10,000 Valid Virginia Signatures On August 24th Guarantees Obama's Re-election

President Obama said yesterday on the stump in Roanoke Virginia, and quite correctly " When we get Virginia we will win this election."  As the map below shows, yes indeed, Virginia is the key to the November election. If Obama carries it he can lose North Carolina, Florida and even Ohio, and still get to the 270 Electoral College votes required.

This also goes to show how difficult Mitt Romney's battle in the Electoral College is.Even if current polling gives Romney Florida he still loses 279-259 as per the map below.

Of course anything can happen between now and November and if there is a massive economic collapse President Obama might well suffer the consequences as did John McCain in 2008. McCain had, because of Sarah Palin, actually passed Obama in the polls, but once Lehman Brothers/Tarp and McCain suspending his campaign eventuated nothing Palin could do could save him.

But barring an October surprise of such magnitude and the fact that Virginia could determine who will be elected the election could well be over, all bar the shouting, on August 24th. Virgil Goode, the presidential candidate of the very conservative Constitutional Party will be on the ballot in a number of states, including,perhaps vitally, Ohio and Colorado. Obviously 1-2% of the vote, taken from Romney, may make all the difference in Ohio, which Obama won closely in 2008 but it is Virginia that matters.

Goode is from, and very popular in, down-state Virginia. Unfortunately for Romney the conservative part of the state, and the key to balancing Northern Virginia where Obama ran up huge majorities which enabled him to defeat McCain in this previously safe Republican state.

PPP Polling has released its latest Virginia polling which finds President Obama leading Romney by 8 points 50%-42%. Naturally there will be ups and owns and the race may well tighten to the 2% that Obama won it by in 2008 (or Romney might win it by that margin) but if Virgil Goode gets 10,000 signatures and gets them from the required places by August 24th, then this PPP polling result, in italics below, 

FROM THIS LINK could be utter disaster for Romney;

"-If Virgil Goode gets on the ballot in Virginia it could spell trouble for Romney. He pulls 9% of the vote, getting most of his support from Republicans and conservative leaning independents. With him in the picture Obama's lead pushes out to 14 points at 49-35. It's highly unlikely Goode would get 9% in the end but he certainly could make a difference if Virginia ended up being more like a 1-2 pt race. Goode staying off the ballot may be vital to Romney's prospects there."

Of course, and as PPP rightly points out it is unlikely that Goode will get 9% even given that he is a local and well liked but if he takes even 2% which seems quite possibly given the possibility of a "Mormon Bradley effect" then Virginia would be lost on current polling and with it most likely the election for Romney. Everything between now and August 24th is chasing the wind politically, if Goode gets on the ballot on that date then the wind will be a hurricane in favor of President Obama.

Here is a local report (you can read the entire column)

AT THIS LINK from the Richmond Times-Dispatch which the rest of the media has chosen to ignore as if Goode gets on the ballot they will have noting to write about as the campaign will be over effectively-as Obama hinted yesterday.

With a single vote — his own — Goode changed the course of the Virginia Senate in 1996. He broke with fellow Democrats to impose power-sharing on an evenly divided chamber. That ensured a conservative coalition for a Republican governor named George Allen.

Sixteen years later, Goode — now the far-right Constitution Party's nominee for president — could change the course of the Barack Obama-Mitt Romney contest in battleground Virginia from tossup to Obama encore. Or could he?

A new poll by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic outfit, has Goode drawing likely Romney voters and taking 9 percent in Virginia. Such a performance seems unlikely, not to mention the fact that Goode has not yet qualified for the Virginia ballot.

In 2008, four independent candidates, combined with write-ins, collectively pulled 1.02 percent of the Virginia vote. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader led the pack with a whopping 0.30 percent.

The last time an independent presidential candidate even moved into significant single-digits was 1996. Billionaire Ross Perot got over 6 percent. Virginia — then less moderate than it is today — still fell to Bob Dole.

Goode, who's been a Democrat, an independent and a Republican, must first navigate Virginia's ballot-access requirements, labeled by experts as the toughest in the nation.

Goode has until Aug. 24 to submit the signatures of 10,000 registered voters, including 400 from each of the 11 congressional districts.

Will Romney's "Play It Safe" Campaign End Like Dewey's

There have been numerous comments regarding the Drudge Report headline that Condoleezza Rice is at the top of the list as Mitt Romney's running mate along the lines of "it will never happen as Mitt is running a "Play it safe" campaign.

 Romney has come under a lot of criticism from Republicans' some quite prominent in the media, for what has been perceived as a low key, lacklustre and defensive campaign so far. 


Certainly the notion that Romney will, in contrast to a controversial figure like Rice, choose someone who will not be a "distraction" e.g. a Portman or Pawlenty has been the general meme.


Those who hold that view in the media, especially those on the left, which is of course the bulk of the media, point to what they describe as the "disastrous" choice of Sarah Palin "who cost McCain the election' as a hobgoblin stricture that Romney should not make the same "mistake." 


Well Lord save us from our "friends and their advice. The facts are that Palin actually revived McCain's moribund campaign and put him in the lead until the financial collapse and McCain's "suspension" of his campaign which does not fit either their hatred of Palin or their "advice" to an opponent.


The commentator "technopeasant at Conservatives4Palin survey's Romney's current campaign and makes a very valid comparison to the disastrous campaign of Thomas E. Dewey against Harry Truman. 


Fine, let Romney carry on playing it safe and hoping for an economic collapse-heaven forbid he shoudl do something bold like choosing a Rice or Palin to shore up the base and galvanise his campaign. In the meantime Romney is 8 points behind Obama in Virginia which, if that holds on election day, means that Romney will have played safe right into Obama's second term.

technopeasant 26 minutes ago

A comparison between Mitt Romney and his strategy and Thomas Dewey and his losing strategy in 1948:

http://spectator.org/archives/...

Key Takeaway:

"...Well, went the reasoning, the economy was in turmoil, Berlin had been blockaded, China was in the middle of a civil war, the Middle East had just exploded in the first Arab-Israeli War, the State of Israel being only weeks old. Fresh from WWII, the concern was that WWIII was teetering on the brink."

"So what decision did Dewey make? What was to be the day-to-day of the Dewey campaign?"

"Play it safe."

"...He would--and did--play it safe. And lost the White House in a spectacular upset.

"And what unsettling similarity in thus far unfolding 2012 campaign reminds of Dewey?"

"In biorgrapher Smith's words of the Dewey play it safe strategy:"

"So there it was: a neat combination of personal preference, bad memories, political necessity, and genuine statesmanship, wrapped up in THE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF TRUSTED ADVISERS AND STATE PARTY LEADERS."

And finally from Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard:

"...Is it too much to ask Mitt Romney to get off autopilot and actually think about the race he's running? Adopting a PREVENT DEFENSE when it's only the second quarter and you're NOT even ahead is dubious enough as a strategy. But his campaign's monomaniacal belief that it's about the ECONOMY and only the economy, and that they need to keep telling us stupid voters that it's only about the economy, has gone from being an annoying tick to a dangerous self-delusion."

This article needs to be sent to as many conservatives as possible before the convention. It contains everything you need to know to why Romney is a loser.

What's The Fuss? Over 50% Of Presidential Tickets Have Been Women/Minorities

The media never cease to amaze. The report that Mitt Romney is strongly considering having Condoleezza Rice as his running mate has set off an explosion of speculation about the implication of such a choice, should it happen.


It has, the MSM being true to form, given the leftist press another opportunity to bash Sarah Palin-her being some sort of example of what not to choose, and how her campaign was "disastrous" and caused McCain's defeat.


That that proposition is ludicrous has not stopped the media from getting their digs in-they are beyond pathetic. of course, if Palin mentions any of that they start in with their other dig-that she "plays the victim" so she can't win either way-not that that would stop her from calling them out of course.


That the conservatives can never win as far as the media is concerned of course a given. If Rice is the subject of speculation it is "because the GOP wants to pretend they are not racists" or "once again the GOP is insulting women by supposedly considering one just because she is a woman." 


Naturally, if a woman, or a Black wasn't being considered, then the opposite blather would be heard "the GOP won't consider a woman or a Black because they are racist and are having a war on women."


This whole supposed amazement and speculation that a woman and minorities (e.g. Rice and Rubio) are being strongly considered for the ticket is just silly. It is almost standard for either a woman or a minority person to be on a presidential ticket for almost a quarter of a century.


1984 Geraldine Ferraro
2000 Joe Lieberman
2008 Sarah Palin
2008 Barack Obama


Thus in the seven elections in nearly 25 years, over 50% of the election year battles had either a woman or a minority (Black/Jew) on a presidential campaign ticket. It should not be a matter of speculation regarding who may be on a campaign ticket based on a persons gender or ethnicity. 


In Modern America it is the norm that one or both candidates may come from either (or both) aspects. The media should start treating the public with respect not least with the understanding that the average person is not a fool.

Palin Endorsed Ted Cruz Surges Into Texas Senate Lead In New PPP Poll

Sarah Palin's winning streak for endorsed candidates looks like it will continue in spectacular fashion. PPP Polling's first poll AT THIS LINK of the GOP's run-off campaign for the nomination for senator from Texas shows Palin endorsed Ted Cruz in a solid lead. 


The fact that a Dem pollster finds the result "surprising" is of course hardly surprising. the fact that they give the credit to the Tea party without mentioning the massive effect Palin's endorsement had on the campaign is also not surprising-but it is sad.
For a more unbiased via of Cruz and Palin's endorsement see the Hill AT THIS LINK.


If Cruz's remarkable result in keeping the person Dewhurst from winning the first round is included in the calculation and Cruz goes on to win at the end of the month it will be an astonishing 7 wins in a row for Palin including, Deb Fischer's amazing win in Nebraska. And Palin is supposed to be "irrelevant" In the meantime she is shaping the senate, at least, to her views by her chosen candidates winning race after race.

PPP's first poll of the Texas Senate runoff finds Ted Cruz with a surprising 49-44 lead and a much more enthusiastic cadre of supporters than former front runner David Dewhurst.

Cruz's lead expands to a whooping 59-36 margin over Dewhurst among voters who describe themselves as 'very excited' about voting in the election. The lower turnout is, the better Cruz's chances will be. Dewhurst leads 51-43 with 'somewhat excited' voters and 50-36 with those who say they are 'not that excited.' The big question is whether those less enthused folks will actually bother to turn out or not.

This race is one of the most stark examples of the Tea Party movement propelling a candidate that we've seen to date. 40% of voters identify themselves as members of that movement and Cruz has a 71-26 advantage with them.

The remarkable history of Cruz's advance is detailed below;


Subsequent to Sarah Palin's endorsement of him, GOP candidate for senator from Texas Ted Cruz has completed the astonishing journey from polling at only 3% to being in the final run-off. Cruz having kept the previously presumed winner Dewhurst below 50% in tonight's primary battle.

PRIMARY RESULT MAY 29th

92% reporting	Ted Cruz					445,483	33.60%
	David Dewhurst					593,865	44.79%

Clearly this last minute Tweet by Palin to Texans, and her previous robocall, made a major contribution to Cruz's success in getting into the run-off tonight;

Dear Texans, please remember to vote today for Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate! http://fb.me/KpyB3ek3

The Cruz rise follows on from Palin's remarkable success in assisting conservative candidates, who were outsiders and initially polling lowly, into becoming winners. Richard Mourdock in Indiana and Deb Fischer in Nebraska are the two latest, whom even Palin's enemies have grudgingly admitted were assisted by her into the winners circle.

If Cruz is the last in the recent trifecta, then his win,or even his getting  into the run-off by denying Dewhurst a first round victory, will be perhaps the most remarkable of Palin's picks, and her place as king maker will have to be accepted by the punditry.

 Of course not all Palin's picks will win.That would be impossible, as some choices will have so little prospect of winning even though they are of outstanding quality. However her winning percentage is remarkable as is the enthusiasm her endorsments bring.

Here is remarkable polling history for Cruz.

PPP Polling

January 2011 Dewhurst 23% Cruz 3% (Dewhurst +20)

ABC NEWS

PALIN ENDORSES CRUZ MAY 10th; CRUZ CAMPAIGN REPORTS MASSIVE INTEREST

Post PALIN endorsement poll May 21st

Democrat Pollster PPP Polling (D)  on May 24th

Dewhurst 46%  Cruz 29%  (Dewhurst +17)

PPP also found this result;

"Even though Rick Perry's candidate is likely to defeat Sarah Palin's, her endorsement polls much more positively. 36% of voters say they're more inclined to back a Palin supported candidate to 21% who consider it a negative. Perry's stock with Texas Republicans has fallen so far his endorsement is actually a net minus with 24% saying it would make them more inclined to vote for his candidate to 28% who say less likely."

Gallup: 18% Won't Vote For A Mormon For President.Is There A Mormon "Bradley Effect"

The outstanding poll analysis site 

Electoral-Vote.Com has the Gallup poll below which shows a huge, in the context of a supposed close election, 18% would not vote for a Mormon for president. 

He makes the comment;

"While interesting, what the poll really says is what people are willing to tell a pollster, rather than how they would actually vote. Although 18% of the respondents said that would not vote for a Mormon, when push comes to shove (and the shoving date is Nov. 6, 2012), given a choice between a white, Republican Mormon and a black, Democratic generic Protestant, it remains to be seen whether the expressed bigotry against Mormons dominates. It is also possible that some of the anti-Mormon voters rationalize their vote by convincing themselves that Obama is a Muslim, which in their eyes is even worse."

Firstly, yes, this is what people are willing to tell the pollster but, rather than as he indicates, it may not reflect polling booth reality. It could well be that it actually understates reality. Perhaps more people than the 18% did not tell the pollster that they would not vote for a Mormon because they felt it might expose them to being seen as "bigots."

 Historically this phenomenon was seen where people would supposedly tell pollsters that they would vote for a Black candidate but in the polling booth the Black candidate lost by a margin which could only be explained by people telling pollsters one thing and doing something else in private for fear of being called bigots.

I respect the analytical ability of "The Votemaster" at his site but t call people who oppose Mormonism as "bigots" is a bridge too far. There are Christians of strong faith who see Mormonism as non-Christian "another Gospel" as St. Paul put it and have every right to vote against, or abstain from voting for someone whose beliefs are seen as destructive of the 2000 year old faith they adhere to.


Thus the reality could very well be that actually more than 18% would not vote for a Mormon for president. It may well be that there will be a "Bradley effect' (history at the link) in November and in the polling booth many will not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. or the "Bradley effect" may be more  subtle in that rather than vote for Obama those opposed to Romney because he is a Mormon will simply stay home.


The vote in South Carolina, which primary Gingrich won in a landslide, may be a reflection of the anti-Mormon vote in the South. McCain won SC by 9 points, but with Romney running much closer to Obama than McCain did nationwide at present Romney is only ahead by 6 points in SC today. 


Romney is 7 points ahead in Missouri, a state which McCain won by less than 1 point. On that basis Romney should be massively ahead in South Carolina.


If he is not, and it is due to a Mormon type Bradley effect, then Romney stands little chance of winning Virginia (where Obama is 8 points ahead at present) and possibly Florida, and, who knows, "when push comes to shove" South Carolina might fall to Obama. 

A recent Gallup poll asked voters which about various demographic categories and whether they would vote for a presidential candidate in each of them. Here are the results.

Category	Yes	No
Black	96%	4%
Female	95%	5%
Catholic	94%	5%
Hispanic	92%	7%
Jewish	91%	6%
Mormon	80%	18%
Gay or Lesbian	68%	30%
Muslim	58%	40%
Atheist	54%	43%