Vocal Minority

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin Continues Discussing the Democrats, Class Warfare, and the "Fiscal Cliff" (11/27/12)

UPDATE: Welcome, Mark Levin fans! Mr. Levin, it is truly an honor to have this post linked by you. If I had known today this site would be getting the most hits in its 5-year existence, I would've been a little more eloquent! - ETR

Wow, I was barely done posting excerpts of Mark's Monday show, when I decided Tuesday's show was too full of gold not to post stuff as well.

So here's the Great One, continuing his discussion on the Democrats, taxing the so-called "rich" and other class warfare demagoguery, and the "fiscal cliff."

The first clip below is from Tuesday's first hour, the second clip from the second hour:

[Edited for commercials, long pauses and other extraneous content]

Download clip here

Download clip here

 

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin on the "Fiscal Cliff" (11/26/12)

It's been a long time since I've done one of these but when I heard the Great One last night, I just had to spend some time getting this one out.

Here's practically his whole first hour -- edited down to 30 min after cutting commercials, bumper music, long pauses, and any other extraneous content. It addresses the "fiscal cliff" and Mark attacks both Democrats for politicizing it and weak-kneed RINO Republicans for playing along.

At risk of spoiling it for you: He thinks we should go over the fiscal cliff. Better that in the short term than the crisis that will happen long from now when all these opportunistic politicians are dead and buried.

Send this one far and wide!

Download clip here

Download clip here

 

Vid of the Day: Reagan's 1985 Thanksgiving Address

To think only 25 years ago there was a president who actually acted presidential; who cherished the nation's founding and traditions, not trash and vow to "fundamentally transform" them; who spoke proudly and openly about G0d, not delete from his speeches and represent a party that boos G0d; who spoke of the American people as one family, not divide them as voting blocs of oppressed victims whom he can pit against other voting blocs to foment anger, resentment, and vengeance.

You think Obama would even say anything like this unless being forced to and with a teleprompter?

To anyone born after 1988, I recommend you learn all you can about Reagan and his time.

Another Analysis Supporting My Claim Our Country Is NOT Moving Leftward

A post at Ace of Spades today has a map color-coded by state to show the rightward trend of country overall:

This reflects almost exactly what I was arguing in my two post-election posts, mainly that compared to '08 Obama lost ground in all but a couple states. Helpful in this map -- which is only visible on my site as an Excel file download -- is the percentage of Obama's loss.

As I stated in my previous post(s), Obama beat McCain by 9.5 million votes in 2008 -- For Obama to lose enough of those votes and for Romney to gain enough votes to swing the 2012 presidential election the other way was a tall order. What ended up happening on November 6 was only half the task: Obama lost a whopping 6.85 million -- or nearly 10% of his 69 million votes. Romney did not gain any votes but rather got 800 thousand fewer votes (1.3%) less than McCain -- however in 28 states he gained votes, and in all the other states except NY, NJ, CA (where numbers were relatively low for Obama too) he lost votes very a relatively low percentage.

I Do NOT Believe Our Country Is Trending Significantly Leftward ... The Data

Download 2012 vs. 2008.

 

I Do NOT Believe Our Country Is Trending Significantly Leftward and Here's Why (Part II)

UPDATE 8:11, Sun. Nov. 11: Asterisks below indicate data slightly revised since this post's original publish date of 8:02 PM Thursday, Nov. 8.

 A lot of people are responding to my post here, at Free Republic, and on Facebook. Most disagree with my thesis laid out in Part I but here we go with Part II, which can be called "gains and gaps":

• Obama lost votes in all but two states (LA and NC)

• Romney got more votes than McCain in 28* states. This is the case in some of the swing states and even deep blue states that Obama won handily. Examples:

Colorado: Obama lost 3.9% of his 2008 voters while Romney got 4.8% more votes than McCain, which means Obama won Colorado by a smaller margin (51.2% to 46.5%) than in '08 (53.7% to 44.7%).

Delaware: Obama lost 5.1% of his 2008 voters while Romney got 8.6% more votes than McCain, which means Obama won Delaware by a smaller margin (58.6% to 40.0%) than in '08 (61.9% to 36.9%).

Illinois: Obama lost 14.7% of his 2008 voters while Romney got 2.9% more votes than McCain, which means Obama won Illinois by a smaller margin (57.3% to 41.1%) than in '08 (61.9% to 36.8%). 

Indiana: Obama lost 17.0% of his 2008 voters while Romney got 5.0% more votes than McCain. This allowed Romney to take Indiana (54.3% to 43.8%) whereas Obama won it in '08 (50.0% to 49.0%). 

Michigan*: Obama lost 10.8% of his 2008 voters while Romney got 31.1% more votes than McCain, which means Obama won Michigan by a smaller margin (54.3% to 44.8%) than in '08 (57.4% to 41.0%). 

Missouri: Obama lost 15.7% of his 2008 voters while Romney got 2.4% more votes than McCain, which means Obama won Illinois by a smaller margin (53.9% to 44.3%) than in '08 (49.4% to 49.3%). 

Nevada:  Obama lost 0.9% of his 2008 voters while Romney got 12.0% more votes than McCain, which means Obama won Nevada by a smaller margin (52.3% to 45.7%) than in '08 (55.1% to 42.7%). 

Virginia: Obama lost 3.8% of his 2008 voters while Romney got 2.7% more votes than McCain, which means Obama won Virginia by a smaller margin (50.8% to 47.8%) than in '08 (52.7% to 46.4%). 

Wisconsin: Obama lost 3.8% of his 2008 voters while Romney got 11.6% more votes than McCain, which means Obama won Virginia by a smaller margin (52.8% to 46.1%) than in '08 (56.3% to 42.4%). 

I realize these figures of of little comfort since Obama won all these states except Indiana anyway, and got their electoral votes. But I still think it's important to know that even in these blue or swing states Obama lost votes while Romney gained. There's no reason, in my opinion, why four years from now when the next Democrat candidate is someone other than Obama,  the Republican candidate cannot narrow the gap even more and -- just like Indiana -- even take that state.

In all the red states, with the stange exception of Louisiana and North Carolina, Obama lost huge percentages of votes. Romney gained votes in some of those states, but, inexplicably, lost votes in others. Among the latter are Alaska, Arizona, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. If you combine the votes Romney gained in the red states and added them to the votes he lost, it's probably a wash -- and I'll admit that is a problem. 

But you might be asking, if Romney got more votes in 27 states than McCain did, then how did he end up losing 3.5 million votes nationwide? The answer lies mainly in three states: California, New York, and New Jersey. In California alone, Romney received an astounding 1.36 million fewer votes than McCain in 2008. Another 760 thousand Republican votes were lost in New York and New Jersey. (In these three states, Obama lost 3.9 million votes, so for some reason there was a huge decrease of voter turnout there.). There's 2 million missing Republican votes right there.

Yes, the Republicans lost. Despite all his dismal failures, Obama and his sycophantic media machine waged a successful slash-and-burn campaign. Too many protesting conservatives, liberatarians, and "constitutionalists" decided to stay home or vote third party, otherwise this election could very easily had tilted the other way. They need to get over themselves and get back.

This isn't over. I think we're still in good shape if people just freaking go to the polls next time! We also need to seriously outreach more to blacks, Hispanics, etc. It sucks because one shouldn't have to pander to perceived "victim" groups, but that's the reality of politics. Am I being Pollyanna-ish? Probably. But I'm also trying to be realistic. 

Onward.

 

For those interested:  The state-by-state data

I Do NOT Believe Our Country Is Trending Significantly Leftward and Here's Why

UPDATE 8:11, Sun. Nov. 11: Asterisks below indicate data slightly revised since this post's original publish date of 3:43 PM Thursday, Nov. 8.

(This post is very numbers-heavy but bear with me and get through it. I guarantee it will be worth it.)

Needless to say, I'm as disappointed as any Republican that we lost Tuesday's election. The next four years with Obama back in office and an emboldened Reid-led Democrat Senate are not going to be pretty.

I also must admit to being surprised about the election results because I really believed the polls that showed Mitt Romney had this in the bag. I believed Rasmussen and those University of Colorado professors who have never been wrong predicting a presidential election since 1980. I believed Dick Morris and Michael Barone. I believed Rush and bought his argument that "D+" polls were unrealistic, that Democrats could not possibly vote in greater numbers than Republicans.

But in the end, the news was bad for us.

Did more Democrats vote for Obama than Romney? Yes.

Did Obama win virtually every swing state? Yes.

Did Obama trounce Romney in the electoral college? Yes.

Did Obama overwhelmingly get the overwhelming majority of blacks, Hispanics, and the youth vote -- especially single women? Hell, yes.

Did over 2.0 million fewer people vote Republican in 2012 than in 2008. Yes.

All these facts about the election have led many pundits to conclude our populace is trending precipitously Democratic, that we are no longer the "center-right" nation we used to be.

However, I'd like to propose that this is not necessarily the case. And here's why:

While the Republican lever was pulled by 1.3* million fewer people than in 2008, Obama's vote count from 2008 decreased by over 7.6* million. Put in percentage terms, the Republican vote decreased by 2.3%* from four years ago, but one-tenth* of Obama's 2008 voters rejected Hope and Change this time around. That is, in my opinion, a significant drop and a genuine rejection of Obama's policies, regardless of the fact that Obama beat Romney anyway.

In addition, the gap by which Obama beat Romney is significantly less than John McCain. In 2008 he beat McCain nearly 9.5 million votes. He beat Romney by only 3.5* million. (Yes, I can complain about Republican voters who for whatever reason couldn't bring themselves to vote for Romney, but that's another topic for another post.) And this is what gives me hope for the future.

My argument becomes stronger when you look at the individual states and the District of Columbia. Compared side by side here are the observations:

• The percentage of votes Obama lost from 2008 and 2012 was greater than the percentage of votes Romney lost compared to McCain in every state except for Alaska, Louisiana, and New Jersey.

• Obama lost voters in every state except for Louisiana and North Carolina (both of which Romney won). Some of these losses were actually quite huge and were not confined to the red states. These are the most egregious examples:

RED STATES

Arizona*: Obama got 841 thousand votes, compared to 1.03 million in 2008, an 18.7% decrease.

Kentucky: Obama got 679 thousand votes, compared to 752 thousand in 2008, a 9.7% decrease.

Utah (where Mia Love unfortanetly lost her Congressional bid): Obama got 229 thousand votes, compared to 327 thousand in 2008, an entire 30.0% decrease. By contrast, Romney got 12.7% more votes than McCain.

West Virginia: Obama got 235 thousand votes, compared to 304 thousand in 2008, a 22.7% decrease.

BLUE STATES

California*: Obama got 5.89 million votes, compared to 8.27 million in 2008, a 28.8% decrease! Unfortunately, Romney got 23.7% fewer votes than McCain (the largest percentage loss for Republicans than in any other state other than Alaska), which means that a staggering 3.4 million fewer Californians voted in 2012 than in 2008.

District of Columbia: Obama got 222 thousand votes, compared to 246 thousand, a 9.5% decrease.

Hawaii: Obama got 303 thousand votes, compared to 326 thousand in 2008, a 7.0% decrease.

Illinois: With 99.7% reporting at this writing, Obama has 2.92 million votes, compared to 3.42 in 2008, a 14.7% decrease.

New Jersey*: With 99.2% reporting at this writing, Obama has 1.96 million votes, compared to 2.21 million in 2008, an 11.5% decrease.

Pennsylvania: With 99.7% reporting at this writing, Obama has 2.91 million votes, compared to 3.27 million in 2008, a 11.3% decrease. By contrast, Romney has 2.61 million votes, compared to McCain's 2.65 million, only a 1.4% decrease.

BATTLEGROUND STATES

Indiana*: With 99.9% reporting at this writing, Obama has 1.14 million votes, compared to 1.37 million in 2008, a 17.0% decrease.

Missouri (where Dem Claire McCaskill trounced Republican Todd foot-in-mouth Akin): Obama got 1.21 million votes, compared to 1.44 in 2008, a 15.7% decrease.

Ohio*: Obama got 2.69 million votes, compared to 2.93 million in 2008, an 8.0% decrease.

Part II here.

For those interested:  The state-by-state data

 

Live-Blogging Election 2012 [UPDATES]

Well, this is it, kids!

8:58 PM. Politico has a very handy interactive map where you can click on states and look at their results county by county. So far, no swing states have been called for either candidate. No suprises yet on those states that have been called.

I'm interested in keeping track of counties that went for Obama last time that go for Romney this time. So far, in closely watched Virginia and North Carolina, none the counties whose precints have reported 100% of their votes have switched over (red counties have remained red and same with blue). Wake County, NC: very important. But I have noticed in most of these counties there are fewer votes for Obama than in 2008 and more votes for Romney than there were for John McCain. Will keep an eye out. Any one of these counties can tilt its state one way or another ...

With 70% of Florida in, Romney has a razor thin lead!

9:25 PM: Obama now a sliver ahead in Florida, and NBC calls it for Obama in Pennsylvania??? Oy. But a lot of the central rural counties still have to weigh in, so we'll see.

9:37 PM: NBC has also called Michigan and Wisconsin for Obama. Now, George W. Bush won in 2004 without Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. BUT he had Ohio, Florida, and Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico. So come on, guys!

10:29 PM: Why did everyone call Wisconsin for Obama? With 20% reported Romney's still ahead.  Colorado and Florida look too close for comfort, but I think Romney's going to get Virginia and North Carolina. He lost New Hampshire, arguably the four most valuable electoral points on the map. He needs Iowa and Nevada.

11:00 PM: I will have no more fingernails left soon. Wisconsin now in Obama's column. Romney takes North Carolina.

1 Day Until Operation "Change It Back": Senate

With most pollsters and pundits predicting Mitt Romney will eak out a presidential win tomorrow (I'm cautiously optimistic), fewer people are discussing the Senate races. As Mark Levin has continued to mention, without Republicans winning back the Senate, Obama(doesn't)Care will not be able to be repealed. (The House is expected to stay Republican).

Here's John Gizzi at Human Events discussing a number of key Senate races, in which he predicts a couple of seats going to the Democrats, while enough seats go to Republicans to give them the majority:

His predictions:

Maine: RINO Olympia Snow retires and the seat goes to an independent former governor, who will caucus with the Democrats. Knowing nothing of the politics of this state, I have no reason not to disagree with that prediction.

Massachusetts: Scott Brown Will lose his seat to Faux-cohontas, Democrat Elizabeth "high cheek bones" Warren. I sincerely hope Gizzi is wrong about this one. Warren is a detestable woman who lied about being a Native American in order to secure affirmative action-based job acceptance. She's a shrill radical feminist of the worst sort and her rhetoric, like President Hope&Change, consists of nothing but Marxist-socialist claptrap.

Connecticut: Republican Linda McMahon beats her opponent, Chris Murphy, making her the first Republican from that state since 1988.

Montana: Dem Incumbent Jon Tester will be beaten by challenger Dan Rehberg. Right now the polls have them at a virtual tie. What is it with Montana anyway? I always considered them folks who cherish rugged individualism and traditional values? What's with this lefty Democrat Senator of theirs?

Nebraska: Democrat Ben Nelson is retiring, and conservative Republican Deb Fischer is ahead by several against Democrat challenger Bob Kerrey. Wait, you might be asking, wasn't Kerrey already a Senator from Nebraska before? Why yes, he was. Apparently there are so few qualified Democrats in Nebraska that they had to bring Kerrey back from New York City, where he's been living the past several years, and run for the seat again. What a joke.

North Dakota: Democrat Kent Conrad is outa here, and Gizzi predicts Republican Rick Berg will defeat challenger Heidi Heitkamp. The polls seem to bear this prediction out. Again, North Dakota is one of those states I would've expected to be reliably red, yet both their current Senators and single Congressman are Democrats!

Ohio: This is one of the hottest Senate races. Democrat incumbent Sherrod Brown faces a 34-year-old Iraq-Afghanistan vet Josh Mandel. Gizzi goes for Mandel as a long shot but I just don't see it. In almost all the current polls Brown is ahead comfortably above the margin of error. Too bad. This guy has put his foot in his mouth more than once over the years.

Wisconsin: 70-year-old 4-term governor Republican Tommy Thompson should win.

Pennsylvania: Gizzi predicts Republican candidate Tom Smith, who spent at least $12 million of his own money, will unseat Democrat Bob Casey. Like the Ohio race, the polls look seem to indicate the Democrat incumbent is very safe.

If Gizzi's predictions are all correct, the Republicans will take the House 52-48. If he's wrong on Ohio and Pennsylvania, it will be 50-50!