Yet Obama leads Romney by 46-36. Weird poll, but that makes seven straight showing Walker clearly ahead in his fight to remain governor.

Poll of adults with even Democrat-Republican representation, by the way.

A few morons complained about my bright red headlines, so changing things up radically. Plus my lady likes purple.

Just recapping:
RASMUSSEN: WALKER 50% BARRETT 45%
WeAskAmerica: WALKER 52% BARRETT 43%
PPP/DailyKos*: WALKER 50% BARRETT 45% (LV model, RV Walker by 4)
MarquetteLaw: WALKER 50% BARRETT 44% (LV model, RV Walker by 8 )
WeAreWisc*: WALKER 50% BARRETT 47%
WPR/StNorbert: WALKER 50% BARRETT 45%
REASON/Rupe*: WALKER 50% BARRETT 42% (Adults)

*openly-partisan sponsors

Um...Barrett, I could be wrong, and wailing for years hence if Walker loses, but just for this moment:

Posted by: CAC at 05:47 PM | Comments (62)
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

Shirtless Biden Washes Trans Am In White House Driveway, as the immortal Onion article had it

What do we make of this?

In the 12 swing states likely to determine the outcome of the presidential election, only 40% of registered voters view Biden favorably, while 54% view him unfavorably. These numbers are worse than President Obama's who is seen favorably by 50% of registered voters in those same states and unfavorably by 49%.

...

Independents are also down on the VP, with 50% saying they view him unfavorably and 35% holding a favorable view. The survey found the same pattern with voters who are not strongly committed to any candidate, with 52% viewing Biden unfavorably and only 33% holding a favorable view.

Why should Biden's favorability ratings be so low, compared to Obama?

Wasn't Biden supposed to be the reassuring, charming one with decades of serious foreign policy experience?

Wasn't he supposed to make Irish Grandmothers swoon or something?

I would suggest something else:

It's safe to say you don't like Joe Biden. He's white, after all.

How much of the differential could that account for? Oh, probably not a huge chunk. But some of it. Some voters will say they have a high opinion of Obama, while saying they don't have a high opinion of the senile dolt Biden, even though they don't like either.

And on election day, those people will stop counterfeiting their actual beliefs.

If this baseless speculation is anywhere close to correct, Obama could be looking at a very short night on Election Night.

Posted by: Ace at 03:53 PM | Comments (348)
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

Bumped by Ace. I stepped on this earlier.

As per my live-blogging link in the headlines to the right, I attended the 2012 graduation ceremonies at the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs today, and the commencement speaker was President Barack Obama. The full as-prepared transcript is here. I'm just going to cite one excerpt below -- the one that caused my wife to lean over to me and say, "Does he see no irony in what he's saying?" more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 02:53 PM | Comments (214)
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

Beagle play-fighting with piglet, from @rdbrewer4. The real beagle-on-piglet action starts a minute or so in. more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:04 PM | Comments (117)
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Take your internal and suck it.

Walker CONTINUES to lead, in nearly identical numbers, as the days Barrett has to capture some momentum keep evaporating.
In fact, this poll gives Walker his highest approval rating since they started tracking it, at 52%. St Norbert College also found that, while voters see the nation as a whole on the wrong track, they see their own state of Wisconsin on the right one, 49% to 45%.

Right now, both camps are focusing on GOTV and early voting efforts.
Numbers out of Milwaukee and Madison put early voting numbers from the first day to around 1000, so interest is there and the recall proponents are not going to go out with a whimper. Despite some eeyore reports of just high early voting in Democratic areas, this article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel shows the phenomena is statewide, including very heavily conservative areas like Brookfield. Those numbers will grow through the week and into next week, with the big fireworks of course on June 5th.

Projection tomorrow.

To the Wisconsin morons, more...

Posted by: CAC at 01:34 PM | Comments (78)
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.

Really?

Let's check that timeline, courtesy of @gpollowitz.

1996: In a questionnaire, Obama states that he supports same-sex marriage

1998: Matthew Sheppard is murdered in a crime believed to be motivated by anti-homosexual hatred.

2004: Obama announces that he now supports a traditional definition of marriage and does not support same-sex marriage.

So... if I have this right... Matthew Sheppard's murder caused him to reevaluate his previous unconditional support for the gay marriage agenda, and oppose it?

By the way, pretty much nobody except Andrew Sullivan was yammering about gay marriage in 1996. So Obama was seriously, seriously way the hell out in front of the liberal agenda in 1996.

Then, Matthew Sheppard is murdered... which apparently spurs a reevaluation of his position and "evolves" him into the more conservative stance.

Okay.

I enjoy being lied to. It's fun. It fills my head with sense of whimsy and adventure, where anything can happen and probably will!!!!

Yay, deceit!!!!

Posted by: Ace at 01:22 PM | Comments (129)
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

Great idea!

We really need to force cities to receive lots of illegal immigrant workers.

Because, God knows, there are few, if any, in the dying cities now.

I would argue the federal government should go one step further. They should deliberately force some places that donÂ’t want immigrants to take them, because thatÂ’s the only solution for these big, hollowed-out cities where industry has left and is never going to come back unless you get some people to move there.

Turns out people are fleeing cities because there just aren't enough illegal immigrants to be found there. Who knew.

Posted by: Ace at 01:10 PM | Comments (90)
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

Fail.

Quoting from Langer Research (link inside the other link):

ost Americans, in any case, see the general approach as inappropriate: Seventy-five percent in this poll...say itÂ’s unfair to bring up things a political candidate did in high school. Given the context of the bullying story, 89 percent of Republicans say so; that slips to 73 percent of independents and 66 percent of Democrats. Further, 72 percent think the specific bullying incident, first reported by The Washington Post, does not provide useful information about RomneyÂ’s character. That, too, engenders partisan divisions: Almost all Republicans (94 percent) think the incident isnÂ’t relevant; 71 percent of independents and 59 percent of Democrats agree.

Guy Benson adds:

Incidentally, this data is mined from the same national survey that gave Democrats a ludicrous ten point sample advantage, resulting in The One's thin lead over Romney. So the public's rejection of the Post's advocacy journalism is probably even more comprehensive than even the 90 percent (!) figure indicates.

Obama ate a dog.

At least one dog. Probably more.

No one's ever asked.

Posted by: Ace at 12:51 PM | Comments (103)
Post contains 219 words, total size 2 kb.

Um, do I really have to say it?

[Democrats] ascribe the underperformance [in recent primaries] by the incumbent to a very simple thing: racism.

No, none of these Democrats are willing to put their name to that allegation — either generally or for this story. But, it is, without question the prevalent viewpoint they hold privately.

hey argue that conservative white Democrats — particularly those in the South and Appalachia — don’t want to vote for an African American for president and, therefore, are willing to cast a ballot for almost anyone else up to and including an incarcerated felon. (Keith Judd, we are looking at you.)

[Crap f that "we can never be sure" stuff omitted as tedious and ass-covering nonsense.]

What we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that Appalachia and portions of the South — particularly those states without large African American populations — have long been hostile to President Obama.

Hostile?

Several possible explanations.

Former Texas Rep. Charlie Stenholm, a longtime conservative Democrat, acknowledged that “race is definitely a factor for some Texans but not the majority,” adding: “The most significant factor is the perception/reality that the Obama administration has leaned toward the ultra-left viewpoint on almost all issues.”

Well, so race is definitely a factor, and yet Obama has leaned toward the ultra-left viewpoint on almost all issues?

Seems to me that's explanation enough right there.

A former House member named Tom Cole has an explanation that doesn't seem to have occurred to the Washington Post's Racism Decision Desk.

“Obama fares poorly in states like Oklahoma, Kentucky and Arkansas because he has nothing in common with them. They are rural, he is urban. They are populist, he is elitist. And in case anyone hadn’t noticed, they are conservative while he is liberal. That isn’t just true of Republicans in these states. It is true of Democrats as well.”

That's just silly.

On the other hand, Donna Brazie finally strikes on the answer. Or, rather, all three of them.

“Race, resentment [and] fear[.]"

There you go.

So, if those are the reasons, why does this moron then continue...

“Democrats have not had any messaging in those states for more than a decade. It’s hard to get voters to like you or even know you when all they hear is negative stuff.”

Ah. So the Democrats have no messaging there. (It's always about their messaging, never about their policy and agenda.)

If that's the case, why are you blaming it on "race, resentment, and fear?" Seems like you should get your chronic, persistent Messaging Problem under control before casting aspersions on entire populations of people.

The Disappearing Democratic Party

Our messaging sucks, due to your racism.

Posted by: Ace at 11:28 AM | Comments (334)
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

Um, yeah, that's not really what he said, and it wasn't racist at all, but I figured I should just beat our absurd, hysterical leftist media to the punch.

“Here we are in the most prosperous nation, but millions of kids are getting a Third World education. And America’s minority children suffer the most,” Mr. Romney said in a speech to the Latino Coalition, a conservative Hispanic organization. “This is the civil rights issue of our era. And it’s the great challenge of our time.”

And he declared war on teachers unions, saying[:] “President Obama has been unable to stand up to union bosses — and unwilling to stand up for kids,” Mr. Romney said, accusing the president of putting the unions’ campaign donations ahead of the needs of students those teachers are teaching.

If you're interested in the subject, you ought to read the article. He vowed to push for vouchers and charter schools.

There's a limit, of course, on what I can excerpt, and I thought the tenor of his criticism was most important.

Second look at Romney?

Posted by: Ace at 10:07 AM | Comments (300)
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.