I took the “I Side With” quiz and discovered that I’m not imagining things — Ted Cruz is indeed the candidate for me, since I side with him (or does he side with me?) 92% of the time. If you have a chance, you should check out the I Side With site and see whether you’re supporting the candidate who most closely reflects your values.
A friend of mine sent me the following poster, which she called “the quote of the century.” She has a point. Whatever chicanery happened during the 2012 election, the fact is that in 2008 the American people enthusiastically threw themselves behind this Marxist con man, simply because of his skin color and the magic beans he promised them:
Yesterday I directed your attention to one of the angriest editorial opinions I’ve ever seen in the normally temperate Wall Street Journal. What I missed was that Daniel Henninger, who’s also a normally temperate writer, also leveled a huge mortar round of ugly facts against our President:
We should admit the obvious: Barack Obama is the most anti-political president the United States has had in the post-war era. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter (even), Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. All practiced politics inside the tensions between Congress and the presidency that were designed into the system by the Founding Fathers. Not Barack Obama. He told us he was different. He is.
Mr. Obama doesn’t do Washington’s politics. Disappointed acolytes say it is because he is “passive.” That underestimates him. For Mr. Obama, the affairs of state are wholly a function of whatever is inside his mind.
Some things remain in his mind, like the economic benefits of public infrastructure spending, which appeared one more time in Monday’s post-Navy Yard speech on the lessons of the financial crisis and Congress’s obligations to agree with him. Some things enter his mind and then depart, like red lines in the Syrian sand.
From where he sits, it is the job of the political world outside to adjust and conform to the course of the president’s mental orbit. Those who won’t adjust are dealt with by the president himself. They are attacked publicly until they are too weak politically to oppose what is on his mind.
This is the unique Obama M.O. For historians of the Obama presidency, this September has been a case study in the 44th president’s modus operandi.
Please read the whole thing here.
As with climate change, I feel vindicated — but a fat lot of good vindication does me. The damage is already done whether to our economy or our national security.
Voters duped by a Leftist media first gave us two years of unbridled Progressive politics, then at least four years of divided politics (2010-2014, or maybe 2016), and another three plus years of Barack Hussein Obama. Eight years is a long time within which destructive forces can do their dirty work. The turnaround won’t be instant and won’t even be eight years. If conservative principles do take hold again, it may take decades to undo the damage. And given the current infighting amongst those who call themselves Republicans, it looks as if the somewhat more conservative party in America is once again setting up its circular firing squad.
Sometimes I think that the only thing that will save the Right in 2016 is the fact that Democrats are also going to have a presidential primary. No matter how the actual election goes, I’ve got the popcorn and chocolate ice cream ready for the delightful spectacle of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren, three of the worst liars in politics today, squaring off against each other.
I do believe that vote fraud had an effect on this election, although I don’t know if it was big enough in swing states to change the outcome. Abe Greenwald’s theory makes a lot more sense when it comes to explaining how conservatives could have so completely misread the election outcome:
Barack Obama ushered in America’s first large-scale experiment in personality-cult politics. The experiment continues apace. Obama got reelected because he enjoys a degree of personal popularity disconnected from his record. No modern president has ever been returned to office with employment figures and right-track-wrong-track numbers as poor as those Obama has achieved.
Obama couldn’t run on his record, which proved to be no problem—Americans didn’t vote on his record. According to exit polls, 77 percent of voters said the economy is bad and only 25 percent said they’re better off than they were four years ago. But since six in ten voters claimed the economy as their number one issue, it’s clear this election wasn’t about issues at all.
The president’s reelection is not evidence of a new liberal America, but rather of the illogical and confused experience that is infatuation. For multiple reasons, Americans continue to have a crush on Barack Obama even after his universally panned first term. No longer quite head over heels, they’re at the “I know he’s no good for me, but I can change him” phase. Whatever this means, it surely doesn’t suggest conservatives would be wise to move closer to policies that aren’t even popular among Obama supporters.
(Read more here.)
What we saw on election day was the continuing power of the old media. Indeed, it is flush with power. This year, the old media abandoned any pretense of objectivity and still shaped an election. That’s quite something. For decades, the old media hid its partisanship, believing that doing so was the only way to sway the American people. This year, it learned that it could be hyper-partisan because it is still the gatekeeper.
We in the blogosphere were deluding ourselves about our reach and ability to change the dialog. By ignoring some stories (Benghazi, for example, or the scope of Sandy’s disaster) and by hyping other story’s (Romney’s offshore accounts or dog driving), it kept Obama in office despite the fact that he has failed to fulfill every promise he made and left the country in a perilous state.
I know that the economic numbers were creeping up ever so slightly before the election (improved stock market, slightly improved job numbers), but those would have been irrelevant if the press had been hostile to Obama. This was indeed a “cult of personality” election, as I see regularly on my Facebook page.
There certainly were issues that excited Democrat voters — the elite voted on social issues grounds (lady parts and gay marriage being the things they trumpet most triumphantly) and the 47% vote to keep their government benefits — but those issues were of paramount importance to them because the media colluded with the Obama administration to hide from the public the scope of the coming economic disaster. Had the American people better understood the economy, the elite might have decided that lady parts and gay marriage could wait a while, and the 47% might have realized that no government money means no government benefits.
Here’s the good news, though: Next election, the media doesn’t have Obama to elevate any more. We won’t have Romney, who is a a truly nice man, but whom the media demonized to the proportions of Sarah Palin, who is a truly nice woman. The press will still demonize the Republican candidate, but I’m not certain they’ll have anyone to anoint as the second coming. Neither Hillary nor Elizabeth Warren lend themselves to a personality cult. This hagiography worked once with Obama. I doubt it will work twice with someone else. The American population might be in a “fool me twice, shame on you” frame of mind.
Or, of course, Obama could bring in a new Golden Age in the next four years, in which case all of us will have to retire our animus and rejigger our political views. Currently, I’m not holding my breath on that one.
A lot of people have been writing to explain that the polls are heavily weighted in favor of Democrats, showing a Democrat voter turnout even higher than in 2008. Many people think that this is a psy-ops effort aimed at depressing Republican voter turnout. Zombie says we shouldn’t get our knickers in a twist about this one, because there’s no evidence that these psy-ops work, and lots of human nature that says they probably won’t work.
The American Future Fund put together a very funny video that shows Progressives before and after the Wisconsin election. Before, defeat meant an imminent apocalypse; after, defeat meant . . . nothing:
You can’t blame the Progressives for their differing before and after statements. With the November 2012 election coming up, one could argue that circumstances forced them to take both positions.
But we here at the Bookworm Room aren’t Progressives, and we’re not trying to induce people to vote one way or another. Perhaps, then, we can come to a consensus about the implications of Walker’s victory in Wisconsin.
I’m too lazy right now to hunt up links, so I’m going to make factual statements that I’m 99% certain are accurate. You can accept them as true, or you can call me on my errors. This also isn’t a carefully framed essay. Instead, I’m just throwing out ideas.
1. Here’s a fact I know for certain, because I was there when it happened: I heard a pro-Obama liberal say, “Oh, my God! This is a disaster.” When I asked why, she said, “Because I wanted Obama to win in November, and this means he won’t.” The media and White House may be spinning, but at least one (wo)man on the street thinks that the Wisconsin election, rather than being an anomaly, is a harbinger of things to come.
2. Many have commented on the disparity between exit polls and votes. I’m not ready to draw a conclusion from those discrepancies. Roger Simon suggests a Bradley effect, one that sees political ideology, not racial views, as the opinion people are trying to hide during face-to-face interviews. If he’s right, the polls in this election season just became meaningless, and all bets are off for November. DQ, however, had a good point, which is that, until we know how many absentee ballots were cast in Wisconsin, we can’t know how anomalous the poll results really were. Here in Marin, for example, up to 60% of voters do so by absentee ballot. With only 40% of voters showing up at the polling places, and the pollsters only catching a small fraction of those, there’s going to be a wide margin for error in any hypothetical exit polling.
3. Some man-on-the-street interviews saw people saying, “I just don’t like the recall idea.” Maybe that’s true. Or maybe people are lying about their motives for voting conservative in order to hide their resurgent conservative identity. In any event, a couple of interviews does not a statistical sample make. What’s of some significance is the fact that Scott Walker is the only governor to survive a recall vote. In other words, in other places and other elections, people weren’t so squeamish about kicking out a governor who was fighting a recall.
4. Money matters — and I’m not talking about money spent on elections. Scott Walker, in the short time available to him as governor, shifted the Wisconsin balance sheet away from a huge, even catastrophic deficit. People who are not ideologues will vote for someone who is manifestly preserving their way of life, even if they’re voting outside of their normal party identification.
5. The unions are in serious trouble. It’s not just that they lost. It’s that, when workers in Walker’s Wisconsin were given a choice to walk away from the unions, they did so — causing a 2/3 drop in union rolls. This means that the unions are serving only the politicians and the union leaders. The rank and file might have been getting good benefits, but they realized that good benefits are meaningless in a broke nation. They opted for social stability, rather than being forced to turn over their money to a union that didn’t serve them well and that didn’t serve their community well.
6. This is deeply damaging for Barack Obama. Oh, I know that Wisconsin is just one state. There might have been all sorts of unique Wisconsin factors at work here that, practically speaking, have no relationship to Obama and to the nation as a whole. But this was a big Democrat push. The unions, which are synonymous with Democrats, put their all into this. The protests against Walker were tied closely to the Occupy movement which is, in turn, tied closely to the Democrats. The two candidates took positions that perfectly represented the dividing lines of political thought in this country, with Walker being the principled, budget-cutting conservative, and Barrett promising the same old big-spending, pro-union Democrat governance that saw Wisconsin slowly go broke in the first place. When the Democrat side lost, you could practically see the stench start rising from the corpse. That stench is going to stick to Democrats nationwide and, naturally, it’s going to stick hardest to the top Democrat. It’s not the nail in the Obama re-election coffin, but it’s certain equal to a handful of nails, and joins other painful moments, ranging from big failures, such as the dismal job reports, worldwide economic collapse, and the scary despotism of the Arab Spring that Obama helped usher in, to small failures, such as the dog wars, the mommy wars, the bullying wars, etc. Obama is looking like a very weak horse indeed, and in unstable times, that’s the last person the voters want shepherding their nation.
For several years, every Tuesday and Wednesday morning, my sister has regaled me with stories about Dancing With The Stars, which is not just her favorite television show, it’s actually the only show she watches. For those unfamiliar with DWTS, the premise is simple: every season, a group of TV stars, singers, athletes, models, etc., is paired with the show’s stable of professional dancers. The guests are taught a couple of ballroom dances, and let loose on the dance floor. The same pattern gets repeated week after week, with the show turning into an elimination game that sees the lowest scoring dancer (based on judges’ scores and audience call-ins) being let go each week. The season ends with the top three dancers facing off against each other.
After fighting against it for a while, I gave in, watched the show, and enjoyed it. DWTS has a wonderful “getting it right” trajectory, one that sees people who have never danced before, or never danced ballroom before, getting better before your eyes. By the end of the ten-week season, the last three guests remaining actually look like dancers, rather than like robots who have mastered steps.
The most recent season, which concluded just this Tuesday, had an unusually good group of guests. By season’s end, the three remaining really were head-to-head in terms of “who would have expected it?” dancing talent. These three were William Levy, a Cuban refugee, model, and Telemundo star; Katherine Jenkins, a very beautiful, blonde, Welsh classical singer trained at the Royal Academy of Music; and Donald Driver, a Green Bay Packers football player who helped propel his team to a Superbowl victory. William Levy sold sex (woo!), Katherine Jenkins sold precision, and Donald Driver sold himself.
Here’s sex (with the dance starting around 3 minutes in, although the Cuban refugee story preceding it is fairly interesting):
And here’s charisma, with a bit of raw muscle thrown in for good measure:
Interestingly, even though Donald Driver is the only non-performer of the three, he sells it! The other two, who are both stage professionals (one acting, one singing) lacked his star power. Driver, as you may already have heard, won the mirror ball trophy. I was not surprised, despite the fact that, when it came to dancing qua dancing, he was probably the least good of the three. With very little to distinguish the three, personality was the trump card.
I’ve long been fascinated by that elusive, intangible, yet very real charm that is charisma. I’ve written here before about the most handsome man I’ve ever met, whose face I cannot remember. What I actually remember is his charm. I was a pretty, blonde 18-year old in Israel for the first time. My Mom’s friend had a 25-year old son who took one look at me and said, “Would you like to come to a party with me?” “Sure,” I replied. He called the host, squared things away, and off we went. When we got there, the host greeted me at the door as if I was the most important, interesting, gorgeous person he’d ever met. “I’m so glad you came,” he said, drawing me into the room. I was glad too. He made me feel precious, special, and treasured. He had charisma. I don’t remember his face, but my heart knows he was gorgeous.
Charisma in the political world can be a dangerous thing. Sometimes, it lands one with a great leader, such as Reagan. Other times, that same elusive charm sees people electing a huckster to the White House — someone like Clinton, for example. Even Clinton’s enemies couldn’t deny his warmth and charm. Clinton may have been grossly narcissistic and corrupt, but he genuinely likes people and wants them in his orbit. He was then and still is a most likable bad boy.
Obama is an interesting thing. The 2008 showed that he had the power of the true demagogue, but I’m not sure so about the charisma. I never saw it. Unlike Clinton, who actually likes people, Obama does not. He’s a performer, rather than a truly charismatic human being. If he stays on script (memorized and teleprompted speeches) and if he has a publicity department to shore him up (the MSM), he sells a simulacrum of charisma, one that, in 2008, was enough to charm a population that was looking for the un-Bush, and that was decidedly bored with the completely uncharismatic John McCain.
The problem for Obama is that winning the election meant he had to get off the stage. Since he was faking the charm, the same audiences who cheered and fainted, were suddenly presented with a much less likable version of the man. Watching Obama over the last few years has been precisely the same as watching a commercial in which the actor, having charmingly announced “I’m not a real charismatic politician, but I play one on TV,” steps off the set and starts screaming at his fellow cast members and the crew, as he wipes off the thick stage magic that hid his acne scars.
Over the years, Obama has proven himself ignorant (Austrian language, it’s wrong for businesses to be set up to “maximize profit,” “corpse”-men, etc.), mean (“I won,” “You’re likeable enough, Hilary,” police acted “stupidly,” find out “whose ass to kick,” etc.), inarticulate, and generally not the golden boy the media sold to American audiences back in 2008. That’s okay. The nature of a demagogue is that he’s deeply flawed, in an antisocial way. Obama’s problem is that he’s not selling himself. He doesn’t deliver insults with a charming smile. He doesn’t giggle about his gaffes, as Johnny Carson so wonderfully did:
Obama’s many fails come from a deep reservoir of anger and ignorance, and there is no smiling that will cover it up.
So, on the Democrat side of the slate we have one singularly charmless candidate.
What’s interesting is that the Republicans also have a candidate who lacks charisma. I like Romney. His is a personal history of hard work and good deeds. He’s a hugely successful ordinary guy. The media demonizes his law-abiding success (which, in a normal world, would be a good thing) and heaps scorn upon his social ordinary-ness.
Sadly, the dinosaur drive-by media still has enough power to convince voters that the perfectly ordinary, very nice Mitt Romney — the kind of guy you’d love to have as a friend and neighbor — is a boring, goofy, bully. What will be interesting is to see whether that same drive-by media can also convince voters that the self-involved, cold, cutting, ignorant Barack Obama — the kind of guy who is reviled in a small community — is the same charismatic golden boy who ran for and won the presidency in 2008.
There is no Donald Driver here — a good all around guy, with buckets of character. Instead, all we’ve got are here are two ordinary men (although I’d argue that Mitt is substantially smarter than Barry), with extremely different histories and world views. One therefore has to ask, in an election in which both candidates lack that magical, elusive charm that is charisma, will the media be able to dismiss one nice, bright, accomplished guy as a boring nonentity, while building up the other, not-so-very nice guy, as the great charmer, deserving of the great American mirror ball trophy?
I posted earlier today about Obama’s visit to the Bay Area, one that is expected to net him and the Democratic party lots and lots of money. One reader, who asked to remain anonymous, noticed something interesting about Obama’s schedule:
Obama has scheduled:
– 4:30 appearance in Palo Alto for $35,800/person
– 5:30 dinner in Atherton for $35,800/person
– 6:00 rally/reception in Redwood City for $2500-$7500/person
Doesn’t this schedule look odd? I know Silicon Valley is a small area, but there are limits to how fast one can drive and unless he really is God and can be in multiple places at once, his presence at these events must be only about 5 minutes each. This is especially true for the 5:30 event.
Frankly, if I was paying $35,800 to have dinner or be at an “appearance” of the President, I would expect more than a fleeting glimpse as he reenters his car. But, of course, I am a conservative and expect value for my money.
I wish I’d said that.
Rasmussen just came out with a pre-debate poll that shows Obama leading both Romney and Santorum by ten and seven points respectively. Couple this with headlines touting good news on the economy (some of which is definitely real and some illusory) and it’s enough to send something stronger than a frisson of fear coursing up a conservative’s spine. While a few months ago it looked as if Obama could lose to a generic Republican candidate, it’s becoming increasingly clear that it will be harder for a specific Republican candidate to beat him.
Conservative and Republican voters are deeply divided between Romney and Santorum (although both have shamefully big government voting records, making them a Hobson’s choice). Is it possible that, when a pollster calls a Santorum voter and asks him to give his opinion about a possible Obama vs. Romney match-up, that voter finds it very hard to imagine himself pulling the lever for Romney? After all, today, he is as opposed to Romney as he is to Obama. The same holds true for Romney supporters who are asked to envision a Santorum vs. Obama election.
The question that ought to concern us is whether this distaste for the other Republican candidate will continue once the primary season is over, so that Romney supporters will hang back if Santorum wins the nomination and vice versa. In that case, Obama will indeed win. If, however, conservative and Republican voters consolidate behind the last candidate standing, that block should be sufficient to shift the polling weight and, more importantly, the election outcome.
What do you think will happen? Will Republicans and conservatives be able to come together behind a single candidate, or has this primary been so divisive that the Republican party is too wounded to win?
A friend sent me a link to a post at Whatever, a blog that John Scalzi runs. Scalzi, who describes himself as a “pinko commie socialist,” is interested — truly, not snarkily, interested — in the views Republicans/conservatives/libertarians currently hold when looking at the Republican primary field. Having the luxury of my own blog, I thought that, rather than weigh in there, I’d weigh in here, and ask you all to chime in as well. I’ll stick to Scalzi’s rules, which I think are very good ones for this question:
1. This comment thread is for people who are US potential primary voters who identify as Republican and/or conservative (libertarian is also fine, if you see your libertarianism more aligned with general Republican/conservative principles and/or intend to vote in the GOP primaries). If you’re not any of these things, don’t comment, please. Seriously. We have enough politics back and forth on other threads; this one is not about that.
To amplify this point I will also stay out of the thread except in my capacity as site moderator.
2. For the purposes of this thread, please take as given that you likely believe the policies and practices of the Obama administration to be varying levels of bad, so it’s not on point to go on about that. I’m interested on your take on the actual candidates running for the GOP nomination and your thoughts on their individual pluses and minuses as well as on the group as a whole.
4. Commenting between the people in the thread (who have already identified themselves as Republicans/conservatives) is of course fine but in general I’m more interested in people’s individual opinions regarding the candidates/group than I am in people trying to argue to others in the thread for their favorite candidate. So if you’d keep campaigning to a minimum and focus on the actual question, I’d be appreciative.
As a Californian, of course, none of my votes count. My primaries are too late to matter and the state is so Blue, it’s kind of like a corpse when it comes to the actual election itself. So, while I care deeply, my caring is sort of academic.
Having said that, I’ve been enjoying Newt. Considering that all the candidates just yak away like crazy, it’s a kind of rare, delicious, almost illicit pleasure to hear someone who can string multiple sentences together, who has a rare depth and breadth of knowledge, and who often says what all of us have been thinking. I have serious doubts about his abilities as an executive (I do think Romney wins in that category), but he’s like chocolate for the conservative political brain — and that’s despite the baggage, the loopiness, the history of random statements, the FDR worship, and whatever else one can say about Newt.
When it comes to thinking seriously about a primary candidate, I don’t know and, as I noted above, for me the question is academic (especially since California now has open primaries). What I’ve said for months is that my candidate is NOT OBAMA. Of course, I have to ask myself, what if the NOT OBAMA candidate is Ron Paul? I think he’d be better for America on the home front than Obama is, but I think he’d manage to be even worse than Obama when it comes to America’s national security interests, both at home and abroad. I don’t want to have to make an Obama versus Paul choice.
My current plan is to vote for the person with the “R” after his/her name. I’m not going to teach anyone a lesson by withholding a vote, thereby weakening the NOT OBAMA Party, of which I am a member in good standing.
Let’s see if I’ve got this right, based upon the evidence currently available:
- Obama is a grandiose narcissist
- Newt is an egomaniac
- Hillary is a compulsive liar
- Mitt seems vaguely asperger-ish, with a weather vane in place of his spine
- Herman is a serial womanizer (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claims against him are true)
- Rick is manic (so can depressive be far behind)
- Michelle is an abused wife (or is she married to an abused husband? I forget)
And on the list goes. Giving personality disorder labels to presidential candidates is like shooting fish in a barrel — it’s just too easy. But think about it: What person in his (or her) right mind would want to run for president or be president in the early years of the 21st century. Not only is there the burden of governing a superpower in an explosive world, but our manic media ensures that, if you’re a Republican candidate, you’ll be subject to routine, public colonoscopies, while if you’re a Democratic candidate, you receive the kind of fawning sycophancy that created the same delusions of grandeur that drove many European monarchs mad.
Any job description for the job of president in 2012 should end with the words “only megalomaniacs need apply.” No sane person would want the job, including a sane patriot, and that fact may go a long to explaining why our candidates are so deeply flawed.
In honor of this realization, I’d like to propose a new presidential song, which is much more apt and meaningful than “Hail to the Chief”:
(Or see here.)
Before you let the polls spook you, Ann Coulter has some useful history:
Reviewing the polls printed in the New York Times and the Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.
In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points – down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.
Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.
In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, – the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, the New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan’s actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points – 45 percent to 43 percent. (For the kids out there: Before it became a clearinghouse for anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was considered a credible journalistic entity.)
A week later – or one tank ride later, depending on who’s telling the story – on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in the New York Times Poll by a mere 5 points.
Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to 15-point error in 1984. But it’s striking that even small “margin of error” mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans.
In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7 percent. (Ross Perot got 18.9 percent of Bush’s voters that year.) On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent.
So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by only 5.3 points.
In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on Oct. 22, 1996, the New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent.
In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, the New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent.
Other comforting poll posts:
Remember, it ain’t over ’til it’s over: