Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Rush Limbaugh, Obama and Polls: The Maverick Conservative Gets It Riight; Limbaugh Gets It Wrong

What did this blgo tell you when the mianstream media was pushing PLLS purporting to "show" taht Presdient Obama is pretty much a "lock" for re-election? Right. This blog told you that polls are evil things, and mean absolutely NOTHING at this pont in time. Rush Limbaugh said somewhat the same thing: that the mainstream media assertin that POLLS showe d that Obama was on the way to re-electin did NOT mean anything.

What is the difference between this blog aand Rush? Rigth. This blog is CONSSITENT, and Rush is not (much as I respect hmim, and acknowledge that he has a talent for connecting with people that I do not have). Limbaugh was agian GLOATING today that new polls show Obama "fighting for his lie" agaisnt Romney . The Galup "trackning poll" has Romney "heade"...................................Sorry, on the floor in that fetal positon again........... by 5%. An ABC poll (surely OVERSTATING Obama's supprort) had Romney and Obama EVEN. Yu can see why Limbuagh is gloating, as he has not taken the NEUTRAL positon of this blog (opposing both Romney and Obamma, illogical as you may--with some justice--find that). Limbaugh is now "all for" Romney, mainlly because he is not Obama and is now the ENEMY of the left. "The nemy of my enemy is my friend" is a maxim taht Rush Limbaugh lives by. Nevertheless, Rush is WRONG to place ANY importance on present polls--as Rush himself, will say when he is not being obviously PARTISAN. Poll questions ALWAYS start out with this (exppress or implied): "If the election were held today, for whom would you vote". The problem, of curse, is that the lectin is NOT being held today, and willl not be held until November. Taht means plls NOW mean NOTHING (I mean this literally). No. It does not matter to me, although id does to Rush, that I don't WANT the American people to "approve" of Barack Obama. It would not even matter if I supported Romney. I seee clearly, even though I am virtually blind. This media obsession with polls simply shows how INCOMPETENT, and agenda ridden, are essentially ALL of the media people.

All right I am being a little hard on Rush. His main point today was how the MAINSTREAM MEDIA wass ANICKING because they suddenly realized that this election COULD slip away from Obama. The mainstream media has been trin g to USH the idea that Romney is a "loser". Their problem, of course--for now--is that they have PUSHED the idea that Romney is the ONLY GOP canddiate who can appeal beyond conservatives, in order to DEFEAT SANTRUM. The media have tired to PIVOT into an anti-Romney mode, but they can hardly expect voters tobe that STUPID. Rush Limbaugh essentially said most of this and he is RIGHT. However, Limbaugh did NTO go further and say these polls are MEANINGLESS at this time, because he--just like the mainstream media he is rightlyl condemning--wants to USE the polls against Obama (illogical as it is to say that ANYONE will faovr or not favor someone just because of a POLL). Nope. You may think "The Maverick Conservative is "partisan", bit I am not. Sure, I have a PHILOSOPHY of government, and life, in which I beleive: an IDOLOGY, if you insist on that word. However, I don't let that get in the way of the way I LOOK at things, just because I think that "believing" polls that faovr my pont of view will HELP me advance my ideology. That is what Limbaugh does, and he is very successful doing it.

This election season, of course, PROVES that I have alwalys been right on this. How many times have we seen olls CHANGE in a matter of TWO WEEKS or less in this elecitn season? Yet, the media acts as if these FACTS do not exist. The media stilll is OBSESSED with polls, and do not even know of any other way to "cover" an elecitno. You can even say that polls are a RELIGION of theirs, where they have 'faith" no matter how often it is PROVED taht polls have NO meaning months in advance. Polls acltualy have limited meaning near the electin, although they are rarely WAY off. We would have a better country, and a better world, if polls were TOTALLY discredited, whihc YOU can accomplish merely by LYING to pollsters (and/or not cooperating).

Now part of the "news" tonight is that French Presdient Sarkozly is headed for defeat. That is probably true, because all sides in France believe it is true. Sure, this is probably based on polls, to a large degree, but "professionals" can SENSE these things, even without polls (often better than with polls). I, in case lyou had not realized it, am an honorary "professional", even if no one is paying me. I am almsot never wrong. Thus, I believe Sarkozy is in trouble, mainly because the French electin is FAST APPROACHING, nad it is ossible to get a better reading.

But there is an even better reason that I believe Sarkozy is in trouble, for the same reason this blgo has told you that OBAMA is facing an uphill battle. The LEFT may think that they can convince ordinary voters to SELL OUT their country for gay rights, free contraceptino, class warfare and the like. Not true. In the end, if Obama cannot OBVIOIUSLY turn around the eocnomy (not mere words SAIING he has done so), makng people beliefve that there is a REAL economic recovery, Obama is gong to LOSE. The left is NOT going to be abel to SCARE women, and BRIBE womn, to vote against what they perceive as their ultimate economic interest. The reason I cannot PREDICT now that Obama will LOSE, even though he faces an uphill battle, is that he has the mainstream media doing their best to SNOW epople. They are NOT gong to be able to do it with this talk of a "war on women". But they MIGHT be able to do it by SLANTING economic news. They have already been trying that. So if Obama can only gert a SMALL bump in economic news htis summer, as we head into the time that really matters, Obama has a chance. Otherwise, he has not chance. Nope. He wil not be able to "blame it on Bush". He jsut will not be able to win. Absent an abysmal Romney performance, the electin really is gong to come down tto the ECONOMY--unless Obama can at least get enough TEMPPORARY improvement to get himm to the electin. N that case, Obama will have the help of the mainstream media in tryhing to say that we should "stay the course" that is "wroking' (if "slower" than Obama wuold like). Obama's problem, as this blog has shown you, is that SUMMER has been the DOWN period for the economy since January of 2010. It has also been the DOWN period for the stock market almost every year since 1994. There are any number of FOREIGN EVENTS that could pretty mcuh doom the economy to a bad period--not ot mention show that Obama has not really accomplished nything in foreign policiy other than to "get" Osama bin Laden. Nope. Obama faces n lphill battle, unless things BREAK for him--no matter wht indivicual polll says (at least until we get to the week of the electin, and it appears Obama is gaining traction on the economy). If OBAMA is in the positn of Sarkozy, at the same oint, then it will be my opinion that OBAMA WILL LOSE (because Sarkozy has the sAME problem that the french economy is in BAD shape).

The media, and the rest of the left, can have all of the fantasies they want. They will NOT be able to turn this election into "Romney vs. women", or "rich, unconnected Romney vs. rich, warm, conneected Obama". In thaqt last connectin, I believe it is a FANTASY to think taht ordinary people LISTEN any longer to Obama. They hae heard him TOOMUCH, and hi sWORDS no longer reach them. I certainly ingore thhem, except to ridicule them, but you may consider me to be not an ordinary person. However, netier are the medai people "ordianry people,". In fact, they are MORE DISCONNECTED than Romney. They may be the only peopele on Earth with a lower "approval rating" trhan Congress.

Why would Romney rise in the polls as he becomes the obvius nomnee? What are you? A clueless MEDIA person? This is so obvius it hurts. Beofre Romney was clearly the nominee, he was "suffering" ATTAC CKS from his oppponents. No more (to any large degere). More importantly 9yes, MORE importantly), untiel Romney was th enominee, polls matching him and Obama were HYPOTHETICAL. People KNOW that Obama is the Democrat nominee. Until the last few weeks (maybe six weeks, if yhou read this blog), it ws not certain who the GOP nominee would be. That is always a RIDICULOUS poll--the poll as to a GOP candidate not yet obvious. Say you supported Rick Santroum, and BELIEVEED him taht he was the one to carrly the health care fight to Obama. Then a pollster comes and asks you whether you support Presdient Obama or MITT ROMNEY (if the electin were held then--lol--and Romney was the GOP nominee). What SHOULD you do? Well, if yo are not ME, and not trying to destroy polls deliberately, you should say that you support PRESIDENT OBAMA. That is the way yu culd help RICK SANTORUM. Even if oyou don't entirely buy this logic, you should be able t o see the HLYPOTHETICAL nature of the qauestin, before the GOP nominee is even know. People are simply not gong to give the matter much thought, unless ehy are giving it thought in how to HELP their candidate int he GOP nomination process.

Nope. Rush Limbaugh is wrong, when he SEEMS to pay attentin to polls taken now. The Maverick Conservative is right. Presdient polls havve NO meaning at all as to who will wn the electin. Events alone can TRUMP even an accurate present "poll'. Limbaugh and I are BOTH right that our maisntream media are INCOMPETENT PARTISANS, and that their attempted USE of polls shows this..

P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).

No comments: