Update: The final Susquehanna Polling & Research Poll shows a 47-47% tie heading into the Tuesday election. Romney is seen slightly more favorable (+4) than Obama (+1). Adding to Romney’s advantage is that an overwhelming 71% place economic and fiscal issues as their top concern, and 56% believe the nation is headed on the wrong track. Romney campaigns in Pennsylvania Sunday afternoon.
Original: Mitt Romney and Republican allies have suddenly poured more than $10 million into Pennsylvania to fund a late push by the presidential challenger. Two weeks ago, a poll by Susquehanna Polling and Research showed Mitt Romney leading Barack Obama by four points in the Keystone State, 49-45%. (Note: a previous edition of this article incorrectly stated that the 49-45% Romney lead was this week’s poll).
In what could prove to be a brilliant campaign move, the Romney campaign hid details of a Sunday campaign appearance in Pennsylvania until after the Obama team released their final campaign schedule. Critics have been dismissing Susquehanna’s tight polling for over a month based on little more than the fact that a Republican presidential candidate hasn’t won Pennsylvania since the 1980s. George W. Bush came close, however, in both of his campaigns. Republicans also took the US Senate seat and Governor’s mansion in 2010, despite Pat Toomey being called “unelectable” by the media.
If Romney wins Pennsylvania, the race is over. If the Obama campaign and the media ignore Susquehanna’s polling, they do so at their peril. Let’s take a quick look at the three most recent major statewide races in Pennsylvania, and how Susquehanna fared compared to their polling counterparts:
2010 US Senate Race – Susquehanna was the only pollster to nail Pat Toomey’s two-point margin of victory over Joe Sestak. The media-despised Rasmussen Reports was second closest (two points off), while Quinnipiac and Public Policy Polling (the “real” pollsters) were off by three points.
2010 PA Governor’s Race – Republican Tom Corbett won the race by eight points, 54-46. Susquehanna polled the race within one point, showing Corbett winning by seven points. Rasmussen, PPP, and Quinnipiac reported the same margin, resulting in a four-way tie in correctly predicting the race.
2008 Presidential Contest – For those shocked at seeing Obama trailing Mitt Romney by four points in the latest Pennsylvania poll, the same polling outfit had Obama defeating McCain by 8 points four years ago. Obama won by 10. Although their final poll was done two weeks before election day, they actually polled within two points of the final results, along with PPP, Quinnipiac, and Survey USA. The results were closer than other state polls done by Rasmussen, ARG, Marist, and Morning Call.
This is huge in Ohio as Josh Mandel is now tied with Sherrod Brown. This would be a huge win for republicans who didn’t count this seat as one of the many that were in play.
The U.S. Senate race in Ohio remains a close one.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Ohio Voters shows Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown and his Republican challenger Josh Mandel each earning 48% support. Two percent (2%) like some other candidate, and another two percent (2%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Read more at The Hill.com
One of the most liberal papers in Long Island New York, Newsday, which endorsed Obama in 2008 and Kerry in 2004, has flipped the script and endorsed Mitt Romney for president of the United States. Newsday has a circulation of 377,500 and is the 11th-highest ranked paper. It is the highest among suburban newspapers.
The paper says:
Had Barack Obama done the job of president with the same passion and vision he displayed in seeking it, he would likely deserve another term. He did not.
Obama‘s failure to accelerate the improvement of the economy is the dominant reason Romney is the right choice, but it’s not the only one. There are also the broken promises. On the campaign trail in 2008, Obama promised to halve the annual budget deficit of the United States. Instead, the shortfall has remained over $1 trillion per year, and the national debt has increased about 45 percent.
Obama said he would pass comprehensive immigration reform, but he never made a significant attempt to address it.
He said future generations would look back on his election as the time we began to slow the rise of the oceans and hasten the healing of the planet, yet he never introduced meaningful legislation aimed at achieving those goals.
Obama promised a transparent administration but instead ran a secretive White House. And Obama promised a newfound respect for civil liberties, and yet, in an expansive reading of congressional authority to use military force, he has authorized the unilateral assassination of American citizens abroad.
Obama promised to drive the unemployment rate below 6 percent in four years. It sits at 7.9 percent, just above the level when he was inaugurated.
This is just the latest in a long line of traditionally liberal leaning papers to break from Obama and endorse Mitt Romney.
According to the University of California, Santa Barbara American Presidency Project study of the top 100 newspaper editorial endorsements, Mitt Romney has seen a vast wave of switches from 2008 Obama endorsers. Obama, meanwhile, has seen only one newspaper that endorsed John McCain come around to endorse him. At the same time, many newspapers have also switched from Obama to “no endorsement.”
Here are the stats. As of today, 11 newspapers that endorsed Obama in 2008 have now endorsed Mitt Romney:
- The New York Daily News;
- Long Island Newsday;
- Houston Chronicle;
- Fort Worth Star-Telegram;
- Orlando Sentinel;
- Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel;
- Nashville Tennessean;
- Des Moines Register;
- Illinois Daily Herald;
- Los Angeles Daily News;
- Los Angeles Press-Telegram.
The differences between Mitt Romney and President Obama are clear. He says it has to be this way. Mitt Romney says it can’t stay this way. President Obama is hoping Americans settle, but Americans don’t settle. We build. We aspire.
“Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody. You want to do it with a great guy.”
So begins the now famous official Barack Obama for President campaign ad that was released last week. The ad depicts a young woman named Lena Dunham, who is apparently a celebrity among Americans in their teens and 20s.
After that opening line, Ms. Dunham continues on for another minute and a half discussing how having sex for the first time and voting for Barack Obama for president are really the same thing, and how young women don’t want to be accused of either being virgins or of having passed up on their chance to cast their votes for Obama next Tuesday.
I’ve never been particularly interested in so-called “women’s issues.” It never seemed to me that any party or politician was particularly good or bad for me due to the way they thought of women. That all changed with the Dunham ad for Obama.
With this ad, Obama convinced me he is a misogynist.
The Obama campaign’s use of a double entendre to compare sex – the most personal, intimate act we engage in as human beings, with voting – the most public act we engage in as human beings – is a scandal.
It is demeaning and contemptuous of women. It reduces us to sexual objects. When called on to vote, as far as Obama is concerned, as slaves to our passions, we make our decisions not based on our capacity for rational choice. Rather we choose our leaders solely on the basis of our sexual desires.
Beyond the ad’s bald attempt to impersonalize, generalize and cheapen the most personal act human beings engage in, the ad is repulsive because it takes for granted that what happens in our private lives is the government’s business.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a totalitarian position.
THE WHOLE point of liberal democracy is to put a barrier between a person’s personal life and his or her government. A liberal democracy is founded on the notion of limited government. It assumes there are a lot of places where government has no role to play. And first and foremost among those places is the bedroom.
The theory behind limited government is that if the government is permitted in our private space then we are no longer free. When – as in the case of the Dunham ad – a political campaign conveys the message that there is something personally wrong with not actively supporting its candidate, it communicates the message that it sees no distinction between personal and public life, and therefore rejects the basic notion of freedom from government. And this is repugnant, not just for women, but for everyone who values freedom.
One of the oddest aspects of the Obama sex ad is that to believe that this sort of message can be effective, the campaign had to ignore mountains of data about the demographic group the ad targets – young college-educated women.
According to just about every piece of survey data collected over the past 20 years, young women in America today are more accomplished, more professionally driven, and more intellectually successful than their male counterparts. That the Obama campaign believes the votes of this successful, smart group of women can be won by appealing to their basest urges rather than their capacity to reason is demeaning and perverse and, one would think, counterproductive.
But it isn’t surprising.
The fact is that the Obama campaign – and indeed, the Obama presidency – has treated the American people with unprecedented arrogance and contempt. On issue after issue, Obama and his minions have eschewed intellectual argumentation.
On issue after issue they have preferred instead to attack Obama’s detractors as stupid, backwards, bigoted, bellicose and evil.
For instance, however one feels about current events in the Middle East, there is a legitimate – indeed critical – argument to be had about the nature of the Islamist forces the Obama administration is supporting from Cairo, Egypt, to Alexandria, Virginia.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the most popular movement in the Islamic world. It is also a totalitarian, misogynist, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian and anti-American movement. It seeks Islamic global supremacy, the genocide of Jewry, the subjugation of Christianity and the destruction of the United States.
There is an intellectual case to be made for appeasing these popular, popularly elected forces.
There is a (stronger) intellectual case to be made for opposing them. But rather than make any of the hard arguments for appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama administration has deflected the issue by castigating everyone who opposes its appeasement policies as racist, McCarthyite warmongers.
If women who don’t support Obama are prudish geeks, Americans who oppose his appeasement policies are bloodthirsty bigots.
Then there was the attack in Benghazi on September 11 and the general Islamic assaults on US embassies throughout the Muslim world that day.
The acts of aggression that Muslims carried out against several US embassies on September 11 and since have all been acts of war against America.
The rioters who stormed the US embassies in Egypt, Tunis and Yemen and replaced the American flag with the flag of al-Qaida all violated sovereign US territory and carried out acts of war. The US had the right, under international law, to repel and respond with military force against the rioters as well as against their governments. Instead the White House blamed the acts of war on a US citizen who posted a video on YouTube.
Then there was Benghazi. In Benghazi, jihadists took this collective aggression a step further. They attacked the US Consulate and a US government safe house with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. Their goal was to murder all the US citizens inside the compounds. In the event, they successfully murdered four Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
In the six weeks that have passed since the attack in Benghazi, despite administration attempts to stonewall, and despite the US’s media’s inexcusable lack of interest in the story, information has continuously dribbled out indicating that Obama and his senior advisers knew in real time what was happening on the ground. It has also come out that they rejected multiple requests from multiple sources to employ military power readily available to save the lives of the Americans on the ground.
There may be good reasons that Obama and his top aides denied those repeated requests for assistance and allowed the American citizens pinned down in Benghazi to die. But Obama and his aides have not provided any.
Rather than defend their actions, Obama and his advisers first sought to cover up what happened by blaming the acts of war on that YouTube video.
When that line of argument collapsed of its own absurdity, Obama shifted to blaming the messenger.
His campaign accused everyone asking for facts and truthful explanations about what happened in Benghazi of trying to politicize the attack.
Obama himself has twice struck the Captain Renault pose and declared himself “Shocked, shocked!” that anyone would dare to insinuate that he did not do everything in his power to save the lives of the Americans whose lives he failed to save.
The reason specific sectors of a society usually feel compelled to vote on the basis of their sectoral interests rather than their general interests as citizens of their country is that they feel that one candidate or party specifically endangers their sectoral interests. Hence, the Lena Dunham ad, which insults women specifically, compels women to vote as women against Obama.
In the case of Obama’s appeasement of the Muslim world, there is no specific group that is hurt more than any other group by his policies.
As we saw in Libya, Egypt, Tunis, Yemen and beyond, his appeasement policies endanger all Americans equally.
This is not the case with Obama’s treatment of Israel and Jews. Obama’s supporters always highlight statements he has made and actions he has taken in relation to Israel and Jews that are relatively supportive of both.
To be sure, like every other US president, Obama has made some statements, and taken some actions, that have been supportive of Jews and of Israel. But unlike most other US presidents, he has made far more statements and taken far more actions that have been contemptuous and hostile to Israel and Jews. And this is inexcusable.
It is inexcusable that Obama uses coded anti- Semitic language to blame America’s economic woes on “fat cat bankers.” It is inexcusable that his secretary of state and his senior advisers have repeatedly made references to the so-called Israel Lobby to explain why America is supposedly hamstrung in its ability to sell Israel to the wolves.
It is inexcusable that Obama sends his surrogates before the cameras to refer to Israel’s prime minister as “ungrateful,” or to castigate Israel for permitting Jews to build homes in Jerusalem on land they own and for permitting Jews to exercise their legal rights to their property – simply because they are Jews.
Israel is the US’s most important ally in the Middle East. As such, it deserves to be treated well by the US – all the time. Any move to treat Israel with contempt is an unprovoked hostile act and therefore inexcusable.
So, too, US Jews have a right to make an honest living doing anything they wish – including working on Wall Street or owning a casino in Las Vegas. Jews have a right to be treated with respect by the US government. They should not have to be concerned about having their reputations maligned by politicians who use anti-Semitic tropes to gain political advantage.
Obama’s contemptuous vilification of Israel and successful American Jews make him bad for Jews specifically. Just as the Dunham ad exposes his underlying hostility towards women and so makes clear that women’s interests are imperiled by his presidency, so Obama’s repeated hostile treatment of Israel and American Jews make him a specific danger to Jewish interests.
MANY WOULD-BE deep thinkers have proclaimed that the presidential election is a choice between two competing narratives. But that isn’t an accurate description of the race.
Only Republican nominee Mitt Romney is presenting a narrative. In his narrative, the US faces very difficult problems in domestic and foreign policy alike. Romney has laid out his priorities for which problems he wishes to contend with, and has presented policies he will adopt to do so if he is elected next Tuesday.
On the other hand, by Obama’s telling, the real problems America faces are all the result of the empowerment of his political opponents and America’s allies.
Benghazi wouldn’t be a problem if his political opponents weren’t talking about it. Jihadists aren’t a problem. The problem is the people who say they are a problem. The national debt isn’t a problem. The problem is the “fat cat bankers.”
Women will vote for him because we are dimwitted sex objects. And Jews will vote for him because we are taken in by his occasional Borscht Belt schmaltz platitudes about Hanukka.
God help us all if his contemptuous assessment of his countrymen is borne out next Tuesday.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
We are working to make sure that this person is held accountable.
And that she is prosecuted to the fullest extent.
Under Oregon law.
Secretary of state Kate brown says this is a first — organ.
A county employees accused of tampering with ballots.
Someone at the — this county elections office alerted her and she passed the case on to the Department of Justice.
Brown won’t –
What I want — accounting and — now on particularly the voters of — from discounting is that we are taking this case very seriously.
There are number of security measures in place which is how was identified in the first place.
Can leave you my card for — we asked for comment from clack and his county elections clerk — halt but she sent us a message saying she can’t talk about the case.
Paul is no stranger to controversy.
It 2010 — put — commissioner position on the may ballot.
When it should’ve only appeared in November.
The mishap led to a court battle and state officials coming in to monitor clack and his county’s primary in general elections really disturbing and would you have ever worried about that.
And no it’s nothing new — Have — my — it’s disappointing news for local voters but those dropping off their ballots today say they’re glad they waited.
Others wonder if there will be — recount or complete election do you over.
But they agree that something needs to change in — people really care about the impresses me to come down.
Volunteer and be watching more in helping more.
From Fox News:
Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys, including Quarterback Tony Romo, were names that ACORN workers attempted to register to vote during the 2008 presidential election.
The ensuing outrage sparked a voter registration fraud scandal that helped lead to the activist group’s demise, and put new focus on the integrity of third-party voter registration efforts during Presidential elections.
Now, four years later, the name: John Adolf Hitler, was one of those turned in on a voter registration form collected by another group in Cincinnati, according to the Hamilton County Board of Elections.
“It’s certainly not a joke. In Ohio, that kind of activity is a felony,” says Alex Triantafilou, an Elections Board member who also serves as the Chairman of the county’s Republican party.
“Any person who would engage in that kind of conduct with something as serious to our democracy as voting, is highly irresponsible and potentially criminal…We have someone doctoring registrations, and the next step would be a serious move toward fraudulent voting. We are worried about it.”
The listing, “Adolf Hitler, John…666 Heltz…la,” puts his supposed residence in Los Angeles.
It was part of a batch of roughly 200 voter registrations that election officials say were flagged as possibly fraudulent, forged, or duplicated by the group that collected them, FieldWorks, a private Washington, D.C. based firm.
Dozens of voters in Pueblo County, Colorado have claimed electronic voting machines have changed their votes for Mitt Romney to votes for President Barack Obama.
The Pueblo County Republican Party has asked the Colorado Secretary of State’s office to investigate the matter.
A voter told KRDO Newschannel 13 that a checkmark appeared next to Obama’s name after she cast her vote for Romney.
“I wonder where my vote really counted,” she stated.
Pueblo County Clerk and Recorder Gilbert Ortiz admitted he was aware of “fewer than ten instances” of votes being switched and conceded such errors have occurred since the county has used the electronic voting machines in 2006. He blamed those changes on human error.