Okay, folks, the one o'clock Gallup poll is out, and it's 51.45 Romney, six points.
That's down a point for Romney, who was at 52 over the weekend, and but Obama's, what is it, Obama's disapproval went up one point.
So the lingering question here about, if I may just share a wandering thought with you, here you have Gallup, which was not among the top five most accurate bolsters in 2008.
I think Gallup was around 15 or 16.
It was Pugh and Rasmussen.
In fact, Rasmussen and Pugh, I think, are at one and two in 2008.
And Rasmussen is at 49.47 Romney right now.
Now, you've got Gallup at 51.45, 52.45, 51.46, right around there.
And the only one showing anywhere near that kind of national lead.
You've had Axel Rod pressuring the diseases out of them, threatening to sue them, investigate them, Department of Justice for three weeks minimum.
Reuters is attacking Gallup today in a story, which I've never seen before.
I've never seen one polling unit attack another.
Not like this, but they're doing it.
Gallup says, oh, no, no, we've done everything you wanted.
We're weighting the minority voters even more, and it isn't helping Obama.
And we're accounting for some other things you wanted us to account for, and it's not changing.
In fact, our likely voter questions are a little bit more pro-Democrat, Gallup is saying, and it isn't mattering.
But they're still the only one out there.
Now, here's the question.
We've got two weeks.
Is there time for an event or two to take place where Gallup could adjust their poll to 4747 or even 4746 Obama?
You know, Obama's been nowhere near 50% ever in the Gallup poll.
He's not been.
Is there anything that could what I'm getting at is, and I know people get mad at me when I do this, but I'm suspicious.
I'm just naturally suspicious of what Romney has going for him right now is mitt mentum.
The momentum is all Romney's right, and it has been since the first debate in the polls.
I think the momentum's been with Romney even before that, but we'll just stick with the polls.
And the one thing that the regime has always counted on is this sense of inevitability.
In every poll, they were always ahead, no matter that Obama never got to 50.
It was just always, they wanted everybody to think that Obama winning was a foregone conclusion.
And that was worth something.
That thought, that psychological reality alone was worth a couple points in the polls.
Every poll showing Obama winning, no matter what, that suppresses, depresses Republican vote enthusiasm by design.
Then that debate happened, and they couldn't hide it anymore.
If they were hiding Romney's support, they couldn't, not after that debate.
So then the momentum shifts to Romney.
And two things happen with that.
Romney, big momentum by itself is huge.
But then they destroy this whole notion that Obama was a lock.
And don't discount how important that was to the regime, or it would be to any candidate.
The assumption everywhere that you're going to win is worth a point or two anyway.
Well, Romney's momentum destroys that.
And now the regime is in a place that they haven't been.
They're on the low end of the polls.
There's no momentum with them.
And the inevitability, the lock, is gone.
So if you are on Obama's side, what do you need to do?
Need to stanch the bleeding.
And how do you do that?
You stop the momentum.
How do you do that?
Let's say in this debate tonight that it's another wash, that there's nothing major that happens here to scare people away from Romney.
Or where are they going to go to get Obama's momentum back?
Or where are they going to go to cut Romney down to size?
Well, hello, Gloria Allred, or some late October surprise.
This Iranian thing was fascinating to me, by the way.
I didn't finish my thought on this in the first hour.
Over the weekend, we heard news that Obama had struck a deal with the Iranians and they were going to shelve their nuclear pursuits in exchange for us ending the sanctions.
And that was supposed to go, oh, right.
Oh, man, Obama, Obama, he's tough.
He talked down the mullahs.
Well, then it obviously wasn't true because the regime then put out a story saying, no, that hasn't happened.
Which means somebody in the regime is still leaking sensitive national security information because the New York Times was hell-bent on maintaining they had been told that by somebody at the regime, that we had struck a deal with the Iranian.
Then the news shifted to we're talking that Obama and Iranians, the Iranians are talking.
And then that became something that's not good for Obama.
Senior Iranian parliamentary sources revealed on Saturday that the Swiss envoy to Tehran has quoted President Obama as acknowledging Iran's nuclear rights.
Swiss ambassador to Tehran, Livia Lou Augusti, attended a meeting with senior Iranian foreign ministry officials a few days ago to submit a letter from Obama to Tehran's leaders.
And the reason for that is we don't have diplomatic relations with Iran, so we have to find a surrogate.
And we found this Swiss ambassador.
Vice Chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Hossein Ibrahimi, told FNA, the Iranian news agency, that during that meeting, Agusti, the Swiss ambassador, had told the Iranian officials that Obama recognizes Iran's right of access and use of nuclear technology.
So, now that's not something the regime wants out there.
And if you'll notice, it's not being widely reported, but it is kind of important, isn't it, that Obama sent a message to the mullahs, saying, look, we recognize your right to have nukes.
All the while publicly, Obama is saying, I'm not going to let them have weapons.
But I'm not surprised.
During Obama's campaign of 2008, I recall we had various interviews Obama had given in years prior, Chicago radio stations and so forth.
He was asked, for example, about American exceptionalism.
He would say, well, I imagine the Swiss think they're pretty exceptional too.
Meaning, we have no claim on it.
What is this American exceptionalism?
We have no claim on that.
And I happen to know, I can't quote you the specific interview, but I know that Obama has said, well, who are we to tell people they can't have something?
He might not have said it that exact way, but He said that, well, we're not the only ones in the world entitled this stuff.
Now, we know that Barack Obama, we know it.
We know that Barack Obama does not hold this nation in high esteem in traditional ways.
American exceptionalism, superpower status.
Remember, Obama is a social justice guy.
And the social justice people believe this country has benefited unfairly from an exercise and projection of power that has been mean and unfair to other smaller nations in the world.
So to me, it is entirely believable that Obama would believe in his heart that, hey, if the Iranians want nukes, it's not none of our business to tell them they can't have any.
Now, publicly, Obama make it sound like he doesn't want him to have nukes.
He'd never say this publicly, but he has.
He's intimated it, at least.
That's how I know it.
I also know it because he's a liberal.
I also know it he's actually a radical.
And as Reverend Wright, that whole crowd, I'm telling you, they all think alike, and they would all be offended at the notion that the United States somehow should have the right, authority, ability to tell any nation they can or can't have anything, such as nukes.
That would offend them.
It does offend them.
So this story on sanctions, again, when I first saw that, I said, well, it's good to know who the Iranians are endorsing.
Then the regime denies it.
But the New York Times insists that a high government official told them.
So we have a leak.
It may well be that this is something Obama wanted to announce in the debate tonight.
And somebody leaked it.
It may well be something he wanted to use later, closer to the election.
It may well be that it's something he doesn't want to come out because he thinks it might hurt him.
Who knows?
But this is why he's not telling us what a second term agenda is going to contain because it's going to have stuff like this.
The second term agenda will have things in it such as, well, I don't think it's our purview to tell the Iranians what they can and can't have.
That's not right.
How would we like it if the Iranians told us that we couldn't build any more jets?
That's how he thinks of it.
How would we like it if country A told us we can't do stuff?
Don't doubt me on this.
I'll say something else about a second term agenda.
For you people who are well heeled in the world of finance, I saw something speculated about in Business Insider, I think was the website, over the weekend.
Any of you remember the Matrix movies?
What's that actor's name that played?
Yeah, Keanu Reeves.
He took the red pill, remember?
Remember the red pill?
What was the red pill?
Do you remember what the red pill did?
It just wiped out the current reality, just eliminated current reality.
There are some people speculating that in a second term, Obama would simply cancel all American debt, just cancel it.
And in the process, totally destroy the value of the U.S. dollar.
Just cancel it.
You're asking how does he do that?
Well, you work with the Federal Reserve, you just cancel the debt, you just wipe it out.
Say, we're starting fresh.
We're starting brand new, starting all over.
And then, what do the TRICOMs do?
What happens?
It's not anything etched in stone, but this is the kind of thing people are speculating about.
Could have this is, by the way, would not be good.
No, no, no.
That would not be good.
Don't misunderstand.
It'd destroy the dollar.
It would destroy the value of the dollar.
Plus, a whole bunch of other things.
But I'm telling you, these are the kind of things people are speculating would be in store for us in a second term.
And that's why Obama's not talking about it.
He doesn't dare.
He doesn't dare illuminate the possibilities of a second term.
There's no way.
This Iranian stuff is an example.
What he might do with the debt, the deficit, any number of other things.
So it's vitally important that people remain focused on that fact that Obama is not detailing a second term agenda.
There is a reason, a very solid reason, not solid good for him.
It is good for him, not for us.
He wouldn't stand a chance of re-election.
If he's going to do more, what were you going to raise taxes more, redistribute more, take even more money out of private sector, expand the welfare roles even more?
Not a prayer.
Not especially that internal question, the NBC Wall Street Journal poll, 62% of the people in that poll say if Obama wins, they want him to make a drastic change in direction.
We were talking about polls earlier.
There's one other interesting story from Reuters.
I want to get into in a minute.
Reuters attacking Gallup, saying their poll is illegitimate.
Never seen that before.
Reuters also have also a story came out yesterday: headline: McCain voters defecting to Obama are older white males.
Reuters wants us to believe that a bunch of McCain voters, older white males, have made the decision to vote for Obama.
I read the story.
I've looked at data they provide.
I don't see how this adds up.
I will share with you that data.
You can decide for yourself when we come back.
I have a question for the official program observer.
Mr. Snerdley, have we had a single call that maybe you didn't put on the air?
Because I know we haven't had one on the air.
Have you had a single, be honest, single call from a white guy, old white guy, claiming he voted for McCain, but now going to vote for Obama?
You have not.
Okay, we have not had such a call, and we've certainly not one on the air and ask Snerdley because for every call that gets on the air here at about 2,500 that don't, well, no, not now.
If we get one, if I say that we get one, you'll put it up first.
Everybody in the world will call and say that they're one just to get on the air.
So Reuters has this story: McCain voters defecting to Obama are older white males.
In today's highly polarized political environment, it's somewhat surprising to find voters who backed McCain in 8 now support Obama, but they exist.
Roughly 5% of respondents in Reuters polls said they chose McCain in 08 and are going to switch to Obama in 2012.
This number peaked at around 9%, two separate times over the summer.
Who are these defectors?
The McCain to Obama switchers are 55% male, and 34% of them are 55 or older.
Overall, Obama trails Romney 34 to 52% among white men over 50.
About 72% of them are white.
Numbers run together when you're listening to them, but I want you to follow this because I don't think these numbers work.
Reuters is claiming older white males who voted for McCain are defecting to Obama.
That's one.
Reuters claims roughly 5% of respondents in their polls said they chose McCain in 08 and are going to switch to Obama this year.
They also say the defectors are 55% male, and 34% of those are 55 or older.
Then Reuters says, and this is interesting, this is the key, overall, Obama trails Romney 34% to 52% among white men over 50.
Now that's an 18-point difference.
That's the key number.
As of right now, Reuters' own number.
Obama trails Romney 34 to 52% among white men over 50, which makes me question this entire article.
Because according to the 2008 exit polls, as reported by the New York Times, among men in both categories of 45 to 59 and 60 and older, McCain beat Obama by 15%.
So among white men in both 45 to 59 and the 60-plus demo, which would include 55-plus, McCain beats Obama by 15%.
Now, if Romney has an 18-point lead over Obama by Reuters' own admission now, that is 3% higher than the support McCain got in 2008, according to New York Times exit polls.
Now, admittedly, we're using New York Times exit polls to determine the makeup of the voters in 2008.
But using that data, you would have to say that more older white men are moving to Romney, not away from him.
18% is three points higher than 15%.
The older white male vote for Obama, 15% in 2008.
Romney has got them by 18%.
I might have got one of those backwards, but the point is, it's a three-point difference.
Romney is leading by three points over what McCain got in 2008.
Romney's doing better by three points.
How in the world this becomes white male voters defecting to Obama mystifies me?
I don't know.
We might have caught him in something here.
But it's clear that this is an attempt to suppress, depressed Republican turnout.
No question about it.
You want to hear some of the comments of these white guys that voted for McCain now voting for Obama?
You got to hear some of this.
Right now, if I had to choose, it'd be Obama.
He's more personable, said William Holiday, 58-year-old retiree from Convest Township, Michigan.
Holiday said that in general, he leans Republican.
Yeah, I voted for McCain four years ago in spite of the fact that he picked Palin because I thought that was a cheap trick he pulled there.
He worries that if Romney's elected, he'll put Cheney and Rumsfeld back in there to run the show.
Now, folks, I don't know about you, but I don't know any Republicans who are worried about Cheney and Rumsfeld.
They would much prefer either Republicans here would much prefer Cheney and Rumsfeld to Van Jones and anybody else in the regime.
Jeffrey Baker, 56, retiree in Strong, Maine, thinks Romney's refusal to release his taxes disqualifies him.
If you can't be honest from the start, I don't want you in the Oval Office.
Oh, really?
Jeffrey, honest?
As though Obama has been?
Obama's more for the whole country than Romney is.
Romney, that's his honest feelings.
He doesn't really care about the 47%.
This is just too pet.
This is the kind of things that the Democrat base says.
These are all the hot buttons of the Democrat base.
Cheney, Rumsfeld, the 47%.
It's Palin, dirty trick.
Obama's more for the whole country.
Jeff Waltrup, 56, retired electrician, electrician, and retail worker who's voted Republican all his life, says Romney's out of touch with lower-income Americans and he mistrusts Romney's religious convictions.
Well, why not cap it with an anti-Mormon comment?
And all of this Reuters finds among old white guys who voted for McCain.
But what's he been consulting with Whoopi Goldberg?
Has Jeff Waltrup maybe been talking to Whoopi Goldberg about Mormons?
Has this guy watched the view by any chance?
Anyway, so you got this Reuters story and the Reuters story attacking Gallup for their fraudulent poll.
Here is Ed in Fort Myers, Florida, as we head back to the phones.
Ed, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Well, thank you, Rush.
It's a thrill to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
I hate to think where we would be if it weren't for you.
I think that same thing, I must tell you.
My comment concerns the oversampling in these polls and the way that's reported or described.
If there were a poll of 30% Republican, 40% Democrat, the description is a 10% oversampling of Democrats.
But that's not really correct.
If it were 100 people in the poll, it would be 30 Republicans and 40 Democrats.
That would be 10 Democrats more than Republicans, and that would be 10 out of 30, which is a 33% oversampling of Democrats.
Oh, you're going to go all engineer on us here.
Yeah, he wrote that down, huh?
All right.
Numbers are really hard for people when they can't see them, so you have to walk me through, even me.
You got 40% Democrat, 30% Republican.
That's reported as a plus 10 Democrat advantage, but you say it's actually plus 30 in terms of percent?
33.
33.
Okay, how do you get there?
Well, if there were 100 people in the poll, there would be 30 Republicans and 40 Democrats.
Right.
That would be 10 more Democrats than Republicans.
That's right.
And that would be 10 out of 30 because there were 30 Republicans, and that's 33% more Democrats than Republicans.
Well, why do you take 10 out of 30 and not 10 out of 100?
Because there were only 30 Republicans.
They sampled, if they sampled 30 Republicans and 30 Democrats, it would be zero.
But they sampled 10 more Democrats than they did Republicans, and there were only 30 Republicans in the first place.
So that would be 33% more Democrats than Republicans.
Well, there's no question to math works the way you're doing it.
The only question that I anticipate the audience having is even though there are only 30 Republicans in the poll, we still have a sample of 100 people here.
We've got 40 Democrats, 30 Republicans.
That leaves 30, we'll say independents undecided, which you're throwing out.
They don't matter for what you're doing, right?
No, they don't matter because we're only talking about the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
The difference being 10 out of 30.
Okay.
All right, then here's the next question.
If what you say is we have 33% more Democrats than Republicans, then how does that manifest itself in the results that the poll says?
Like if you the poll is skewed by 33% The poll is okay, so a poll that shows let's just let's get one And bear with me here.
I'm way behind you on numbers.
I'm not good with 40 Democrats, 30 Republicans.
And let's say the poll shows Obama 49, Romney 47.
Yep, that's not the poll.
That's the poll result, yes, That's what they're reporting, the poll of 4947, with a sample of 10 more Democrats than Republicans.
So it depends on how many they sampled.
Yes right well, I'm using your number 40 and 30.
Yes, so I've got 40, 30 and then 30, so you've got 40 Democrats, 30 Republicans.
You say there's 33 percent more Democrats.
Okay, that poll I this hypothetical shows Obama 49, Romney 47.
Does that mean, according to your calculations, that we have to take 30 percent away from Obama, away from 49 percent?
What I'm getting is, how does this...
I haven't actually thought that through, but I think it would be something like, if you're going to compare only the results in the percentages of 49, 47, then it would be 10 out of 60.
In other words, there would be 30.
If you did a proper poll, there would be 30 Republicans and 30 Democrats.
But we don't have 30 Democrats.
We have 40 Democrats, which is 10 more out of the base of 30 for Republicans.
If you say 10% or 33% more Democrats than Republicans.
Yeah, but what I'm trying to get by the Republicans.
So it would be 10 divided by 70 as a percentage spread on the results of the poll.
I know I lost you there.
Well, only because I'd have to divide it on paper to get what that number is.
I'm just saying, it's real simple.
I got 30, I sample 30 Republicans and I sample 40 Democrats.
How many more Democrats did I sample?
10.
Right?
No, no, I understand all this.
What I'm trying to get to is what does it mean when they also tell us that of these 40 and 30 that 49% prefer Obama and 47 prefer Romney.
What does that ⁇ the 33% ⁇ does it change?
It's going to change it in terms of a higher percentage for Romney in that case.
Yeah, and the way people are doing it, in your example, if we got a 49.47 Obama lead with a sample of 10 more Democrats, then we're thinking it should be probably 2%.
2%.
Yeah.
Okay.
Out of the 49.47, it's really 51.46.
Because for your call to mean something here, we've got to know what your 33% calculation means to the final result that they are reporting.
Well, it's going to skew it substantially.
In other words, the 4947 example that you picked would probably be somewhere around 51.46 in reality.
For who?
for the 49 being Obama.
So it would be...
Excuse me, it would be the other way around.
Sorry.
I got that backwards.
If they sampled an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, the percentages would the improvement in the poll would be beneficial to the Republicans.
Well, but there's that 30% undecided.
We're not factoring here.
No, because the only reason I'm asking you, you're making a big deal.
You're trying to conclude or you're trying to get people to conclude that the polls are even more phony.
Oh, yes.
But I don't see how.
I don't know what to make of the 49.47.
Well, if you had, you know, you do your own poll.
You sampled 30 Republicans, you sample 40 Democrats.
Why did you sample 40 Democrats?
Well, ostensibly because you sampled 10 more Democrats than you did Republicans.
Right?
Right.
So that's a 33% more Democrat than Republicans than Republicans.
It's not 33% of the total.
It's 33% more than they did Republicans.
Right.
No, I understand all that.
If you have Obama at 49, Romney at 47, with a Democrat plus 10 sample, then people will conclude that Romney might be ahead by 5 rather than down by 2.
And they're trying to get that.
They're just using the 10 greater.
When you change the way this is looked at to 33% more Democrats, then people are going to conclude that Romney's even further ahead, or better, that Obama's even further behind.
And I just don't know that that works.
I don't know that.
Anyway, I appreciate the call.
And I think statistically you are correct that that's the way to analyze the number differential.
But I don't know how anybody can take that and then apply it to what the reported end of poll data is and make the adjustment.
Anyway, got to take a brief time out.
Sit tight, folks.
We'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, before we move on, let me explain what the previous caller was just trying to say.
It's a semantic argument only.
In the example he gave, where there are 40 Democrats and 30 Republicans sampled, the conventional wisdom now, the way of reporting that is a Democrat plus 10 sample.
And in raw numbers, it is.
His point was that it's much greater than 10 in reality, that it is a 33% increase in the number of Democrats sampled, not 10.
Doesn't change the outcome.
It's simply his way of driving home how out of proportion the oversampled Democrat polls are.
Nothing more than that.
You have 40 Democrats, 30 Republicans.
It's reported as a Democrat plus 10.
It is in raw numbers.
But in terms of the percentage, that polling unit actually talked to 33% more Democrats than Republicans, which would help to illustrate just how out of kilter such a poll is with such a sample.
When you won't find a sample like that in election returns, you will not find Democrats plus 10, say, in 2010, in terms of people that showed up, turnout, if you will.
So it's just a semantic thing.
It doesn't change the outcome of the poll as reported.
It's just a more accurate way of looking at the out-of-balance situation among those polled.
Here is Dave in Allatown, Pennsylvania.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you.
Hey, you were talking about your website with another caller.
I actually am a member of your website, and I actually use it as a tool to show people that actually like Obama or not even registered to vote why they should, you know, go with Romney.
This started back on Easter Day when I got together with my in-laws, and they're pretty liberal, and they started talking about health care.
So I popped up your website, and I showed them the way it really is.
And then, of course, I had to back it up with some other things because, you know, just in case they didn't believe that it was, you know, the truth coming from you.
Well, of course.
You get people like that.
You show my website.
Well, everybody knows that Limbaugh makes it up.
Or everybody knows that Limbaugh lies.
So how did you deal with that?
Well, I just might have to go maybe to a couple other different news articles.
Why?
They're all contained there.
Every source for facts that I offer is linked to it, my website, which you know.
Every source.
Right, well, that's what I mean.
I had to go to other places just to prove that it was the way it was.
And then they actually got it then.
They started talking to people at work, and I talked to people.
But fast forward to now, we get together every like 10 to 12 days.
We get together on a Monday night, and then the following week on a third, you know, 10 days later on a Thursday night, and then back to a Monday night.
But what I do is I listen to your show every day, and when you say certain things, I'll mark the time down and then, you know, just go make a whole list.
And when we get together, we eat first, and after we eat, around 7 o'clock at night, I go down the list of everything you might have talked about, and then they talk about, or they pick which one they want to talk about.
And then I'll fast forward on your website to that time, and then I'll let it play out, and then we'll talk about it.
But since then, we now have 72 people that regularly come here from nothing.
72 people?
72, and they're mostly Democrats.
Coming where?
Where do you do this?
At my house.
Your house.
You got 72 people coming to your house.
My house, right.
We do it outside in the garage.
I have like a nights at Columbus Hall.
You're doing it in your house.
In my house.
We get together like every 10 days we come to my house.
72 people do this?
Well, there's 72 regulars now.
Actually, we had a little more the last time.
We got together on Thursday again, just last Thursday.
And most of these people are Democrats.
Gosh, I would love to see one of these meetings.
I'd love to take pictures of it and send it to you.
You can actually see the faces of the people that you've changed.
I mean, it's nice.
It's really growing.
And I can't believe that Pennsylvania is not going to vote Romney.
I mean, these people are out there every day, too, trying to get people in.
Pennsylvania, you live in Allentown, so you know, Pennsylvania is three states in one.
You have Philadelphia.
The suburbs in Philadelphia used to cancel out Philadelphia in the old days.
Now, Philadelphia was all, you know, social, liberal, political liberty.
And then you had the suburbs that kind of cancel it out.
The suburbs don't cancel it out as much anymore.
Then you've got the central rural part of Pennsylvania.
Then you go to the west side of Pittsburgh and so forth.
It's really three different states.
Depending on what part of the state that you talk to somebody in that state, they will tell you you don't see how in the world Obama could win it.
But you talk to somebody from Philadelphia or the suburbs, I don't see any way that Romney could win it.
Hey, Snerdly, I want you to get Dave.
I know he's still on hold, and I want you to get his mailing address because we've got to send him a bill.
He's using, he's spreading my website out over 72 people.
We have to send him a bill for 71 website subscriptions or else do another bake sale.
We're giving it away out there, but it's worth the cause.