RUSH: Make no mistake about it: Democrats are panicking. Karen Tumulty in the Washington Post is the latest example in the media. But they're all writing stories now that Democrats are waking up in the morning now and for the first time confronting the real possibility -- in fact, some are even calling it a likelihood -- that Obama could lose. And they're contemplating this for the first time. They've never, ever -- up 'til now, up 'til last week -- thought it possible Obama could lose.
Well, Obama's down two points in North Carolina. Obama only won that state by 12,000 votes. Some of the polling data out of North Carolina has Obama down significantly among black voters. Now, let me give you a caveat: I'm nervous citing polling data in June about an election in November. And even Obama himself is doing his Alfred E. Neuman impression. He says, "Oh, I'm not worried. Most people aren't even paying attention now," and he may be right about that. I'm not so sure, though.
As destructive as his policies have been -- as miserable as people are, as hopeless as the situation looks -- I think more people are paying attention than would be normally at this time in an election year. Normally, the mass population starts tuning in after Labor Day, starts building up during the conventions. I think we're ahead of that. The Tea Party's evidence of it. These people were never involved in politics before, and started getting involved three years ago. I think more and more people are paying more and more attention.
Obama may be fooling himself, but he's down. I'll give you the polling data anyway. He's down significantly. I don't have the numbers right in front of me. He's down significantly in black voters in North Carolina and losing the state, and more just hit. Rasmussen just hit with Romney up by three over Obama in Wisconsin, 47-44. Now, I don't put a lot of stock in polls right now, but they do. Presidential candidates, presidents live and die by 'em. They do, and theirs are worse than even this.
RUSH: The Public Policy Polling poll says that Romney would get 20% of the black vote compared with 76% for Obama if the election were held today in North Carolina. Now, as I say: A poll today is worth nothing more than the trend, if even that. I mean, it's a snapshot of today. There's no guarantee that that sentiment is gonna hold, obviously, from now to September. But the thing is professional politicians live and die by this stuff, and they are guided and affected by policy and other public position by these polls.
And I'm just gonna tell you that a poll in North Carolina -- and they barely won North Carolina. It turns out to be a crucial state this year. Obama won it by 12,000 votes, I think, in 2008. If he loses 2% of the black vote... Forget 10% of it. If he loses 2% of the black vote in North Carolina, it's over. That's why the Democrat National Convention is in Charlotte. He was going to go in there and shore things up. And it's not working. I guarantee you, this Public Policy Polling poll -- and it's a North Carolina firm, a big bunch of libs.
If they say that Romney would get 20% of the black vote and Obama 76%, I guarantee you at the White House they see that. At the Congressional Black Caucus, they see it. And they have to believe it. They can't sit there and say, "Well, it's only June the 13th." They have to factor it, and it does affect what they'll do going forward. Now, Obama's counting on getting 95% of the black vote in North Carolina like he did in 2008. Now, according to Public Policy Polling, Obama was at 87% in May.
So he's losing more than 20% of the black vote.
He's at 76% now.
He had 87% of the black vote in the poll last month, and he's down now to 76%. So that's 11% that he's lost. And there's a lot of reasons for this. One is that Obama has "evolved" on his views on gay marriage since back in early May. That's caused some blacks to probably do some "evolving" of their own. And then you throw Wisconsin into this. And the people who live and die by polls are gonna look at both polls and they're gonna be forced to believe it. They have no choice but than to believe it.
If they ignore it, they do so at their own peril. I've always thought that if I were an elected official, I would ignore polls. I'm sure that my advisers would go batty, but I would ignore them. But these people won't. The bottom line is that they live and die by this stuff. They do largely everything they do based on these polls. And I think they've been trending like this for a long time, and they're trending in such a way... We had the numbers yesterday. We had a caller with a great stat.
I forget precisely what he said in the statistic, but I do remember that two-thirds of incumbent presidents since 1825 have lost reelection. Two-thirds since 1825 have lost. Everybody thinks that incumbency is an automatic shoo-in factor, and statistical it isn't. Now, in recent years, if you go back not quite as far as 1825, the percentage changes. And in recent years the incumbent does perform better in reelection, but if you go back to 1825 and factor it all in, it's not a slam dunk, incumbency.
And Obama is nowhere near where he needs to be traditionally for incumbent presidents, who need to be at least 50% in the polls at some point in the year. He's not there. And he's trending the other way. And that's the point about this. And now you take a look at accompanying news stories, the combination of fundraising -- which is down. I don't care what they're telling you. All the fundraisers Obama's doing? Why do you think he's doing so many? Is because they're way, way down.
Now they're running an ad. Folks, they're running another celebrity dinner fundraiser. The difference in this one is that they want you to tell them who the celebrity will be. They have decided that they're going to keep up with this positioning of being out of touch with the vast majority of their voters. They're going all Kardashian, all the time. Celebrity of the United States. Obama's out raising money left and right. He's done more fundraisers than Bush combined. And the reason is, all he's gonna have is television spots.
He can't run on his record.
All he's gonna have is TV ads to try to scare people about Mitt Romney.
He's gonna talk about Romneycare. (That's the one shoe that was not dropped yet, and it will at some point.) But Romney's way ahead in fundraising. Obama is not where he should be in these polls. The polls are all trending the wrong way, and so they have really allowed panic to set in. So the combination of fundraising in the polls give us stories like this from Politico: "Democrats Want Change in Obama's Message." I don't see why. Why would Democrats want a change in Obama's message? Maybe there's a clue in the story. Here's what they're talking about...
"Then Obama summarized his own message. 'If people ask you, "What's this campaign about?" You tell them it’s still about hope. You tell them it’s still about change. You still tell them it’s still about ordinary people who believe that in the face of great odds, we can still make a difference in the life of this country. I still believe that,' Obama said." So Obama, at these fundraisers, is telling his donors: "It's still about hope! It's still about change!" But the Democrats want a "change in Obama's message," because it isn't working.
He's not connecting with anybody.
Karen Tumulty in the Washington Post: "Obama campaign's rough Patch Concerns Some Democrats -- Is it time for Democrats to panic?" Look, I'm in charge of that. I've assumed the responsibility of telling people when it's panic time, for both Democrats and Republicans. As Tumulty writes, "That's what a growing number of party loyalists are wondering, amid a rough couple of weeks in which President Obama and his political operation have been buffeted by bad economic news, their own gaffes and signs that the presumed Republican nominee is gaining strength."
You know, folks, the number of articles detailing the disaster that's known as Obama's campaign is astounding. There are at least two of them a day. And I'm telling you: If liberals are jittery now, can you imagine what's gonna happen if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare? And that's gonna come up in this month at some point. If it struck down in whole or in part... Now, as Karen Tumulty writes, "Obama's team insists that it is unfazed by the recent bumps in the political road. By November, 'it's going to be about: Who do I trust more in [his] approach to the debt?
"'Who do I trust more to create middle-class jobs? Who do I trust more to create an energy future? Who do I trust more as it relates to Afghanistan?' said David Plouffe," who ran Obama's campaign in '08. Well, let's look at this. Obama's campaign strategerist says to the Washington Post: "By November," voters are going to be asking, "Who do I trust more in [his] approach to the debt?" Uh, is that even a question? One man is responsible for a third of the national debt that has occurred in three years!
Mitt Romney didn't add one penny of debt!
Obama doesn't have one policy to reduce the debt.
He's not even interested in it.
So I tell you, it's like I've always said about Hillary. Everybody was just in fearful awe of Hillary Clinton in the nineties, and I said, "Wait a minute. She's just like every other guy: She puts her pants on one leg at a time." That's just like Obama. There's nothing superhuman about these guys. In fact, they're fallible and they're not that smart. Anybody could have gotten Obama elected in '08, and I'll say it. Anybody could have gotten Obama elected! Look what he was running against. Look what the media had done to eight years of Bush.
By the time McCain started his campaign and gave indications of what he wasn't gonna permit, then everybody knew. It wouldn'ta mattered. And then the next question: "Who do I trust more to create middle class jobs?" What are they smoking? They really think that that's a contest? There aren't any middle class jobs! Whatever job creation's going on are part-time jobs, with no permanent benefits attached. When the answer to that's to blame Bush, or to say that Romney is responsible for it, these guys are giving themselves an impossible task.
The next question: "Who do I trust more to create an energy future?" Who is it that is illustrating that wind and solar are busts and lead to debt and bankruptcy? There isn't any business there! If this is what these guys are really saying, no wonder Democrats are getting worried. It sounds like he's gonna run on his record! And he doesn't have one. "Who do I trust more as it relates to Afghanistan?" Believe me, by the time we get to November, the economy is not gonna straighten out and Afghanistan's not gonna be in the top four of what's on people's minds.
RUSH: I'm here, folks. I was waiting on the printer. And we're back. Obama is quoted as saying, (paraphrasing) "I'm not worried. I don't think anybody's paying attention. People aren't paying attention right now." And traditionally he would be right. June, not that much attention. This is different, though. I think far more people are paying attention on both sides of the aisle. But Obama can be excused because his media's not reporting all that's going on out there. He can be excused for not knowing what's going on.
I want to report something to you that happened last Friday and ask you if you've heard about this. It's from our old buddies at NewsBusters.org. One hundred and sixty-four rallies across the United States last Friday against the federal government's abortifacient birth control mandate under Obamacare, 164 rallies. Religious leaders and conservative politicians addressed tens of thousands of pro-religious freedom activists who attended the rallies. ABC, CBS, NBC did not think they were worthy of coverage, either in their morning or evening newscasts.
"By contrast, CBS played up the supporters of a group of left-leaning Catholic nuns during four on-air segments between May 30 and June 1, 2012. Correspondent Wyatt Andrews hyped how 'hundreds of Catholics have rallied behind the sisters,' and that 'protests in support of the nuns have been held in almost 50 cities.'" Have you heard about any of this? One paragraph Snerdley said he saw on the 164 rallies across the country. The nun story. Do you know what the nun story is? Yep. Yeah, but what are the nuns doing? Do you know what the nuns are doing? The nuns have gone feminazi on everybody. This small group of nuns in the Catholic Church is going feminist, and the Vatican is obviously -- well, a figure of speech, slapping them down. And the Vatican is trying to tamp it down and say, "No, no, no, that doesn't happen. There's no such thing as a feminist nun."
Anyway, that's what CBS spent four stories doing. One hundred sixty-four rallies across the country, tens of thousands of people protesting the encroachment by Obamacare on religious liberty. They didn't report it. There are things like this, Tea Party rallies, all kinds of things happening all over the country that are happening and are not being reported. And so Obama and his crowd might be excused for not knowing this stuff is happening because their media outlets are not reporting it.
On the other hand, Spike Lee is predicting a tough road to reelection for President Kardashian. He gave an interview to GQ magazine. Spike Lee said, "This thing is not a lock. It's not a lock that President Obama's getting a second term. People have to really rekindle the enthusiasm that we had the first time." Now, Spike hosted a fundraiser for Obama in January. He said he just had a meeting with somebody high up in the Obama campaign to discuss the race. He said, "I can't say to all the people that are unhappy with him that they're racist people. People ain't got jobs, man. People ain't got jobs. People are hurting. So I don't care what color you are, if people are out of work, it's tough. And then when you're the first African-American president, that's not helping, either." What? Not helping?
Spike Lee, in the end it says here, doesn't sound too worried because Romney is the opponent. He said, "Once we get to the debates, my man's gonna tear him up. It's gonna be obvious who should lead the country for the next four years once they go head-to-head, toe-to-toe, elbow-to-elbow, butt-to-butt, and I don't think Romney can hang with him." I think you people are lying to yourselves. I think you have an inflated sense of Obama's talent and skill. You take the prompter away from him, and it's a car wreck, potentially.
That's why people are gonna watch. All of these assumptions: Obama's brilliant, smarter than everybody else. These people really think, David Plouffe and these guys really think Obama can win on trust? We're gonna trust him more on the economy and on green energy and on Afghanistan and so forth? Debt? What are they smoking? Sounds like the whole campaign's a choom room. And these nuns sound like a bunch of Flukes.
RUSH: I have a question. Will Spike Lee be taken to the woodshed for saying that some people who oppose Obama are not racist?