RUSH: I want to go through the latest polling data and some of the other interesting things that are happening out there. It's fascinating to me to watch all this, to absorb all the polling data, like Quinnipiac is out, got Obama up five in Ohio, but Romney's winning independents left and right. So much of it is genuinely confusing.
First, from TampaBay.com: "Democrats Face an Early Vote Hurdle in Florida." Now, as you know, the Suffolk Polling unit pulled out of Florida weeks ago claiming there was no need to poll it anymore. Romney wins Florida. Another polling group pulled out of Florida yesterday, the same thing. They had a poll that showed Romney up six, 51-45. I don't remember the name of the polling company, doesn't matter. The Real Clear Politics polling average now has Romney leading Obama by just a single point, up against Suffolk and the other polling unit, which say it's over and they've pulled out.
I'm reading to you from TampaBay.com: "The latest Quinnipiac poll showing Obama up a point is sure to draw some scoffs from Republicans since its sample was 37 percent Democrat, 30 percent Republican, and 29 percent independent." In summary, all of the polls out there -- and there are a few, folks -- that show Obama winning in the swing states and that show Obama winning the national popular vote, there are polls that show Obama up one, up three, and up five. And every one of those polls is based on a turnout identical to 2008. So if the turnout next Tuesday is identical to 2008, then these polls are gonna be right and Obama's gonna win by one, three, or five, whatever. They all depend, every poll that has Obama up, also shows Romney way up in independents but a Democrat sample of minimum plus seven.
Now, the theory has always been, as espoused by me, El Rushbo, that polling units at this point in the campaign try to get it as close to accurate as possible for their own credibility so that they will be hired in the next campaign and that they will be believed and have credibility in future races where polling is required. And every one of these companies that have now shown up, primarily their last poll, CBS has got their last poll out now, shows the president up but with a turnout identical, in terms of Democrat advantage, to what it was in 2008. A lot of people go back to 1980, by the way, and look at the Reagan-Carter poll. The polling was a lot less sophisticated 1980 and it took place a lot less frequently. The last poll -- I think it was Gallup, but I'm not sure -- that came out on this day relative to the election showed Carter up six, and Ronaldus Magnus went on to win.
Now, the reason that Ronaldus Magnus went on to win is, and what the polling data didn't show, is that he picked up one out of four Democrats on Election Day, the famed Reagan Democrats. They didn't show up on the polling data, but on Election Day Reagan got 25% of Democrats in addition to his own base and whatever number of independents, and that's why Reagan's landslide wasn't reflected in the polls because the polls didn't show that. So if you want to compare today to 1980, do you want suggest that 25% of Democrats are gonna vote for Romney? It's a little risky.
You've got a much different demographic division in the country now than you had in 1980. Polling is much different, less sophisticated, but it still is true that in 1980 the pollsters missed it. And, by the way, something else in that campaign in 1980 that needs to be mentioned that nobody talks about if you're interested in comparisons. There were polls that showed Reagan up in that campaign in the fall. Not many, but there were some. It was just the final poll had Jimmy, the peanut farmer, up six. And now you know why.
Now, back to the polling summary that I have here. This is, again, sticking with TampaBay.com. They've got their Quinnipiac poll that shows Romney down by one, Obama leading by a single point with a Democrat turnout of 37%, 30% Republican, 29% independent. They're predicting Obama to win Florida. Jim Messina, the Obama campaign manager, said, "In Florida Democrats now lead in ballots cast just 48 hours after in-person early voting began." However, that's not right. "A Republican yesterday noted that at this point in 2008, Democrats held a 134,774-vote lead in Florida. As of yesterday. Democrats led by less than 41,000 -- a nearly 70 percent drop. The Obama campaign does not dispute those numbers."
Now, I don't know what to make of this other than what's on the surface. If the Democrat early vote is down 70% from 2008, what does it mean? It means there's less Democrat enthusiasm. It means obviously fewer Democrat votes in the early voting. But we won't know until Election Day.
From the Business Insider. "President Barack Obama has seen a once-steady lead in Michigan decline to just 2 points in a recent poll, and Michigan has been thrown into 'toss-up' status in the election's final week. The poll, from The Detroit News, finds Obama leading Republican rival Mitt Romney, 47.7 percent to 45 percent. That's the second poll in a week that has shown an increasingly tight race in the state, including a Foster McCollum White Baydoun poll that showed the race virtually tied. And it comes as a pro-Romney super PAC, American Crossroads, includes Michigan in its $50 million, final-week ad buy."
By the way, final week ad buys, the PACs, Republican, Romney's supporting PACs have now dumped over $4 million in Pennsylvania, some of it in Philadelphia, as we told you yesterday. The Obama campaign has answered with $650,000 in Pennsylvania. Jim Messina, again, the Obama campaign manager, says, "Well, this is nothing more than a desperation move by Romney because they know they're losing Ohio. They know they're not gonna win Ohio and so they're dumping everything they've got into Pennsylvania."
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that the momentum shift in Pennsylvania is such that the Romney camp wants to add it to the total. It's an interesting thing. Michigan, Wisconsin... Well, not so much Wisconsin. Maybe Wisconsin. Let's throw 'em in there. Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania have not seen political ads this campaign. There hasn't been any money spent there.
Now, you are probably sick and tired of campaign ads. I got e-mails from people who say their kids think that they're watching The Walking Dead when they see an Obama commercial. They've seen 'em so many times that they're getting scared. But factor this in. Pennsylvania, the campaign ads running now are virgin. They haven't seen any. They're not worn out, like you are in your local market. Same thing in Michigan.
So the question becomes: What kind of impact, if any, are they going to have?
And then Snerdley came in and said, “You know, I don't understand about advertising.” He said, “We're in the advertising business, and we know it works. Otherwise you wouldn't be on the air.”
I said, “Yeah, what's your point?”
“Well, my point is: When it works, why do they wait until now to start spending money in Pennsylvania? Why didn't Romney put some money in Pennsylvania three weeks ago or two months ago? I mean, we give up on a state?”
And I launched into my detailed, flawless answer. It all has to do with resources and allocation and how much money you've got at the time, how much money you think you're gonna have, and what kind of bang for the buck you think you're gonna get. And it's an interesting question when you frame it in the context of: “Okay, they didn't think it was worth any time, money, effort to be on the ground and spending any money in Pennsylvania.
Now here we are five/six days out, and four million bucks goes in there from the Romney side. Are they doing it because Obama is collapsing and there's a chance to actually win the state? Or are they doing it as a head fake to get Obama to spend some of his money there instead of other battleground states? Only Romney knows. We do not know. And we could speculate and that's all that it would be. Now, back to the Detroit News poll.
Key points in the poll: “What's pushing Romney to a virtual statistical tie in the state is his clear advantage on trust in handling the economy.” That's what the polling data says. "He leads the president, 47-44, on the crucial issue, even in a state dominated by the auto industry. Compared with September, men have shifted 5 points more toward Romney. What's keeping Obama afloat [in Michigan]:
“His advantage in connecting with voters who think he ‘understands their values.’ Forty-eight percent identified with Obama on that question, compared with just 43 percent for Romney. Obama also has a significant, 8-point advantage on handling foreign affairs." No word here on independents in this state. But in Ohio, depending on the poll, you're gonna find Romney up 19 -- 23, in fact -- with independents.
Remember one year ago, just about, there was a column in the New York Times. And it was by Thomas B. Edsall. Thomas B. Edsall's a former columnist for the Washington Post. Now he's a pooh-bah at the Huffing and Puffington Post, and he's also an undeclared Obama campaign aide, as is most everybody in the Drive-By Media. And he wrote a piece last November suggesting -- not suggesting; informing us.
He was telling everybody that strategically the Obama campaign was writing off the white working-class vote. You've heard me say this over and over again. He’s writing it off. The bitter clingers. The Obama campaign had figured that they had angered that group of people so much that they weren't going to get them, so they weren't gonna spend any money in areas dominated by white working-class voters.
Well, Jeff Zeleny in the New York Times has a story today: "Ohio Working Class May Offer Key to Obama’s Re-election -- As President Obama and Mitt Romney enter the closing week of the presidential race, where the 18 electoral votes of Ohio are seen by both sides as critical to victory, Mr. Obama’s ability to prevent erosion among working-class voters may be his best path to re-election."
They're telling us now that he needs white working-class voters that he wrote off a year ago? How is that gonna work out? "In Ohio, according to the latest poll of likely voters by Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News, Mr. Obama runs nearly even with Mr. Romney among white voters who do not have college degrees. ... The poll found that nearly half of all white voters without college degrees here say the economy is improving, and most give Mr. Obama some credit."
That's the Quinnipiac poll. They are trying to tell us that white working-class voters are now moving towards Obama even though he wrote 'em off. So I find all this stuff fascinating. I’m just throwing it in the pot here, folks, for you to stir yourself. Then there's also this quote from “one poll respondent, Dana Hogan of Cincinnati.
“‘Do I really think we’re going to go back to the point where women won’t be able to have abortions or birth control is going to be rationed? That’s just silly to even think of,’ said Ms. Hogan, who works at a small company and spoke in a follow-up interview. ‘Some women do still get really riled up by that, but I think it’s just a scare tactic. Really, you think women are that dumb?’”
Well, the Obama campaign does, yes.
You need to know that: The Obama campaign does think you are that dumb.
RUSH: This Quinnipiac poll in Ohio, by the way, has a plus-eight Democrat sample. Don't forget, now: Both Gallup and Rasmussen say that the Republicans on Election Day next Tuesday are gonna have a plus one to plus two turnout advantage. And, by the way, Rasmussen was the most accurate in 2008. That's a big spread. Quinnipiac/CBS in Ohio, they're sampling 8% more Democrats than Republicans to come up with their number here.
And, you know, people say, “Well, Rush, you have said that these people want to be accurate toward the end of the race for their reputations, credibility, and all that. Why would they be so off? Why would they continue to sample Democrats by plus eight, if that's not gonna be the turnout spread?” There is an answer to that, and it can be found in an answer I gave an e-mailer earlier this week.
The e-mail said, “You know, Obama’s not doing anything? He doesn't look like he cares. It’s like he's given up. What's Obama doing? I can't believe he's suspended his campaign.” I said, “He hasn't. He's strategizing with his lawyers.” I guarantee you: While he's in the Situation Room getting photographed caring about the storm, he's reviewing an election aftermath that features lawsuits.
Now, how do you set that up?
How do you set it up that the election has been stolen from you? How do you set it up that there's been fraud and you need lawyers in there? Well, you have all these polls that show Obama up five in Ohio with a plus-seven Democrat sample. And let's say the real returns shows that Romney wins Ohio. Well, bango! You're gonna have every Democrat in the country thinking Ohio was stolen from 'em, ‘cause they believe the polls more than they believe actual vote counts.
I’m just throwing possibilities out. I'm not making any predictions. I'm just throwing possibilities out to explain obvious questions that people have when they hear all of this.
RUSH: It might be useful to go back to 2008 and examine some of the preelection polls, final polls before the election. Back in 2008, Gallup had Obama up 11. This year they've got Romney up six or seven. (I get them confused, but it's one of the two.) CBS News had Obama winning by nine in 2008. ABC News/Washington Post had Obama winning by nine. The CBS News/New York Times had Obama winning by 11 in 2008.
His actual margin was seven.
So every poll way overshot Obama in 2008, and they were as much in the tank for him then as they are now. The Pew people (P-e-w: Pew) and Rasmussen nailed it. Rasmussen was practically right on the exact number. Of seven-point whatever the decimal was. But Gallup, CBS, ABC, and CBS/New York Times had him anywhere from nine to 11 points up.
Now, just to reiterate: I had to run through this in a hurry at the bottom of the hour, 'cause people are, quite understandably, challenging me. I deserve to be challenged. “These polls,” I said, “you wait. You get down to the final week, and we're gonna get the right ones,” and so here we go. Quinnipiac has Obama cleaning up in Ohio. It’s not even close. It’s five points. Democrat sample, plus seven.
Well, I'm just telling you: One of the things that could be going on. I never -- I never -- underestimate how in the tank any media or political organization in this country will be and can be and is for a Democrat, particularly Obama. There's a special attachment that all these media people have to Obama because they created the myth. They created this whole messiah business.
They created The One!
They created the empty canvas that let you make Obama be whatever you wanted him to be, because they were invested entirely in the historical aspect of Obama's election. “The first black president.” Civil rights and racial matters are among the most animating aspects of media people, be it in sports or news. At this level, it's one of the key things.
Therefore you have a poll like Quinnipiac University or whatever it is, and they're totally invested in Obama, thriving, winning, and being seen in a good light. I mean, it's their credibility on the line as well. So I have no doubt. If it were to ever be proven that they purposely falsified -- not falsified, but if they purposely misallocated respondents in a poll in order to get the result they want -- I wouldn't doubt it. I would not be one of these people saying, “I don't believe that. They wouldn't do that!”
I totally would believe it, and then I would look at why. The thought of Obama losing this... Do you know how you feel at the thought of Romney losing this? Have you planned ahead to getting up the day after the election? You go to bed, hypothetically here, after Obama has won. Have you thought about how you are gonna feel the next day? You don't want to think about that, do you? Because you're thinking country's over!
I mean, as we know it and as founded, it’s over. Oh, you know how scared you’d be. Well, multiply that when looking at these people and how they are thinking they would feel. They've thrown everything at this race. They're ignoring Benghazi. They're ignoring Obama corruption and incompetence every day. They're going out of their way to ignore all the warning signs.
They're going out of their way to suppress all the news that could in any way be harmful to Obama because they are personally invested. So I wouldn't have any doubt if somebody told me factually that they played around with the polls, because, if Romney wins, then there's a strategy. And that is to immediately invalidate Romney and his election, just exactly what happened in 2000.
From the moment that election was declared over and Bush the winner, the media and the Democrat Party sprung into action and set the table so that it was totally illegitimate. “He was not a legitimately elected president. He was appointed by a partisan Supreme Court. Therefore he has no right to implement his agenda. He didn't really win.”
Well, they're gonna do the same thing here.
But you can't do that unless you suspect fraud somewhere. There's no Supreme Court that we can see deciding the election this year. So what will? Well, you put out a bunch of polls in Ohio and other swing states that show Obama winning not by a squeaker, one or two. No, you put polls out show Obama winning five, and then Romney wins it? Can you imagine what's next? They're gonna say Ohio was stolen.
Their lawyers already have the papers ready to file. That's what Obama has been working on the Situation Room, with pictures of the hurricane disaster on the TV. He's been working with his lawyers on this. I take you back to 2004. The exit polls came in two waves, two p.m. and five p.m. Both waves of exit polls had John Kerry winning the presidency in a landslide, and the two o'clock wave...
I remember when I saw the two o'clock wave. My heart started fluttering. “Oh, no, this can't be.” The five o'clock came, and I said, “Wait a minute.” I honestly did. I started getting suspicious. And then I read that Bob Shrum, who was Kerry's campaign manager, walked into Kerry and said, “May I be the first to address you as ‘Mr. President,’ sir.” Well, then the polls closed and they started counting the votes.
And the real votes showed that Kerry was gonna lose Ohio by 55,000 votes and not come close to winning the presidency. The exit polls could not have been more wrong. Do you remember what happened? The Democrats immediately said that the popular vote tally was what was corrupt, and that there had been fraud and cheating. And then they got the Diebold voting machine argument going about how they were all in the tank for Bush.
“Because look what the exit polls said!” They said, “The exit polls are what really happened here. Something happened. People voted but they didn't get their votes counted right.” And that lasted. They tried that for a week or two. The same thing is gonna happen here. If Romney wins, they're gonna have all these polls that show Obama winning Ohio by five points or by two or three, whatever.
And if Romney wins it, you're set up. “There's fraud!” Unless this is a Reaganesque-type landslide for Romney, you just prepare yourself. The hand-to-hand combat is gonna keep going. And we're gonna hear all about how Romney's election was illegitimate and he's illegitimate and his agenda is illegitimate. That's just how they play the game. It's how they do it.
Okay, we got more polling data to go through: Pennsylvania.
I mentioned money in Pennsylvania moments ago. This is from Daniel Horowitz at MadisonProject.com, and it's just a count of absentee ballots. Republicans now lead Democrats 55% to 36% in absentee ballot requests. They don't count as votes. This is just requests by party. That's a 19-point spread for absentees and Republicans lead 55-36. In 2008 (so we have something to compare it with), Republicans led by 2% in absentee ballots requested.
So there's a 17-point -- a plus-17 -- spread in the request for absentee ballots in Pennsylvania this year over 2008.
Here's the latest Franklin & Marshall poll out of Pennsylvania. It's 48-44 Obama, 5% undecided. What this poll shows is an Obama collapse in Pennsylvania. Nobody thinks Pennsylvania's in play. Nobody thinks it's even possible that a Republican could win Pennsylvania. With Obama only up four, just barely outside the margin of error, people's red flags are going up. It's a huge drop. In September, Obama was up, in this poll, 50-39. Eleven points. Obama has dropped seven points in Pennsylvania since the end of September.
Now, the people looking at that, "Okay, he's within striking distance. Let's go spend some money." And here's the money, as it's being spent in Pennsylvania, updated money figure. Television money, Romney super PAC Restore Our Future and a second GOP-leaning super PAC, Americans for Job Security, have kicked in $3.2 million, a $3.2 million ad buy that does not count the $600,000 that Crossroads put in earlier this week, or the $120,000 directly from the Romney campaign. All told, that's almost $4 million in TV ads starting this week inundating people in Pennsylvania.
The Obama campaign has answered with about $650,000. And again, there's nothing solid here. I mean, you can't predict anything on this, just see trends, momentum. And then you have to analyze, are they spending the money here just to make it look like they're putting out an effort so their supporters think they're trying? Are they playing rope-a-dope trying to get Obama to spend money in there that he would rather spend elsewhere? It could be anything. Only Romney knows, folks. Only the Romney campaign knows why they're putting money in there. And the obvious conclusion they want people to draw is they think there's a chance to win this. That's what they want people to think. Chance to win Pennsylvania.
Obama's $650,000, as best anybody can tell, is being dumped in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. But that's not close to $4 million. And the fact that they have to suddenly dump money in media markets which are Democrat strongholds means that they either need to hold the fort in places they hadn't counted on the fort being at risk, or they've been rope-a-doped in and they're not taking any chances. Jim Messina again, the Obama campaign adviser, "We're not gonna take anything for granted. We're gonna make sure we're doing what we need to do on the ground. We're gonna go up in Pennsylvania. You're gonna put $4 million in there, we're going in," and they have, $650,000. Messina said, "They understand," Romney, "they understand they're not gonna win Ohio, so now they're getting desperate." So that's the Obama spin on this money. Romney hasn't put out any spin. They're letting the money speak for itself.
RUSH: Look, I'm just going through the polling data now. I told you what was gonna happen here. Why’s everybody questioning me? I've laid this out as well as anybody else has. Just a couple, three more things and then we're gonna get to Christie who has agreed to play the role of a Greek column today for Barack Obama, as they tour the destruction of the one-percenters on the Jersey shore.
Ladies and gentlemen, here’s another one from TheHill.com. They have a piece by a college professor, Bruce Gyory. G-y-o-r-y. Bruce Gyory is from the University of Albany. You’ve heard of him, right? (interruption) You don't know who Bruce Gyory is? Well, I don't, either. Bruce Gyory says that all these likely voter polls are dead wrong. The likely voter polls are the worst polls to look at. He says Obama's gonna win this election 51-47.
Hands down, not even close, and the mistakes that everybody's making are looking at likely voter polls. So The Hill runs a piece written by a guy casting doubt on all their own polls. The likely voter screen, that's the worst thing you can do. And Obama has it in the tank now 51-47. By the same token, A. B. Stoddard was on Fox yesterday. She's an executive at The Hill.
She's the lone voice in the media who thinks that Obama has not been helped by the storm, and she makes a persuasive case. She thinks he's not been helped by it. He already is president. People expect presidents to be presidential. What's the big plus in Obama getting to look presidential when he already is? Big whoop. You can't get the money out there fake, he can't print money and distribute it.
He can't get anybody's house rebuilt by Tuesday. He can't get anything done by Tuesday. He can't make a significant difference on the ground by Tuesday. This is what she's saying. That's one of the upcoming sound bites. Let me do a couple little more polling things here, we move on. Quinnipiac. We're back to Quinnipiac. Quinnipiac University. CBS uses 'em, and I think a couple others do.
In Virginia, Quinnipiac says that Romney is losing the state by two points, but he's plus 21 in independents. Now, the rule of thumb from the left -- the rule of thumb from the media -- has always been: “He who wins the independents wins the election.” They've always said that about Ohio, in fact. “He who wins the independents in Ohio wins the state.” Well, I'm sorry, Romney's up double digits with independents in Ohio, and also 21 points among independents in Virginia.
Mark Halperin of TIME Magazine is another Drive-By Media figure who's having trouble going along with the conventional wisdom. The Quinnipiac poll today shows Obama up in Ohio. It's a Quinnipiac/CBS poll that shows Obama up five in Ohio. Mark Halperin says: I don't think so. I don't think so because Romney's way up in independents. Mark Halperin says history shows if you win independents then you win Ohio. Now, he doesn't come out and say that the polls are wrong.
But he can't go with the flow here. He's having trouble. You know, he's all over MSNBC and CNN. I know where he goes. But he's having trouble going along with the old CW 'cause he's looking at all these polls that show Obama up one, two, three, five, but Romney plus-double digits in independents and says that it doesn't make sense. I've got the whole Quinnipiac CBS/New York Times poll here.
It says, “Obama leads Romney 50-45 among likely voters, exactly where the race stood on October 22nd. His lead in Florida, however, has shrunk from nine points in September to just one point in the new survey.” That's Obama. It creates a fiction of record-Democrat turnout while over-sampling Democrats. The over-enthusiasm in the Quinnipiac poll is Republican. I'm just telling you.
I'm not gonna go through the numbers. It’d take too long to run through all this, so trust me. The Democrat enthusiasm in the poll is up, but they've way oversampled Democrats in this poll they're using a Democrat plus eight sample. This is my point. If all these polls, folks, that show Obama winning these swing states by three points/five points all have a Democrat sample that's identical to 2008...
The only way these polls can be right is if Democrats show up in far greater numbers next Tuesday than Republicans do. That's the only way. Here's another recalcitrant Drive-By Media type. Slate.com’s Dave Weigel: "This Early Vote Calculation from Gallup Looks Terrible for Obama.” I mentioned to you yesterday (and there hasn't been anything on it in the Drive-Bys, which I think is highly instructive) that Romney is up seven in early voting.
Not just Ohio, but across the fruited plain. Now, I said yesterday that that number is the one that is going to send chills and shock waves down the spines of the White House and the media and every Democrat organization. Early voting is where they think they win elections. Early voting is where people get bussed in and they don't even know what they're doing.
They're sent into the polling place, they're told what to do, they come out, and they give them a couple Milk Duds and send 'em on their way. They have no idea what just happened. It is where all the double voting, all kinds of shenanigans take place from the Democratic standpoint. This is where the walking-around money is spent. People are walking through streets. “Hey, what are you doing?”
“Here, come vote. I'll put you on that bus!”
They put ‘em on a bus, they register ‘em and they send 'em vote. Early voting has always, in the minds of the Democrats, been an advantage for them and Mr. Weigel said: “It hasn't gotten too much attention outside of talk radio,” which means me, “but if accurate, Gallup's study of early voters neutralizes one of the Obama campaign's best road-to-victory talking points. As it conducted tracking polls ... Gallup asked voters whether they'd cast ballots or intended to before Election Day. The early voters broke 52-46 for Mitt Romney. The dawdling voters who would vote before Election Day were tied, 49-49.
“The voters waiting for November 6 broke for Romney, again, by a 6-point margin. This would be easy to explain away if Obama had lagged in 2008's early vote,” but he didn’t! “[I]n 2008, Obama was winning this vote,” and he’s losing it big this time. And that result, again, was from Gallup yesterday and they didn't talk about it. It's the only poll showing this, by the way.