RUSH: Folks, according to latest Gallup/USA Today poll: "Despite the concerted Democrat attacks on his business record, [Romney] has a large advantage over [Obama] when it comes to managing the economy." The Politico has the story on this. "Gallup: Bain Still a Positive for Romney." This has been a total bomb by Obama, this effort to castigate Romney on the basis of Bain Capital. "It may be the political question of the summer," says Politico: "are Team Obama's attacks on Mitt Romney's business background working?
"Priorities USA polling says yes. Other independent polls -- including from Gallup and NBC/WSJ," say no. Not really. Reuters says it's working, but nowhere else. "Gallup's out with a round of data for USA Today that suggests, whatever the marginal impact of the Bain assault, Romney's businessman brand is more of an asset than anything else, and that in the big picture he's well positioned on the economy: 'By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney's background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation's economic problems over the next four years.'"
How many millions of dollars has Obama spent to bring about the exact opposite result? I'll tell you something, folks. It's stuff like this that makes me confident. I think that there is a hidden majority out there. I really do. You know, ever since Nixon first talked about it, there's been a Silent Majority. I think that there is a groundswell of anti-Obamaism out there that is set to explode and shock and surprise everybody in the media and on the Democrat side. I don't think this is a tight race.
I don't think it's nip and tuck like the polls say. You don't attack the US economy this way, you don't damage it this way, and have people just sit by and say, "Oh, okay." We have not become a passive people. We are not a passive country. The only poll that claims that Obama's attacks on Romney have had any effect is from Reuters. They claim that 36% of registered voters say the issue has made 'em see Romney less favorably, but that's the only poll out there saying that. And Reuters polls have traditionally been pretty laughable.
Just a week ago they claimed that Obama has surged ahead of Romney by six points, if you recall that one. No other poll has found that, then or now. So they're probably deep in the tank, obviously deep in the tank for Obama. And trying to "outlie even the outliers," is the way to put it. There is also now some concern, ladies and gentlemen, that we are seeing about "negative campaign ads" and whether they're working for Obama or not. See, that's the focus. Not whether the ads are true, not whether there's any merit to them, but, "Are these negative ads working?"
That's after the USA Today/Gallup poll comes out and they see "Oh, Romney's still doing well?" It's not, "Are negative ads good or bad?" It's: "Are they working?" It's: "Are they working for Obama?" Even the AP's article on this poll has to admit, quote, "The findings raise questions about Obama's strategy of targeting Bain's record in outsourcing jobs and hammering Romney for refusing to commit to releasing more than two years of his tax returns." The AP says, "Americans seem focused on the economy," damn it!
"Americans seem focused on the economy, where disappointment with the fragile recovery and the 8.2% unemployment rate are costing the president." Costing the president? What about costing the country? What about costing the American people? So despite what Newsweek says, we aren't "all socialists now." And these polls just continue to shock. Obama is floundering. I'm telling you. I have a story here by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post: "Scariest Chart of the Day for Democrats."
I don't bother with charts, folks, because you can't see 'em. And I'm not gonna take the time to zoom in and out with my little Dittocam remote control here. So I don't do charts. Charts are for television. But I will tell you. Chris Cillizza: "Scariest Chart of the Day for Democrats -- Democrats (from President Obama on down) have spent months worrying (publicly and privately) that the massive influx of cash to Republican-aligned super PACs could create a massive inequality in spending over the final months of the 2012 campaign.
"Those fears are now well on their way to being realized as Republican super PACs continue to rake in sums well in excess of what their Democratic counterparts are collecting. The Sunlight Foundation, which does great things with data visualization, did the math and graphed out the total amount of itemized -- $200 and above -- contributions to Democratic and Republican aligned super PACs since the start of 2011. Republican super PACs have brought in $228 million since January, 2011, while Democratic super PACs have collected $80 million in that time."
This is why the Democrats so hate the Citizens United ruling and so hate the idea that (whispers) corporations... I can cause heart attacks for any liberals in the audience by saying that word. (whispers) "Corporations are people." That just sends 'em into orbit. (whispers) "Corporations are people." They hate that ruling because of imbalances like this: $228 million to Republican super PACs. There are people giving money to Romney and these super PACs in droves to get rid of Obama.
Folks, it is unlike anything you've seen, and you're not hearing about it. But I'm telling you, there is an undercurrent. It's unseen because it's not reported. It's feared. The media, the Democrats, they all know it's there, and they're scared to death of it. But they don't dare talk about it in real terms so as not to give it any greater life than it already has. But they're worried to have it. There's "roughly a three to one advantage for conservatives." Conservatives that are giving this money.
"That chasm is even more consequential when you consider that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee ended June with $170 million in the bank as compared to $144 million for President Obama and the Democratic National Committee." So Cillizza says, "It's now an absolute certainty that Republicans -- from Romney’s campaign to the RNC to super PACs -- will outspend the Democratic combined money efforts between now and November 6.
"The only question that remains is" will it work?
That's the only thing they're worried about: Will it work?
So I'm feeling ebullient, not overconfident. Don't misunderstand. As I have said countless times and I will say it again: Anything can happen between now and November. Politics... (interruption) Huh? Oh, if the election were held today it'd be a landslide, a huge landslide. You know, I'm trying to play golf over the weekend, the "Member-Guest." And I don't care where we went -- golf course, the heavy hors d'oeuvres cocktail party on Friday night, the beach club dinner on Saturday night -- people come up to me.
"So, Rush, tell me. Tell me what it's gonna be."
You know, normally in situations like that I kind of soft sell it so as not to inspire further conversation. All I'm trying to do is sit down and, you know, pretend I'm having fun at the party. But I just launched at them.
I said, "Landslide. Romney landslide."
And they all nod in great relief. "What about the Senate?"
"Ah. Reid's gone. That's key, but Reid's gone."
And that's when they start doubting me. That's when they start having doubts. People still doubt. There's a tendency here to want to believe bad news. There's a tendency to want to believe that the bottom's dropping out. And I understand that. I mean, we're living in the middle of the bottom dropping out, and that's what we hope to stop and arrest. But no, if the election were today: Landslide. That’s what these guys are all saying when they report these polls, and they know it. They know how Obama stepped in it in Roanoke (and we're not through with that, by the way).
They know how Obama is stepping in it practically every time he goes off prompter. Carville's out there today warning the Democrats (paraphrased): "You better get off this gun-control business. You better leave it alone. You're gonna lose big if you keep harping on this gun-control business. Stay away from it! This incident in Colorado has not galvanized people against the Constitution of this country. This incident has not galvanized people into wanting more gun control."
Fast and Furious would not have worked, either, despite what they were trying.
RUSH: Now, some of this advantage that Obama has in his super PAC fundraising, of course, is Big Labor. Obama has that advantage. Big Labor is the equivalent of a super PAC. It's not thought of as such. No, it is not thought of as such. It's not discussed as such. Obama has Big Labor. So Obama's gonna have his share of money. Don't buy this notion that it's the poorhouse for Obama. But they're not where they thought they would be. In fact, I just got a note reminding me that Obama's campaigning in Seattle and Oregon. Why would Obama be spending money in Seattle and Oregon?
He's raising money in both places, too, but it's not a place where they thought they would be. Now, this Chris Cillizza article. It's got some gold in it, I think. This poll that shows they're not having any effect on Romney with their attacks on Bain is probably why Cillizza wrote his article in the first place. Because it's a branch office of the Obama campaign. And according to Chris Cillizza, some within the Democrat Party are starting to get concerned about the way Obama's burning through his campaign funds.
They never show the same concern for the way he burns through taxpayer dollars, but when it's their own money, look at how concerned they are! They're actually concerned Obama's spending more than he's raising. They're actually concerned about the Obama campaign going into debt. They don't care about that for the country, of course. But their money? Yeah. It matters. Now, here are the hard numbers. According to the Washington Post, Obama's campaign spent $58 million in June alone; $38 million of it went to attack ads against Romney and Bain in the swing states.
None of which seems to have helped Obama at all. To date, the Obama campaign spent $107 million on TV ads, compared to $35 million spent by Romney, and they don't have anything to show for it. Romney's still neck and neck with Obama, if not inching ahead. Now, my own personal opinion is that these polls that show neck and neck are not really accurate. Well, they may be accurate in terms of what people are saying, but they're not accurate in terms of how people are gonna vote. I can't tell you why. It's not wishfulness. It's not hopefulness. It's not pie-in-the-sky utopianism here.
I'm telling you what I genuinely think is going on out there. Now, think where Romney would be if we had an even slightly objective or fair news media. Now, according to Cillizza, the regime is following the strategy of the 2004 Bush campaign, which was: Turn out the base; forget the independents. That's what they say the Bush '04 campaign was: Just rev up the base, play to the base, and turn out the base. Don't target independents.
But that's not what Obama's doing at all. We had the piece from Thomas B. Edsall yesterday in the New York Times. We quoted from it. The Obama strategy is to try to suppress the Romney vote by running ads aimed at his white, blue-collar supporters. They are trying to suppress the Romney vote. They are gonna run ads and are running ads that are designed to depress people like you, to dispirit people like you, to make you think it's over and that Romney hates you. You may have even seen some of these ads.
It's all tied to "Romney is Bain. Bain is rich. Rich ain't you. And they hate you because you're not rich and they're never gonna let you get rich. They don't want you to become rich." These are the focus points of the Obama ad campaign. It's designed to depress you. They've written off white, working-class voters. That was the first Thomas B. Edsall piece in November of last year. Now, in addition to writing off those voters, they're running ads designed to suppress that vote.
So they're not just replicating Bush '04 campaign and trying to turn out the base, although they are doing that. It's about all they've got. And they're losing independents big, in every one of these polls. They're way behind in independents, as of now. So this Gallup poll... It's interesting. It's always USA Today/Gallup, but when the news is good for Obama it's just a "Gallup poll." When it's bad for Obama, they call it the "USA Today/Gallup" poll. USA Today is in there when the news is bad for Obama.
And they're calling it the Gallup/USA Today poll today. And in this poll, like all the other polls of late, they're showing the strategy of suppressing the Romney vote. They're going after Bain Capital. They're trying to tell you, "Romney hates you. Romney laughs at you. Romney looks down his nose at you. Romney's this rich guy. His wife does horses and equestrian things, and you don't even know what the word means. And they're hoity-toity and highfalutin.
"They don't care about you. They'd just as soon see you in the mud," and so forth. This is the focus of the campaign, and it's not working. Now, what do we learn from this? It's apparently hard -- at least for Obama and his campaign -- to make voters hate somebody simply because he made money by virtue of his own hard work. That's what they're trying to do, and it's not working so far. And I guarantee you, they're in a tizzy at the White House over this and they don't know how to deal with it.