst races in presidential history, is working with the establishment to bury a big 'R' win!" and Romney is "not a good messenger" to be telling Republicans how to get elected.
Romney has been chipping away at Trump in recent days, but the speech Thursday was certain to be his most forceful statement yet. Trump has responded to Romney by saying the former Massachusetts governor was a failed candidate in his own right.
Panicked GOP leaders say they still have options for preventing the billionaire from winning the GOP nomination — just not many good ones.
Romney also declares that a Trump nomination at the party's convention in Cleveland in July would enable Democrat Hillary Clinton to win the presidency, according to excerpts of his speech obtained by The Associated Press.
He charged that Trump "has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president."
In a phone-in interview Thursday with "Good Morning America," Trump scoffed at Romney's charges and declared that "I've brought millions and millions of people ..into the Republican Party."
"The Republican establishment is going to give it all back," he added.
Romney's involvement comes as party elites pore over complicated delegate math, outlining hazy scenarios for a contested convention and even flirting with the long-shot prospect of a third party option.
The 2012 Republican nominee's speech marks his most aggressive step into the 2016 contest to date, but it was unclear what impact his words would have with voters deeply frustrated by their party's leaders.
Trump, meanwhile, was setting his sights on the general election. His campaign reached out to House Speaker Paul Ryan's office to arrange a conversation between the two men, and urged Republican leaders to view his candidacy as a chance to expand the party.
Trump padded his lead with victories in seven Super Tuesday contests, with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz claiming three states and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio picking up his first victory of the 2016 race.
Despite Trump's strong night, he was not yet on track to claim the nomination before the party's national gathering in July, according to an Associated Press delegate count. He has won 46 percent of the delegates awarded so far, and he would have to increase that to 51 percent in the remaining primaries.
GOP strategists cast March 15 as the last opportunity to stop Trump through the normal path of winning states and collecting delegates. A win for Rubio in his home state of Florida would raise questions about Trump's strength, as could a win for Kasich, Ohio's governor, on his home turf.
The candidates have a high-profile opportunity to make their case to voters in Thursday night's prime-time debate. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson all but ended his bid Wednesday, saying he would skip the debate and declaring he did "not see a political path forward."
The GOP mayhem contrasted sharply with a clearer picture on the Democratic side, where Hillary Clinton was drawing broad support from voters and her party's leaders. Rival Sen. Bernie Sanders vowed to keep up the fight, though his path to the nomination has become exceedingly narrow.
Romney argues that Trump's "domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe," Romney says. "And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill."
The Associated Press has asked Republican governors and senators if they would support Trump if he becomes the party's nominee. Of the 59 respondents, slightly fewer than half could not commit to backing him in November.
One long-shot idea rumbling through power corridors in Washington was the prospect of a late third-party candidate to represent more mainstream conservatives. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been approached by "a mixture of people" about being part of a third-party bid, according to Jeff Miller, who managed Perry's failed GOP presidential campaign. But Miller said Perry found the idea "ludicrous."
A more likely, though still extraordinarily unusual, scenario being discussed is a contested convention.
___
Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Julie Bykowicz, Stephen Ohlemacher and Donna Cassata contributed to this report.
COMMENTS

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Trump Has Won More Votes Than Romney Had At This Point in 2012



Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com



And many more than McCain had in 2008, too.
8:07 AM, FEB 24, 2016 | By ETHAN EPSTEIN
Donald Trump has yet to win an outright majority in a primary or caucus – though he's getting closer, pulling in 46 percent of the vote in Nevada. But he's winning massive numbers of votes.
Mitt Romney won Nevada's caucus in 2012 with about 50 percent of the vote. He did so by pulling in roughly 16,000 total votes – roughly the same number that second-placefinisher Marco Rubio pulled in this year. Donald Trump, by contrast, more thandoubled Romney's total, garnering 34,500 votes.
That pattern has played out across all of the early states, which are seeing huge Trump-inspired (and, at some level, anti-Trump-inspired) turnout.
Advertisement
2015 Cadillac SRX SUV Piles on Affordable Luxury - CraveOnline
Promoted by Cadillac 
All told, Trump has now won approximately 420,000 votes. After the first four states had voted in 2012, Mitt Romney had won about 311,000 votes. Back in 2008, meanwhile, eventual nominee John McCain had won a little more than 250,000 votes after Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada had voted.
Before the primaries got underway in earnest, many assumed that Trump would fare more poorly than his poll numbers indicated because so many of his supporters had rarely voted in the past. But with this election, the past has not been a reliable predictor of future events.

Sunday, March 2, 2014

America called and they want their country back !!!!

1980 is calling for their foreign policy back.??? Russia is not a threat, What the hell is Obama talking about or does he not even know. The arrogance of this bastard is suffocating and someone needs to call him out every single day.

 Congress needs to do their job and impeach this empirical ass hole. 



Hey America called and they want their country back. 


Sunday, December 30, 2012

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead, American anthropologist (1901-1978)

Rush


Monday, November 12, 2012

Obama Log #1: "Fiscal Cliff Looming?"

This will be my first of many (possibly thousands) of short posts on SickBias.com where I will log events, facts and news reports that support my theories of Barack Obama being a horrible choice for president, especially when you consider Mitt Romney was our alternative.

Today's topic is "The Fiscal Cliff"

Forbes does a good enough job explaining what exactly the fiscal cliff is in their article in this link, but what leaves me scratching my head is this simple question: If this problem is so important just days after the presidential election that both FoxNews and MSNBC have the topic dominating their coverage then why was this issue never brought up during the campaign season? Were they so distracted that they are just now thinking of this? Experts all agree that the fiscal cliff is going to directly effect the American economy, so why then in a presidential campaign that seemed to revolve around the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid!" did this suddenly-so-important topic get left out?

Some may argue that all those people most concerned with the economy were certain that Romney was going to win, and a President Romney would have fixed problems like this, just as he fixed budget problems in both the state of Massachusetts and the Olympics in 2004, Salt Lake City. But he is not, and will not be our fiscal savior, so all of the sudden this has become a major issue. Well that's just pathetic. It should have been part of our choice on election day - a vote for Obama is a vote for sending America off a cliff. It was withheld from the voters. We were no more informed in 2012 than we were when we voted for the stranger nobody knew about in 2008.

So for this first Obama Log, I would like to sum up by sarcastically saying thank you to all the Obama voters for putting us in this crisis. Because we all know good and well that an election of the successful businessman and former successful governor of Massachusetts would not have resulted in the domination of a "Fiscal Cliff" in the headlines. So if the "fiscal cliff" is such an important issue then why didn't you just cut out the middle man and support Romney for president?

Saturday, November 10, 2012

I'm Really Not a Conspiracy Theorist, But...

If any of you reading this are true conspiracy theorists, please don't try to friend me. I generally don't get along with your types because the way you connect dots is ridiculous, your facts are usually made up and your conclusions are at best leaps of faith.

That being said, why did gas go up $0.42 in one single jump at all gas stations at midnight the night of election November 6, 2012? I'm sorry I don't have before and after pictures. It wouldn't even be believable. I never subscribed to the all-powerful, secret "Gas Price Czar" that sends down orders to all gas stations what the prices are to be, but after last Wednesday, there cannot be any other explanation that He exists and that Obama had corrupted this mystery man to help get him elected. The thing is, gas price spikes and dips are very predictable. When oil goes up, gas follows one to two weeks. When oil goes down, oil follows. When there is a problem in the Middle East, gas spikes up pretty quickly - usually within a couple of days. When there is a hurricane in an area that has off-shore drilling, there is usually a pretty quick spike in price. But Hurricane Sandy did the opposite. Before Sandy hit, oil refineries were shut down so gas production stopped, but there was so much devastation, that gas demand dropped enough to cause gas to go down. We saw this. It happened as expected. Gas in my neighborhood gradually dropped from $3.49 all the way down to $3.07 over the course of about a week immediately after Sandy hit. Late Tuesday evening, gas was between $3.07-3.09 at all gas stations. Very early Wednesday morning, gas at my local station was $3.49. Now NORMALLY when gas moves that much that quickly there is ALWAYS another station nearby that still has the old price. Not every gas station changes at the exact same time - in fact I've seen spans of up to 36 hours where nearby stations have not yet adjusted to a major change in gas prices.

Not Wednesday after the election. With absolutely zero warning, nothing in the news, no change in oil price, no terrorist attacks and no new hurricanes or any other news that would warrant a significant change in gas price, every single gas station, all within several hours (maybe minutes) popped their price by 40-42 cents. Am I the only one that feels like there is something very fishy about that?


In other conspiracy news, can someone explain to me why more Mormons would vote for John McCain in 2008 than for the Mormon, Mitt Romney in 2012? Please find a plausible explanation for this apparent fact...

Will She Survive?

My mother was bitten by a deadly snake a while ago. While her health was failing due to the venom coursing through her body, a doctor came running with a single vile of the antidote. He tripped and fell, smashing the bottle to the ground. Now my mother is at the fate of her own body being able to power through and rid it of this deadly toxin, or die trying.

This is an honest-to-God true story...

if by "mother" I mean "country,"

if by "bitten by a" I mean "plagued by the election of,"

if by "deadly snake" I mean "Barack Obama,"

if by "a while ago" I mean "four years ago,"

if by "health" I mean "economy,"

if by "venom" I mean "socialism,"

if by "coursing through her body" I mean "being implemented,"

if by "a doctor" I mean "American patriots,"

if by "a single vile of antidote" I mean "candidates Romney and Ryan,"

if by "he tripped and fell" I mean "the concerned citizens failed on election day,"

if by "smashing the bottle to the ground" I mean "eliminating any hope of reversing the effects of socialism being implemented,"

if by "her own body" I mean "the strength and will of freedom loving Americans."


Will she survive?

Thursday, November 8, 2012

The New Silent Majority

Barack Obama has just been reelected president by a majority of the U.S. population. Although this comes as no surprise to those at MSNBC, I must point out that this win bucks a whole lot of conventional wisdom on polls and turnout. Liberal commentators, pundits, journalists and Obama campaign officials spent the entire month of October pointing to polls that Obama had slight leads in nearly all battleground states. The election results proved the liberals right. But that doesn't mean all the conservatives that claimed that the polls were wrong were deliberately trying to be misleading. In fact their claims had so much merit, it lead me to believe that it was the democrats that were living in Fantasy Land. During October, I looked further into it and it turns out the polls were based on a methodology that included the belief that even though independents were breaking for Romney, a massive turnout of democrats very similar to 2008 was going to make up the difference.

Conservatives had plenty of reasons to be skeptical. First of all 2008 was an historic election for the ages. Supporters of Obama were going to vote for America's first black president. There was so much hope in the air it was electric. The numbers of young, minority and women voters that showed up in 2008 was overwhelming compared to any election before it. People who never voted in their life wanted to be a part of history. Then there was the 2010 election. The newly formed conservative tea party turned out to oust huge numbers of democrats in the house and senate. It seemed to most experts that the election of 2008 was an anomaly. Conservatives were convinced that the polling methodology for 2012 was wrong.

But wait! There's more!

The conventional wisdom of polling statistics was not the only thing that made conservatives skeptical of a huge 2008-like turnout. There was also obvious visual clues as well. In the last month of campaigning, both candidates held many rallies, almost every single day. In the last week there were several rallies per day for both candidates. One of the big stories reported by reputable conservative news organizations both on television and on the internet was that there was a huge difference in turnout to the rallies of Obama verses the rallies of Romney. It was reported that the Romney campaign had to move his scheduled events to larger venues because of the overwhelming turnout. I heard crowds as large as 30,000 were driving in from hundreds of miles away to get in to see what they believe was going to be their future president. By the end of the campaign, Romney was calling it "a movement." At the same time it was told that the Obama campaign was struggling to scrape together a couple thousand people. Reports of half empty venues were all over the place. One conservative article claimed an Obama rally featuring a concert by Stevie Wonder managed to muster up only 200 people! It doesn't help that the liberal news organization were silent about rally numbers. So while it may not be scientific, the reported rally numbers really made many feel like the momentum, energy and excitement was definitely on Romney's side.

More anecdotal evidence:

The visual evidence was not limited to rallies. I live in a swing county of a swing state. A strong argument can be made that Hamilton County, Ohio elects presidents of the United States. We voted for Bush twice and Obama twice. That's where I live and work. I drive all over the county all day, every day. In 2000, yard signs were equally divided between Bush and Gore supporters. In 2004, Bush signs were much more numerous than Kerry signs. In 2008, Obama signs totally overwhelmed McCain signs. This year, Romney signs absolutely dominated Obama signs. I can't speak for the rest of America and what kind of support they display on their residences, but here it is generally loud and proud, and this year the louder support in a county that is a microcosm of the rest of the country was loudest for Romney.

Last but not least...

I am a chronic Yahoo! user. Don't get me wrong - do not think for a second that in my quest for intellectual punishment, my choice of torture device is in any way an endorsement of such a device. I have grown to love to hate Yahoo! and everything their editorial staff stands for. Once you get beyond that, I am hopelessly addicted to their comments section. This is not a new development either. I was a notorious troll on the old Y! Message Boards before it got shut down, gutted and transformed to Y! Answers. These days, the public gets their fix of trolling in the comments section of Yahoo's front page articles. Its extremely popular, and I became convinced over the years that you can use the overall attitude of the collective posts as a bellwether for predicting actions of Americans. For example, back around 2005-2007 I could truly tell that Bush's popularity was waning. The more popular posts (based on their ratio of thumbs up to thumbs down) were mostly anti-Bush posts, and the overall percentage of pro-Bush posts was getting smaller and smaller. Then of course we saw the landslide election of 2006 against Republicans. In 2008 the comments were mostly pro-Obama, or anti-Bush, which of course led to the huge Obama win coupled with the election of the Democrat super-majorty in Congress. In 2010, I saw slightly more comments on Yahoo of pro-tea party types. It was only "slightly" because Yahoo comments section have always been a safe-haven for liberals, as many of the most popular news sources online have become by that time.

Fast forward to October, 2012: Following the debates, the comments section of Yahoo has become more one-sided than I have ever seen them - but not for the liberals. It has been flooded with conservatives earning hundreds of thumbs-ups for pro-Romney and anti-Obama posts. As far as I was concerned, this alone was an indication of a landslide for Romney. There was also the incumbent presiding over the worst economy of our generation, the foreign policy missteps of Benghazi, and to put the icing on the cake, the last few days of the campaign included a Hurricane Sandy that was very quickly looking like a debacle for Obama.

All the conventional wisdom was pointing towards the polls being wrong. How could a majority of independents be for Romney while the overall numbers were showing Obama ahead? How could this be while everything I can see with my eyes and hear with my ears says that most people are going to vote for Romney? How was it that the polls ended up being right on election day despite the conventional wisdom of presidential elections in years past?

The New Silent Majority

The answer is that there were many millions of people who voted for Obama that never put up a yard sign. They either didn't ever log into Yahoo, or stopped posting comments. They were quietly waiting in the shadows and pounced on election day. The are the "Silent Majority". Wait, what? For those not familiar with the phrase, the Silent Majority has in recent history been that large group of politically silent people that largely voted Republican on election day. For more information on the old Silent Majority, click here. The group of Obama voters that proved the polls right on election day are "The New Silent Majority." The question as to whether or not this is an Obama phenomenon or whether it is the new norm for the Democratic Party will not become apparent until the election of 2014.

As I write this, I am listening to Rush Limbaugh express his opinion that the reason Romney lost was because of a lack of turnout of the Republican Base. As of right now, based on what I have said about rally turnout, "Mittmentum," the movement, etc. I am rejecting that claim. Conservatives were fired up about the possibility of ousting Obama and replacing him with anyone. While conservatives were skeptical of Mitt for a long time, his performance in the debates really truly excited conservatives. Besides, just one day prior, Rush was talking about how the election results were a trend, not an anomaly. I'm not writing off the theory, but if Rush is correct, then I would have to write another article explaining how so many indicators pointed to a huge conservative turnout, but it just simply didn't happen on election day. For now, you can just know that it was the New Silent Majority.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

America has lost her way.

  As I look back at the last few months leading up to the election of 2012 I am perplexed as to how the fuck the majority of the America people could not for the life of themselves see that the emperor has no clothes.  He was elected on hope and change and the promise of a new day and the people bought it hook line and sinker.  He ran his second campaign based on hate and revenge and the people bought it hook line and sinker because they wouldn't have bought the old message.  Why wouldn't they have bought the old message ?  The simple answer, "cause it never came true", it was all smoke and mirrors.  There was never any hope and change unless you consider moving America to a communist state.  We now live in a country where the majority of people feel like victims and that the government owes them a life and that hard work and perseverance will never pay off.  We live in a world where ignorant children think that the way you make it big in this world is by accident or coincidence.  Where American idol, America's got talent or Britain's got talent is how you make it big and none of the winners worked their ass off to be who they are. It is sick to think that the media in America is also pushing this as reality.  Ive lost faith in the American people to do what is right not what you want but what is best for the world not your individual selfishness.  Shame on everyone of you fools that voted to line your pockets with hard working Americans money.  Damn you thieves  damn you.