Democrats Selective Memory on Comey and Russia/Trump

Recently, in another one of Fox News' Fair and Balanced political food fights, I listened to a Democratic strategist argue that the FBI Director's firing was "unprecedented".  Unfortunately, that comment was never challenged and was a lie.  The fact is that the former Democrat, President Bill Clinton set the precedent when he fired the then-FBI Director William Sessions at the recommendation of his Attorney General Janet Reno.

Then there's this Russian conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with them and Putin to become President.  Democrats seem to forget that in early January, before Trump was even sworn in, the Director of National Intelligence released a co-authored, non-classified report by the FBI, NSA, and CIA titled: “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”.  The key assessments of that report were as follows:

• "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency."
• "We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President - elect Trump."

In coming to the first conclusion, the report stated the following:

Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012 , and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.

So, clearly, Hillary was the target of the hacking, without any specific attempt to put Trump into office.  The fact is, the email dumps by Wikileaks would have happened no matter who ran against Hillary. In the second assessment, the most powerful word in the statement is "developed".   This clearly means that Trump was not "job one" in the hacking of the DNC server and Wikileaks.  It took time for the Russians to decide that Trump was the better candidate from their perspective.

I just wish that the media would be honest and well-versed in the topics they are covering, so that political parties couldn't play these intentional games by hiding known facts and relying heavily on the knowledge that voters have short memories.

References:

An FBI director has been fired only once before — and it was under dramatically different circumstances: http://www.businessinsider.com/last-fbi-director-fired-bill-clinton-william-sessions-2017-5

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

What Gold & Silver are Saying About the Trump Election

Gold and silver are supposed to be safe-haven investments in times of trouble.   So, it's interesting that since Trump was elected, the prices of these two metals have fallen like rocks.  Just look at the price of silver from the Goldline website:

Then, there's this chart for gold:

Back in July, a senior writer for MarketWatch, William Watts, predicted that if Trump should win, gold would rise to $1850 an ounce.  Implying that Trump's policies would weaken the U.S. economy.  Really? In fact, the U.S. dollar has hit 13-year highs since Trump won the highest office in the land.  A signal that traders are betting that Trump polices would make (you know) America great again.  Along with the rise in the dollar, the stock market has also been on a tear; setting record highs. But that same writer for MarketWatch still can't believe Trump might do good things.  Just last Friday, he wrote a another opinion piece titled: "Stop calling stock-market rise a ‘Trump rally’".

In my opinion, any time William Watts at MarketWatch makes a prediction, a wise investor should do  the opposite. Apparently, he puts his political leanings before any rational and common business sense. 

References:

Goldline Silver Chart: https://www.goldline.com/charts-news/silver-charts

Goldline Gold Chart: https://www.goldline.com/charts-news/gold-charts

Here’s what Donald Trump would do to the price of gold: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-donald-trump-could-spark-a-huge-gold-rally-2016-07-22

U.S. dollar hits 13-year high: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/16/investing/dollar-13-year-high/

Stop calling stock-market rise a ‘Trump rally’: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/stop-calling-stock-market-rise-a-trump-rally-2016-11-17

Trump Didn't Beat Hillary. Hillary Beat Hillary!

Over the next few weeks, expect a flood of analysis as to how Trump won; and, of course, how Hillary lost.  But, one thing we already know is that the coalition voters that Obama put together fell apart. Note this chart that appeared in an article by Jason Easley at the PoliticusUSA website:

Simply, Trump under performed both John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 in total votes.  And, as such, he probably should have lost. However, more importantly, Hillary lost many of the votes that Obama garnered in 2008 and 2012.   While Hillary managed to win the popular vote by a couple hundred thousand votes, she captured those votes in all the wrong places; leaving Trump to win the electoral college and the Presidency.

In addition, as CNN is reporting,  Hillary greatly under performed among Latinos, Blacks, and younger voters:

Even more astonishing is that Trump did surprisingly well among both Blacks and Latinos.  Two groups that supposedly hated him.  Then, as the website 538 is reporting, Trump beat Hillary among white women who voted 53% for Trump against 43% for Hillary.  But, Hillary did much better with college educated women: 51% to 45%.  Still, the supposedly misogynist Trump did well against Hillary for the women's vote.

For whatever the reason or reasons,  Hillary just couldn't put together the votes to win.  To me, her flaws greatly outweighed those of Trump. The media may be responsible, also, for publishing big polling leads that she commanded during the closing days of the campaign.  Often big reported leads are a form of voter suppression.  Some voters tend to stay home if they think their candidate is a shoo-in and doesn't need the extra votes.

As bad a candidate as Trump was, he still beat Hillary.  One can only wonder what the results would have been if someone more electable than Trump ran against her.  Perhaps a landslide!

References:

CNN: Trump stomps all over the Democrats' Blue [Fire] Wall: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-blue-wall/

5 Reasons Why Trump Won the Election: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/09/5-Reasons-Why-Trump-Won-Election

Source of Top Graphic: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/09/graph-shows-hillary-clinton-lost-democrats-vote.html

Source of 2nd Graphic: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/clinton-votes-african-americans-latinos-women-white-voters/

Clinton Couldn’t Win Over White Women: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-couldnt-win-over-white-women/

Google Search: Hillary has double digit lead: https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+has+10+point+lead&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#safe=off&q=hillary+has+double+digit+lead 

pb

Obama Was on the Ballot and He Lost

More than anything, Donald Trump's victory was not about defeating Hillary Clinton, but instead, defeating 8 years of Barack Obama.  Eight years of going around Congress with executive orders.  Eight years of stagnant wages; high poverty; slow economic growth; and more than 28,000 new regulations.  Then, of course, there was ObamaCare.  At a time when we were hearing nothing but bad news about that law, Hillary was proudly declaring that she would build on the success of it.  Trump said he would repeal it.

Then, we see the state of the world that Obama is leaving us with.  The Middle East is on fire.  Russia and China are constantly testing us.  There are now fewer people working in manufacturing jobs than  government jobs.  Crime and murder, after decades of decline, are rising.  Call it the Ferguson effect.  I call it the Obama effect. Having his Justice Department riding rough shod over city police departments, has so negatively affected morale, the police have stopped doing their jobs. 

No,  Hillary didn't lose.  Obama did.  Every poll taken with regard to the direction of the country said "the people" believed the country was on the wrong track.  I would expect Trump to do everything possible to reverse the past 8 years of Obama from the face of our government; and hopefully, get this country back on the right track.

References:

Obama's Tattered Middle East Policy | RealClearPolitics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/13/obamas_tattered_middle_east_policy_128385.html

Record-High Number of Pages of Obama Regulations Exceed That of Bush, Clinton: http://freebeacon.com/issues/record-high-number-pages-obama-regulations-exceed-bush-clinton/

Seven Years Later, Recovery Remains the Weakest of the Post-World War II Era: https://www.google.com/search?q=Seven+Years+Later%2C+Recovery+Remains+the+Weakest+of+the+Post-World+War+II+Era&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Government Workers Now Outnumber Manufacturing Workers by 9977000: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/government-workers-now-outnumber-manufacturing-workers-9977000

Reminder: Obamacare Is Still A Giant Cronyistic Disaster: http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/18/reminder-obamacare-is-still-a-giant-cronyistic-disaster/

Polls: Direction of the Country: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

pb

America's Politics of Religion

America was founded on religious freedom by those who escaped religious persecution in other countries.  The phrase "Under God" appears consistently on our currency, and is integral to our Pledge of Allegiance.  However, God may be less important to Americans, today than He was even in 2007.  As the following chart shows, the percentage of those who were not affiliated with any religion has risen from 16% in 2007 to 23% in 2014.

Within that rise of unaffiliated, the percentage of Atheists rose from 1.6% to 3.1% and those who consider themselves Agnostic rose from 2.4% to 4% over that same 7 year period.  In general, members of mainstream religion are losing steam to non-believers:

The fact is simple, the country is becoming increasingly secular.  Evangelicals, Protestants, and Catholics are all in decline. As such, the Democrat party seems to be the biggest beneficiary of the decline with 28% of the party being non-affiliates.  How this will play out in this year's election is anyone's guess.  But, on the surface, it looks as if the Democrats are gaining in the size of their electoral base.

References:

Secular Voters Raise Their Voices - WSJ: https://www.google.com/search?q=Secular+Voters+Raise+Their+Voices&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjikcOLpZbNAhUES2MKHXCADbcQ_AUICCgC&biw=1067&bih=521#imgrc=kdNc32xWRl7mBM%3A

America’s Changing Religious Landscape: Christians Decline Sharply as Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths Continue to Grow: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

Americans are less Christian, more atheist and agnostic: Pew survey: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/americans-christian-atheist-agnostic-survey-article-1.2219229

pb

A 2016 Challenge For Both Political Parties. Especially Republicans!

There are a lot of right leaning media types who believe, like Senator Ted Cruz, that the next Republican nominee for president should be solidly conservative and not center right;  otherwise they will lose in 2016.  In support of that argument, they point to the past losses by moderates such as John McCain and Mitt Romney.  But, this chart from Gallup says that the country is becoming more and more moderate:

Since the late 80's,  Republican party affiliation has fallen from 34% to just 25% in 2013.  The Democrats, too, have lost members; falling from 36% to 31%, but that is only a fraction of the Republican losses.  The big class winner in all of this has been the people who now call themselves Independents; rising from 34% to today's 42%.   Obviously, moderate Democrats and Republicans are leaving their respective parties and, in doing so, they are saying that they reject some of their party's ideals and platforms.

The chart above represents the averages for each given year.  What Gallup found by taking 2013 in isolation follows in this remarkable chart:

In just one year, nearly half of all American voters have identified themselves as moderates.  At the same time, this means that the remaining membership of both parties have become more extreme in their ideologies; having lost the moderates.

Because of this, each party will have to appeal to the middle in 2016.  While, at the same time, not offend its remaining base which may not come out to vote if the party platform is too moderate. That's quite the challenge for any politician.

The worst thing that Republicans could do is to try to appeal to their ever marginalized and more extreme base while ignoring the growing number of Independents.  For that reason, I think the conservative media types are wrong with their assessment that the next nominee for the Republican party should be staunchly conservative. 

References: 

Gallup: Record-High 42% of Americans Identify as Independents: http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

Ted Cruz in South Carolina: Nominate a conservative in 2016, or Democrats will win: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/19/ted-cruz-south-carolina-nominate-conservative-2016/?
 
pb

The Blatant Lie That Ebola Is Spreading Because of GOP Budget Cuts

For Democrats, lying seems to come naturally and is considered a necessary means to an end.  Remember that famous "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" lie that helped Obama gain public approval for his planned healthcare reform.

Now, with the Democrat control of the Senate in serious jeopardy, there is a desperate effort being made and a blatant lie being told. They are somehow trying to blame the spread of Ebola on Republican budget cuts.  The basis for this seems to be an article appearing in the Huffington Post showing the CDC's budget dropping by $600 million since 2010 (the same year that the Republicans took the House of Representatives).  In support of that fact, the writer presents the CDC's budget numbers as follows:
 
           "2010: $6.467 billion
            2011: $5.737 billion
            2012: $5.732 billion
            2013: $5.721 billion
            2013 (after sequestration took effect): $5.432 billion
            2014: $5.882 billion"

But if you looked at President Obama's actual 2014 Budget submission for the CDC, you would have seen the following opening text:

"The president’s fiscal year ( FY ) 2014 budget request for CDC is $6.6 billion, a decrease of $270 million from FY 2013."

First, it is Obama who cut the budget from 2013 to 2014 with his own budget submission.  Secondly, $6.6 billion dollars is actually higher than 2010's spending level of $6.47 billion as claimed by the Huffington Post author.

Keep this in mind, too.  The CDC had publicly said that Ebola had a low risk of reaching the U.S. or even qualifying as an outbreak.  Further, up until now, it has occurred infrequently and has been easily contained and controlled. So, it is a little hard to believe that a lot money had or would have been prioritized to fight a disease that had so little chance of reaching our shores.  Also, if the CDC wanted to focus on Ebola, there are thousands of studies (some absolutely ridiculous like studying shrimp on a treadmill or why dogs bite) that could be terminated in order to fund Ebola research and training.

However, that fact doesn't seem to stop the left from perpetuating the lie.  Take this rant from the liberal talk show host Richard Fowler:



Then there's this ad that is now airing in States where Senate Democrats are in trouble:



In this last ad, the National Institute of Health (NIH) is mentioned as having their budgets cut along with the CDC's.  That too is a lie.  Republicans have done everything possible to keep funding for the NIH.  From the government's Office of Legislative Policy and Analysis, you get a clear sense of this happening in 1999:

"The effort to double the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget began as a movement among Senate Republicans and has had bipartisan support in both the House and Senate since the first session of the 105th Congress."

 And, that effort resulted in the following:

Year	Estimate for Doubling	NIH Actual Appropriation	President's Budget Request
1999	$15.636 billion	$15.612 billion	$14.763 billion
2000	$17.960 billion	$17.913 billion	$15.933 billion
2001	$20.631 billion	$20.313 billion	$18.813 billion
2002	$23.698 billion	$23.042 billion	$23.042 billion
2003	$27.221 billion	Pending	$27.335 billion

Clearly, if it had been for a Republican effort, the NIH wouldn't currently have more than $30 billion, today, to fight disease.

Sadly, when the truth is finally revealed, the elections will be over. Just as when the "keep your doctor" lie was finally exposed, ObamaCare had already been passed into law and was being rolled out. As a consequence, Obama never payed the price for that lie in his 2012 run against Romney.

References:

Huffington Post:  Agency Leading Ebola Response Has Had Budget Cut Nearly $600 Million Since 2010: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01/ebola-cdc-budget_n_5913844.html

Budget Request for FYI 2014: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/fmo/topic/Budget%20Information/appropriations_budget_form_pdf/FY2014_Budget_Request_Summary.pdf

NIH Budget: http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm

CDC Director: Ebola Outbreak Unlikely In http://fox8.com/2014/10/05/cdc-director-ebola-outbreak-unlikely-in-u-s/ U.S.: 

Office of Legistative Policy and Analysis: 107th Congress: http://olpa.od.nih.gov/legislation/107/pendinglegislation/doubledec.asp

CDC Studies (A to Z): http://www.cdc.gov/az/d.html

U.S. Government Has Spent $682,570 to Study 'Shrimp On A Treadmill': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy1en-bXZaw 

CDC Dog Bite Study: http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/index.html

Obama Drops Chained CPI From Budget...Another Election Year Maneuver

Last year, in Obama's rejected budget submission, was something called "chained CPI". It was the  proposed method by which annual cost of living adjustments (COLA) would be calculated for Social Security beneficiaries.  Without getting into a lot of technical economics related to how cost of living increases were previously calculated using CPI-W versus how they would be calculated under Obama's proposed chained CPI, the bottom line is that chained CPI would greatly slow the amount of any benefit increases; thus saving the Federal government billions of dollars over time and, similarly, costing seniors billions in buying power.

For years our elderly have been losing ground against rising inflation and chained CPI would only further worsen that condition.  This as evidenced by the following chart:

Click to zoom

The bar labelled "Elderly" reflects the fact that seniors saw their expenses go up by more than 39% from 1999 to 2013.  Yet, the Social Security Administration only adjusted benefits by a little more than 37%, which was the same as the cost of living calculation for all "Urban Workers" (also known as CPI-W). But, if chained CPI had been applied during that same period, those cost of living adjustments would have only been a little better than a 33% increase; leaving seniors with a 6 percentage point shortfall against expenses. Or, in other words, a 15% loss in buying power.

With as many as 22% of seniors living solely on their Social Security checks and many of them already in poverty and having to make serious choices between food and heat or medications, chained CPI would only have made a bad situation worse.  Add to this the expected inflation associated with raising the minimum wage by another $40 and, this could have been a humanitarian disaster in the making. 

For months,  Democrats were fearing that this could be a losing issue for them in the fall elections.  So,  for now, they're breathing a sigh of relief because Obama has yanked that idea from his current budget submission.  Whether it is just another one of his politically motivated delays prior to the 2014 elections or a complete dropping of this horrible idea is anyone's guess. But, I do know this, it's a little hard to argue that America needs to address income inequality and poverty when Obama, himself, was busily trying to create both with his chained CPI proposal.

If the President wants to save Medicare and lower costs, he should start by addressing the estimated $17 to $57 billion in fraud each year; and, not shove all too many seniors deeper into poverty.

Note: The 2nd column on the chart, Urban Consumers, is what is referred to as the CPI-U.  That's the overall number that the government publishes when it releases CPI data.

References:

Why 'Chained CPI' Rattles the Elderly (and Soon to Be): http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-10/why-chained-cpi-rattles-the-elderly-and-soon-to-be

CNN: February 20, 2014: Obama drops controversial Social Security proposal: http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/20/news/economy/obama-social-security-chained-cpi/

Medicare FAQs: Fraud: http://www.medicarenewsgroup.com/news/medicare-faqs/individual-faq?faqId=6a130489-e387-476d-a358-c77cfba68367

The CIA's Center On Climate Change And The Maytag Repariman

For years, appliance maker Maytag had one advertising campaign: The lonely Maytag repairman.  The commercials basically featured a repairman with nothing to do because Maytag appliances supposedly never broke down.

Well, back in 2009, right after Obama took office, our liberal President wanted to satisfy his environmental base by establishing an office in the CIA that was dedicated to studying the security impact of climate change.  Apparently, this office, The Center on Climate Change and National Security, was a lot like that lonely Maytag repairman because, just three years later, the Obama Administration is shutting the center's doors.

I think it's interesting that the closing of this office comes just 5 days after the election.  My guess is that this office was known to be a useless waste for a very long time; but, Obama probably waited to close it until after the election in order to preserve his pro-environmental voting base.  More "opacity" from an Obama Administration that is supposed to be the most transparent administration in the history of the United States.

--- New York Times Green Blog: C.I.A. Closes Its Climate Change Office: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/c-i-a-closes-its-climate-change-office/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Obama Won But Gridlock Prevails

Last night, the nation voted and Obama won.  It was an emotional win; not based on any logic.  I say this because this man has been a complete failure in his first term.  He pushed a stimulus package that has only caused our rebounding economy of 2009 to get weaker by the year.  Job creation has primarily been for low-paying and part time jobs.  As a result, the middle class is falling apart.  Average incomes have fallen by more than 7% as laid off workers are being forced into finding and taking lower paying jobs.  The number of low income workers and those in poverty has doubled to over 60 million people.  Those on food stamps and collecting disability pay have reached never-before-thought-of highs.  We are a country in decline. We are moving towards being a country that looks more like Europe  --- a Europe that is in complete turmoil with weak and depressed economies and where the normals are high unemployment and a dependency on government.

The only saving grace from Tuesday's election was that gridlock prevailed.  If this country truly wanted what Obama was selling, it would have broken that gridlock and given the Democrats a dominate position in the House of Representatives.  But, the voters said no to this President's liberal agenda by leaving the GOP in charge of the people's house.  While some Republicans lost, an equal number won. This, to me, only proves that the votes for Obama were ones based on the emotion of maintaining an historical first of having a black man as president; no matter how badly that man has performed in office.

But, don't underestimate Obama in terms of forcing through his liberal agenda.  He will do it by by-passing Congress through the stroke of his pen on executive orders. He will do it through the powers already vested in the EPA, the Department of Interior, and through the new powers given to the Health and Human Services department as a result of ObamaCare.  He will also do it through the still-unwritten, unlimited regulatory actions that were provisioned under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.  He will do it anyway he can because, no longer, does he have the burden of winning a reelection.  And, as a result, America and America's values were the big losers in Tuesday's elections.

Why Romney Should Win Handily

Over the last couple of months, the presidential election polling results have come under attack from both the right and left.  The left is claiming that blacks and woman are being under represented.  The right claims that the polls are being skewed by the oversampling of Democrats and the undersampling of Republicans.  Many of the polls that have Obama ahead are projecting the kind of intensely partisan turnout that we saw in 2008; which is simply hard to believe.

I say, forget the top line, Obama-versus-Romney numbers, and focus in on some numbers that tell the real story.  I honestly think that some number of people, who are responding to the polls, are actually lying about their support of Obama.  As a result, Romney should win handily.  Here's why:

• The Direction of the Country.  In almost every poll, on a 5.4-to-4 basis, people are saying that the country is heading in the wrong direction.  Yet, in those same polls, a majority would vote for Obama anyway.  This makes no sense.  People have to be lying.  I find it almost impossible to believe that those thinking the country is on the wrong track would actually vote for Obama so as to continue in that wrong direction.
• The Decline in Obama Job Approval and its Relationship To Votes.  When Obama was swept into office, he did so with a higher than 60% job approval and with 53% of the vote.  In essence, this means that 88% of the people who approved of Obama actually voted for him.  Now, if that relationship were to hold true in this coming election, it would mean that Obama will only get 44% of the vote.  This based on his current 50% job approval in the Real Clear summary of polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html).  Keep in mind that John McCain lost to Obama with 46% of the vote.
• A Majority of Independents Side With Romney.  In 2008, 52% of all independents voted for Obama; this according to CNN's exit polling ( http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1 ) Today,  Romney is winning the independents by as little as 7 and as much as 12 percentage points; depending on the poll.  This means that if the turnout is anything like 2010, where almost as many Republicans voted as did Democrats, Romney could have a landslide win; nicely handed to him by the independents.
• The Gender Gap Is Gone. In 2008, Obama won easily with women; winning by 12 percentage points (see above noted CNN exit poll data).  Now, Romney and Obama stand near even (see CBS story: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57539891/poll-gender-gaps-all-but-gone-in-white-house-race/).  With that 12 point advantage gone and assuming that women will again vote in higher numbers than men, this can only be an advantage for Romney.
• Youth Vote Could Be Down Severely For Obama.  In 2008, Obama garnered 66% of the youth vote (Pew exit polling: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1031/young-voters-in-the-2008-election).  He did so because they believed Obama could make a difference.  Given the fact that half of all college grads can't find work and the fact that youth unemployment is still extremely high at 12%, it is difficult to believe that Obama will repeat 2008.  Again, advantage Romney.
• The Incumbent Rule Will Give Romney The Win In Tight States.  Proven to be historically true, the Incumbent Rule should give Romney 80% of the late deciders on election.  See my blog post of October 25th: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-incumbent-rule-should-give-romney.html

So, those are the reasons why Romney will probably win and I'm in the camp that says he could win big on Tuesday.  My guess is that the final popular vote total will be 52% for Romney and only 46% for Obama; this primarily thanks to woman and independents and the very dominant male vote.  I believe that this spread is more than enough to guarantee that Romney win the Electoral College count.

Lastly, if those being surveyed have been lying to pollsters, then, expect the exit polling to be way off also. 

CNN: Misery Index Predicts Obama Will Win The Election

On October 17, a CNN reporter, Annalyn Censky, wrote an article titled:  "Misery Index predicts Obama will win the election." I can't even fathom that CNN would take the time and space to produce such a major piece of dribble; unless, of course, they're actually in the tank for Obama.

If you're not familiar with the Misery Index, it is a simple number made up of two factors: (1) the current inflation rate added to (2) the current unemployment rate.  Theoretically, if the index is below 12%, the incumbent President will win because the average voter isn't really suffering any serious economic pain. Today, that number stands at 11.8% -- 2% for inflation and 7.8% for unemployment -- and that is why Ms. Censky is saying that "Obama will win...".

My problem with the 11.8% number is that it grossly understates the true economic pain that most Americans are feeling right now. 

First of all, there's the understatement of the inflation rate at 2%.  By protocol, the United States and many other countries measure inflation by "excluding" what they call volatile changes in both food and energy prices.  As a result, the Misery Index automatically doesn't include the "misery" of having to pay double at the gasoline pump since Obama took office.  This represents an additional expense of at least $2000 a year for the average, 2-car, middle class family. Nor, does it take into account the misery of dramatically higher food prices.  Further, the inflation rate calculation uses the lowering of costs for non-essential things like cell phones and flat-screen TV's to hide the fact that essential expenses, such as electrical energy and clothing prices, have gone up significantly.  Then, there's the two most critical inflationary factors of all: The average family income has fallen by $4019 and health care insurance premiums have gone up by $2370 since Obama took office. 

So, if you simply add up all the easy-to-identify negatives from the above paragraph (gasoline, health insurance, and income), you come up with a number of  $8,389.  Taken against the average family income of $54,983 in January of 2009, it means that the average American family has lost more than 15% in purchasing power since Obama has been President.  That to me, is the same as having an "additional" 15% inflation.  This means that the true Misery Index is a lot closer to 26.8% than the calculated 11.8%. 

Then, there is the understated unemployment rate of 7.8% that assumes only 12.1 million Americans are out of work.  But, in reality, that number doesn't include the misery of 8.6 million having to work part-time because they can't find full-time jobs, or, the nearly 10 million Americans who have just stopped looking because there aren't any jobs to look for.  When, all is added up, you get a real unemployment rate that is 14.7%.  That, then, means that the true Misery Index should be raised again; from 27% (above) to 33.7%.

Lastly, there's an immeasurable factor when it comes economic misery in the U.S.  And, that's the misery of having to lose your home to foreclosure or being so underwater on your mortgage that you have no other choice but to walk away from your home through a short sale. 

For Ms. Censky to simply conclude that Obama will win because of some artificially low Misery Index is consistent with what I have always stated in the blog:  There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Note: The above annual gasoline expense is calculated on the basis that the average American car uses about 558 gallons of gasoline per year.  This is based on an average driving range of 12,500 miles per year with an average fuel consumption rate of 22.4 miles-per-gallon.  This is a somewhat conservative estimate since "averages" on the Internet vary from 12,000 to 15,000 miles driven per year with mileage rates of anywhere from 21 to 24 mpg.

References:

--- CNN:  Misery Index predicts Obama will win the election: http://economy.money.cnn.com/2012/10/17/misery-index-obama-will-win-the-election/

--- Forbes On Losses In Median Income:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/09/02/obamas-accelerating-downward-spiral-for-america/

--- Investor's Business Daily: Health Premiums Up $3,000; Obama Vowed $2,500 Cut:  http://news.investors.com/092412-626848-health-premiums-up-3065-obama-vowed-2500-cut.aspx?p=full

--- September Unemployment Report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

--- Historical Gasoline Prices (interactive Chart): http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Dewey Wins?

In the history of this country, there is one election, Truman vs. Dewey, where the underdog truly became the come-back-kid. By that election day, the final Gallup polling had Dewey 5 full points ahead of Truman. The whole country thought that Truman was doomed to lose. In fact, one of the most famous pictures in political history is Truman holding a copy of the "Chicago Daily Tribune" that was erroneously published and declares: "Dewey Defeats Truman" (Click to see this historical Associated Press photo).

Early last week, John McCain aptly declared himself the underdog. Certainly, the polls reflect that fact with Barack Obama leading by as much as 14 points, nationally. Some projected Electoral Map calculations show Obama with over 300 electoralvotes, with only 270 needed to win. Even I, just a couple of weeks ago, said that this economic disaster may have given Obama the win.

However, there is a possibility that John McCain, like Truman, may win this.

The Obama campaign has targeted the "youth" voters from day one. But, the younger voter is the most historically unpredictable. If Obama has a significant lead, these less dedicated "youths" might just skip going to the polls. If enough think that way, it could swing this in John McCain's direction. Actually, some might not go to the polls no matter what is happening in the polling.

Through the most recent polling results, we know that the "undecided" voters are between 7 and 16 percent; depending on the polling source you look at. If, for some reason, John McCain can sway those votes in the final hours, it could spell a win. Usually, though, this group of voters tends to follow the general polling. But, there are so many open issues about Obama and his past that the undecided's might not feel comfortable with that uncertainty. Some might not be comfortable with "completely" turning over all of the reins of government to the Democrats. Others might be concerned about the effects of being too liberal in an economic crisis. A two or three percent swing of the undecideds McCain's way could really change the results of this election. It should be noted that independents have been somewhat moving away from Obama in the last few days.

Then, of course, there is the possibility of the Bradley Effect. Basically, this is a documented trend by voters saying in polls that they will vote for the black candidate and, then, vote to the contrary when pulling the lever in the hidden confines of the voting booth. The "effect" is generally believed to have resulted from whites not wanting to look like racists when directly confronted by a pollster. Ironically, it can also be some blacks that don't want to appear to be voting against a black person because they might look like an "Uncle Tom". Historians have documented this effect to be as much as 6 percent. If Obama has less than a 6 percent lead over McCain, and this "effect" actually happens, McCain could pull this off.

This election, more than any other, has people looking at one candidate because of his "promises" rather than his past actions. This election has also become a media driven election for a variety of reasons that include making history. However, what happens in the privacy of the voting booth might not be what the polls are saying. It might not be what our mainstream media wants to happen. While it is hard to imagine John McCain wining with such a completely weak outlook according to the Electoral Maps, there is always the possibility of a repeat of the Dewey/Truman contest. But, who really knows? Even Obama, himself, expressed his concern over losing when he said "Don't Underestimate Our Ability to Screw it Up" (See Full Story). During the primaries, time after time, Hillary Clinton had substantially better performances on primary day against Barack Obama than the polls were saying. The same just might happen to Obama against McCain.

I just think this election may be the most interesting in our history, and if McCain does have a shot at winning, it could be a very, very, long night and a very, very, close election. If McCain does win, expect Obama's lawyers to be unleashed across this country like a massive herd of wild mustangs. This election could make Gore v. Bush look like legal amateur night in comparison to what could happen between McCain and Obama.

Desensitizing the Jeremiah Wright Scandal

I don't know if you've made note of it but, there's some subtle changes in the way Barack Obama now presents himself since the Reverend Wright scandal broke:

1. He is starting to use "God Bless America" as he signs off from various political rallies.
2. Whenever possible, several United States flags will fill the space behind him.
3. He always refers to Jeremiah Wright as his "former" Pastor or as the "retired" Pastor.
4. He marginalizes the anti-American, Racists, and anti-Jewish remarks by referring to them as a few "snippets" from 30 years of Sermons and Speech given by Wright.

Believe me, this is all intentional and has been well thought out by Barack's handlers. The purpose is to minimize the Reverend Wright issue in the minds of the voting public. The intent is to make it all seem like such a "little thing" and something that was all in the past; even though Wright didn't actually retire until just a few weeks ago. The flags and the "God Bless America" sign-off are both intended to give a sense of patriotism and establish and reinforce the realism of his Christianity.

From the polls, it appears it is working with Democrats in the race for the nomination. Of course, Hillary has made that job easier will all her "lying" problems. However, I am not sure that it will work in the General Election battle. We'll see!