Mother Of All Economies By Dick Morris There is no gender gap. There is a marriage gap. A Sept. 13 poll I conducted (912 likely voters, national sample) found that while married white women back Romney by 55 to 40 percent, unmarried white women back Obama by 60-32! Since unmarried white women are 45 percent of all white women, this marriage gap poses a huge problem for Romney â the central problem. In his recent off-the-record comments, Romney characterized his opponentsâ supporters as relying on government entitlements and handouts. He said that 47 percent of Americans get checks from the government and are likely to vote for the hand that feeds them: the Democratic Party. He is half-right. Of those who get government checks, a bit more than half (about 30 percent of all Americans) get means-tested welfare payments through programs like Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, housing subsidies and such. The remaining 17 percent of the population do get government checks, but they are Social Security, Medicare, veteransâ benefits or the Earned Income Tax Credit. They get these benefits because they have paid into the Social Security and Medicare funds over the years or have served our country or work for a living but get supplemental benefits to get out of poverty. But the ranks of those who get means-tested benefits are insufficient to win this election. It is only when they are joined by unmarried women â some of whom get benefits but many of whom do not â that Romneyâs opposition swells its numbers and becomes a threat. The Democratic convention was aimed squarely and almost exclusively at these unmarried, white women. Its focus on abortion, contraception and equal pay all hark back to the partyâs historical advocacy of their rights and support for their difficult lives as single mothers. But the reality is that it is not Republican insensitivity that is hurting Americaâs single mothers, but a failing economy. During the Obama administration, 90 percent of the job losses have been in womenâs jobs. Democrats answer that men lost their jobs at the start of the recession since they tend to work in cyclical fields responsive to the economyâs ups and downs, like construction. But the long-term stagnation of the economy has gone beyond those afflicted with the business cycle and have cut deeply into the ranks of women in occupations â like teaching and nursing â not traditionally dependent on cyclical changes in the economy. Whether these single women work in the private sector, where Obamaâs economic failures have left them bereft, or in the public sector, where the economy has sapped tax revenues, they are still losing their jobs to the presidentâs economic policies. Single women need to reconsider voting based on the old issues of abortion, contraception and equal pay. (Romney is a moderate on these issues.) But how about voting based on your ability to make a living? Obviously, the feminization of poverty has left many single women dependent on government aid, be it daycare, subsidized housing, welfare, Medicaid or food stamps. But their larger interest is in getting good jobs at good pay â like they did before Obama took office. Or have they given up? Are they so beaten down that they identify not with those who are looking to move up but with those who are stuck at the bottom? Could it be that Obamaâs recession and economic stagnation â and even his socialism â are truly self-perpetuating? That the more he ruins our economy, the larger the base of government-dependent voters? Could this motivation have played a part in his adoption of policies that he might have known would lead to economic failure? Could it all be deliberate? And, more importantly, will it work? Not in the United States of America it wonât. Ambition, competition, confidence and hard work still dominate the American spirit regardless of gender or marital status. Obamaâs lead will be short-lived. It will truly be he who, in fact, is betting against the American worker.
Obama: I Believe In Redistribution <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/udLT_dtaI_0?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Redistribution vs. Success <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F4PdzUwTozo?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Obama's War On Women <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/M-ky5Obzk5A?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Barack Obama Super PAC Beats Conservative Counterparts In August Fundraising "WASHINGTON -- Just as the tables have turned for the fundraising operation of President Barack Obama's campaign, so have things changed for the super PAC backing his bid. Priorities USA Action, run by former White House aide Bill Burton, raised $10.1 million in August, the most it has ever raised. The group also lead the way among other super PACs for the first time, beating out the conservative groups that have dominated the chase for unlimited money." More...
Why The Polls Understate Romney Vote by Dick Morris Republicans are getting depressed under an avalanche of polling suggesting that an Obama victory is in the offing. They, in fact, suggest no such thing! Here's why: 1. All of the polling out there uses some variant of the 2008 election turnout as its model for weighting respondents and this overstates the Democratic vote by a huge margin. In English, this means that when you do a poll you ask people if they are likely to vote. But any telephone survey always has too few blacks, Latinos, and young people and too many elderly in its sample. That's because some don't have landlines or are rarely at home or don't speak English well enough to be interviewed or don't have time to talk. Elderly are overstated because they tend to be home and to have time. So you need to increase the weight given to interviews with young people, blacks and Latinos and count those with seniors a bit less. Normally, this task is not difficult. Over the years, the black, Latino, young, and elderly proportion of the electorate has been fairly constant from election to election, except for a gradual increase in the Hispanic vote. You just need to look back at the last election to weight your polling numbers for this one. But 2008 was no ordinary election. Blacks, for example, usually cast only 11% of the vote, but, in 2008, they made up 14% of the vote. Latinos increased their share of the vote by 1.5% and college kids almost doubled their vote share. Almost all pollsters are using the 2008 turnout models in weighting their samples. Rasmussen, more accurately, uses a mixture of 2008 and 2004 turnouts in determining his sample. That's why his data usually is better for Romney. But polling indicates a widespread lack of enthusiasm among Obama's core demographic support due to high unemployment, disappointment with his policies and performance, and the lack of novelty in voting for a black candidate now that he has already served as president. If you adjust virtually any of the published polls to reflect the 2004 vote, not the 2008 vote, they show the race either tied or Romney ahead, a view much closer to reality. 2. Almost all of the published polls show Obama getting less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% job approval. A majority of the voters either support Romney or are undecided in almost every poll. But the fact is that the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent. In 1980 (the last time an incumbent Democrat was beaten), for example, the Gallup Poll of October 27th had Carter ahead by 45-39. Their survey on November 2nd showed Reagan catching up and leading by three points. In the actual voting, the Republican won by nine. The undecided vote broke sharply -- and unanimously -- for the challenger. An undecided voter has really decided not to back the incumbent. He just won't focus on the race until later in the game. So, when the published poll shows Obama ahead by, say, 48-45, he's really probably losing by 52-48! Add these two factors together and the polls that are out there are all misleading. Any professional pollster (those consultants hired by candidates not by media outlets) would publish two findings for each poll -- one using 2004 turnout modeling and the other using 2008 modeling. This would indicate just how dependent on an unusually high turnout of his base the Obama camp really is.
How Did Our Economy Get So Bad And How Do We Fix It? http://www.dickmorris.com/how-did-o...s&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
An Excellent Perspective <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8SGyVNippvA?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Something Lighter But Very Cute http://www.app.com/article/20120827...sand-ouster-with-glee?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1