The MSM or your own eyes?

OK, if you believe the polls, Mitt Romney’s 10 points behind in Ohio. But then there are those people — THOUSANDS of people — who stood in line in the rain to get in to see Mitt this afternoon in downtown Toledo:

OK so it’s Stacy McCain’s eyes but you get the point:

Because people in losing campaigns ALWAYS generate giant lines to see candidates who have tanked in your state and hear them speak:

“The world need the example of America”
That’s something that’s been missing for a while.

I would remind you I’ve seen the same kind of crowds in New Hampshire. But the MSM knows better after all winning campaigns ALWAYS give out free phones to get people to vote for them:

And that Libya stuff as reminded by this video at Ace of Spades HQ our Ambassador likely had it coming:

Meanwhile Stacy McCain still residing in realville writes in his American Spectator piece about the doom & gloomers making an important point:

It is easy for cynical pundits and dyspeptic critics to minimize what this election means. Whatever the results on November 6, the TV talking heads will still have their network sinecures on November 7. David Brooks won’t forfeit any book contracts and Peggy Noonan won’t lose any lecture fees, just because Obama wins the election. Such members of the GOP’s professional intelligentsia have never cast their lot with the Tea Party, nor have they shown any empathy for the grassroots activists who are manning phone banks and distributing yard signs, the volunteers motivated by a sincere belief that defeating Obama is essential to the preservation of the American Republic.

They don’t need an Obama Phone they just need to be told how smart they are. As for the rest of us

Remarkable irony: Many of those conservative now working hardest to elect Mitt Romney are conservatives who spent the primary campaign supporting other candidates in an effort to prevent Romney’s nomination as the “It’s His Turn” choice of the party establishment. Meanwhile, the elite pundits who spent the primary season nitpicking every fault of Romney’s rivals are now the first to raise the white flag of surrender, abandoning hope in the candidate that they insisted was the only one in the GOP field with any realistic chance to win in November.

Our problem isn’t our candidate, it’s our media more interested in looking smart to the elites they hang with.

I’ve written a lot about the skew in the polls but today in the hot air green room Matt Vespa in the process of debunking Chris “The sky is falling for the GOP” Cilliza brings up a point that almost nobody is talking about:

This leads us to the next poll: the direction of the country. What “jolt of optimism” is Cillizza talking about? Rasmussen has 36% of Americans believing the nation is on the right track.

Now while we give our friends on the left a few minutes to scream how: “Rasmussen can’t be trusted” business lets take a look at the overall numbers in this poll since Jan 2009 the month Barack Obama Took office:

When you look at that chart remember this is an AVERAGE of every single polls that is measured not a single poll that skews one way or the other.

Right now the MSM is running a ton of polls with huge Democrat skews yet take a look at the results at the end of the chart for today:

56.3 vs 37.6 Wrong track over right track that’s a spread of 18.7 and consider this: The CBS/NYT poll and the NBC/WSJ poll, the two polls that are the most skewed have a wrong track/right track numbers of -19 & -16 respectively.

Think about that: Even with a sample that couldn’t favor Obama more if they were paid employees of the white house they can’t even get a gap of less that 10 pts let alone a favorable number.

More importantly consider the historical perspective:

You have to go to June 13th 2009 to find a day during the last 4 years where the right track/wrong track numbers were equal.

On Jan 20th 2010 the national spread was 56.9 to 36.6 just 2.4 off today’s number yet the day before Massachusetts, a state that nobody contends is a state where the president has a chance of losing in 2012 elected a Republican senator to replace the late Ted Kennedy.

On Election day 2010 the spread of 63.8 to 31.2 A 32.6 points gap, just under double what it is today and the GOP won nationwide in an election so historic it reached into statehouses all over the country.

On September 13th 2011 the spread was 73.6 to 20.8 a gap of 52.8 and for the first time since Woodrow Wilson was president a republican won an election in the 9th district of NY right in the heart of New York City.

What does that mean for today?

On Election day 2012, It is unlikely the right direction/ wrong direction spread will be 52.8. That suggest Mitt Romney isn’t going to manage to win the State of New York.

On Election day 2012 It is unlikely the right/wrong spread will be 32.6. That suggests Mitt Romney isn’t going to manage a victory of historic proportions all over the country.

But with just over 40 days to the election with polls so skewed it’s a wonder the computers they are tabulated on don’t tip over the right/wrong track is 18.7 pretty close to the numbers on the Day Scott Brown was first elected, does that mean Mitt is going to do well enough to take a state as blue as Massachusetts?

I think not, but unfortunately for the left, he doesn’t have to take Massachusetts, or New York or any other deep blue state. He has to take the states in the middle, the ones that once voted for the GOP but went to Obama in the heady days of Nov 2008 for the left.

And a with a right track / wrong track number of 18.7 that’s not only doable that’s practically inevitable.

I’m sure there are people who might not like Mitt Romney, I’m sure there are those who don’t like he is a Mormon, those who don’t like he is rich and those who think he’s kind of stiff.

But unless you live in the land of deep blue delusion nobody in their right mind would suggest he is unqualified to be president.

This election isn’t going to be about: “Do I like Mitt Romney?” This election isn’t even going to be about “Has Barack Obama done a good job” the polling shows the verdict is already in on it.

The people are dying to vote against Barack Obama, all Mitt Romney has to do is convince them he can do the job, because Barack Obama has already convinced them he can’t.

VDH notes how few votes it would have taken to make 1980 a Carter victory

In other words, until the very last week of the campaign, Reagan had an uphill fight. True, he eventually won a landslide victory in the Electoral College (489 to 49) and beat Carter handily in the popular vote. Yet Reagan only received a 51-percent majority.

What had saved Reagan from a perfect storm of negative factors — gaffes, additional conservative candidates on the ballot, a single debate, and a biased media — was not just the debate. Voter turnout was relatively low at only 53 percent. If Reagan’s conservative base was united and energized, Carter’s proved divided and indifferent.

Mitt doesn’t have a John Anderson but he also doesn’t have Reagan’s charisma, his conclusion:

The winner probably won’t be decided by old video clips, gaffes, or even campaign money, but by turnout and the October debates — depending on whether incumbent Obama comes across as a petulant Carter and challenger Romney appears an upbeat Reagan. As in 1980, voters want a better president — but they first have to be assured he’s on the ballot.

If you are anything resembling a regular reader you know I’m Catholic, VERY Catholic, my last Subscription only commentary was done in front of my church after mass. I will happily debate and defend Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular against any person of any religion or no religion.

I’m also an American, an American who believes in free speech so my first instinct when I see this story is outrage:

The case against Ahmed Mohammed Abdullah is a rare example of Egypt’s blasphemy laws – often condemned by rights groups as restrictive of freedom – used against someone who allegedly insulted a religion other than Islam.

Abdullah, also known as Abu Islam, was filmed during a protest outside the embassy two weeks ago as he stood before the crowd and tore an English version of the Bible. “Next time I will urinate on it,” he says in another video in an apparent reference to the holy book. Both videos were posted online.

I don’t like people insulting my religion and in one sense this is progress for Egypt that the “blasphemy laws” are being enforced against those who insult Christianity, but that doesn’t matter.

You can not have a free society without free speech, you just can’t. For an American free speech is the backbone of our culture, the first freedom mentioned in the first Amendment in our constitution. The Statue of Liberty refers to people “yearning to breathe free”.

I’m outraged by “Piss Christ” but as long as tax dollars are not spent on it, while I might protest it, I acknowledge the right of the “artist” to produce it, (the day he produces “piss Koran” then I’ll know how brave he is). I am outraged by PZ Myers and insist his employer enforce their own standards concerning his actions desecrating the Eucharist, but I don’t dispute for a single moment his right to do this or even encourage others to do so. I laugh at the Blasphemy challenge and point out their premise if false, but I don’t want their videos taken down. As a Christian I pray for these folks and would encourage others to do so, as an AMERICAN even if it angers me their rights are vital to preserve my own right to say something like this:

That’s why I think we should be loud in saying this is wrong. And that’s also why I think this person should be ashamed of herself for trying to restrict Pam Geller free speech because she doesn’t like it.

This is America 101, if you don’t get it then you haven’t learned anything in a lifetime being here.

Update: We have reached a point in NYC where if a vandal defaces a legal ad we now ban that ad? in AMERICA?

Just one day after an Islamic activist attempted to cover over private property in spray paint (and a woman who got in her way), the Metropolitan Transit Authority in New York has announced they will amend their rules to prohibit the types of advertisements that offended her.

The New York Times reports the MTA will prohibit any advertisements that it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.” Those “viewpoint” ads that do not meet this criteria will be allowed, so long as a disclaimer is included saying the MTA does not endorse them. The MTA met on Thursday to discuss the rules, which were approved unanimously 8-0.

I am a Catholic, and my belief system doesn’t allow a violent veto of speech or opinions I disagree with but I suspect people who don’t share my beliefs will rightfully conclude that all it takes is a little push, a touch of vandalism or violence and NYC will fold like a wet blanket.

The cultural left is damn lucky Christians are not what they portray us to be.

If you told me this was possible four years ago I would have called you mad.

Update 2: Hey a Jewish Community Center is Sweden has been bombed, obviously NYC will advise the Swedes that the proper response is to ban Jewish Community Centers since they obviously provoke bombers.

Update 3: Instalanche and Glenn puts it well

My advice to the Religious Right: Deface anything you find offensive. That’s clearly how to get your way.

All this is going to do is empower a bunch of 21st century John Browns who think they are the only people who can save the country. In case you haven’t figured this out yet, this is a very bad thing.