Full disclosure: the only poll I follow is Rasmussen. Why? Because Rasmussen is (1) independent and (2) the most accurate (called the last three presidential elections spot on, always uses realistic likely voter screens, etc.). I then take Rasmussen's results and plug them into a spreadsheet I maintain every election season to project the outcome based upon a formula that applies a sliding scale (the difference between the actual popular vote margin last time and the current Rasmussen polling margin, adjusted for undecideds going 2-1 for the challenger as well as the ACORN {voter fraud} effect) to the state-by-state results from last time. Today Rasmussen has it Obama 49, Romney 47, which projects to a 50.0%-48.5% Obama popular vote victory and an accompanying 303-235 win in the Electoral College.
The interesting thing this formula indicates is that Mitt Romney has to win the popular vote by at least 3% in order to avoid having the Electoral College - and, hence, the election - stolen away from him, a further confirmation of the aforementioned ACORN effect.
All of the above being stipulated, I find the latest Battleground Poll to be....intriguing:
These numbers are not, IMHO, too terribly prognosticatory. There is a reason, after all, why the popular vote winner has only failed to carry the Electoral College twice in American history (not including the 1824 clusterbleep that got thrown into the House, where Andrew Jackson got screwed). And as my model indicates, if there is a third divergence between popular vote winner and Electoral College winner, it's almost certain that Barack Obama would be the beneficiary.
This week, Politico released its latest Battleground poll of the presidential race....Including leaners, the sample in the poll is D+2. Nationally, Obama leads by 2-3 points, but, in the critical swing states, Romney now has the edge.
Each candidate leads in states considered "safe" for their party. In safe GOP states, Romney leads by 8. In safe Democrat states, Obama leads by a massive 22 points. But, in the more numerous and more important "toss up" states, Romney leads by 4, hitting the critical 50% threshold.
But for the purposes of this thought experiment, let us suppose the Obama did narrowly win the popular vote by running up much larger margins in "blue" states than Romney did in "red" states, but Romney won most or all of the swing states to take the Electoral College and, hence, the presidency. Anybody remember the Florida Insurrection in 2000? Remember the constitutional crisis that Al Gore forced, and which the SCOTUS thwarted by the margin of one vote? Remember how that drove the Left absolutely batbleep and fueled their battle rage against President Bush for the ensuing eight years, laying the foundation for the ascension of Barack Hussein Obama to the American throne? Those 537 hanging chads in "America's whang" did more than any other factor to push the Democrat Party fully into the realm of totalitarian lunacy.
But that took place in an open race, with a Democrat candidate that was (1) white and (2) not especially beloved to the Donk base. Now picture the same result with (1) an incumbent Democrat president, (2) the first black president and (3) the Left's "god" as the "victim". Libs would go insane. There would be riots across the country. Blood in the streets. Think Occupy Wall Street with RPGs and mortars in place of pooping on police cars. More to the point, what reason is there to believe that Red Barry would accept the result? He's already a tyrant, ruling by decree; Moochelle is openly boasting about it. Does anybody think it'd be a stretch that Obama would simply nullify the result and refuse to give up power? Indeed, I can see him using the aforementioned riots as a pretext for declaring martial law and formally suspending even the current flimsy facade of constitutional government. It'd be that one last crisis he's always needed to finish "transforming" America into a Marxist police state. And, voila: mission accomplished.
If that scenario sounds too far-fetched to you, ask yourself what Chief Justice Roberts would do if a post-election Romney v. Obama certiorari writ came before the SCOTUS. Think the man who found a way to uphold ObamaCare's phantom constitutionality wouldn't be equally as resourceful in contorting a way to hand Obama his second term - or simply declining to hear the case altogether?
I tend to think that this would be the reaction of Obama and the Left even if Romney did win in a landslide. They don't give a rat's ass about popular will - the ObamaCare jam-down bears stark testimony to that. But it'd be a certainty in the scenario the Battleground poll suggests.
All the more reason to do everything possible to make sure that Mitt Romney wins big. If it's close, cheating may be the least of the perils to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment