RUSH: There's a great analysis -- well, "great." It's an interesting analysis from a guy National Review Online on why polling data out of Ohio may not be all that accurate. It has to do with early voting and likely voters being tabbed and how the party affiliation in a poll ends up being tabulated. All the early voting and absentee ballots in Ohio may be skewing the actual polling data.
It really is an interesting analysis. You couple it with looking at the two campaigns. We call it momentum or Mittmentum, but if you look at the Obama campaign -- and this is speaking with you honestly. I look at these polls and I have to just be blatantly up front with you. I'm stunned Obama's within two or three. This, to me, is a seven- or eight-point or nine-point win. I mean, just the whole aura of the Obama campaign.
There's nothing to it. It's in abject panic. They're losing in various swing states. Obama, by the way... Do you remember back in 2000 when George Bush continued to spend money in California? I was thinking about this the other night because Obama's still spending money in North Carolina, and it's over there. He's spending money in North Carolina because he will not allow the perception that he's losing.
So he's wasting money in North Carolina. He could be spending it elsewhere. Bush did the same thing in 2000. Bush campaigned in California in the latter days of that campaign. I remember when we saw that happening, we talked about it on this program. We got a little excited. We thought, "Why, is there something going on in California that we don't know about?"
Because we figured campaigns all have internal polls that nobody else sees, and they can't afford to play games with their polls. They can't be lied to. They've gotta know the down-and-dirty. So we figured if Bush was spending money in California in 2000, there must be something going on out there. There wasn't. Bush was trying to create the exact illusion or the impression that we got. And Obama is doing much the same thing in North Carolina. Erick Erickson at Red State has a great little post on this about it.
He chalks it up to Obama's hubris instead of his narcissism. They just can't allow the perception that things aren't going well. So he's essentially wasting money. But you look at the whole Obama campaign, and there's just an aura of, "Throw it up against the wall and hope it sticks!" He's all over the place. Yesterday I don't know where he was, but he's talking about his plan. He talked about Romney's plan for the next four years, and he was talking about his plan.
He just introduced his plan this week, and it's a rehash of something that's not new. It's a pamphlet where over half the pages are pictures of him instead of policy stuff. But the policy stuff that's in it is not new. It's just old rehash. He can't run on this agenda. He can't run on this record. And somebody off camera says, "Where is your plan?" (Obama impression) "Well, where's my plan? Where is my plan?"
And it was on the floor!
He had to bend over and pick it up. "I couldn't find my plan. Here it is," and he held it up, and they started cheering. There is no plan. It was just this week he announced a plan because everybody was getting on him for not having announced a second-term agenda. He's throwing up Big Bird! Where else is he throwing? "Romnesia." These are not things that you associate with winning and with the momentum in campaigns.
By the other token, the Romney campaign is filled with that kind of enthusiasm: Huge crowds, coordinated message. Yesterday, Paul Ryan gave just a fabulous speech on poverty, some of which I have here. (I'll play you the sound bites as the program unfolds.) But there's a singular purpose. There is a coordination. There's a structure. There are large crowds full of energy. Even Brian Williams of NBC News is talking about how Obama's crowds of 50,000 four years ago are barely 5,000 today.
There just isn't any surface indication -- there's no vibe, there's no feeling -- that the Obama campaign is the one that's winning. It's the other way around, and yet these polls make it within-the-margin-of-error close. Those two things just don't meld with me. They don't make sense; they don't go together. So on Election Day something is going to give here or something is going to change significantly in the polls next week before the election.
One of two things is gonna have to happen, because at some point all this is gonna have to make sense if the people involved in polling are gonna have any credibility. So we shall see. By the way, there's nothing scientific about this. I'm just telling you how I feel. This is just my perception as I watch this stuff, and I just do not see elements of even the Obama people thinking they're winning. I don't see them acting like they're winning.
Obama called the people, the editorial board at the Des Moines Register and he gave 'em a 30-minute interview -- with one caveat. It was off the record. He did not allow them to publish any of it. So the Des Moines Register editor writes a story that when the president's on line one, you take the call. But they're a little miffed. They said he told them some fascinating stuff, some really great stuff about the second term, the next four years.
But he won't let them publish it!
Well, that just made everybody curious to find out what it was he told 'em. At the same time, the Des Moines Register people admit to being a little miffed that they can't publish this stuff 'cause their editorial recommendation is coming up Saturday night on their website. Their endorsement goes online for the Sunday morning paper at seven o'clock Saturday night. So today the Des Moines Register, on their front page, tilts this to Romney.
They have two pictures top of the fold: On the right side is a close-up of Romney surrounded by lovable, adoring people, and an appropriate headline. (I don't have it right in front of me, but it's a great headline.) Right next to it is a picture of a mad, dour, angry-looking Obama. He's smaller in that picture frame and surrounded by some people. It's two pictures side by side that illustrate what I'm talking to you here about, and that is the aura, the feeling you get, the vibe about these two campaigns.
It's leading people to believe that the Des Moines Register is saying, "Okay, Mr. President, you're gonna talk to us but you won't let anyone know what you say? Try this!" So they run unflattering stuff about him on their front page today. Now, what are the odds they're not gonna endorse Obama? It's the Des Moines Register, after all. Remember who used to run this paper was one of the former editors of USA Today who went to NBC.
He was in charge when they blew up the truck for one of their 20/20-type news shows. I forget his name. It's Michael something or other. (interruption) No, no. That's the founder. Allen Neuharth was the founder. This is Michael somebody. His buddy was Geneva Oberholtzer who was, at the time, the editor of the Des Moines Register. He went on to become a columnist at the New York Times and then an ombudsman at the Washington Post.
My point is these are the people that populate the Des Moines Register, the typical left-leaning media types. The idea that they're not gonna endorse Obama on Sunday is farfetched. It'd be shocking if they endorse Romney. The Detroit News endorsed Romney. Now, what did Obama say to 'em about his second term that so excited them? They thought it was really cool.
What could it have been?
What do they really want to publish that Obama said, and why won't Obama let them? Why must it have been off the record? The only conclusion you could come to is he knows it would hurt. He knows it wouldn't help, even in Iowa. But it would not be contained in Iowa; it would be all over the place. A bunch of libs would love it! The Des Moines Register would love it. They want to print it. Obama doesn't want it out yet.
The conclusion is that Obama might have been honest with them about what his second term is gonna be, but that if it gets out it would hurt his reelection chances, which we all know. That's why he's not talking about his second term. In fact, I believe he's not talking about it because in his mind if he wins he'll have a mandate to do what he does, 'cause he can say, "I never lied to you. I never said I wasn't gonna do this."
It's the way they think.
People can say, "But you never told us you were gonna do this!"
(Obama impression) "I never said I wasn't. I didn't lie to you. I told you we're gonna do everything we can to 'transform this country.' Here it is."
Anyway, I'm just sitting here. And by the way, folks, I'm shooting you objectively straight here. I am not sharing with you things I hope are going on. I'm not telling you things that I hope will happen. I'm looking out, and I felt this way for the longest time. I've thought the Obama campaign had nothing. I thought their convention had nothing. It was rehash of nothing. I don't think Obama won any of those three debates; I don't think Biden won his.
Oh, speaking of that, Rasmussen polling data: Who won the debates? This is all three of them put together. It's 49% Romney, 41% Obama. That's from Rasmussen. How's that possible? Here we got Barack Obama, the smartest man ever to occupy the Oval Office. He was gonna heal the planet. Speaking of that, he called Romney a "bulls---ter." I can't say the word. He actually called Romney that! He doesn't like Romney.
He called him a "bull[crapp]er." That's close as I can get to it. But he used the real word. If there's anybody "bullcrapping" us, it's Barack Obama. Heal the planet, lower the sea levels, all of that happy malarkey? "Most voters consider the three presidential debates at least somewhat important to how they will vote, and a plurality of those that watched thinks Mitt Romney was the overall debate winner.
"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds just eight percent (8%) of Likely US Voters did not watch any of the debates. Sixty-three percent (63%) watched a portion or all of all three debates. Fourteen percent (14%) watched some or all of one of the debates, 15% some or all of two of the prime-time television encounters. But overly [sic], Romney was thought to have won the debates 49 to 41 over Obama."
RUSH: I know our chances are dismal and fading, that Obama ground game is tough to overcome, but we gotta fight, folks. We gotta get out there and fight, fight, fight, fight, fight and really do everything we can to bring this home. How's that?