Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is there a Republican landslide coming in November?
American Thinker ^ | 10/02/2012 | Keith Edwards

Posted on 10/02/2012 5:25:25 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

It would be an election night to remember for Republicans and conservatives if the Romney/Ryan presidential ticket wins in a landslide, but nothing short of shock and awe for Democrats and their liberal media allies based on the latest polls.

Quick to sweep the historic Republican election landslide in 2010 and Scott Walker's big victory in Wisconsin's recall election under the rug, Democrats and the liberal media have been treating Obama's dismal record on the economy and foreign policy the same way they treated those elections - like they never happened.

Since those elections, Democrats and the liberal media have been in total denial, enabled by skewed and biased polls to continue reporting with a straight face their foolish narrative that the Tea Party and conservatism are dead and that a majority of the American electorate wants four more years of Obama.

Unfortunately for the Democrats and the liberal media, after November 6th there may not be enough room under the rug to hide the election results this time.

Consider that new evidence shows that political polling may have reached a point where consistent and accurate consensus results may be more luck and manipulation than science.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012polls; gop; landslide; republicans; riggedpolls
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last
The new evidence the author cites can be found on this link
1 posted on 10/02/2012 5:25:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I am the worst at guessing. Every election I have gotten wrong since I started voting. So that does not say much for me. I DEFINITELY thought McCain was going to win in 2008...I never thought America was that stupid and out of touch.


2 posted on 10/02/2012 5:31:16 AM PDT by napscoordinator (GOP Candidate 2020 - "Bloomberg 2020 - We vote for whatever crap the GOP puts in front of us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I am certainly hoping and praying for one. I’ve sent my ballot in so that’s a step in the right direction!


3 posted on 10/02/2012 5:33:13 AM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Interesting point the article brings up, and make sense. You know what assessment I get about polls after this article (since people apparently don’t like to take polls)... STOP TAKING POLLS!!

I know, wishful thinking.


4 posted on 10/02/2012 5:35:32 AM PDT by Thorliveshere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“Is there a Republican landslide coming in November?”

Bank on it.

I see it going only one of two ways.

1. Landslide for Mitt
2. Tight race, “O” wins

I don't see Mitt winning in a close call. I don't see “O” with anything approaching a landslide.

Just my humble opinion.

5 posted on 10/02/2012 5:36:54 AM PDT by SMARTY ("The man who has no inner-life is a slave to his surroundings. "Henri Frederic Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There should be a GOP landslide. The Silent Majorty must rise up and speak.


6 posted on 10/02/2012 5:37:35 AM PDT by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

No. Most American’s are idiots.


7 posted on 10/02/2012 5:37:50 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
We have a chance to totally destroy the polling organizations - if you get polled, announce your fervent support for Obama/Biden.

They won't know what hit 'em on Nov. 6.

8 posted on 10/02/2012 5:40:10 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I live in one of the few Republican counties in New York and I speak talk to lots of people almost every day. The people I talk to think I am a Democrat, I do not correct their impression, it makes for interesting conversation. The sense I get is the electorate is much more informed then the liberal media gives them credit for. A few big things stand out

1) The spending is important to the elderly. They don’t want their grandchildren to pay their debts, in spite of the Obama Medicare scare.

2) I have been told without prompting the Democrats answer to every problem is to raise taxes.

3) Out of 200 or so people only two said they vote straight party lines.

4) I don’t see many Obama signs but the two homes festooned with Obama propaganda I happen to know are not active voters. (If they vote at all, it’s only presidential)

Obama will still take New York; there are just too many dependants on government largeness to discount. But he will not even be close to the 2008 support he saw in NY. If this feeling is across the country Romney will be our next president.


9 posted on 10/02/2012 5:40:59 AM PDT by shoff (Vote Democratic it beats thinking!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch
Most American’s are idiots.

So... why does Americans (plural) get an apostrophe, but idiots (plural) doesn't?

10 posted on 10/02/2012 5:41:21 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“American electorate wants four more years of Obama.”?
I’m part of that electorate and IF I were to say what I’d like to see happen to this marxist punk the gub mint goon squad would pay me a visit.


11 posted on 10/02/2012 5:42:40 AM PDT by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) Hey Mitt, F-you too pal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY
So far . . . And it is very early ---the OH absentee ballot requests show a massive shift from Ds and to Rs, across the board in every key OH county. The shifts run from -5% in Dem heavy Cuyahoga (which alone if it holds it would translate into a 65,000 vote decline I that county alone from 08--- to 20 a d even 30 point swings in Franklin, Montgomery, Hamilton, etc.

So far, this says"landslide" in OH. Again, it is early.

12 posted on 10/02/2012 5:43:04 AM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Lies, All Lies. There are no skewed and biased polls!

13 posted on 10/02/2012 5:46:14 AM PDT by McGruff (Support your local Republican candidates. They are our last line of defense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne; Wyatt's Torch
Because most American’s are idiots.

;)

14 posted on 10/02/2012 5:46:58 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (ua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

What was your first election? My first election was in 1984.

I was right about 1984 and 1988

I was resigned to reality in 1992 and 1996

I though Bush would do better in 2000 and 2004, eventhough I thought he would win.

I though McCain was going to win in 2008.


15 posted on 10/02/2012 5:47:20 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shalom aleichem

I was counting on the Silent Majority in ‘08 and was very disappointed.

I’m still thinking they’ll show up this year and speak up via their vote.


16 posted on 10/02/2012 5:47:36 AM PDT by Qwackertoo (Romney/Ryan 2012 The Future of Our Children and Their Children are at stake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yes. And I am so looking forward to how the msm will explain it while absolving the president of any responsibility for it.


17 posted on 10/02/2012 5:49:18 AM PDT by John W (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

It’s my gut feeling too.


18 posted on 10/02/2012 5:52:23 AM PDT by SMARTY ("The man who has no inner-life is a slave to his surroundings. "Henri Frederic Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Dittos that. I figured our WI recall elections would wind up with weeks of legal challenges until the Dems squeaked out a “win.” There were very few more shocked than me when the election was called for Gov. Walker less than an hour after the polls closed.


19 posted on 10/02/2012 5:55:28 AM PDT by Ladysmith (The evil that's happening in this country is the cancer of socialism...It kills the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The science of “predicting” election outcomes is a sorry failure. Almost as bad as predicting climate change.


20 posted on 10/02/2012 5:55:45 AM PDT by I want the USA back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

You are underestimating the power of stupid people in large groups.

Reason and logic cannot stand against a rushing tide of stadia full of zombies chanting “OH-BAH-MAH!”

This election can be boiled down to four words: “Where’s My Free Sh!t?”

This is all assuming there will even BE an election next month...


21 posted on 10/02/2012 6:00:11 AM PDT by Old Sarge (We are now officially over the precipice, we just havent struck the ground yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

For later


22 posted on 10/02/2012 6:01:14 AM PDT by Kozak (The means of defence again.t foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home JM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

I DIDN’T think McCain would win in 2008 although I voted for him.

He was and is, an ugly, twisted, evil little man who spends more time slamming Republicans and pandering to Democrats. He ran a MISERABLE and ineffective campaign.

I DON’T know who is going to win this one. Its too close to call and I really think a lot of people are very guarded about their opinions fearing retailation by Obama Thugs.

But Romeny had better get VERY aggressive in the debates with his opponent. As Trump stated again and again in his interviews, Obama is NOT a nice guy - he’s a tough political thug from Chicago.


23 posted on 10/02/2012 6:04:59 AM PDT by ZULU (See video: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-first-siege-of-vienna.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
I'm from PA and I know that I've have signed up or converted 15 voters that either didn't vote in '08 or voted for obama.

Today is the day that the judge gives his final ruling on Voter ID and as a poll watcher, if he upholds it, I say obama will lose in PA.

I've watched the corruption and fraud since I started poll watching in 2000, but this voter ID law will really help.

It is not fool proof, but it will eliminate the roving bands of paid voters {paid by the unions}, that go from precinct to precinct and vote in lieu of a dead voter or one that has moved.

The union goons strong arm their members, and are a bought and paid for extension of the demonRAT party.

24 posted on 10/02/2012 6:06:19 AM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages, start today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Qwackertoo
I was counting on the Silent Majority in ‘08 and was very disappointed.

I was too, but I wasn't surprised when they didn't enthusiastically vote McNuts into office. Even having Sarah on the ticket wasn't enough to convince some conservatives to show up and vote for that putz.

25 posted on 10/02/2012 6:20:39 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge

I agree with the ‘where’s my free sh^t?” point of your post... however, this morning on my way to an appt I was driving through an upper middle class subdivision here in suburban Columbus, and was shocked by the fact that there seemed to be just as many O signs as R signs.
I see an O sign on a manicured lawn in front of a suburban 500k house and I’m dumbfounded. What can these people possibly find attractive about an O re-election? Best I can figure is they have some cush gov job...or they’re just brain dead.


26 posted on 10/02/2012 6:23:37 AM PDT by BuckeyeGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

No. At best it is going to be close, and Democrats will try to steal it. They have enjoyed the last four years entirely too much to give it up easily.


27 posted on 10/02/2012 6:25:00 AM PDT by Little Ray (AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY

I think that Romney has basically been proven correct that Obama’s support is stuck at 47%. He can’t get higher than that, and it can only go lower in the sense that some of that group may be too lazy to turn out.

In the absence of a viable third candidate its hard to see how Barry wins with that. I don’t see anything scary enough about Mitt they’re gonna find to scare many back over to the Obama side.

But in any case 47% indicates a tight race, not a landslide.


28 posted on 10/02/2012 6:26:18 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

They didn’t see the turnout for 2010 coming, and they refuse to believe 2012 will be different from 2008. Obamazombies are worn out and depressed...the freshness is gone.

The American Idol President will be no more after Jan. 2013.


29 posted on 10/02/2012 6:40:12 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike (Resurrect the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC)...before there is no America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

“We have a chance to totally destroy the polling organizations”

I think this is happening to some degree.

I was polled by Gallup a few weeks ago and I lied for the intent of skewing their results - not about everything - but I did tell them I’m an independent.

So I’m recorded as an ‘I’ as far as their stats, but I’ve almost always voted straight ‘R’ (exception being the time I voted for Sam Nunn long ago).


30 posted on 10/02/2012 6:42:50 AM PDT by Heart of Georgia ("Together we will unite America and get this done" - Paul Ryan - August 11, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"It would be an election night to remember for Republicans and conservatives if the Romney/Ryan presidential ticket wins in a landslide"

There. Fixed it.

31 posted on 10/02/2012 6:43:09 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (You didn't build that. The private sector is doing fine. We tried our plan and it worked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

If this happens the Progressives would demand endless re-counts. Obama will not leave the White House saying the election was flawed. He will demand the Mitt step down for the good of the nation so he could continue his Social Justice Experiment. Riots in streets—people dying etc... I bet Romney would do it too—”for the good of the Nation”. Going to be a really hard three months.


32 posted on 10/02/2012 6:43:43 AM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeGOP

Best I can figure is they have some cush gov job...

33 posted on 10/02/2012 6:45:37 AM PDT by Old Sarge (We are now officially over the precipice, we just havent struck the ground yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
Obamazombies are worn out and depressed...the freshness is gone.

Samuel L. Jackson does have a certain look of fear and panic in his eye as he is screaming at them to "Wake The F*** Up!"


34 posted on 10/02/2012 6:48:29 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
He was and is, an ugly, twisted, evil little man who spends more time slamming Republicans and pandering to Democrats. He ran a MISERABLE and ineffective campaign

I went to a McCain campaign rally just before the election - As pumped up as we were to keep Obama out of the White House and give McCain a chance, he pissed the entire gathering off by saying things like 'I know Obama would be a good President' and 'We need to work with the democrats' etc etc.

You don't usually hear supporters boo their own candidate, but we did. It was clear that McCain really didn't want to win, and would have been a piss-poor President had he won.


35 posted on 10/02/2012 6:55:43 AM PDT by reagan_fanatic (Worst. President. Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This article articulates exactly how I have seen it for months.

HOWEVER: never before has the lame-stream media been so blatantly biased for the leftie candidate. There are a significant amount of voters out there who only get their information from tv. These people are shown crap poll after crap poll proclaiming Zero the winner, while nothing is mentioned about how Dims have been over-sampled. These people are told a video caused the attacks in Libya. These people know next to nothing about F&F.

This is why Romney needs to get more TV ads out there. Internet ads won’t reach these people.


36 posted on 10/02/2012 7:08:26 AM PDT by ShovelThemOut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska

“Today is the day that the judge gives his final ruling on Voter ID and as a poll watcher, if he upholds it, I say obama will lose in PA.”

What political party is the judge associated with???


37 posted on 10/02/2012 7:09:46 AM PDT by ShovelThemOut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

“In the absence of a viable third candidate its hard to see how Barry wins with that. I don’t see anything scary enough about Mitt they’re gonna find to scare many back over to the Obama side.”

The lame-stream media is feverishly looking for a third candidate they can give prime-time coverage to. They are praying for a Perot to split the Republican vote.


38 posted on 10/02/2012 7:14:16 AM PDT by ShovelThemOut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch

I agree. Too many idiots out there like the lady with her Obamaphone.


39 posted on 10/02/2012 7:22:21 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ladysmith

“Dittos that. I figured our WI recall elections would wind up with weeks of legal challenges until the Dems squeaked out a “win.” There were very few more shocked than me when the election was called for Gov. Walker less than an hour after the polls closed.”

And at as soon as the polls closed at 5pm, the lame-streams reported TOO CLOSE TO CALL according to their exit polls.


40 posted on 10/02/2012 7:28:25 AM PDT by ShovelThemOut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

This is why Romney must win decisivly! Do your part, take some of those roll over minutes you’ve saved up and make calls for the Campaign. It’s not whether Romney’s was your first choice, It’s that Obama must go, and his Chicago Thugs with him!


41 posted on 10/02/2012 7:29:27 AM PDT by qman (The communist usurper must go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeGOP
Best I can figure is they have some cush gov job...or they’re just brain dead.

I'll take "government job" for $1,000...

42 posted on 10/02/2012 7:30:02 AM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Very good. Not quite post of the day, but close.


43 posted on 10/02/2012 7:41:27 AM PDT by calljack (Sometimes your worst nightmare is just a start.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
The UnAmerican Idiot President will be no more after Jan. 2013.

Fixed that for you and now I agree.

It'll be a MUDslide carrying 0h0m0, his communist cabal and public enemy #1, the MSM, straight to the sewer where they all belong.

Whoever voted for McAss, I was one for Sarah, will never, ever vote for 0b0z0. At this point, we're starting with some 47% in the bag.

At least, there should be 10% added to this because of:

- The country's downward trend to oblivion

- The threats of communist rioting and the Africanization of America through prosecuting people but not others

- The foreign policy disaster of kissing Islamists' asses ( I know, a faggot can't help it) and;

- The third rail toward Greece, unemployment, financial meltdown and bankruptcy

I was talking about a "free" election scenario. Any other scenario would be disastrous for the country.

44 posted on 10/02/2012 7:49:29 AM PDT by melancholy (Professor Alinsky, Enslavement Specialist, Ph.D. in L0w and H0lder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: calljack; ClearCase_guy

Even closer to POTD if he’d not used an apostrophe to indicate a plural...

</humblegunner>


45 posted on 10/02/2012 7:51:52 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Hey this started at post #10 -- or #7, I suppose. So the apostrophe problem is the whole point.

;)

46 posted on 10/02/2012 8:01:42 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (ua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Remember when Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan in 1980?

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/25/how-carter-beat-reagan/print

Washington Post admits polling was “in-kind contribution”; New York Times agenda polling.

Dick Morris is right.

Here’s his column on “Why the Polls Understate the Romney Vote.”

Here’s something Dick Morris doesn’t mention. And he’s charitable.

Remember when Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan in 1980?

That’s right. Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan in 1980.

In a series of nine stories in 1980 on “Crucial States” — battleground states as they are known today — the New York Times repeatedly told readers then-President Carter was in a close and decidedly winnable race with the former California governor. And used polling data from the New York Times/CBS polls to back up its stories.

Four years later, it was the Washington Post that played the polling game — and when called out by Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins a famous Post executive called his paper’s polling an “in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign.” Mondale, of course, being then-President Reagan’s 1984 opponent and Carter’s vice president.

All of which will doubtless serve as a reminder of just how blatantly polling data is manipulated by liberal media — used essentially as a political weapon to support the liberal of the moment, whether Jimmy Carter in 1980, Walter Mondale in 1984 — or Barack Obama in 2012.

First the Times in 1980 and how it played the polling game.

The states involved, and the datelines for the stories:
· California — October 6, 1980
· Texas — October 8, 1980
· Pennsylvania — October 10, 1980
· Illinois — October 13, 1980
· Ohio — October 15, 1980
· New Jersey — October 16, 1980
· Florida — October 19, 1980
· New York — October 21, 1980
· Michigan — October 23, 1980

Of these nine only one was depicted as “likely” for Reagan: Reagan’s own California. A second — New Jersey — was presented as a state that “appears to support” Reagan.

The Times led their readers to believe that each of the remaining seven states were “close” — or the Times had Carter leading outright.

In every single case the Times was proven grossly wrong on election day. Reagan in fact carried every one of the nine states.

Here is how the Times played the game with the seven of the nine states in question.

• Texas: In a story datelined October 8 from Houston, the Times headlined:

Texas Looming as a Close Battle Between President and Reagan

The Reagan-Carter race in Texas, the paper claimed, had “suddenly tightened and now shapes up as a close, bruising battle to the finish.” The paper said “a New York Times/CBS News Poll, the second of seven in crucial big states, showing the Reagan-Carter race now a virtual dead heat despite a string of earlier polls on both sides that had shown the state leaning toward Mr. Reagan.”

The narrative? It was like the famous scene in the Wizard of Oz where Dorothy and her friends stare in astonishment as dog Toto pulls back the curtain in the wizard’s lair to reveal merely a man bellowing through a microphone. Causing the startled “wizard” caught in the act to frantically start yelling, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” In the case of the Times in its look at Texas in October of 1980 the paper dismissed “a string of earlier polls on both sides” that repeatedly showed Texas going for Reagan. Instead, the Times presented this data:

A survey of 1,050 registered voters, weighted to form a probable electorate, gave Mr. Carter 40 percent support, Mr. Reagan 39 percent, John. B. Anderson, the independent candidate, 3 percent, and 18 percent were undecided. The survey, conducted by telephone from Oct. 1 to Oct. 6, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

In other words, the race in Texas is close, assures the Times, with Carter actually in the lead.

What happened? Reagan beat Carter by over 13 points. It wasn’t even close to close.

• Pennsylvania: The next “Crucial States” story focused on Pennsylvania on October 10. Here the headline read:

Undecided Voters May Prove Key

Reagan, said the Times, “appears to have failed thus far to establish many positive reasons for voting for him.”

Once again the paper played the polling data card, this time saying Reagan had a mere 2 point lead. But the Reagan lead was quickly disputed in series of clever ways. Fundraising for Reagan wasn’t as good as expected, said the Times, and besides the budget for a Reagan telephone bank being shaved “from $700,000 to $400,000.” The Times/CBS poll showed that Carter was ahead of Reagan 36-32 among union households in a heavily labor state. To make matters worse for Reagan the GOP Senate candidate Arlen Specter was being “swamped” in the polls by his Democratic rival, the former Pittsburgh Mayor Pete Flaherty — with Specter losing to Flaherty 47-36. Not to mention Reagan was being trounced in Philadelphia 52-15 percent. Towards the very end of the story was this interesting line — a line that should have some relevance to the Romney campaign as President Obama struggles with the consequences of the killing of the American Ambassador in Libya. Reads the sentence:

One negative reason [meaning an anti-Carter vote] that did not turn up in the telephone poll but came up repeatedly in door-to-door interviews was the hostage situation in Iran.

What happened? The race wasn’t close, with Reagan beating Carter in Pennsylvania not by barely 2 points but rather trouncing him by over 7 points. And Arlen Specter beat Pete Flaherty.

• Illinois: The Times headline here in a story October 13?

Poll Finds Illinois Too Close to Call: Both Camps Note Gains by Carter

The narrative for Illinois? Carter is gaining, so much so that:

…uncertainty about Ronald Reagan’s leadership, especially among suburban voters, [has] apparently set back Mr. Reagan’s hope for a victory in Illinois and left his campaign scrambling to regain lost momentum, according to advisers in both camps.

Then came the usual New York Times/CBS polling data that proclaimed a Reagan one-point lead of 34% to Carter’s 33% as a sure sign that “Carter Gains and Reagan Slips in Close Illinois Race” — as an inside page headline proclaimed.

What happened? Reagan beat Carter by almost 8 points, 49.65% to 41.72%. Again, there was no “close” race as the Times had claimed.

• Ohio: The headline in this “Crucial States” profile once again conforms to the Times pattern of declaring Reagan and Carter to be in a “close” race.

Ohio Race Expected to Be Close As Labor Mobilizes for President

The narrative for Ohio? Ohio, the paper explained, had been “long viewed by Ronald Reagan’s campaign as its best opportunity to capture a major Northern state” but “such a victory …is not yet in hand.” Then came the inevitable New York Times/CBS polling data. Reagan was ahead by a bare 2 points, 36% to 34%. Two-thirds of the undecided were women and Reagan was doing “much worse among women voters than men.” Carter on the other hand had the great news that “35 percent of the undecided came from labor union households, a group that divides nearly 2-1 for Mr. Carter among those who have made up their minds.”

What happened? Reagan beat Carter by over 10 points in Ohio. Yet another “crucial state” race wasn’t even close to being close as the paper had insisted.

• Florida: For once, the problem was impossible to hide. The Times headline for its October 19 story headlined:

Carter Is in Trouble With Voters In Two Major Sections of Florida

There was no New York Times/CBS poll here. But what was published was “the most recent Florida Newspapers Poll” that showed Reagan with only a 2 point lead over Carter: 42 for Reagan, 40 for Carter, with 7 for Anderson. The election, said the Times confidently, “was widely expected to be close.” Surprise!

What happened? Reagan beat Carter in Florida by over 17 points.

• New York: The Times headline for its home state in a story dated October 21?

President is in the Lead, Especially in the City — Anderson Slide Noted

The Times waxed enthusiastic about New York. Reagan was “being hindered by doubts within his own party.” And it trotted out its favorite New York Times/CBS Poll to show definitively that Reagan was getting clobbered in New York. The poll, said the Times, “showed Mr. Carter leading in the state with 38%, to 29% for Mr. Reagan….” Which is to say, Carter was running away with New York state, leading Reagan by 9 points. The headline on the inside of the paper:

Reagan Far from Goal in New York; Carter in Lead

Why was this so? Why was Reagan doing so badly in New York? The paper turned to a Carter campaign aide in the state who explained that New Yorkers aren’t “willing to vote for a Goldwater.” Then they found one “frustrated Republican county chairman” who said the problem with Reagan was that New Yorkers “don’t like what they think they know about him.” Then there was the usual yada-yada: Reagan was failing miserably with women (losing 41-23 said the poll) and losing in New York City, not to mention that “labor is hard at work” for Carter.

What happened? Reagan beat Carter in New York by over 2 points.

• Michigan: The last of the profiles in the Times “Crucial States” series was Michigan, published on October 23. The ambiguous headline:

Party Defections May Tip Scales in Michigan Vote

The Michigan story begins with the tale of Reagan being endorsed by Dr. Martin Luther King’s famous aide the Reverend Ralph Abernathy. But the Times immediately saw a problem in this backing of Reagan from a prominent “black civil rights leader.” The problem? Black backlash. Said the paper:

Mr. Reagan was barely out of town [Detroit] before the backlash set in.

“The Abernathy Betrayal,” screamed the headline over the chief article in The Michigan Chronicle, a black newspaper. And yesterday the 400-member Council of Black Pastors, in the greater Detroit area, broke its precedent of refraining from Presidential endorsements and declared its support for President Carter a direct reaction to the Abernathy endorsement.

In other words, Reagan was damned because he didn’t get black support — and damned especially when he did. Grudgingly, the paper admitted that “although the race was close” in Michigan, “Mr. Reagan was ahead.” But once again, the Times insisted that a key state race was close. Close, you see, close. Did they mention it was close?

What happened? Reagan carried Michigan by over 6 points, 48.999 to Carter’s 42.50. Yet again — it wasn’t close.

That same day, October 23, the paper ran a second polling story on the general status of the presidential election, its theme self-evident:

Poll Shows President Has Pulled To Even Position With Reagan.

The story by Times reporter Hedrick Smith began this way:

In an election campaign reminiscent of the tight, seesaw contest of 1960, President Carter has pulled to an essentially even position with Ronald Reagan over the last month by attracting some wavering Democrats and gaining on his rival among independents, according to a new nationwide survey by The New York Times and CBS News.

The survey, readers were assured, was “weighted to project a probable electorate” and had Carter leading Reagan 39-38.

As if the point hadn’t been driven home enough, seven days later on October 30, the Times decided to sum up the entire race in the light of the just completed Reagan-Carter debate. Can you guess what they said? That’s right:

Carter and Reagan Voicing Confidence on Debate Showing: Performances Rated Close

And inside the paper the continuation of the story proclaimed — guess what?

Outcome of Debate Rated as Close.

On November 4 — the day before the election — the Times proclaimed… proclaimed…

Yup:

Race is Viewed as Very Close

The final results?

Ronald Reagan clobbered Jimmy Carter winning 51.7% to Carter’s 41% — a 10 point-plus victory in the popular vote. Third place Congressman John Anderson managed a mere 6.6%.

In the Electoral College? Reagan carried 44 states for a total of 489 votes. Carter won 6 states plus the District of Columbia for 49 electoral votes.

To say the least, the race wasn’t “close.” To compare it to 1960 as a “tight, seesaw contest” was in fact not simply ridiculously untrue but bizarre.

So what do we have here?

What we have is the liberal “paper of record” systematically presenting the 1980 Reagan-Carter election in 9 “Crucial States” as somehow “close” in five of the nine — Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. New York was in the bag for Carter. Only in his own California and New Jersey was Reagan clearly leading.

The actual results had only New York “close” — with Reagan winning by 2. Reagan carried every other “close” state by a minimum of 6 points and as much 17 — Florida. Florida, in fact, went for Reagan by a point more than California and about 4 more than New Jersey.

How could the New York Times — its much ballyhooed polling data and all of its resulting stories proclaiming everything to be “close” — been so massively, continuously wrong? In the case of its “Crucial States” — nine out of nine times?

The obvious answer is called to mind by a polling story from four years later involving Ronald Reagan and his next opponent, Jimmy Carter’s vice president Walter Mondale.

By 1984, Reagan was an extremely popular incumbent president. He was running well everywhere against Mondale. But suddenly, up popped a curious Washington Post poll that indicated Reagan’s 1980 margin of over 16% in California had dropped precipitously to single digits. Nancy Reagan was alarmed, calling campaign manager Ed Rollins (full disclosure, my former boss) and saying, “You have to do something.”

Rollins disagreed, as he later wrote in his memoirs Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms: My Life in American Politics.

A Californian himself Rollins was certain Reagan was just fine in California. The Reagan campaign’s own polls (run by Reagan’s longtime pollster Dick Wirthlin) showed Reagan with a “rock-solid” lead. After all, said Rollins, “Californians knew Ronald Reagan, and either loved him or hated him. He’d been on the ballot there six times and never lost.” The Post poll data made no sense. But Mrs. Reagan was insistent, so Rollins ordered up another (expensive) poll from Dick Wirthlin. Rollins also dispatched longtime Reagan aide and former White House political director Lyn Nofziger, a Californian as well, back to the Reagan home precincts. More phone banks were ordered up. In all, a million dollars of campaign money that could have been spent on Minnesota — Mondale’s home state where the ex-Minnesota Senator was, remarkably, struggling — was spent on California because of the Washington Post poll.

A few weeks later, the Washington Post ran a story that confirmed Rollins’ initial beliefs. The Post confessed that… well… oops… it had made a mistake with those California polling numbers. Shortly afterward came the November election, with California once again giving Reagan a more than 16 point victory. In fact, Reagan carried 49 states, winning the greatest landslide victory in presidential history while losing Minnesota in — yes — a close race. Mondale had 49.72% to Reagan’s 49.54%, a difference of .18% that might have been changed by all that money that went into California. Making Reagan the first president in history to win all fifty states.

After the election, Ed Rollins ran into the Washington Post’s blunt-speaking editor Ben Bradlee and “harassed” Bradlee “about his paper’s lousy polling methodology.”

Bradlee’s “unrepentant” response?

“Tough sh…t, Rollins, I’m glad it cost you plenty. It’s my in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign.”

Got that?

So the questions for 2012.

How corrupt are all these polls showing Obama leading or in a “close race”?

Are they to Obama what that California poll of the Washington Post was for Walter Mondale — an “in-kind contribution”?

Is that in fact what was going on with the New York Times in 1980? An “in-kind contribution” to the Carter campaign from the Times?

What can explain all these polls today — like the ones discussed here at NBC where the Obama media cheerleaders make their TV home? Polls that the Obama media groupies insist show Obama 1 point up in Florida or 4 points in North Carolina or 5 points in Pennsylvania. And so on and so on.

How does one explain a president who, like Jimmy Carter in 1980, is increasingly seen as a disaster in both economic and foreign policy? How does a President Obama, with a Gallup job approval rating currently at 49% — down a full 20% from 2009 — mysteriously win the day in all these polls?

How does this happen?

Can you say “in-kind contribution”?
About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.


47 posted on 10/02/2012 8:22:07 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (We are the 53%, who pay taxes and keep this country going inspite of the 47% rat moochers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShovelThemOut
They are praying for a Perot to split the Republican vote.

Yeah, well, good luck getting him on 50 state ballots with T-minus thirty six days.


48 posted on 10/02/2012 8:38:51 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

I didn’t thing the margin would be so great.


49 posted on 10/02/2012 8:56:19 AM PDT by CPT Clay (Follow me on Twitter @Clay N TX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeGOP

Union Boss, College Professor, Retired Education Administrator...


50 posted on 10/02/2012 9:09:05 AM PDT by CPT Clay (Follow me on Twitter @Clay N TX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson