All polls were conducted between September 24, 2012 and September 27, 2012.
All interviews were done by an automated dialing system to randomly generated phone numbers for each state.
The number of interviews per state represents a statistical variation of no more then +/- 5% with a confidence level of 95%. The variation in any particular cell may be greater due to a lower number of observations in that cell.
Because five of the states do not have registration by party affiliation and in order to keep the questions consistent, the question “with which party do you most align yourself” was asked in place of “with which party you are currently registered.”
The interview results where weighted by age, area and gender. Gender and age were derived from the 2010 census data. Areas were developed using the percentage of total phone numbers in each area code. Weighting was used to adjust to the demographics of the universe being measured.
You will find attached:
1.An Excel file with a summary sheet for each state.
2.The actual cross-tabs for each state.
The cells in the cross-tabs are: party, gender, likely to vote, age and area.
This information is for your use and anyone you chose to share it with.
The states surveyed are:
I hope that you will find the attached information interesting and helpful as we all follow the 2012 Presidential Campaign.
DATE OF SURVEY
0924 – 0927
WITH WHICH PARTY DO YOU MOST ALIGN YOURSELF?
HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT YOU WILL BE VOTING THIS NOVEMBER?
SOME WHAT LIKELY
NOT AT ALL LIKELY
NAME ID: FAVORABLE / UNFAVORABLE
BARACK OBAMA / FAVORABLE
NEVER HEARD OF
MITT ROMNEY / FAVORABLE
NEVER HEARD OF
DO YOU APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE WAY BARACK OBAMA
IS HANDLING HIS JOB?
IN THE NOVEMBER 2012 ELECTION WILL YOU BE VOTING FOR
REPUBLICAN MITT ROMNEY OR DEMOCRAT BARACK OBAMA?
WHICH CANDIDATE, BARACK OBAMA OR MITT ROMNEY, DO YOU THINK
WOULD DO A BETTER JOB HANDLING THE ECONOMY AND CREATING JOBS?
RUSH: Here’s Obama in Chicago, Loyola University, he was a state senator then. This is October 1998.
OBAMA: What we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic — I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign, against the possibility of government action and it’s efficacy. I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution — because I actually believe in redistribution — at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.
RUSH: Yeah, make sure everybody’s got a shot. So what does that mean? Everybody gets a certain amount of money, same amount of money. You take it from those who have it and produced it, give it to those that don’t, same amount of money and turn ‘em loose and everybody’s gonna be cool. Is that what that means, everybody’s got a shot? What happens, Mr. President, if you do that, let’s say — pick a number — give everybody a hundred grand, just do it, for the sake of our little experiment here. What do you bet the people who didn’t have any money before you gave ‘em will be out of that money inside of six months, and the people who had that hundred grand before you took it from ‘em find a way to get it back?
What do you bet, Mr. President , in our little experiment, give everybody a hundred thousand dollars, the same people who didn’t have it before you gave it to ‘em will end up not having it in a very short period of time. So what have you actually accomplished? It’s a one-time thing, right? Could we say, give everybody a hundred grand, give everybody a fair shot, and then after a year, we reassess. And what happens, Mr. President, when a lot of those people you gave a hundred grand to are back down to having nothing? Do you do it again? Do you do it every year? At what point do you realize this doesn’t work? Why would you ignore world history? This has never worked anywhere in the world.
See, that’s where we get caught up, folks. It’s not about working. It’s not about success. It’s not about making sure everybody ends up the same. It’s about making them think that’s what you care about. It’s making them think that you’re gonna be there to back ‘em up when they bomb out. It’s about them thinking that you’re gonna be there to take again from the successful or the achievers and give back to the people who get screwed again. The theory, the reason people don’t have anything is they got screwed by the people who do have everything. People that have a lot stole it from the people who don’t have anything. So we gotta take it away from the people who have it, redistribute it for efficacy, and we have to resuscitate, this brilliant guy said, somehow resuscitate the notion — by the way, this is 1998. What’s going on in 1998? Who’s president in 1998?
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, president in 1998. What’s going on then? I’ll tell you what’s going on, welfare reform, and that’s got Obama all agitated. Welfare reform.
People are being told, “Uh-oh, gotta work now to get welfare.” That’s what he’s all ticked off about. You got a Democrat president in 1998. What the hell’s he angry about? He’s got a big redistributionist in Clinton. He’s got a guy that raised taxes. What’s he ticked off about here? Well, it could be welfare reform, but more than likely it’s just who Obama is. Everybody’s got a fair shot. Do you give ‘em a fair shot every year? You give a fair shot one time? Nothing’s gonna change. You give somebody that doesn’t know what to do with their life a hundred grand, it’s gonna be gone inside of, what, a year?
It’s been proven. I’m not just making this up. It’s been proven. But we didn’t need this tape. I like having it, who knows, it might persuade people who are just now starting to wake up and understand this stuff. You never know. Glad it’s out there. You and I, this audience, you didn’t need it to know it because we know liberals. And that’s why on January 16th, 2009, we said we hope Obama fails. Well, I did, and you agreed with me. I hope Obama fails. Some of you might have been frightened I said that, but I wasn’t. But now you all know. But, remember, October 12th, 2008, Toledo, Ohio, Obama’s campaigning, a guy minding his own business, Joe the Plumber says, “Your tax plan, Obama, it’s gonna tax me more, isn’t it?”
OBAMA: It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.
RUSH: Oh, you remember how fast the media hustled to try to spin that? They knew they had trouble there. They know that’s not what this country’s all about. They know that’s not what people are gonna vote for, spreading the wealth around. Democrats never run on that. They talk about it until it’s time to run for reelection, and then they drop that, start sounding conservative and they start doing this stuff after they get elected and are serving in office. “I just want to make sure that everybody’s who’s behind you, Joe, that they got a chance for success, too.”
You see, Joe, because you have success means you took success away from somebody else, ’cause Obama believes in a zero sum economy, a zero-sum game. Somebody gets a raise of a dollar, somebody had to lose it he believes. Somebody gets a job, somebody had to lose a job. Somebody has a successful career means somebody lost a successful career. So Joe the Plumber, you come along and do pretty well, we gotta make sure that people behind you have a fair shot, too, spread the wealth around. That’s how he thinks.
RUSH: Here is Allison in Woodbridge, New Jersey, as we head to the phones. Great to have you, Allison, hi.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. How are you?
RUSH: Very well. Thank you.
CALLER: Good. I was just wanting to call you because my husband and I were sitting here having lunch, and we were listening to the clip of Barack Obama that you played from 1998, and my husband said to me — I can’t take credit for this; he came up with it, but he wanted me to call — that if you listen to him in that clip (giggle), he doesn’t falter. He doesn’t have any sort of a halting dictation, nothing. He speaks that straight as if that is what he truly believes. He doesn’t have the same tone as when we gives press briefings or interviews.
RUSH: Yeah, there’s no intellectual halting, “Uhhhhh.”
RUSH: Like where you’re thinking deep thoughts and considering all the various options.
RUSH: He was just rat-tat-tat right for it. He went for it right out of the gate. That’s your point, right?
CALLER: Because that’s what’s truly within him that he believes. So, you know, that was just a simple point that we he came up with. We said, “Wow, did you hear him talk?”
RUSH: Was this news to you? Was this news to you, Allison, that he’s socialist?
CALLER: Noooo, no. (chuckles) I’m a Rush Baby from way back and you’ve got three Rush grandbabies in this house.
RUSH: Allison, thanks for the call. I appreciate it. Really that’s great. Three Rush grandbabies! You make my day. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
RUSH: I have a story here from yesterday in the Washington Post, by guy named Sean Sullivan. Here’s the headline: “Romney Draws Attention to Obama ‘Redistribution’ Remark from 1998.” Listen to this. “Facing intense scrutiny over comments at a May fundraiser, Mitt Romney sought to change the subject on Tuesday by drawing attention to audio released online of President Obama saying in 1998 that he believes, to an extent, in the redistribution of wealth.” What do you mean, to an extent? It was full bore.
“The Drudge Report linked to audio uploaded Tuesday on YouTube that is described on the video Web site as Obama, then an Illinois state senator, speaking at a 1998 conference at Loyola University in Chicago. The audio clip is 96 seconds long. Toward the end, Obama says ‘I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure everyone’s got a shot.’ The audio cuts off right after the word ‘shot,’ so it is unclear what is said next. The Obama campaign confirmed that is Obama’s voice on the recording and a spokesman moved to rebut Romney’s criticism of it.”
The Drive-Bys were hoping it wasn’t Obama. This guy at the Washington Post actually called the White House, “Is that Obama? (panting) Tell me it’s not Obama!” It is. Oh. No. They were hoping and praying it wasn’t really Obama. Here. This is what the Washington Post was hoping wasn’t Obama, had to call the White House to confirm it.
OBAMA: What we’re gonna have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic — I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.
RUSH: By the way, I don’t want to muddy the waters here. But when you hear Obama in 1998 say he wants to make sure everybody’s got a shot, what does he mean? A shot at what? Seriously. What do you think he means when he says he wants everybody to have a shot? Ahhh. Not so automatic, is it? You think you know what he means, and then when he pose the question, what does he actually mean here by everybody having a shot?
Wait a minute. Is that right? Is that right? So Snerdley says, “He wants everybody to have a shot at having money, but not having to work for it.” Really? That’s what he means? Everybody having a shot? I wonder how many people think that means that everybody has a job, everybody has a chance to work. You don’t think that’s what he means? No way? No way that that’s what Obama’s talking about? Not possible. So “everybody has a shot” is not code lingo for everybody has an opportunity to work and make something of themselves, that’s not what he means? Well, then you’re gonna have to tell me what he does mean.
He wants to give everybody some stash. Okay. You realize, to do that, if he’s gonna give everybody some stash, he’s gotta take some stash from somebody. Well, then you know what he’s doing. There goes bye-bye productivity, because the people from whom you’re gonna take the money and put in your stash to give somebody else are gonna stop working. Why, if the regime is gonna come take what you got, why work? All right, I just wanted to put it out there as a think piece, ’cause I just wonder how many people, when they hear President Obama say everybody’s got a shot, I’ll bet you a lot of people think that everybody has a shot, equal shot at working, at making something of themselves with a career. You don’t think that’s what he means?
RUSH: This is Mediaite, and it was about an hour ago. No! It’s not even 30 minutes ago this cleared. “NBC News Not Airing Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Video Because They Have Not Yet ‘Authenticated It.’” I don’t know what good it does to say it, but, folks: I never, never have seen media this way. It’s almost indescribable.
Making up stories, refusing to run real stories. It’s making themselves look like utter fools. There’s no journalism, there is no media. There’s pure, full-fledged advocacy here. It’s breathtaking to behold this. They’re scared! They are scared. Folks, when Obama loses, I am worried about what’s gonna happen. The White House already said it’s him! The Washington Post already called the White House and asked, “Is that him?” The White House said, “Yeah,” and the Washington Post guy said, “Aw, damn it,” and ran the story.
But NBC says they haven’t “authenticated it” yet. I’m worried about what’s gonna happen when Obama loses. We’re not dealing with people to whom winning and losing is a natural ebb and flow in politics. And when you lose, you regroup, you come back and you go for the gold again. This is an entirely different bunch of people that we’re facing. I think they’re scared to death. The way the media’s behaving, they’re scared. You know, when they run stories like they were last night in The Politico…
Damn it, I wish I had it in front of me, the headline. It was over. There were two guys bylining the story about this. They said this is over. Romney stepped in it. He was dead and so let’s bury him. And I’m telling you: If they’re running stories like that, and it’s not even October yet, they’re worried. They’re trying to make that reality occur. But I shudder to think what’s gonna happen when he loses. Will they accept it? Will they, or will they refuse to leave?
Will they accept it?
One thing about these reporters. At least the reporters for Pravda and Izvestia had an excuse. They could be sent to the gulags if they didn’t do the right thing. These guys are doing it on their own! (interruption) No, no, no, no, no. Obama hasn’t threatened these guys with the gulags. He doesn’t have to. “NBC News Not Airing Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Video Because They Have Not Yet ‘Authenticated It.’”
RUSH: Yep. It was Andrea Mitchell (NBC News, Washington) who announced that NBC and MSNBC were not gonna air the tape of Obama talking about how big a socialist he is until it had been “verified,” until it had been “authenticated.” Even though MSNBC had already aired it. Now, the Washington Post had already confirmed from the White House that it was Obama on the tape. Doesn’t NBC have any reporters at the White House? Is there nobody up there anymore?
Savannah Guthrie went to the Today Show so now there are no reporters up there? Do they have a White House phone number? What are they waiting on, a voiceprint analysis from the Muslim Brotherhood? “No, not ’til the Muslim Brotherhood tells us it’s Obama will we air it. It could have been the filmmaker that made that tape and tried to pass it off as Obama.”
RUSH: You know, I could be wrong about this, but here’s Bill Kristol, who is saying that Romney… Let me get this quote in front of me. I always put this stuff the bottom of the Stack. Bill Kristol says Romney was “stupid and arrogant,” and every Democrat under the sun is retweeting it. On the tape, talking about the 47%, Kristol says Romney was “stupid and arrogant.” Every Democrat under the sun’s retweeting that all over the place, Donna Brazile and others.
You know what struck me about this? During the primary, all these people — not all of them, but a lot of the people — who were telling us, “Romney’s the only guy. He’s the only chance we’ve got! Romney’s the one,” they’ve bailed. They’ve bailed on him. Now they’re running around saying, “He’s not the candidate we thought he was gonna be. He’s stupid and arrogant,” and all these things. And those of you, you and me, who were said to be problematic during the primaries? We’re the ones supporting Romney!
We’re the ones trying to do everything we can to help get the guy get elected, because this election’s about stopping Obama! This election is about stopping the Democrat Party. This election is very important. It’s very crucial. I say it again: I don’t think that the inside the Beltway glitterati look at it all that way. I don’t think they think anything’s really at stake here, except committee chairmanships in the Senate, or control over the federal budget, or finding enough people to tell you they’ll go on a cruise with you after the election.
But for all of us, this is ball game, the way we look at it. I find it interesting. We’re the ones supporting Romney. And the guys that were all-in at the beginning and saying (muttering), “Romney’s the only guy who can win. He’s the only guy that’s electable. He’s the only one,” now they’re bailing on him. You know all they’re doing is trying to protect their own reputations. They think everybody else sees Romney as stupid, so they gotta say so, too, to make sure that they’re not looked at the same way people are supposedly looking at Romney.
But they’re totally misreading the American people on this.
The American people… Democrats are wrong to this, too. The American people are not fit to be tied, angry, insulted, or what have you over what Romney said on that tape. Let’s go back to the audio sound bites. Frank Luntz, well-known… What does he do? Well, he’s a well-known focus grouper. He’s a pollster. (Just a mental block there.) He does all the focus groups with Hannity and so forth. He was on CBS This Morning today and they had a discussion about the “secret” video Mitt Romney recorded at a May fundraiser.
Again, there are two minutes of this thing missing. David Corn of Mother Jones said (paraphrased), “Hey, we got the whole thing! Here it is! The whole thing’s there.” Bill Jacobson at Legal Insurrection blog said, “No, it’s not. There’s two minutes missing, and nobody knows what’s in the two minutes.” Norah O’Donnell, the hostette, says to Luntz, “Now you see a number of Republicans, former Republicans criticizing Mitt Romney for his comment. Is this a turning point in the campaign?”
Everybody thinks Romney lost the election yesterday.
The glitterati, the intelligentsia, the stars inside the Beltway think Romney lost the election yesterday. They really do. That’s why it was so hard for you watching television last night ’cause you see all these people on all these networks. “Oh, it’s over!” I never met a bunch of quitters like these in my life. I never met a bigger bunch of defeatists! We haven’t even had the debates. It’s not even October yet. Anyway, here’s what Luntz said. When Norah O’Donnell asks, “Is this a turning point in the campaign, Frank?” what she means is: “Okay, Romney stepped in it. Is that it? Is it over now?”
LUNTZ: First we had the 99 to 1%. Now we’ve got the 47 to 53%. Americans do believe that there’s too much dependency on government and they want more personal responsibility. What they don’t like is that line in Romney’s statement where he says, “I don’t care about them.” They want a president to care about everyone, regardless of whether you vote for them or not. First you’re trying to decide, are you in the 53 or 47; then (snickers) you’re trying to decide, do you pay or not?
RUSH: Now, Frank spends all day with these independents who can’t make up their minds, and they’re now trying to figure out whether they’re in the 47%. But they don’t like that Romney said he doesn’t care. Now, did Romney actually say that? Did he say he don’t care about them? See, if he did, it’s a problem, but that still is the opportunity that was presented. He’s gone places on TV now like with Cavuto. (interruption) Exactly.
What he meant was: In the terms of the election, those people are already committed to Obama in his view. Obama starts out with 47% of the vote, is what he means. And he’s gotta focus on the remaining people that he can get to vote for him. But, anyway, you also hear Luntz say, “Americans do believe that there’s too much dependency on government and they want more personal responsibility.” So O’Donnell then says, “But Romney was suggesting that these people are mooching off the system. He wasn’t offering a helping hand. That’s how they might interpret it.”
LUNTZ: That’s the whole issue. It’s the interpretation versus what is meant. I want to make this clear: The race isn’t over. It’s not a game-changer. Not only is it not over, if Romney can change the focus with 23 million unemployed, he’s got a tremendous opportunity.
RUSH: There you have it, folks! The expert says it’s not over, nowhere near over. And it’s not a game-changer, but everybody in the media thinks it is. There was a Politico story somebody sent me last night. It was a Politico headline, or story, and it literally said the race was over last night. It was finished, it was done, because of this Romney comment. Now, Luntz says, “Not only is it not over, if Romney can change the focus with 23 million unemployed, he’s got a tremendous opportunity.”
I guess what that means is there are some in the 23 million unemployed who would vote for Obama because they want a continuation of unending benefits? My way of thinking — which I know is crazy, cockamamie, out of the mainstream. By my way of thinking, I don’t understand why more than ten or 20% of the unemployed would want anything to do with Barack Obama! Why are they unemployed? Romney hasn’t had anything to do with them being unemployed.
Not one Romney policy has had anything to do with unemployment in this country. Not one! The only candidate in this race who can be tied to high unemployment is Barack Obama. Now, somebody explain to me how the 23 million unemployed wouldn’t automatically want an alternative to Obama? At least a majority of them. (New Castrati impression) “Mr. Limbaugh, what you are forgetting, sir — what you are missing — is many of these 23 million unemployed really blame Bush, George W. Bush, who’s really responsible for this!”
Well, there probably is some of that because of the media. But, again, common sense is rearing its head here, and I don’t know how you make the case that a guy who has not been in office — who has never been president, who hasn’t had his hand on one aspect of federal policy — is in any way linked to unemployment. “Mr. Limbaugh you’re forgetting something else! There are guys like Romney who are going to increase unemployment by giving all the money to the rich!”
Well, if we’ve gotten to that point where people think that, then this is all academic anyway, and I just refuse to accept that. I just think this is all cockamamie. I think way too many people on our side fall for this. It’s hard to avoid it, I must admit. The media bubble is there every day. Snerdley? It traps him every night! He leaves here with one view of the world after having listened to this program — and after absorbing the news for three hours later that night, he’s back down so low that when he looks up, he sees the gutter.
And if you choose to expose yourself to the modern day so-called news media for any length of time, you’re gonna end up thinking the same thing. If you don’t think that, then you’re gonna think, “My gosh, there’s no way. How can we overcome this?” And it’s true. There has never, ever, in any of our lifetimes been anything this. We’ve never seen a news media so activist and in the tank like this for a candidate. Never, never. I mean, to the point of making up news stories, to the point of being ridiculous. The guy in the video caused the riots in the Middle East and ultimately it’s Romney’s fault?
And they try to do news stories, serious news stories with that premise? Now, I’ve never understood how the rich steal from the poor anyway. I’ve never understood the math on that, how the rich got rich from taking from the poor. I know I didn’t go to college, but nobody’s ever shown me mathematically how that formula works, that the rich got rich by taking from the poor.
RUSH: Wiesbaden, Germany, Angelo. I’m gonna get you. How long do you have here with us?
CALLER: I can stay with you as long as you need, Rush.
RUSH: Oh, cool. Okay, what’s on your mind?
CALLER: Well, sir, first off: Thank you very much for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: But I was listening to you during the Republican convention and the coverage after the convention, and it struck me that the advisers to Mitt Romney sound to me a whole lot like RINOs that just don’t want to lose their jobs. They’re so entrenched in the status quo that they just want to keep it the way it is. That’s why they’re giving him all this, um, I would say “questionable advice” about not running on Obama’s very public lack of a record.
RUSH: Yeah. But he hired them.
CALLER: And that if –
RUSH: Yeah, but wait. It’s a known quantity. He hired ‘em. Is it their fault or his? He hired ‘em.
RUSH: He’s the one who decides.
CALLER: That’s true.
RUSH: He doesn’t have to listen to ‘em.
CALLER: No, you’re right. You’re right.
RUSH: It could cut both ways. If you go hire the architects of McCain’s defeat and expect something different… So, I mean, they are who they are, is the point. There’s not a… (groans) Thanks for the call. I really appreciate it.
The class warefare that this administration is engaged in is completely bogus. The following video will make that completely clear and leaves one wondering why a multi millionare like Obama calls the kettle black.