All The Way Down

A well-known columnist (some say it was Glenn Kessler) once wrote a much noticed piece on political scandals. He described how politicians are lured into scandal by the inherent nature of DC, and how DC, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of power and money called politics. He used it to describe how the Obama administration was just the latest in a long line of presidencies who suffer scandals, and that it really was not that different or worse than past administrations, and was deserving of only one Pinocchio.

At the end of his comments section, a little old lady wrote a passionate response. "What you have told us is rubbish. The Obama administration is really a never-ending campaign beset by scandal because it is the most politicized and corrupt administration in this nation's history. This administration is supported by four giant Pinocchios." The columnist typed a superior winking smile using a semi-colon, a dash and parentheses at the beginning of his reply and then continued, "What are the four Pinocchios resting on?"

"You're very clever, young man, very clever," wrote the old lady. But it's Pinocchios all the way down!"

Obama's Transparency

The most transparent President ever.

Obama Passes The Buck

It's always someone else's fault with this guy.

"Ok, go long! Keep going...keep going....further...."

Jay Carney To Be Replaced?

The Benevolence of Government

Margaret Thatcher died this past week. In reading about her, I came across this quote from her last speech to British House of Commons:

The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That way one will never create the wealth for better social services, as we have. What a policy. Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That is the Liberal policy.

If it pleases the lady, and I ever hope it would, I would like to introduce this fictional and entirely too simplistic scenario to help illustrate her point for where we are today, or at least where Obama would take us, in the United States.

Let's say I make $100,000 and someone else makes $20,000. That is "income disparity".

And income disparity is to be despaired above all things.

But unfortunately that someone else loses his job (because his evil corporate fatcat boss says complying with ObamaCare means he can't afford as many workers, but that's another story for another day). So, the government takes $20,000 of my income to help that guy while he's out of work.

We'll call the $20,000 the government takes from me "enhanced revenue". And we'll call the $20,000 they'll use to give to that other guy an "investment".

See, the government really, really cares for this guy, honest.

Now I've got $80,000 $70,000 (not having that $20,000 prevented me from making investments in my business and reduced my ability to market and produce the goods I make), and that guy has $20,000 $10,000 (after the government takes it's slice to pay administrators to determine what that guy should get. And for their staplers and laptop computers and buildings and offices and health insurance and pensions and their annual conference in Fiji for their workshops on better administrating).

I'm telling you, the government cares about this guy.

So now, we got ourselves a situation where we went from me having 400% more than that guy to a point where I have 600% more. Some might argue the income disparity just increased. But don't worry -- those people don't know what they're talking about. See, I used to have $80,000 more than he did, and now I only have $60,000 more. That's a 25% reduction in the disparity! Forward!

We'll call this, oh, I don't know, "fairness".

Ok, at this point, I'm a bit misty about just how much the government cares about this guy.

Of course, there used to be $120,000 in economic activity being generated between the two of us, and now there is $70,000. That's a 42% reduction in economic activity. But don't worry, taking the money from me and passing it through DC gives it a 4.652x multiplier (I rounded the number to save pixels, but government economists know the exact multiplier to at least 16 more places past the decimal point). This will juice the economy a lot more than if I had been allowed to selfishly keep the money I earned.

See, and this is perhaps the greatest lesson of all, the government helps me become a better, less selfish person.

We'll call all this. . . what's the phrase I'm looking for . . . The Obama Economy.

And just wait until they come for another $20,000 from me -- what a world that will be!

Now That March Madness Is Over

Now that the month of March has run its course, let's take a look at how The Sequester! impacted the growth of the total U.S. Debt compared to other years in the Obama presidency. This is the net change from the first day of March to the last day of March.

For example, in 2013 the debt was $16,640,135,316,625.30 on March 1 and $16,771,379,006,760.30 on March 29 (the last week day of the month). That works out to an increase of $131,243,690,135.00 (that is 131 billion dollars with a "b").

Here you go:

How we have survived as a nation with such austere measures is nothing short of astounding.

I Was Wrong

In one of my first forays into the bloggish new media whatever-you-want-to-call-it, I sent an email to Jonah Goldberg at National Review in 2006.

He posted it on the Corner:

It’s way too cute and conspiratorial, but it ain’t altogether crazy either. From a reader:

Wanted to propose a theory about Al Gore and other global warming alarmists. Maybe others have reached this conclusion, but I haven’t seen it.

Was just reading an article [which] starts out profiling Bill Gray, the preeminent hurricane guy. Talks about how he is a global warming skeptic and how he’s pissed at how he’s being treated in the scientific community. Etc.

But then I read this sentence, “In just three, five, maybe eight years, he [Gray] says, the world will begin to cool again.” and it hit me…Holy cow. The global warming alarmists KNOW the earth is going to begin cooling in a few years – and their alarm is that they have to have Kyoto-like programs in place that they can point to as the cause of the cooling.

If they can succeed at this – they effectively control the world. In a few decades they can revive the “earth is cooling and there’s an ice age coming” alarmism – and prescribe policies that ensure they have the power they want to manage that impending climate disaster.

For years now I have taken umbrage at Jonah calling me "not altogether crazy". I expressly aim to be exactly altogether crazy.

Anyway, I was waaaaay off base in that 2006 prediction. I was wrong. The Global Warming crowd didn't react to Bill Gray's accurate prediction of a pause in global warming -- indeed a cooling -- with some measure of crowing about how their efforts helped bring it about. Nope. They've just moved from the oh so restrictive "Global Warming" label to Climate Change. If it rains? Global Climate Warming Change! If there's a drought? Global Climate Warming Change! If it snows, if it hails, if it neither snows nor hails? Global Climate Warming Change! It rained in Dubuque! Ahaaaaa!!! It was dry in Dalhart! Proofiness!!!!!

If the temperature today is hotter than yesterday, then Climate Change! And if the temperature is cooler? ZOMG! CLIMATE CHANGIER!!!!!

I was naive in 2006. I was wrong. The earth has cooled, just like Dr. Gray predicted. But the Global Warmerists have no real reason to look at temperatures that diverge from what they predicted and pretend that that matters at all. The religion of Global Warmerism needs no empirical evidence, after all, it only needs faith.

There is a lot of faith -- much greater than a mustard seed -- going on up here in the Church of the Global Warmerism. And it will take a miracle for any of their predictions to come true.

But so far it's Dr. Gray 1, Global Warmerists 0.
(you can put me down for 0 too)

I Called On Obama To Bow Out For Exactly This Reason

The effort to resist saying I Told You So is not strong enough. Michelle Obama said this:

First lady Michelle Obama slipped up in a local TV interview Thursday and accidentally called herself a “single mother.”

“Believe me, as a busy single mother– or, I shouldn’t say single, as a busy mother. Sometimes, you know, when you’ve got a husband who is president, it can feel a little single. But he’s there,” Mrs. Obama told Vermont CBS affiliate WCAX.

Four years ago, I said this:

I call on Obama to bow out

Here's wife Michelle on the campaign trail:

But seriously, with the exception of the campaign trail and life in the public eye, I have to say that my life now is not really that much different from many of yours. I wake up every morning wondering how on earth I am going to pull off that next minor miracle to get through the day. I know that everybody in this room is going through this. That is the dilemma women face today. Every woman that I know, regardless of race, education, income, background, political affiliation, is struggling to keep her head above water. We try to convince ourselves that somehow doing it all is a badge of honor, but for many of us it is a necessity and we have to be very careful not to lose ourselves in the process. More often than not, we as women, are the primary caretakers in our households, scheduling babysitters, planning play dates, keeping up with regular doctor’s appointments; this was my week last week, supervising homework, handing our discipline. Usually we are the ones in charge of keeping the household together. I know you men, I know that you guys try to do your part, but the reality is that we’re doing it, right? (laughter and applause) Laundry, cleaning, cooking, shopping, home repairs. You know Barack has my back, he’s right there with me, feels my pain, and all that. (laughter)

If she thinks it's hard out there as the wife of a Senator and the wife of a Presidential candidate, just think of the demands of being first lady. And the strains of having your husband and your kids' father being President. If she thinks raising her family is hard now, if she thinks she can barely keep her head above water now, she in no way should think that she could make it with Barack in the White House.

Besides, in Hillary's America, she will have a village to help raise her kids.

And if there one thing we've learned from her whining, it's that Michelle needs a village to raise her kids.

Yes, Michelle needs Hillary.

For the children.

For the love of God, won't somebody think of the children!

See, I did think of them. But nooooo, no one listened to me.

Spring Break Your Foot

Kayak, which is a palindrome, and therefore evil (kayak live is evil kayak backwards), took its evil wrath out on my wife's foot.

The silver lining in this otherwise cloudy cloud, is that her bruising matches well with her toenail polish.

Obama's 2013 Bracket

ESPN reports that Barack Obama has filled out his brackets for the NCAA tournament, picking Louisville to go all the way.

It's that time of year.

It's also that time of year when the President submits a budget request to Congress. And while he hasn't submitted it to Congress yet, Obama has devised a method to not only help focus his decisions, but also to organize the process in a way that is familiar to him. Here is where he has ended up:

Clicking the image will take you to the Flickr page for the photo - clicking here will take you directly to the 1024x968 size of the image, probably best for viewing in detail.

What The Sequester Hath Wrought

Sequester!

Obama warned us the dire consequences of the Sequester! would be, um, dire. And so far about all we have is White House tours being cancelled to show for it. And now that everyone is laughing at him and not with him for his Chicken Littleism (as opposed to his Barackadoodledoo of 2008), where do we find ourselves?

Using TreasuryDirect.gov, and their "Debt to the Dime" application let's take a look at the total U.S. Debt compared to previous years, and see what effect the Sequester! might have had on it this year.

Where did the total U.S. debt stand at the first week day of March (when the Sequester! took effect this year) compared to the sixth week day of March?

2009
March 2: $10,942,165,294,650.80
March 9: $10,952,663,030,603.40
Added to debt: $10,497,735,952.60
Debt increased 0.096%

2010
March 1: 12,507,536,462,861.oo
March 8: 12,546,372,001,879.70
Added to debt: $38,835,539,018.70
Debt increased 0.31%

2011
March 1: $14,172,957,589,856.60
March 8: $14,193,176,753,471.60
Added to debt: $20,219,163,615.00
Debt increased: 0.143%

2012
March 1: $15,501,014,716,143.70
March 8: $15,517,794,642,311.20
Added to debt: $16,779,926,167.50
Debt increased: 0.108%

So, there's a baseline. How does 2013 fare in comparison, now that we are under the scourge of the cut-spending-to-the-bone Sequester!?

2013
March 1: $16,640,135,316,625.30
March 8: $16,701,846,937,879.70
Added to debt: $61,711,621,254.40
Debt increased: 0.371%

Well that's some real belt-tightening, not to mention eye-popping, austerity right there.

Or something.

Wacko Birds

It certainly wasn't an original idea -- see this article at Reason -- but once McCain called Rand Paul and those who supported his filibuster "wacko birds," me doing this was inevitable:

But forget the photoshop. If I could just get a programmer to develop an app for Wacko Birds...........

Bottom Story of the Day: Look Out Below! Can a Blog Get James Taranto to Fall for a Stunt by Writing a Headline with a Question Nobody Is Asking, Like "Hey, Kids! What Time Is It?" and in Doing So Provide an Example of the Lonely Lives of Columnists? Now That Would Be News - You Can Use

On Wednesday, I was quoted in James Taranto's Best of the Web Today feature at the Wall Street Journal based on an old 2008 post. If you are not familiar with Taranto's work, the title of this post could be a little bit confusing.

In his lead topic, Taranto was discussing how impotent Obama has become as highlighted by his "I am not a dictator" quote earlier in the week. Taranto was tackling an article by Ryan Lizza at the New Yorker who was arguing it's not Obama's fault. Here's the quote:

Contrary to Lizza's account, Obama seemed to understand this before his election. In September 2008, as blogger Jeff Dobbs noted, CBS's Steve Kroft asked the junior U.S. senator from Illinois why he thought he would be a good president. Obama answered: "I'm a practical person. One of the things I'm good at is getting people in a room with a bunch of different ideas who sometimes violently disagree with each other and finding common ground and a sense of common direction."

Of course, read the whole thing. Taranto has long been one of my favorites, and his daily article is must reading. I used to fire stuff off to him all the time and get counted among the people credited at the end of the piece. But notably, this marks the second time my name has been used in the article itself, the last occuring in 2007 when I had a John Edwards joke that struck his fancy.

Interesting, that. In 2007, a John Edwards joke on my blog was picked up by the late Dean Barnett for my first ever mention at the Weekly Standard. Dean became a good friend and helped me in my blogging considerably. The interesting thing tying these events together is that the post Taranto quoted on Wednesday was also quoted in 2008 by Dean at the Weekly Standard, in a post he called The Post Partisan Easter Bunny. The email conversation around that post between Dean and me was the last we had before Dean passed away. That post was made on October 1, 2008. On October 2 Dean made his last post at the Weekly Standard before his death.

Obama The Friendly Host

Obama hosted several Senate Republicans this week for a very nice dinner. The dinner coincided with a 13 hour filibuster from Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, in which he was objecting to the nomination of John Brennan for director of CIA over the lack of an answer from Obama and his administration over the use of drones domestically.

Some of those in attendance at the dinner with Obama made their way to the Senate floor in support of Paul after the dinner was over. Others, notably John McCain of Arizona and Linsdey Graham of South Carolina did not. In fact, not only did they not support Paul's filibuster, they have been attacking him ever since.

Obama's twitter feed showed that he really enjoyed the dinner with the Republicans.

After the dinner, reports came out that Obama picked up the tab. But apparently the Sequester, which has already caused Obama and the administration to cancel tours of the White House, also affected Obama's ability to tip his servers.

A Savior Is Born

Matthew 1:18-24

18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.

Luke 1:26-34

26 God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

Luke 1:35-45

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”

38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”

Luke 1:46-55

46 And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord

47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

48 for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,

49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.

50 His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.

51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.

52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.

53 He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.

54 He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful

55 to Abraham and his descendants forever,
just as he promised our ancestors.”

Luke 2:1-12

1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.

10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

Luke 2:13-21

13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”

16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at w

hat the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.

20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.

Matthew 2:1-11

1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.

5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:

6 “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”

9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was.

10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.

---------------------------

Philippians 2:5-11

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Colossians 1:15-22

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation

Merry Christmas

This was the second annual Luminary night in our neighborhood, organized by my lovely bride.

It is our way of welcoming Santa. This year, the Keeper of the Naughty and Nice List rode through the neighborhood on a fire truck.

Obama's Voter Repression

I promised myself I wasn't going to do this. But when it comes to promises I make to myself, I keep them at an almost Obamaian rate.

Oh well. Let's continue on with some election results and exit polls.

Another way to slice the data -- by Ideology. Because looking at it by Party doesn't tell us nearly as much as one might think. If Romney got fewer Republicans than McCain, how do we know whether this was truly "the base" staying home because they weren't sufficiently "fired up"? When I'm referring to "the base", I'm referring to . . . ta da . . . Ideology. Take me, for example. I am very conservative. But I am also a registered Independent. Were I to be exit-polled, my vote would not show up as Republican, but it would be Conservative. By what I would consider a rational definition of a Republican candidate's "base", I should be included.

A number of Republicans may have stayed home -- at this point Romney has about 160K fewer Republican votes than McCain got -- but was it "the base"?

Well.

Conservatives turned out at 35% of voters in 2012 vs 34% in 2008.
Moderates were 41% in 2012 vs 44% in 2008
Liberals were 25% in 2012 vs 22% in 2008

Moderates stayed home, and Liberals picked up the slack.

But let's break it down, shall we?

The Liberals who came out were less liberal in how they voted.

The Overall Liberal vote in 2012 was Obama 86%, Romney 11% and Other 3%
The Overall Liberal vote in 2008 was Obama 89%, McCain 10% and Other 1%

In 2012, 2M more Liberals voted than in 2008.

For those 2M -- the race roughly broke down:

Obama: 980K | 48.9%
Romney: 570K | 28.4%
Other: 480K | 24.1%

The mechanics of breaking down the Liberal vote this way is very crude. It starts with the assumption that the "first" 28.9M Liberals (the number of Liberals voting in 2008) voted exactly as they did in 2008. It then takes the 2M more Liberals who came out in 2012, and breaks down their votes in the ratios necessary to get to the Overall 2012 split between Obama-Romney-Other. The votes didn't actually come in that way, of course. But I present it in this manner just to illustrate the contrast between 2008 and 2012.

The Moderates who did come out out broke heavily for Other compared to 2008, but Romney lost way fewer than Obama.

The Overall Moderate vote in 2012 was Obama 56%, Romney 41%, Other 3%
The Overall Moderate vote in 2008 was Obama 60%, McCain 39%, Other 1%

In 2012 there were 6.8M fewer Moderates than in 2008

Obama got 5.9M fewer Moderate votes
Romney got 1.6M fewer Moderate votes
Other got 700K more Moderate votes

The Conservatives who came out were more conservative in how they voted.

The Overall Conservative vote in 2012 was Obama 17%, Romey 82%, Other 1%
The Overall Conservative vote in 2008 was Obama 20%, McCain 78%, Other 2%

In 2012 there were 1.2M fewer Conservatives than in 2008.

Obama got 1.4M fewer Conservative votes
Romney got 830K more Conservative votes
Other got 675K fewer Conservative votes

Essentially, Obama lost 100% of the Conservative votes who came out in 2008 and stayed home in 2012.

Between the Moderates and Conservatives who stayed home, it would appear a vast majority of them were 2008 Obama voters who chose not to participate in the 2012 election. It would also appear that the 2008 Republican votes that Romney did not secure compared to McCain were Moderate in ideology.

Obama went completely negative with Bain and the 47%, with the made up war on women and birth control, with anything at hand to avoid a focus on his record by focusing on very emotive appeals in a smearing of Romney. It was a very disciplined effort to convince voters he knew had no appetite for repeating their vote for him that Romney was not worth getting off the couch and going to the polls for.

Obama deliberately ran a Repress As Many Votes As Necessary To Keep Potential Romney Voters Home. And he ran it successfully.

Obama Wins. Thanks To Sandy?

Well. The election is over. I've been wading my way through the vote results and exit polls in an almost unhealthy manner. If you want to know how many fewer votes Obama got vs 2008, I can tell you (6.3M as of now). If you want to know how many fewer Republicans voted for Romney vs McCain, I can tell you (346K as of now). If you want to know in which states Romney improved vs McCain in 2008, I can tell you (all but AK, LA, MS, NJ). And on and on.

So. Why did Romney lose?

After reading the post election analysis at Gallup, it just may be that a natural disaster played a prominent, if not deciding role.

The Gallup analysis:

Romney clearly gained as a result of the first debate in Denver, and he held onto at least a marginal lead position in our polling until the week before the election, when Superstorm Sandy hit. Obama gained five points on the gap between our last pre-storm polling and the final poll. It may be that he continued to gain on into Election Day.

If you want to know how Hurricane Sandy affected the election, well, here we go. Because, it's right there in the exit polls.

15% of voters said Obama's response to Sandy was "the most important factor" in their vote.

Of that percentage, 73% voted for Obama.

Now I don't believe that every person who said Sandy was the most important factor was a true on-the-fence-sitter who then decided to vote for Obama. Or a former Romney supporter who switched. Or a definite sitter-outer who decided to get off the couch and vote. Many of them were going to vote for Obama regardless.

But what is 73% of 15%?

10.95%

I believe some number of those who said Obama's response to Sandy was the most important factor in their vote were lying. But what if those who were lying made up a little more than half of those who made such a claim. In other words, they were on Team O all along. That would leave us with just under half of them who made their decision on voting for president based upon a guy in a bomber jacket at an appearance with a fat Republican pretending to care about storm victims for a few minutes to get a photo op.

Could Obama really have won the election because of Hurricane Sandy? Gallup says that Obama gained five points after Sandy. The national popular vote ended up with Obama leading with less than three points.

And this nation is faced with another four years of Obama in the White House.

Defense . . . D-Fence

Here's the headline from a Hot Air post today:

Halperin: Democrats now on defense in blue states

Well, here's Obama campaigning in Michigan:

Looks like some Obama supporters know they're on defense.

(from an old 2008 post)

Fun With Early Voting In North Carolina, "How Do You Like Them Apples?" Edition

With voting totals through yesterday, North Carolina marks one week of early voting that includes in-person votes cast.

With that, we can do an apples-to-apples comparison between 2012 and 2008. All numbers below for both 2012 and 2008 are through one week of in person early voting, and have been pulled from the North Carolina State Board of Elections website.

Overall vote:
2008: 759,238
2012: 991,794
Difference: +232,556
Number of votes cast is up +30.6%

Republicans:
2008: 196,242
2012: 302,687
Difference +106,445
Number of votes is up 54.2%

Democrats:
2008: 429,662
2012: 502,856
Difference: 73,194
Number of votes is up 17.0%

Other:
2008: 133,334
2012: 184,507
Difference: 52,917
Number of votes is up 39.9%

2008 vote percentage by party registration:
Rep: 25.8%
Dem: 56.6%
Oth: 17.6%

2012 vote percentage by party registration (net vs 2008):
Rep: 30.5% (+4.7%)
Dem: 50.7% (-5.9%)
Oth: 18.6% (+1.4%)

Democrats *do* have a 20 point lead over Republicans at this point. But that compares to a 31 point lead at this point in 2008.

BOTTOM LINE: Republicans have gained a net 10.6 points compared to 2008.

But as I’ve cautioned before – the results released by the North Carolina State Board of Elections only tells us the party registration of the person who cast the ballot. We do not know who the person actually voted for.

Obviously there will be some Republicans voting for Obama, some Democrats voting for Romney, and there is no indication from these statistics that tells us for whom those not affiliated with either major party voted.

However, we can build a model that allots those votes to tabulate a likely scenario of how the race stands, and how it compares to the likely state of the race at this point in 2008.

I am going to do two things. First, I will take the 2008 early voting totals through the first week of in person voting by party registration and allot those votes based upon the 2008 North Carolina exit polls. Second, I will take the 2012 votes and allot them based upon the most recent Rasmussen poll.

Off we go.

2008

At this point in 2008, breakdown of total votes by party:
Rep: 25.8%
Dem: 56.6%
Other:17.6%

In 2008, the exit polls showed the following:

Republicans:
McCain: 94% | Obama: 4% | Other: 2%
Democrats
McCain: 9% | Obama: 90% | Other: 1%
Independent
McCain: 60% | Obama: 39% | Other: 1%

So for example, we are taking the 25.8% of early voters who were Republican, and allocating those votes such that 94% went to McCain, 4% went to Obama and 2% went to Other.

Weighting all votes in that manner, the state of the race at this point in 2008 looks like this:

Estimated Vote Totals:
McCain: 303,137 | 39.9%
Obama: 446,546 | 58.8%

Using this methodology, in 2008 Obama held at 18.9 point lead, or 143,509 votes, over McCain after one week of early voting in North Carolina.

2012

At this point in 2012, breakdown of total votes by party:
Rep: 30.5%
Dem: 50.7%
Oth: 18.6%

Rasmussen’s latest poll in North Carolina asked responders who they intended to vote for – and asked them which party they belonged to. His results show the following:

Republicans
Romney: 94% | Obama: 4% | Other: 2%
Democrats
Romney: 17% | Obama: 82% | Other: 1%
Other
Romney: 59% | Obama: 36% | Other: 5%

Weighting the votes by how each category is likely to vote using Rasmussen’s survey, the state of the race at this point in 2012 looks like this:

Estimated Vote Totals:
Romney: 479,899 | 48.4%
Obama: 491,500 | 49.6%

Using this methodology, in 2012 Obama holds a 1.2% lead, or 11,600 votes, over Romney after one week of early voting in North Carolina.

With an 18.9 point lead at this point in 2008, Obama ultimately won 50.2% to 49.8%.

With an estimated 143,509 vote lead in 2008, Obama ultimately won by a 14,177 vote margin.

Obama is now leading by 1.2 points and 11,600 votes.

The big advantage Obama had after even just one week of early voting in 2008 more or less has been cut down to less than his razor-thin margin by the end of the election.

From this point forward in 2008, McCain gained 129,232 net votes over Obama in the remainder of early voting and on election day. Even if Romney’s strength and Obama’s weakness so far in early voting is not carried through, and Romney only equals McCain’s performance the rest of the way, Romney would win North Carolina by about a 2-3 point margin.

If Romney continues to outperform McCain, even modestly compared to what he has done so far, that margin of victory is easily pushed to something approaching a 8-10 point win.

There is a reason that the rumors have flown around about Obama pulling resources out of and ads off the air in North Carolina. First the polling began to swing away from Obama and toward Romney, and now the results of early voting have begun to confirm that polling. While Team Obama has gone on record denying that they are abandoning the state, one gets the feeling that this is more an attempt to keep up appearances so that the narrative of a campaign that is reeling does not take hold.

If I had to call this race today – which I don’t, but I will because that’s how I roll – I would predict the final outcome a 54-45 win for Romney.