RUSH: Did I not tell you yesterday, did I not make the case yesterday, and today it's borne out to be true. All of this inevitability of Barack Obama is manufactured. It started in The Politico, with two guys named John Harris and Jim VandeHei. They're the ones who got this whole ballgame running on, "Obama's inevitable. Obama got the great bounce." And, folks, it's all phony. There's nothing to it. Even the CNN poll that's out that's got Obama up six. It's a joke of a poll. The Democrat sample in this poll is absolutely unbelievably high. It is a joke of a poll. In fact, there's one aspect to this poll nobody's reporting. Of course they're not going to report this. In the CNN poll that has Obama up six, Romney is leading Obama in independents by 14.
Now, I'm just going to tell you something. If that holds up, and if on election day Romney wins independents by 14, we're looking at a landslide. It's not even going to be close. Well, I won't say close, but it's going to be big. If in a poll that CNN reports Obama is plus six but Romney is up 14 in independents, what does it tell you about the rest of the sample?
Folks, I told you yesterday, and I'm not trying to be falsely optimistic here by any stretch of the imagination. That doesn't get anybody anywhere. I have never been a false optimist. I've never been an optimist for the sake of it. But I'm telling you it's all manufactured. The Obama bounce for the most part is gone. I don't believe there ever was one. I think the polls were jockeyed and manufactured and made to look like it. This CNN poll, like I said, was released yesterday, shows Obama plus six. But it is so skewed. In fact, an analysis of this poll was done by a guy named Dean Chambers at the Examiner, and he says that it's doubly skewed. It massively under-samples independents and over-samples Democrats.
The CNN Opinion Research Corporation poll reports Obama at 52; Romney at 46. Unskewed the data reveals a 53 to 45 percent lead for Romney. If the poll were honest, Romney would be plus eight in the CNN poll. Not making that up. This new CNN poll, unlike many other analyzed, not only oversamples the Democrat voters, it massively under-samples independents, which produces a result that's more favorable to Obama. "This survey's sample includes 397 registered Republicans and 441 registered Democrats. But the survey included a total of 822 registered voters, leaving only 37 independent voters at most." Thirty-seven independent voters out of 822. That is a massive under-sampling. And in those 37, Romney's up 14. It's stunning.
"Among the Democrats survey, 97 percent favored Obama while three percent support Romney. The Republican surveys chose Romney by a 96 percent to two percent margin. Those margins display a high degree of party loyalty in each party for its candidate, which is plausible in a campaign like this one where both sides are focusing heavily on boosting turnout among their base. Independents, who are massively under-sampled in this survey, support Romney by a 54 percent to 40 percent margin." And it may be one of the reasons they're under-sampled. By the way, Romney with independents. This is pretty common, 14, 15, we see this from poll to poll to poll, and if anybody is being skewed by the polls, it's us. It's the consumer. This is journalistic malpractice what's going on here.
Like I say, I am not trying to be falsely optimistic and build you up for no reason. That would be cruel. I wouldn't do that. Folks, they're shooting their whole wad here, and they can't get Obama to 50%. They can't get Obama significantly ahead of Romney no matter what they do (unless they skew the poll like CNN), and there's not another poll out there that shows Obama plus six. Even ABC/Washington Post has come back to earth: "Among Likely Voters, Obama-Romney Close."
The convention bounce is over.
There wasn't a convention bounce.
Rasmussen Reports: "Partisan trends among voters, based on tens of thousands of voters, surveyed showed the voting electorate made up of 35.4% Republicans, 30% Democrats, 30.5% independent." If you use that... That's Rasmussen's report of partisan trends. If you use that as your sample, you would have Romney plus eight in the CNN poll, not Obama plus six. Yet we've got the audio coming up. Wolf Blitzer is out there having an orgasm on the air reporting this poll.
It was a bigger orgasm than when he was reporting about Bush plummeting and falling into the 30s. In the ABC/Washington Post poll, all of a sudden things are tighter now. But even this poll of likely voters samples Democrats by over 6%. The sample here is 33% Democrat, 27% Republican, 36% independent. Does anybody really believe that 27% of the turnout on November 6th is going to be Republicans? Does anybody really believe that? Does anybody really believe 6% more Democrats are going to vote on election day than Republicans?
Does anybody really believe that? Nobody believes that. Yet this is what they're polling. Every poll shows the Republicans with much higher voter enthusiasm. So the real news here, even in the ABC News/Washington Post poll, would be much better for Romney. This poll also claims that "when all voters are asked to compare the two contenders on a series of issues and attributes. On 15 items, Obama has significant leads on eight, Romney on zero."
We're supposed to believe this? We're supposed to believe that in a poll that Romney is only one point behind, nobody thinks of Romney as superior on any of 15 issues? I'm telling you, it is an all-out effort on the part of the Drive-By Media to concoct what is a false reality and a false narrative, which essentially is the inevitability of Barack Obama. If I had to give it a title, that's what they're doing. It's also meant to dispirit you and to hopefully suppress your vote. However, there's a problem lurking out there.
And it's the Bob Woodruff book, or Woodward. (Well, I knew a guy named Woodruff!) The Bob Woodward book doesn't make Obama look competent, good, or even present. (Details coming up.) Yeah, they're also trying to keep you from giving any money to Romney. Obama's back in Iowa. What in the world is Obama doing in Iowa? What is he doing in Iowa? The unemployment rate in Iowa is 5.3%. It's not catastrophic. What is he doing in Iowa? What was he doing here in Palm Beach County?
I'm telling you, folks: This inevitability, they're dreaming it. The conservative blogosphere has been wringing its hands for the last week. "How in the world can this election even be close?" That's what hey're asking themselves. A lot of people are asking themselves that, and the reason they're asking themselves that is because they read these skewed, phony, artificial poll results. It's only on the basis of these polls that anybody thinks the race is close.
That's the only reason. When you go in and you're able to dissect the poll and discredit the poll, then that takes the question off the table. Now, I am not saying it's over. I don't want anybody to assume here that I think it's over the other way, that Romney's inevitable. We're still going to have to show up and work hard. I think the Romney campaign's going to have to make some changes. They're going to have to go ideological. They cannot continue on this "Obama Mr. Nice Guy" business.
They just can't do it. It isn't going to work. Romney's going to need a mandate if he wins. A mandate can't be tied up in "Obama's a nice guy, just misguided" or any of that. I'm not saying go out and say Obama's a bad guy, but he's got to be tied to this economy. His policies, his ideas, his ideology. "Liberalism" is still a dirty word in this country. Use it! Don't let them get away with "progressive." It's liberal.
That's what they are, and Obama needs to be tied to this dismal economic so-called recovery. He needs to be tied to the economy. And he also needs to be tied to what's in our future if he wins. One of the latest theories... See what you think of this. One of the latest theories to explain why the race is close, is that a lot of people (close to 50% of all Americans) receive some sort of government check. They get some benefit, welfare, what have you. Add it up, it's 50%.
Further, the argument goes that a lot of people have burned through their 99 weeks of unemployment and now have found out they can go on Social Security disability and continue to get paid. Therefore the theory is that rather than have that statistic just roil the American people into saying, "Gosh what's happened to our country?" that will lead to more voters for Obama because those people want the checks to continue to come. Which takes us down to the argument that we've always wondered:
Have we lost the country?
In other words, the way I phrased it the other day: We can handle four years of Obama but we can't handle four more years of the people who would elect him. I don't think we've lost the country in that regard. But some do, and that's the theory to explain why the growing welfare rolls benefit Obama. And there's another argument out there that the rich... This is sort of a dovetail argument about why people like Gates and Buffett run around talking about tax increases and they're not paying enough.
The reason they do that is to inoculate themselves against any criticism and keep people away from their money. If you're Bill Gates and you're running around saying, "Yeah, I don't think I'm paying enough taxes," then the people who want to take your money will leave you alone because you "understand" that you're a rich guy and you're not paying enough. But if you're talking about tax cuts and so forth, you become the enemy and people want your money more.
Well, remember when we -- not discovered, but -- made the point that the Catholic Church got sucked into the Democrat Party long ago because they associated welfare with charity? Well, there are a lot of (apparently, so goes the theory) highly achieved people who look at high taxes and big government as charity and support it for that reason because it gives them cover, too. All of this is part of this game of Barack Obama inevitability designed to suppress your vote and depress your spirits. Don't let it happen!