RUSH: We have some proof here that... Well, never mind. Let me take a brief time-out anyway. We'll do that and come back and continue 'cause we've got polling data out the wazoo today that is fascinating. We have got... I don't know if you saw Judge Jeanine on Saturday night, Fox. She had Tyrone Woods' father. Judge Jeanine's show Saturday night about Benghazi needs to seen by everybody. It needs to be seen by everybody.
I know that there are clips on YouTube from her show Saturday night, nine o'clock on Fox, with Tyrone Woods' father and other family members. Pat Caddell literally almost started crying talking about the corruption that exists in the American media and how they are putting this country and democracy at risk by not doing their jobs. So we have that. We've got fascinating, really fascinating polling. I'll give you one example. Gallup and Rasmussen have their party ID polls that came out yesterday, and they're almost identical
Gallup, just to talk about this first, has a 9,000-plus survey sample. It’s 9,000 people, margin of error plus/minus one point. Now, the headline to Gallup's story is as misleading as it can be. The headline says: “2012 Electorate Looks Just Like '08,” but it doesn't. It's not even close in a way that no doubt has Axelrod and Plouffe and Obama sweating tears, because while the demographics might look the same, party identification is totally different.
The Gallup poll 2012 party ID electoral turnout next week, is Republicans plus one. If that's true... Well, I'm stopping right here. Republicans plus one. In 2008, it was Democrats plus eight. Their headline says, “2012 Electorate Looks Same as 2008.” It does not in the most key way. So I'll explain that and analyze it. Rasmussen has the same party ID. Basically projecting vote turnout in 2012 to be Republican plus one or plus two. It's big, folks. It's really big.
RUSH: Okay, if you need any proof that Romney is surging in the polls, all you have to do, folks... And we're gonna walk you through these as the program unfolds today. Just look at all the articles that are suddenly telling us the polls don't matter. There's a story from Reuters: “Yeah, polls don't matter!” And, by the way, today's not the first day we've been told this. Last week and I think the week prior we had certain Obamaites say, “Weeeell, don't pay any attention to the polls. They're just too volatile.”
And then Stephanie Cutter said, “Weeeell, we can't really trust the poll that shows the gender gap's closing. Who thinks that? People are stupid! You think really that Romney's pulled even with Obama in women? That can't be.” Then the Des Moines Register comes out and endorses Romney, their first newspaper endorsement for a Republican since 1972. Stephanie Cutter and the Obama regime says, “You can't believe that.” And then the other explanation (you ready for this?) to explain the Des Moines Register endorsement of Romney?
The Des Moines Register endorsement of Romney came out and they said, "Well, if you look at that..." I forget who it was, but it's some mainstream media person. “Look at the way that editorial's written. It is clear that the owner and publisher of that paper went to the editorial board and said, ‘We're endorsing Romney.’ This is not what the editorial page really would want to do.” This is how they're explaining this away. “The actual editorial writers, they didn't want to write that.
“If you can read the code, if you understand -- I'm a journalist, and I can read between the lines -- those people are telling us they were forced to endorse Romney by the publisher or by the owner.” And Stephanie Cutter's out there saying, “Well, really, newspaper endorsement don't influence anybody anymore.” Yeah, well, the New York Times endorsed Obama on Sunday, and that's another one. Here all the big mo... Does anybody really believe that a New York Times endorsement of Obama's gonna matter anyway? But a lot of people on the left side think so.
But what New York Times endorsement of Obama? Because the storm has swept it aside. Whatever momentum he was going to get or there was going to be from a New York Times endorsement of Obama, it's gone. The story has been swept aside by the storm now. And, of course, do not discount -- do not discount, as I mentioned mere moments ago -- the fact that the executives, the editors, the powers that be at all these media organizations live and work where this storm is hitting. And, remember now: The world revolves around them.
Always has; always does.
So this storm is gonna take front and center. And since the storm's gonna take front and center, it's gonna have to spun as, “Okay, how can we spin this to help Obama?” I kid you not. But whatever plans they had for a big kickoff today to help get Obama back on track have been buried by this. Buried by this storm. So the polls don't matter. You know, an example of that is in Ohio. There are a couple of polls... Rasmussen has Romney at 50 points in Ohio. That’s the first time. I think Rasmussen has Romney up two points in Ohio.
Polls are showing Romney either up two or tied in Ohio, and we got this article from Reuters. “Analysis: US Presidential Race is All About Ohio -- Or is It?” And the story basically goes on to say, “You know what? Ohio isn't that important after all!” Now, think about what they were all saying just Friday. Forget last week and the week before; just think back to Friday. It was all Ohio. All that mattered was Ohio. If Romney didn't win Ohio, it was over and Obama was four points up and there was no way -- no matter what happened, no matter how you sliced it -- he’d lose.
Romney was not gaining any ground in Ohio. Now he's up two in Rasmussen, who is also being attacked now as a know-nothing hack who has no clue how to actually conduct polls. So Reuters says, “Ah, Ohio, it isn't that important. It's really had too much emphasis placed on it. It's not that big a deal.” Gas prices? “Eh, it's not a big deal. Really, it's a new norm. Oh, and the president can't create jobs.” All these things that don't matter when Obama is in the White House.
RUSH: AP: "'Endorsements Flood In, But Do Voters Care?' ... But who reads newspapers anymore? For all the energy spent winning and then advertising endorsements, do they make any difference? 'The short answer is no,' said Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College." Now, all of a sudden, when all of these liberal newspapers are endorsing Romney, guess what? They don't matter. AP: "Endorsements Flood In, But Do Voters Care?" The polls, Ohio? It isn't that important. This is laughable. It is really genuinely laughable to see how transparent these people in the media are, and to think that they think they're pulling one over on us. I imagine being them in their newsrooms, and they see that Romney's pulled ahead in Ohio by two, or tied in the other polls. And they say, "You know what, we'll put a story out saying Ohio isn't that important." "Yeah, yeah, yeah, do that. Oh. That's brilliant, Sam. You put that story out. Ohio doesn't matter." And they run it. And they think that their audience, with the IQ of a pencil eraser, is gonna just mop it all up?
Then the Des Moines Register and a couple of other liberal papers endorse Romney. "You know what we better do? We better get a story out that newspaper endorsements don't matter, that people don't even read newspapers anymore. We know that because everywhere we work are losing money. And so newspaper endorsements don't matter." So they've got that story from the AP. That's right, "Endorsements Flood In, But Do Voters Care?" It's actually comical to watch all this, to take note of it, and how idiotic they must think that we are.
RUSH: I want to give you an idea of just how big the panic is that the Drive-By Media is in. There is a piece that goes out every day by Mike Allen at The Politico, and it's the morning... Whatever it is. It's the summary of everything that has happened and that's going to happen. It's a bible for many in the Drive-Bys. And the headline from his version yesterday: "Huge Romney Day: Rises in Ohio Poll, Des Moines Register Goes Republican First Time in 40 years.”
In the Tampa Times: “May Be Over for Obama in Florida." This, as far as these guys are concerned, is a far bigger disaster in their minds than any hurricane could be. “Playbook” is the name of his piece, and none of this was supposed to happen. Do you remember last Monday, October 22nd, I said to you on this program, “What's the old conventional wisdom? An incumbent that can't reach 50% is in trouble.”
And you heard F. Chuck Todd say on Meet the Press yesterday... This has to have been two Sundays ago, eight days ago. F. Chuck Todd said on Meet the Press, "Well, yes, it's 47% for Obama in our poll today. If this were a week before the election, I'd be really concerned, David," speaking to David Gregory. So eight days ago when Obama was at 47% and down three in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, F. Chuck Todd is on Meet the Press.
He says, "Well, it’s not good. If it's this way a week from now, yeah, then we're gonna be concerned." Well, it's that way a week from then. We now know that Obama's approval rating is down to 46%. So I'm just wondering if F. Chuck Todd, on MSNBC today, followed through and has admitted that he's really now concerned. Last week was a bad one for the regime. According to Gallup's daily tracking poll, Obama's job approval rating dropped 7% in three days.
What do you think explains that? His job approval is down 7% in three days. It went from 53% to 46% from October 23rd to October 26, a 7% slide. That's only happened for Obama once. That was back in May of 2001... (sic) It says “2001.” That can't possibly be the right date. At any rate, it's only happened once before. What brings Obama's approval down seven points in three days? I think it's Libya. By the way, there are no electoral votes there. Which explains a lot.
But then I want to mention this again. The Gallup poll that came out yesterday. This is the party ID poll. It's an annual thing. Nine thousand voters with a margin of error plus/minus 1%. And again, the Gallup headline is: “2012 US Electorate Looks Like 2008.” Now, if you read that headline, you'd be depressed. Electorate looks the same? “Why, if it looks the same, we're sunk!” But then you read the details of the poll, and you find out the electorate doesn't “look the same.”
It's dramatically different in terms of party identification, in terms of who is going to vote in this election. In 2008, the Democrats had a plus-ten turnout advantage, 39-29. Gallup is projecting in this year's election 36% of the electorate will be Republican, 35% Democrat. That is a nine-point swing. That is Obama losing nine points. If this is right, this could be insurmountable for The One. And it does not look like the electorate of 2008.
The electoral sample in 2004: The turnout was 39 Republican, 37 Democrat, and that was a Bush win over John Kerry (who, as you know, served in Vietnam). So just to go through these numbers again: In 2004, 39 Republican, 37 Democrat turned out. In 2008, 29 Republican, 39 Democrat turned out. Go to Gallup. This year they are projecting 36 Republican, 35 Democrat. That means that Republican Party identification is way up. That means that Republican enthusiasm is way up.
That means the electorate this time around does not look like it did in 2008. Then you couple that with Obama's job approval dropping seven points in three days. And people are scratching their heads and trying to figure out what that means. Of course, yeah, the independents... If you go further and you look at Romney, in every one of these polls... This is what has people so confused about Ohio.
In the internals, Romney is just cleaning up. He's up, depending on the poll, 15 to 19 to 23 points in independents. The 23 is in the latest Rasmussen national poll, not Ohio. In the Rasmussen Ohio poll, Romney is up 15 with independents. In the national Rasmussen poll he's up 23. So if you add the plus-Republican turnout to the independents who have swung to Romney, you wonder: “How does Obama end up tied or even up two or down two?”
A lot of it doesn't make any sense.
But again, folks, remember: The press, Reuters, are telling us today that the polls don't matter. “Ohio doesn't matter any more. Really, too much emphasis has been placed on Ohio from the get-go.” Now that Romney's up two in the Rasmussen poll, Ohio's not really that important. It's amazing. It is laughably amazing to watch these people act in ways that they think are fooling us. It's comical and it's childish on their part.