September 2, 2012
Romney 48%, Obama 44%.
Rasmussen's daily tracking poll, showing the post-convention bounce. It's a 3-day poll, so it's only 2/3 post-convention. It will be interesting to see what we get tomorrow. And, of course, the Democrats are about to launch their convention. They get a bounce too, and perhaps we'll bounce back into a tie. But shouldn't an incumbent have a much better head start going into September if he's going to win?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
60 comments:
I think that the humanizing of Romney is probably the best convention theme I've seen since I started following politics... which was only about 16 years ago, but, you know. I would be surprised if Obama could match that bump, solely since the Romney convention did three things that needed to be done.
1. Ended the War on Women. Romney did great for women in Mass., had a female Lt. Gov., and the Republicans had women speakers who were notable for more than just being women who spoke.
2. Showed Romney was willing to run an ideas campaign. Everyone expected Christie, at least, to bring the red meat in tons. It was there, but it was subdued. This was Romney's show, with Obama being a disappointing footnote as opposed to a two-minute hate target.
3. Romney is now a human, who spoke on love, who we realize was an inventive (due to being incredibly cheap) dad, who has loving family and friends, who quite possibly has done more good works for people around him than we'll ever truly know.
I can't see how -any- incumbent's convention could match that trifecta.
But shouldn't an incumbent have a much better head start going into September if he's going to win?
Dunno. But, Obama definitely seems to be on the ropes.
Don't see much enthusiasm for him in Woodstock, and that doesn't bode well for the Prez. I've seen maybe one lawn sign.
Everybody's fed up with Obama. The Jews in the extended family are especially pissed because he clearly wants to abandon Israel. They not only won't vote for Obama, they literally hate his guts.
Everybody's trying to find a reason to vote for Mitt. The "You're a racist if you don't vote for Obama" seems to be the only thing holding things together for the Dems.
I'm trying to maintain a reasonable level of cynicism about Mitt. He's a RINO. I'm doubtful about whether his promises will actually pan out after the election, but how does that make him different than any other politician?
Two different outcomes would satisfy me: (1) a Romney win or (2) an Obama win with the Republicans taking the House and Senate. Divided government is good.
"Divided government is good."
-- I used to think that, until presidents started doing end runs around Congress whenever possible by letting people like Sebelius push out regulations that stand until challenged in court. Unless a Republican House and Senate are willing to actually check the Executive branch, and they've done very little to convince me they'd be willing to do more than stop legislative objectives, I don't see that working as intended. It'll stop big, defiant thrusts, but the damage at the margins and where no one is paying attention is huge.
Really, no matter who is Congress, Congress needs to take its power back.
The big remaining unknown is the money. The Romney campaign will have more. They need to do more with it than just buy a zillion annoying commercials. Can they find ways to get around the media's full-court press?
No matter what filth Barry's goons throw at Romney in the next two months Romney has a huge war chest and will be able to return fire quickly and massively so I don't see the Dem monkey poo sticking.
The problem with polls is that people do not report/share the results to everyone equally.
IF you visit PoliticalWire, a POTUS friendly site, then you will get to see polls that show either POTUS ahead or close-by. The same at HuffPost, DailyBeast, or TPM.
So, for busy people like me, who are about to open "The Pizza Guy" shop in FL, there is no way to get an accurate polls listing. I visit the Prof. site and RCP. But, I wonder if every-one does the same.
Polls, it depends where you go...
MikeR said...
The big remaining unknown is the money. The Romney campaign will have more. They need to do more with it than just buy a zillion annoying commercials. Can they find ways to get around the media's full-court press?
IIRC, back in 2004, some big media guy claimed that the Press gave a 10-15 point advantage for the Democrats. That may explain why Obama is polling as well as reported (suspect in and of itself) despite his dismal record.
Can anyone tell me why anyone should vote for Obama? What are his accomplishments as President? Or is it racist to ask?
Unless a Republican House and Senate are willing to actually check the Executive branch, and they've done very little to convince me they'd be willing to do more than stop legislative objectives, I don't see that working as intended.
There's something to this.
The absolutely nightmare scenario would be if it becomes necessary to impeach Obama over his attempts to bypass Congress through executive orders.
Obama is so contemptuous of the restraint of the rule law that he's very likely to step over the line.
You'll have to wait for Tuesday or Wednesday to see the full bounce; I don't think Ras will do anything on Labor Day.
Also, this is a 6 point bounce at this point because Choom was 2 up before the convention.
Ann Althouse said...
But shouldn't an incumbent have a much better head start going into September if he's going to win?
Perzactly.
Since Little Zero has been withing the margin of error, dead even, or behind from Spring on is the reason Axelrod and Plouffe have been flailing so much.
PS That the Romster is ahead on a weekend bodes ill for Zero.
While when I left the Chicago HQ (after four years - 08-12), I did not have any words exchanged with David P., David A., and Jim M. My immediate colleagues were ruthless. You will never work in Chicago HQ/White House again. You will never get a letter, etc.
My view of Eastwood speech (which I mentioned to every-one as most devastating to the POTUS and was an excellent one) came out very bad to every-one. I was being disloyal, etc.
SO, I left for Tampa. It does not matter what the polls show.
I will only see the POTUS as an empty chair (at worst) or gone to golf (at best). In between, not available to have to work for jobs for Americans.
I don't think Barack Obama is the Devil. He is a mis-informed ideologue with no grasp of the country he leads and a "bad hire". He deserves to lose.
I don't think Mitt Romney is God. He is, however, a proven financial problem-solver and deserves a shot at fixing our broken economy.
I'm pretty sure Romney won't spend his first two years pushing socially conservative projects via reconciliation and ignoring the job he was hired to do.
"Shouting Thomas said...
Divided government is good."
Only if you like Obamacare.
DNC convention synopsis:
-We must find a way to tax the rich even more so that we can pay down the debt. Call it fairness.
Lots and lots of talk about fairness.
-(Even though even the CBO has recently stated that tax hikes will kill off 2 million more jobs and send us deeper into a recession, and that tax hikes really wont’ do much of anything to reduce the debt)
-War on wiminz. Abortion rights. No talk about partial birth abortion. No talk about how a majority of tax payers do not want to pay for abortions at Planned Parenthood.
-Free contraception is a basic human right!
-Free everything is a basic human right!
-All that truth and economic wonkery should make you want to burn the witch Paul Ryan.
-Clinton’s tax hikes were the reason for economic robustness! Lets all take the demo time machine and pretend it’s the 1990’s/ Forget all that welfare reform and how the R congress held Clinton’s feet to the fire. (BTW – tax hikes never did anything for economic growth, but since the democrats live and breathe to raise taxes, this will be a heavy theme) More Fairness bullshit.
-Heavy doses of Blame Bush... "We can't go back to that". Scare tactics.
-Heavy doses of shifting responsibility.
-Bullshit with lofty promises tinged with tired slogans used by dead leftists who caused nothing but misery.
-And as Jeff G. says – it will be a conga line of the left's useful idiots.
@ Shouting Thomas
The "You're a racist if you don't vote for Obama" seems to be the only thing holding things together for the Dems.
Reminds me - wondered what this means after it is decoded. Maybe meant to imply that "GOP Convention Was from Black & White Era" when blacks were supposed to be separate but equal?
Obama: GOP Convention Was from Era of Black-and-White TV
I forget and don't feel like googling it, but my memory is that Kerry bounced into the lead after his convention and that didn't matter. Since few people are talking about Romney's speech as it was devoid of anything memorable, it looks like he's hoping he'll with because of people voting against Obama rather than because swing voters are captivated by him.
I wonder what Romney's going to say during the debate that's scheduled to focus on foreign policy, since he didn't mention Afghanistan in his speech or even acknowledge our troops fighting and dying there. Roney has stated elsewhere that his Afghanistan policy is that we should stay there till we defeat the Taliba. Is this still his policy? If so, that means Romney will never bring our troops home from Afghanistan. If so, he needs to tell that to the American people.
http://polipundit.com/?p=36246
At this stage, Reagan was unelectable, polls: Carter 63, Reagan 32. On election day Carter was buried under a 10-pt landslide.
We'll have a redo of a Carter-Reagan election in 2012.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-10-31-poll-x_x.htm
10/31/2004 Swing states leans Kerry by 5.
Meaning, pre-election polling is a Hollywood production. Go to the polls on election day. Can't win if you don't show up. It is the least and the best you can do to counter all those cemeteries votes, nor-citizen-not-a-fraud votes, recounts generated votes, new Black Panthers turned away votes, thrown away military votes,...
With the margin of error, it's still a tie.
Thanks for the link, alan.
We'll see what Obama is made of, won't we?
He's never run in a seriously fought campaign. McCain ran away, lest he be called a racist. In his Illinois state campaigns, Obama found a way to drive his challengers out of the campaigns.
I think Romney will not be deterred from fighting to win.
We'll see what Obama is made of.
@ America's Politico
I will only see the POTUS as an empty chair (at worst) or gone to golf (at best)
That's an image GOP could riff on: picture of an empty golf cart - "Mr. Obama, your cart is waiting."
As an aside, look at this "ass-whooping" Romney got for joking about Obama's golfing.
Romney and his backers tease Obama for golfing, but no leader played more golf than Mitt's dad
Yeah, that really put him in his place.
A big message of the Dem convention is gonna be Clinton VS Bush policies. In short blaming Bush for the recession and hijacking the good numbers of the Clinton era as the alternative, which is basically hope and change. We hope the 90's economy will come back if we finally change from Bush. Lame, and malinformed. NTTIAWWT - it will work on some people who look at the economy in that simplistic way, which seems to be the default way.
The backwards argument will be made that the economy was better when taxes were higher. Of course that's the only time you can afford to raise taxes, because it's a net cost to the economy, so you need a good economy first, and that came from, the peace dividend, a Republican congress and great increases in productivity - basically Reagan influences + luck.
Increases in taxes in 2013 plus Obamacare gumming up the works, are major hurdles to a recovery even without the worldwide drag of socialism that has finally come to fruition with it's ubiquity.
Whoever opens up energy production in the U.S., meaning oil and gas, will usher in an economic boom. It's not a far fetch theory, or requiring anything innovative. The geology and technology are there. Romney's energy indepedence proposal is basically possible. Obama is literally sucking wind.
Do you really think that using a poll as right-wing biased as Rasmussen is useful? Especially when not countered by real, objective polls?
Since one can regularly deduct a few points from Rasmussen, your result tells us that the bounce was modest enough to put him back at about neck-and-neck. What that means down the road in November I'll leave to those of us who actually have foresight and any discernable interest in the future.
When asked "are Americans better off", Obama surrogate says "International Community Wants to See this President Reelected'... "
Putin, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, The new socialist who wants to destroy France, and the Chi-coms agree.
"But shouldn't an incumbent have a much better head start going into September if he's going to win?"
I haven't read earlier comments yet, so this may have been addressed already, but the standard, iron rule of elections is, if the incumbent polls below 50% (or even a few ticks above 50%), that incumbent is in serious trouble.
"Americas Politico" could explain it to you, but he probably would have to consult someone else first.
A Fordham University report by Costas Panagopoulos rates the pollsters for the2008 presidential election. Here are the most accurate:
1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
6T. ARG (10/25-27)*
8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)
8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
13. FOX (11/1-2)
14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
18. Marist College (11/3)
19. CBS (10/31-11/2)
20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
23. Newsweek (10/22-23)
One report versus... what, exactly?
You ever heard of 538?
One report versus your source-free opinion.
Ever hear of 4:20?
Shouting Thomas - "Everybody's fed up with Obama. The Jews in the extended family are especially pissed because he clearly wants to abandon Israel. They not only won't vote for Obama, they literally hate his guts."
The Jews that are right-wing Zionists are greatly outnumbered by the progressive Jews that see Obama as their ideal empty vessel to manipulate for rewards to them and move America to socialism.
No one in banking went to jail, all financiers were in fact given bailout money to replace all the money they lost gambling.
Obama can be played. He serves to make selected people richer and more powerful. And those selected people hate Christianity, but could care less about Israel.
There's a strong likelihood that any polls taken at this point are influenced by the Bradley effect. Respondents who really don't know their own minds will poll for Obama out of a desire to see themselves as non-racists. Once they draw the curtain in the voting booth, however, reality sets in. Things are worse in this country than they were four years ago, Democrats can't argue that, and they dare not. People vote their own interests, and they will fire Obama.
Sorry if you took what I might have (mistakenly) taken to be common knowledge as "free-sourcing".
A sample full of Republicans yields a poll that is skewed to the Republican viewpoint.
Don't be a donut hole.
538 is the winningest poll of polls. How did Rasmussen compare? Do the analysis yourself. Or just listen to what some guy at Fordham said.
At least your cite is one step better than a Jay Leno "man on the street" interview.
elkh1 said...
http://polipundit.com/?p=36246
At this stage, Reagan was unelectable, polls: Carter 63, Reagan 32. On election day Carter was buried under a 10-pt landslide.
We'll have a redo of a Carter-Reagan election in 2012.
-------------
It would be a big mistake to see patterns of a 1/3rd of a Century ago as playing out in 2012.
It would also be a big mistake to think things are so little changed in 33 years that Saint Ronnie's ideas don't need a major overhaul to refect today's realities. Or scrapping.
Not that that's saying much.
Shouting Thomas.
"Two different outcomes would satisfy me: (1) a Romney win or (2) an Obama win with the Republicans taking the House and Senate. Divided government is good."
You might say how delighted you are with an Obama win right up to the point where Eric Holder and Valerie Jarrett and a Muslim and another ACLU progressive Jew head the list to join the Supreme Court.
After Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Breyer, Ginsburg all die or retire.
"GOP Convention Was from Black & White Era" - Thanks again, because when I think of Black and White - I hear "one small step for man..." Is that the Era he is speaking of?
AP, I am truly heartbroken that you have lost the faith. I will miss your valuable insiders perspective from CORE. I hope the blonde did not also throw you overboard.
Rasmussen 2010 Results
The only poll that counts is the election. The voters will have to decide if they want four more years of this shit or not. When all is said and done that is what it comes down to. The rest is irrelevant.
I am not one who puts much stock in polls--still to early. Its the first weekend of football, and American's will be paying attention to the important stuff :)
The only poll that counts will be conducted on November 6.
I think that this Romney lead only helps on the margin. It will seesaw back in forth more than once, but to the extent that it demonstrates that Romney "can take the lead", it makes Obama vulnerable. Any weakness in the incumbent is permanently damaging.
Combined with the fact that insiders know that undecided break for the challenger late, and
There is going to be a Bradley factor here. Lots of 2008 Obama supporters who still publicly say they support him because of leftist peer pressure are going to go in the booth and pull the lever for Mitt.
"Do it for the children"
What if the Dem convention totally blows it. It's possible. Obama could choke. What if out of insecurity, he picks an idiot for a running mate?
bagh20: has Mr Obama already picked an idiot for a running mate?
My predictions.
Some of the Republicans elected to the House of Representatives in 2010 will lose, but Republicans to get a net pickup of 10 seats.
Next Senate will be 53 to 46 (not counting Sanders as a Democrat because he's such a dingbat even the Democrats won't have him).
Romney-Ryan by 100 electoral votes, give or take a few.
C-fudd, I've been meaning to ask you - have you and Andi Sullivan ever been seen in the same place at the same time? You both get the willies over Israel, Jews, Palin, vaginas. Does the gay antisemitism have something to do with circumcision?
But I'll say this in defense of C-fudd - when it comes to pimping out ass-raping child molesters, he's preference-neutral. He tried to whitewash Polanski *and* Sandusky.
Not to mention his exoneration of pedophile clergy by claiming the victims were gay and willing. Cedarford is either a perp or victim himself, count on it.
A couple of things to keep in mind. First, a bounce after a convention is expected. And, yes, there is a decent chance that the Dems could bounce back this week. We shall see.
The other though is that most of the polls so far have had a decent D+x weighting. The argument is that they are using the 2008 exit polling model. But, Dems have lost significantly in party membership, as compared to the Republicans since then. Moreover, the numbers are suspicious, with the Independents sometimes leaning almost 2/1 towards the Republicans, and still the polls showing a dead heat, if not Obama in the lead.
Indeed, right now, I would tend to distrust any poll that weighted Dems more heavily than Reps, and any averaging poll that included such.
There is a theory though that the polling organizations need to end up fairly close to the actual vote by the time the election happens, so that they will have credence for the next election. I think that this means that those D+2, D+4, etc. weighted polling results are mostly going to disappear over the next couple of months.
We shall see.
Polls are not reality.
They are attempts to build a predictive model.
They include assumptions.
Polling "adults" or "registered voters" are less accurate than polling "likely voters", because self-identified Democrats are less likely to register, or if registered, are less likely to actually vote. There could be many different reasons for this, ranging from the non-registering, non-voting Democrats to be non-existent constructions of community organizers to a lower sense of responsibility among Democrats, to many registered or non-registered Democrats actually being ineligible to vote and slightly fearful of breaking the law.
Even if a poll surveys likely voters, an additional potential inaccurate point is that they adjust the results to match an assumption of the turnout spread. Meaning, if they ask 100 people questions, and 80 are conservative versus 20 liberals, the results won't be accurate, right? So they weight the samples according to what they assume will be the final vote spread. Most pollsters assume a Democrat +6/7 advantage over GOP voters. Obama won with a D+7 advantage. Dems were +2/3 in 2010, I think.
If the actual voters end up with a GOP advantage of even +1, and the independents break for the challenger (as they usually do), Romney will win in a landslide, even if the polls accurately display a dead heat or Obama lead on the eve of the election.
To repeat: the polls are accurate only to the point that their assumptions are accurate.
There are some indications that Dems are losing in self-identification numbers. There are indications that significant numbers of self-identified Dems are going to vote for Romney.
There are indications that independents are going to break for the challenger in near-record percentages.
The stridency of the liberal commenters on this site indicate those last 3 points are probably accurate.
If so, Romney and the GOP-controlled Senate and House will have a clear mandate to reduce unnecessary regulation, unleash the energy industry, cut spending, cut agencies and departments, flatten the tax rate progression, repeal Obamacare, and appoint Textualist/Originalist judges and Justices.
If that happens, and if the US enters the era of prosperity that automatically follows the enacting of such conservative principles, Democrats are going to have huge problems remaining relevant.
Exit question for the liberals:
What specific policies did Clinton enact to bring about his strong economy?
Were those policies typically liberal policies (increase entitlements, domestic protectionism, new taxes on economic activity) or typically conservative (reduce welfare rolls, increase free-trade, no taxes on new interstate internet commercial activity)?
FWIW, Morris predicted a bounce of 6 - 8 for the Romster and dead cat for Zero.
Ritmo: Do you really think that using a poll as right-wing biased as Rasmussen is useful? Especially when not countered by real, objective polls?
Considering that Ras has the best record of calling it, yes.
BTW, which sockpuppet will you adopt post-election?
The absolutely nightmare scenario would be if it becomes necessary to impeach Obama over his attempts to bypass Congress through executive orders.
Which is why he's so blatant about it. The problem is your average voter only has a hazy idea why things are set up the way they are, and all seems so technical and inside baseball to them.
I think the worst is over for Romney -- getting the nomination, surviving the Obama campaign's expensive blitzkrieg of personal smears, picking a good VP, having a successful convention, and proving his humanity.
Romney can now outspend Obama, campaign directly against Obama and Biden, while presenting himself as a can-do businessman with fresh ideas.
Obama, on the other hand, has to match the Republican Convention while having no new ideas and no fresh faces, then he gets to run as an incumbent with a lousy record, with less money to spend, and his charisma account overdrawn by overexposure. Obama can't keep distracting voters from the ghastly economy for two more months.
Furthermore, this fall is shaping up to be a dangerous time between the Euro blowing up or the Israelis bombing Iran. Those won't help Obama either.
I see very little help coming for Obama. If Obama had some high trump cards for turning things around, he would have played those cards by now, but all he's got are personal attacks on Romney and Ryan.
A landslide for Romney is possible, but I'm going with a comfortable win.
Is there any doubt that if we had a sudden improvement in the economy that both sides would take credit. The GOP would claim their winning the House and Romney's imminent win as the reasons. The Dems would claim Obama's golfing did it. Well, that and the killing of Bin Laden combined with unorthodox but genius plan of not having a budget for 3 years. Genius is often misunderstood.
creeley23,
A landslide for Romney is possible, but I'm going with a comfortable win.
A comfortable win isn't enough. We really need a landslide, if for no other reason than to prove a real preference cascade.
Of course another reason is to be sure that even massive Democrat fraud won't be enough to deem Obama re-elected.
I'm happy that Ann could find 1 where Obama is behind as of yesterday.
Good find.
That will sure help your page views.
Wait, wait, wait, hold on a minute here!
American Politico, explain yourself. Are you dropping the schdict? Or are you serious?
I always enjoyed you as brilliant satire. I was right wasn't I? You have me confused now.
I'm surprised that they managed to get any bounce at all, given the totally slanted coverage by the "unbiased" "objective" "news" media.
MSNBC, which has a policy that the Rs are all racist, wymmyn-hating white males, managed, totally coincidentally I'm sure, not showing the speeches by Martinez, Haley, Cruz, and many other Latino and black speakers. They of course also didn't show the speech of Artur Davis, one of Obama's 2008 campaign co-chairs, also black, who has become an R because of what Obama has done in office. Most of the other nets also decided not to show many of the minority speeches.
Then all the "pundits" and "commentators" trashed and nitpicked everything the Rs said.
So even if you were one of the 20MM who watched, you got a heavily leftward slant on what actually happened there. And if they still got a bounce, that says a lot about exactly how strong feelings are against the O.
I'll bet coverage of the Ds will be much different. Unlike cutting the inspiring speeches that proved the diversity of the GOP's message, they'll spike the angry, racially divisive and class warfare speeches of DeLauro, and Mikulski, et al, and will applaud, with little "fact""checking", the few speeches filled with soaring telepromters.
geokstr said...
I'm surprised that they managed to get any bounce at all, given the totally slanted coverage by the "unbiased" "objective" "news" media."
That is such bullshit. The right wing has drummed up a left wing media on which it blames their ills. Of course forgetting that Rush has a larger daily audience than the "MSM" has in total and he spews his stupidity for 3 hours straight while the lap dogs lick it up. Right wing talk radio SURELY RIGHT WING MEDIA AND PART OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA outdraws all of TV news on a weekly basis so how do you figure that it is the MSM that is feeding you a line?
Tell you what Lindsey, we'll trade you Rush...if we can have PBS, NPR, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, HnCNN, New York Times, Boston Herald, Time-Magazine, LA-Times, USA-Today, every college newspaper, Yahoo, Google, AP, Reuters, etc.
Deal?
Absolutely.
You make my case.
You know, Lindsey, there is one major difference between conservative media and yours - conservatives are proud of their philosophy and wear it on their sleeves. Anyone watching or listening can make their own judgments about how much to discount what they say or not.
The entities listed in Mike and Sue's comment, in addition to a multitude of others, claim to be "unbiased" "objective" "non-partisan" and "independent" as they toe the Marxist president's line. Whenever Obama farts, everyone in your media runs the risk of asphixiation.
There was a time when this leftwing coordination could actually seem unbiased, until talk radio and Fox and the internet happened about 15 years ago, because their view was the only view ever heard.
Now conservatives can find out how much your media has been twisting, spinning, spiking and lying because we have our own sources.
Did you know that there have been a multitide of surveys of everyone involved in media for decades: journalists, reporters, anchors, editors, journalism professors, et al? Since the 1960's, between 80-95%, in every election, self-identify with the Democrats, voted for the Democrats (including McGovern) in every presidential race, and donated to Democrats.
Of course you didn't, because MediaMatters and TPM didn't tell you that.
No more free ride for you. Sorry.
And let's not forget that your disastrous philosophy is rammed down our throats every day in all the non-news cultural media. Conservatives have to remain silent in Hollywood to keep their jobs, unless you've already proven yourself to be major-league bankable.
And leftists control the education system and have for decades. Try to be an outspoken conservative and get good grades at any level, or be hired to tenured positions. It ain't gonna happen.
You have no idea who conservatives are or what we believe, because you've been immersed in that cocoon your whole life. Conversely, we know precisely who liberals/Progressives are, and what you believe, because we've had to listen to your lying bullshit our whole lives through every medium there is.
Post a Comment