U.S. Supreme Court dumps AZ voter law

The Bugle: PHOENIX -- Saying federal law trumps state, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona cannot demand proof of citizenship from individuals who use a federal voter registration form.

In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the majority rejected arguments by state Attorney General Tom Horne that Arizona is free to demand more than the federal form requires.

It mandates only that those registering to vote sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that they are citizens and eligible. But Horne argued that Arizona is free to reject those forms unless applicants also submit actual proof of citizenship, something mandated by a 2004 voter-approved law.

Monday's ruling specifically requires state and local election officials to accept -- and, more to the point -- to register those individuals who use the form prescribed by the National Voter Registration Act even if they provide no proof of citizenship.

But Horne insisted Monday the ruling was only a setback. He noted the court said Arizona can petition the federal Election Assistance Commission to alter its form to allow Arizona to add that proof-of-citizenship requirement.

But Nina Perales, attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, pointed out Arizona made such a request in 2005 and was rejected by the four-member commission on a 2-2 vote.

ere is no reason to think Arizona would be successful on a second try, particularly because Arizona cannot point to a single instance of a non-citizen registering to vote or trying to register to vote using the federal form,' she told Capitol Media Services. "With no facts on its side, Arizona cannot carry its burden of providing that registrants should include additional paperwork with their applications.'

Secretary of State Ken Bennett acknowledged when the case was argued last year he has no evidence people who are not citizens are registering to vote, either now with the federal form or before the 2004 proof-of-citizenship requirement.

Horne, however, said he intends to try again.

But that is likely to prove fruitless: There are no commissioners as the U.S. Senate has yet to confirm any presidential appointees. Horne said, though, that could lead him back to the Supreme Court.

Monday's ruling does give Arizona a bit of wiggle room. The justices said the state can refuse to register even someone using the federal form -- but only if election officials have "information in their possession establishing the applicant's ineligibility.'

And nothing in Monday's ruling prohibits the state from requiring citizenship proof from those who use state-created forms to register.

Local election officials have said the vast majority of those who do register use that state form. That, however, now could change.

Perales said the decision provides a new tool for groups conducting registration drives to now sign up new voters using that federal form -- and without having to get applicants to submit one of the documents that Arizona considers acceptable. That includes an Arizona driver's license, passport or birth certificate.

The 2004 law requires both proof of citizenship to register and identification to cast a ballot at the polls. Foes challenged both.

The courts sided with the state on the ID at polling places requirement. Foes of the Arizona law never appealed that decision, and it was not an issue in Monday's ruling.
Horne, in his arguments to the high court, did not dispute the National Voting Rights Act requires states to "accept and use' the federal voter registration form. But he argued that does not conflict with Arizona law.

"Because only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote, Proposition 200's evidence-of-citizenship requirement is consistent with the NVRA's express goals,' Horne argued to the high court. "Congress did not intend the NVRA to bar states from properly assessing whether an applicant who registers to vote is eligible to vote.'
And he said Arizona can add its own proof-of-citizenship requirements on top of everything required in the federal form.

Scalia dismissed that argument as nonsensical.

"For example, a government (decree) that 'civil servants shall accept government IOUs for payment of salaries' does not invite the response, 'sure, we'll accept IOUs -- if you pay us a 10 percent down payment in cash,' ' he wrote.

He also pointed out that the federal law says a state shall "ensure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election ... if the valid voter registration form is postmarked' by a certain deadline.

"Yet Arizona reads the phrase 'accept and use' ... as permitting it to reject a completed Federal Form if the applicant does not submit additional information required by state law,' Scalia wrote. "That reading cannot be squared with Arizona's obligation.'

The court said it was not disturbing the requirement that those who use the state-designed form -- the majority of those now registered to vote -- must provide proof of citizenship.

"States retain the flexibility to design and use their own registration forms,' Scalia wrote.

"But the Federal Form provides a backstop: No matter what procedural hurdles a state's own form imposes, the Federal Form guarantees that a simple means of registering to vote in federal elections will be available.'

What states may not do, Scalia wrote, is demand that those who register using the Federal Form provide everything the state registration form requires.

"If that is so, the Federal Form ceases to perform any meaningful function, and would be a feeble means of increasing the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for federal office,' he wrote.

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to determine the qualifications for voting in federal elections. And Thomas said that "necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.'

Gov. Jan Brewer, who was secretary of state -- and therefore chief election officer -- during much of the time the 2004 law was being challenge, brushed aside the significance of Monday's decision.

"From what I understand, (it's) a very narrow ruling,' she said, pointing out that Arizona remains free to require proof of citizenship in its own forms. Brewer said it will be up to Horne and Bennett to decide what to do now.

Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services

 

Technorati Tags: Arizona,immigration,law,voting,voter fraud,citizenship,Scalia,SCOTUS,Jan Brewer,Obamland,Federal law,State law,Constitution,elections,illegals,illegal Immigration,Supreme Court,non-citzens,Obamaland,NVRA,ID,states rights,Clarence Thomas

Flash Poll Immediately After First Presidential Debate Found Romney the Big Winner, Independents Turn on Obama

Video: First Presidential Debate: Obama vs. Romney (Complete HD - Quality Audio)

A Newsmax/InsiderAdvantage Flash Poll conducted immediately after Wednesday's presidential debate finds that Mitt Romney won by a significant margin.

Asked who won the debate, 52 percent of respondents said Romney did, with 45 percent for Obama. Undecided/neither was 3 percent.

Pollster Matt Towery says "the results largely followed party lines, but independents broke in favor of Romney, moving the dial in his favor."

The poll sampled 373 likely voters nationwide, with a margin of error of 5 points.

CNN flash poll:  67% said Romney won, only 27 % said Obama won with 3% not sure.

Looks like they are leaning right… after Wednesday night

Anatomy Of An Ass Kicking

TPN: First things first, I usually only release these guys for electoral victories, but what the hey. Last night's Romney victory was so overwhelming, (and Obama's performance was likewise so underwhelming,) that I believe it is fitting to let fly the Baby Elephants.

I have two clips here for comparison on the analysis of last night's events. The first is from Michelle Malkin, who managed to catch some of the things that I missed in my euphoria last night. Suffice it to say that Willard Romney exceeded even the lofty expectations that came with Chris Christie's confident tossing of the proverbial gauntlet. What Mitt Romney did specifically was to take every single ridiculous canard ever uttered as a lefty talking point over the past three decades and use fact, reason, and plain English to use that canard as a weapon with which to bitch slap President Zero. Had John McCain showed half this amount of fight four years ago, he would be President today, defending himself against Hillary Clinton. How bad was the beat down? At one point during the evening's festivities, Little Barry pleaded with Jim Lehrer to change topics, the debate equivalent to declaring a TKO.

And now for something completely different, and by different I mean watching Chrissy Mathews come completely unglued in his, "objectivity," while describing his take on how the debate went. (I guess he didn't have that thrill going up his leg last night.) I will at this point in time point out that Jim Lehrer gave me an unexpected pleasant surprise with how he handled his moderating duties last night. The debate was not at all about Lehrer being the star, or about how slantingly he could phrase his questions. He merely stated a topic, gave it a gentle nudge to get the juices flowing, and then removed himself from the conversation. That was the first time in my memory watching the two candidates primarily having a substantive discussion on values, beliefs, philosophies, agendas, and policy positions in which they were able to speak to the issues and differences in any sort of a meaningful way. It was truly an argument in the arena of ideas. So how did Chrissy see it all?

When I was in High School, much longer ago than I certainly like to admit, my girlfriend was on the school's debate team. I went to one of her events, and two things immediately struck me. One, She was really quite a lot smarter than I was, and two, the rules of the debate seemed rather odd. Each team was given a week to prepare for the upcoming debate, but rather than assign differing sides to an issue, each team was allowed to choose which side they would take. They had to prepare rebuttals to both sides, not knowing which side the other team would take. I found it amusing that every team at almost every debate chose the same side to argue.

There are many people on the left and right who felt Barack Obama came in woefully under prepared for last night's debate. While that may be true, it is also true that Barack Obama is in the position of having to defend the worst Administration in America's 236 year history. He has no such choice as to which position of this debate he would like to argue. When you take away the smoke and mirrors, the spin, the lap dog media, and his stellar ability to read a speech from a teleprompter, this election, and mostly these debates will be about whether we should award another four years of America's future to Barack Obama.

In his first statement, Barack Obama told us that this election should not be about the past, but about the future. Them's not exactly fighting words, them's hiding words. In a nut shell, President Obama is walking a tightrope here. On the one hand he's happy to have the natural advantage of incumbency on his side in the upcoming election, and on the other hand, he would rather voters really not think too long or hard as to what kind of a job he's done during the previous four years. There's already been a lot of hand wringing on the left about why oh why Barack Obama did not bring up this point or that point, mostly pieces of the aforementioned ridiculousness concerning the supposed 47% gaffe, Bain Capital, war on women, etc. There is a reason for that. President Obama started trotting out the talking points early and often in the first ten minutes of the evening. He got what he thought were his best kill shots fired back at him in a manner that left visible marks on his person and psyche. After 20 minutes of that, five of his best punches having left its indelible mark on his squarely paddled backside, the rest of the evening became about Barack Obama's attempt to run out the clock and put an end to the misery of the left. Barack Obama's speech became noticeably slow, pretty much the same cadence one might find in the local police department drunk tank. He spoke long and slowly, and avoided anything even resembling a point, lest it be rolled up in stone and fired back at him as another candidacy ending salvo.

Mitt Romney on the other hand had another challenge. The Obama campaign has spent Hundreds of Millions of dollars in an effort to portray Mitt Romney as evil to his core, a man we should expect to see entering the debate sporting horns on his head and with a barbed tail protruding from under his suit coat. The only thing Romney needed to do in order to win was to walk out on stage without a red pitch fork and not eat a baby in some sort of ritualistic sacrifice. As no babies died in Denver last night, and Mitt Romney did not have any props which could be mistaken for a red pitchfork, everything else that happened was gravy. There was oh so much gravy. My personal favorite moment of the night was early on when Barack brought up my pet peeve of Democrat canards, those supposed oil subsidies, which as a matter of fact are nothing more than straight line expense deductions any business takes while preparing their income tax returns. (The oil industry happens to be the second most heavily taxed industry in our nation, with Tobacco being number one.) Mitt politely pointed out that in one year, Green Subsidies are 50 times greater than even the fictitious Oil Subsidies, and for a far smaller benefit I might add.

In the end it was nothing more than one small night which signaled that the race is not over yet. Mitt Romney is still in this race, and is probably ahead if looked at honestly. Special note to the Romney team, Barack Obama is not going to take this lying down. In the game of, "is the Republican Stupid, Senile, of Evil," there is only one choice that fits Mitt Romney. Expect the attacks to be stepped up immediately, and expect the next debate performance made by our President to look different. The good news is that the next one of these will be on foreign policy, just at a time when Obama's endeavors in that area have 25% of America's embassies set ablaze. It should be fun.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Technorati Tags: 2012 Election,debates,Election 2012,Independents,Mitt Romney,Mitt Romney in 2012,polls,Romney wins,Romney-Ryan,TKO,undecideds,VOTERS

The Reality of 2012 Voter Turnout: The White Voter

Battleground Watch:

The largest divergence among conservative and liberal polling critics this election is the debate over who will actually show up at the voting booth this November. Differences between the amounts of Democrats versus Republicans included in the poll are frequent. But embedded in each of these assumptions are questions on the racial make-up and how that varies from election to election. Democrats consistently talk about the “coalition of the ascendant” where the fastest growing segments of the population are minorities. As such they make up an ever-increasing segment of the voting population but also vote overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats. With a shrinking white population and a growing minority population Democrats argue demography as destiny and count on political majorities for the coming generation. That may be true if everything in life moves in a straight line (it doesn’t) but is that true today?

This is the bone of contention between the competing Presidential campaigns and critics of today’s polls. Democrats want to argue the steep increase in minority percentage of the voting electorate from 2008 election was a fundamental shift in the electorate whereas Republicans want to argue the steep increases were a one-off bounce. Both agree on the general direction of the trend. Neither agree how severe that trend will be in 2012. This disagreement is the basis for Democrat over-confidence and lopsided polling today in an election where the two candidates are most likely within 1-2% of one another.

What’s missing in all this analysis is who did not show up in the 2008 election: White voters. Looking back at those results, every voter turnout rate by race (relative to eligible population) was up versus 2004 except the white vote according to Pew Research (April 30, 2009). Blacks were up +4.9%, Hispanics were up +2.7%, Asians were up +2.4%. But the percentage of White voters who showed up at the polls relative to who was eligible dropped -1.1% (Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, May 2010). This has nothing to do with minorities making up more or less of the electorate. This is simply saying from 2004 to 2008 White voter registration (which actually dropped 104k) and actual turnout of White voters (which increased 500k) did not keep up with voting age White population increases.

Within this drop of White voter turnout, over 3x as many men as women comprised those voters staying home in the election. This happened for any number of reasons ranging from a disinterested national party to a disorganized Presidential campaign to a demoralized voting block–all are true. But the bottom line is one of the advantages Barack Obama enjoyed in 2008 was that a meaningful percentage of white voters simply stayed home in 2008. Side note: for anyone who wants to pin the depressed turnout on racism, wouldn’t the opposite have occurred in 2008 if racism really were a motivating factor in the white turnout?

Where this trips up the Obama campaign.

In 2008 Democrats achieved incredible levels of voter registration and turnout of this “coalition of the ascendent” such that Blacks, Hispanics and Asians made up 24% of the voting electorate — all historic highs. Bolstering the appearance of Democrat advantage are countless media stories reporting on Mitt Romney’s struggle appealing to minority groups. Little attention is paid to Barack Obama’s (and Democrat candidates before him) difficulty appealing to White voters who made up 74% of the electorate. Such historic minority levels for the composition of the electorate are predicated on a demoralized and ineligible (meaning unregistered) white population much like in 2008, as demonstrated above.

If John McCain achieved a white voter turnout rate equal to George Bush in 2004, that would have meant 1.7 million more White votes. While all of these votes would not have gone to McCain (nor were they all in battleground states), a super-majority of these voters likely would have voted Republican considering the make-up of the missing voter (white male — Obama’s worst demographic) and the motivated nature of the Obama voter in 2008 (i.e. if they were Obama supporters, only a scant few percent would have stayed home). Those missing votes would have been more than enough to flip the results in any of North Carolina (14k), Indiana (28.5k,), Nevada (121k), Iowa (146k), Colorado (195k), Virginia (234k), Florida (237k) or Ohio (260k) where Obama’s victory margin (in parentheses) is based on a 43% vote share of a decreased turnout.

Today Barack Obama receives approximately 40% of the White vote in polls but often dips below this level especially when polls fail to massively over-sample Democrats. The President is also facing an increasingly enthusiastic bloc of White voters motivated to vote against him (this shows up in every survey) based on his poor record in office. Additionally, Republicans have aggressively targeted the above mentioned states with voter registration efforts reversing or seriously muting the registration advantage Obama enjoyed in 2008. Net gains for Republicans voter registrations in Nevada (53k), Iowa (140k), Colorado (91k) and Florida (240k) all speak to a very different and Republican electorate in those states. On top of registration, voter contacts from the Romney campaign surpassed 26 million eligible voters across the battleground states to date. This is as much as 10-15x as much as the McCain 2008 campaign. This does not dismiss the aggressive and active Obama re-election effort but it simply points out that compared to 2008 he is no longer battling an unarmed opponent.

All of this is to say when David Axelrod or similar Obama campaign talking heads argue aggressively for polls with a racial composition at meaningfully greater minority levels than the 2008 historic turnout, there is another side of that coin and it works heavily against the turnout models of both the Obama campaign and of the vast majority of polls being published today.

Want things to change? Help educate people and help get out the conservative, independent, evangelical and white vote!! Many are not registered.

Related:

Romney Double Digit Lead? 

‘Unskewed’ polls show nearly 8-point Romney lead

Race beginning to look a lot like 1980? What might Ronald Reagan’s victory path mean?

Calling All Concerned Americans to Stand-Up

Does Obama expect to lose? – Secret retirement plans

A Must Watch Before Voting…

Must Reads Before Election 2012

Technorati Tags: whites,polls,white voters,voter registration,voter turnout,voter fraud,Election 2012,2012 Election,Mitt Romney in 2012,Romney-Ryan,conservatives,independents undecideds,evangelicals,Christians,educate yourself,get involved,Caucasians

Mitt Romney gains traction among Latino voters… They are not fooled by DNC political games

Juan Williams (D) pundit: “I think the winners of the Republican National Convention were Latinos… specifically Latina’s who were represented and highlighted at the convention; women like First Lady of Puerto Rico Lucé Fortuna and New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez”

The Hispanic Community was well represented at the GOP National Convention and welcomed. In addition to the First Lady of Puerto Rico Lucé Vela Fortuño and New Mexico Republican Governor Susana Martinez there were speeches by tea party favorite Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz, small business owner and candidate for DE Lt. Governor Sher Valenzuela, Governor Luis Fortuño, Texas Rep. Francisco Canseco as well as the coveted speech slot to introduce the party’s presidential candidate was delivered by Florida Senator Marco Rubio.

The First Lady of Puerto Rico Lucé Vela Fortuño along with the first female Governor (first) of Indian decent of South Carolina introduced Ann Romney before her speech.

"I am the proud mother of 20-year-old triplets, a practicing attorney, a proud Latina, and a die-hard Republican!" Lucé Fortuño said in accented English as she gave her introductory speech of Ann Romney. Democrats have accused Republicans of waging a ‘war on women’ that disproportionately affects Latinas…” obviously not true.

Republican Luz Weinberg, Vice President of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, or NALEO, said these speeches and the convention were a good start to attract Latinos.

And if there is one thing that the Republican National Convention proved it is that there is ‘no’ conservative, Republican or Romney war on women, no war on blacks, no on Latinos and no war on anyone else.  They have a pretty wide tent.

Video: New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez addresses the 2012 Republican National Convention

Some of the highlights of Susana’s speech was when she talked about how she carried, and can shoot a .357 magnum, when she worked as a security guard for her parent’s business… the business that “they built” with hard work.  And then she about going to lunch with her husband and some Republicans, where they talked issues not parties, before deciding to run for office… After the meeting she said, “We got in the car and I looked over at Chuck and I said, "I'll be damned. We are Republicans.” 

The truth is that Latino/Hispanic values are Republican values and one of the only reasons so many Hispanics/Latinos vote Democrat is the immigration issue.  But this is not a one issue election.  Hispanics are concerned about jobs and the economy, about traditional marriage and pro-life issues because they are primarily Catholics.  And they want America to remain a country of promise for their children and grandchildren. 

What they need to understand that the bill of goods being sold them by the Democrats is not true and many are beginning to understand that.  Let everyone also remember that just because it is written in the platform of either party, it doesn’t mean much nor mean that the candidate agrees or will act on it.

Rosario Marin, who served as U.S. Treasurer under President George W. Bush, said Republicans “hit it out of the ballpark” and that the message to all women was "genuine", and that the biggest issue for everyone is jobs and the economy.

But don’t count on facts getting in the way at the DNC message this coming week in Charlotte…

Surrogate for Obama, Hispanic Mayor Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, has  already said, “Republicans can't just trot out brown faces or people with a Spanish surname and expect them to vote for them or make inroads with the Latino community”  Really?  I wonder if Lucé Fortuño,  Susana Martinez,  Ted Cruz, Sher Valenzuela, Governor Luis Fortuño , Francisco Cansecoor, and Senator Marco Rubio know that they are just brown faces being used by the GOP?

And I am sure the Hispanic/Latino community is much smarter than the Democrats think they are, but it is going to be an ugly week and an even uglier campaign by the left!!  They have nothing else to run on… but fear, smear and false promises.  Their record is abysmal.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush also spoke at the RNC, including a few words in Spanish; he is very popular both in Florida and with the Latino community… the Cuban community in that state.  Romney’s youngest son, Craig, also speaks fluent Spanish and did so at the Convention. And let us not forget that the Romney grandparents and great grandparents lived in Mexico and the Romneys still have relatives there.

Three of the six people highlighted in a piece, Rising Stars of the GOP, written before the Republican convention were Hispanics: Ted Cruz, Susana Martinez and Marco Rubio.  I’m sure if they were writing it today they would have added Mia Love, Mayor of Sarasota Springs, Utah and U.S. Congressional candidate who rocked the house, to that list.

And one of the highlight speeches of the Republican National Convention was given by party (and tea party) favorite Senator Marco Rubio’s:

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney now appears to have gained some traction among Latino voters according to this week's impreMedia-Latino Decisions tracking poll

Even though Barack Obama maintains a commanding lead with 64% support among Latino registered voters, Mitt Romney's grew to 30%, his highest level yet.

When asked about the prominent roles that Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Susana Martinez played at the Republican National Convention, 39% of Latino voters who consider themselves independent stated it made a positive impression on them.

"This was the first bit of good news for the Republican candidate and his party", observed Latino Decisions pollster, Gary Segura. "This poll shows that Latinos are paying attention, but this is not a slam dunk. The fact that Romney still trails with only 30% of the vote should be somewhat disappointing." Jobs and the economy continue to be the most important issue for Latinos. But despite Romney's consistent efforts to negatively cast the President's handling of the economy, Latinos continue to trust Obama and the Democratic Party to improve economic conditions more so than the Republicans by 59% to 30%.

The weekly tracking poll is part of impreMedia's commitment to provide unique insights and superior coverage of the upcoming 2012 presidential elections. "We understand how critical the Latino vote will be in determining the outcome of this election and we will be reporting on the important issues, preferences and concerns of this growing constituent," stated Monica Lozano CEO of impreMedia.

To view more data and information on this week's poll visit: www.eldiariony.com/section/voto METHODOLOGY This is the second release, of an 11-week tracking poll of Latino registered voters. Each week, impreMedia and Latino Decisions will release a new rolling cross-section of 300 completed interviews with Latino registered voters across all 50 states. Interviews are conducted in English or Spanish, at the preference of the respondent, all conducted by bilingual interviewers at Latino Decisions calling center, Pacific Market Research. The survey averaged 10 minutes in length, and has an overall margin of error of 5.6% on results that approach a 50/50 distribution. All respondents confirm that they are Hispanic or Latino and currently registered to vote.

This first wave survey was in the field August 24-30, 2012 About impreMedia. impreMedia is the leading Hispanic news and information company in the U.S. in online and print. impreMedia's multi-platform offerings range from online to video, social media, mobile, audio, newspapers and magazines, including the http://www.impre.com portal. 25.5%of U.S.

Hispanic adults use an impreMedianetwork product. The networkis also the nation's largest Hispanic newspaper publisher with newspapers in top U.S. Hispanic markets, reaching 15markets total that represent 59% of the U.S. Hispanic population. Its leading publications include La Opinión in Los Angeles and El Diario La Prensa in New York.

ImpreMedia portals and publication websites are: www.impre.com, www.laopinion.com, www.eldiariony.com, www.hoynyc.com, www.laraza.com, www.laprensafl.com, www.elmensajero.com, www.rumbotx.com, www.vistamagazine.com, www.contigola.com, and www.lavibra.com.

About Latino Decisions Latino Decisions is a joint effort between Pacific Market Research, a nationally known research firm, and Dr. Gary Segura and Dr. Matt Barreto, leading Latino politics scholars and professors at Stanford University and the University of Washington. Both Dr. Segura and Dr.

Barreto are experienced and nationally respected researchers who have a deep understanding of U.S. Latino culture and advanced quantitative research skills. Their expertise, coupled with Pacific Market Research's logistical capabilities, makes Latino Decisions a leader in the field.  For more information, visit: http://www.impremedia.com.

Tracking Poll Wave 2: Romney gains among Latinos post-convention

By Matt Barreto, Latino Decisions on 09/03/2012

After a week in the spotlight in which many prominent Latinos took to the stage at the RNC Convention, the impreMedia/Latino Decisions tracking poll finds a noticeable bump in support for Romney and Republicans among Latinos, as reported by Pilar Marrero. The question will be can they sustain it, or will the new found support erode after the Democrats get their turn in Charlotte. In the second week of the impreMedia/Latino Decisions tracking poll Romney stands at 30%, up from 26% in week 1, and also improved his favorability from 27/55 (net -28) to 31/54 (net-23). While the clear majority of Latino voters continue to support Obama, this is the first time Romney has managed to climb to 30% of the Latino vote in the 10 months that impreMedia/Latino Decisions has polled on an Obama-Romney match-up. [Jump to full results]

In addition to Romney, the Republicans may have made some small in-roads with their presentation of Latino elected officials such as Susana Martinez, Brian Sandoval and Marco Rubio. The tracking poll asked, “During the Republican National Convention Latino elected officials such as Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Susana Martinez were given prominent speaking roles. Does this give you a more favorable or less favorable impression of the Republican Party, or does it have no effect on how you feel about the Republican Party?” Overall, 21% said they had a more favorable impression, 7% said less favorable and 62% said it had no effect. Although a large majority said the Latino RNC speakers had no effect on their view of Republicans, among those who did take this into account, we found a 3-1 advantage for Republicans in favorability.

Glass one-third full / Glass two-thirds empty?

While Romney made some gains following the RNC convention, the gains are relatively small. After their best week of coverage in which Romney and the RNC got to dictate the message, and President Obama struggled for coverage, Romney still maintains a net negative favorability rating of -23 while the President enjoys a net positive favorability rating of +43. And while Romney is inching towards one-third of the Latino vote, the data still suggest that close to two-thirds of Latinos (64%) plan to vote against Romney.

In looking at the question about perceptions of party outreach to Hispanics, the impreMedia/Latino Decisions tracking poll reveals almost no movement in the larger images of either party. One week ago 14% thought the Republican party was doing a good job of outreach to Hispanics, and today that number is 17%. Combined, 72% of Latinos think the Republican party either ‘doesn’t care’ or is ‘being hostile’ towards Hispanics, and that number that will take more than a 3-day convention to move. As Governor Jeb Bush acknowledge during the RNC, Republicans need to stop “acting stupid” and “to have a tone that is open and hospitable,” if they want to win over Latino voters.

The Republicans believe their path to the Latino vote is through the troubled economy, a message they reiterated during the RNC convention. However Latino voters may not share their views of who is to blame, and who can fix things. Last week, the impreMedia/Latino Decisions tracking poll asked who was to blame for the current state of the economy and 68% of Latinos said the policies of the Bush administration, compared to 14% who blamed Obama. This week we asked, “thinking about the future of our economy, which party do you trust more to make the right decisions and improve our economic conditions?” Here, 59% of Latinos said they trust Obama and the Democrats compared to 30% who said Romney and the Republicans. In courting Latinos, the Republicans need to do more than point the finger at Obama, they need to provide a clear policy alternative that does not sound like “Bush tax cuts” that would seem to benefit the Latino community. To this point, Latinos continue to give the Democrats a 2-1 advantage on fixing the economy. Back in February 2011 the impreMedia/Latino Decisions tracking poll asked what strategy was best for turning around the economy, and 57% said the federal government should invest in projects while 27% said we should lower taxes, a number quite consistent with the 59-30 advantage reported today, 19 month later on which party is best to fix the economy.

• View Full Week 2 Results Here

Technorati Tags: Latinos,Hispanics,Mitt Romney,George Romney,the Romneys,RNC,traditional values,Hispanic Community,immigration,compromise,GOP tent,Marco Rubio,Susana Martinez,Ted Cruz,First Lady of Puerto Rico Luce Fortuna,Sher Valenzuela,Governor Luis,Francisco Cansecoor,Mayor Villaraigosa,Juan Williams,Catholics,Latino Republicans,Hispanic Republicans

How many Catholic Voters Have Been Pushed Away By Obama?

by Daniel Noe – Western Journalism – h/t to Anglo at Sovereignty in Colorado

At some point in the future, a political scientist–maybe one not yet even born-will point to Barack Obama’s declaration of war against the Catholic Church as the worst move of many he has made in his inordinately poor campaign for re-election.

Perhaps no other stupid Team Obama move better highlights the gulf between actual Americans and the phony Obama. It reminds us that Obama may (or may not) have been born in America and has spent his parasitical life here, but he is not OF America. He doesn’t understand America, and the overrated schmucks who are advising him don’t either.

They apparently have never bothered to read some basic electoral history. If they had, they would know that no Democrat has ever won the presidency while losing the Catholic vote.

Just as he has done with so many other groups, Obama has not only given Catholics no reason to vote for him, but plenty of motivation NOT to vote for him or anyone who supports him.

In the 2008 election, Catholics voted for Obama 54/46. That margin was, as much as any other, the reason for his election. There are fewer chances that Catholics will be lining up to support Obama this year, as a Pew poll has revealed.  What Pew found was that until Obama’s war against the Catholic Church, he was leading with Catholics by 9 points. Today, that lead is gone, and he is behind by 5 points.

This 14 point swing away from Obama translates to 18 million lost votes and major trouble in these states with sizable Catholic populations:  Pennsylvania (53%), New Jersey (39%), Wisconsin (29%), Florida (26%), Ohio (24%), and Michigan (24%).

Among Catholics, 29% now say that they are less likely to vote for Barack Obama because of his ham-handed attempt to dictate new secular doctrine to their Church. When juxtaposed to the 13% who say they are now more likely to support Obama’s re-election, the yield is a net minus 16 points. He cannot and he will not survive such a gapping hole in his support. Monday’s 43 lawsuits from Catholic entities was only round one, and Obama is already on the ropes. So far, Cardinal Dolan is way ahead on points.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate – ‘Pro-Choice’ Americans At Record Low, Poll Finds

Andy Garcia’s new movie, For Greater Glory, that focuses on the attack of the Mexican government against the Catholic Church and how the people stood up, echoes the current church vs. government battle.  Many have mad the the mistake of attacking the Catholic Church or people of faith and come to regret it!!

Related:

Video:  Muslims attack Australian war graves

Video: Documentary on the Marginalisation of Christians in the UK - This video is filled with examples that are surely headed here, with some already here.

Video: Count Cameron Bans Crucifixes! Lord Monckton's In-Studio Report - Lord Monckton Part 2

Did You Know? The Founding Fathers and God

Technorati Tags: Catholic Church,Catholics,Catholic Hospitals,religion,misinterpretation of Constitution,polls,Election 2012,miscalculation,war on Christianity,war on Catholics,separation of church and state

Morris: Romney To Win Undecideds

By DICK MORRIS  -  Published on TheHill.com on May 15, 2012

From May 5-11, 2012, I conducted a survey of 6,000 likely voters. On such a mammoth sample, the margin of error is less than 1 percent. I found that Romney has amassed a sizable lead over Obama of 51-42, far in excess of what published polling and surveys of registered -- as opposed to likely -- voters are indicating.

If Romney were to win 51 percent of the vote, the election would, of course, be very close. But if he could hold Obama to 42 percent, it would be a landslide. So the obvious question is how Romney should go about winning the voters in between.

To answer this question, I drilled down in my sample to these undecided voters, none of whom voted for Romney in the survey. I added to their ranks those who voted for Obama but indicated that they only "somewhat" approved of his performance in office. This left me with a sample of 1,500 likely voters who are in play. The data in this column reflects their views. If Romney can win a quarter or a third of their votes, he will win by a landslide margin of 10 points.

On the economy, 46 percent of these swing voters do not believe that there is any recovery. Twenty-three percent say the economy is the same as when Obama took office and an additional 23 percent say it is worse. Thirty-nine percent say the jobs situation has not improved. Twenty-five percent say it is the same and 14 percent say it is worse. And 37 percent agree with the statement that "if we look around, there isn't real evidence that we are actually making progress."

Specifically, swing voters do not believe that the unemployment rate drop Obama heralds is real. Forty-nine percent agree that "the only reason it goes down is that each month more people give up even looking for work."

So Obama's claims that we are climbing out of the recession fall short with almost half of the swing vote. Indeed, 31 percent of swing voters say that "Obama's policies have made the recession worse."

About a third of swing voters squarely blame Obama's borrowing and spending as the culprit for the failure of the economy. Thirty-six percent agree that "the deficit and debt Obama's program caused did more harm that the spending did good. His cure was worse than the disease."

Forty-four percent of swing voters believe that "if we cut government spending and borrowing, we could recover much more quickly."

A third of swing voters -- 31 percent -- reject the president's argument that "if it were not for Obama's policies, things might have been even worse."

Finally, 44 percent of swing voters agree that "if we reelect Obama, he'll just do more of the same."

Romney has the ability to slice off a third of the undecided swing voters by way of a major attack on the economy, thereby lifting him well above the 50 percent threshold. Swing voters:

• Challenge Obama's assertion that we are recovering and that unemployment is dropping.
• Lay the blame for the economic stagnation on his "spending and borrowing" and suggest that with less of each, things would improve much more quickly.
• Believe that "his cure is worse than the disease" in that "the borrowing has done more harm than the spending did good."
• Are convinced that if we reelect Obama, we have only more spending and borrowing to look forward to and that the results will be the same.

Will Romney exploit the vulnerabilities this poll suggests? Only time will tell.

"It's a Chain of Lie After Lie After Lie"
What if the financial crisis wasn't an accident? That experts have PROOF regarding an elaborate scheme dating back to Sept. 18, 2008?… Dick Morris

Morris, a former adviser to Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Clinton, is the author of Outrage, Fleeced, Catastrophe and 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan.  Revolt!: How To Defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Programs — A Patriot’s Guide and his latest book:  Screwed!: How Foreign Countries Are Ripping America Off and Plundering Our Economy-and How Our Leaders Help Them Do It  See: dickmorris.com.

Related:

Game On:  Two Front War

Defining America’s Future Event

Restoring Love Event – What Is It?

Interested in Fighting the Nanny State With Lemonade, Delicious Pies… and Hugs?  Beck Will Tell You How

Houston: Lemonade Day to Highlight Project Row Houses for Second Year

Technorati Tags: Dick Morris,Election 2012,2012 Election,Mitt Romney 2012,Mitt Romney,elections,undecideds,polls,nanny state,Glenn Beck,events,Restoring Love,lemonade stands,afa,Mercury One,Project Row Houses,entrepreneurship,independents

The Race for the White House 2012… Perhaps Not All Horses to the Gates

Sarah Palin, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump… New GOP Contenders, Third Party Runs Or Just Hype?

It is becoming more and more evident that conservative and independent voters aren’t sure that they have found the winning candidate to beat Barack Obama or that the candidate they are looking for has stepped up yet.  What they can agree on is that the main goal is making Barack Obama a one term president'; that this is the most important election of our lifetime and maybe in the history of the U.S.; and that Election 2012 is going to be a rough, tough and dirty fight! It is also becoming more and more evident that the Presidential  Election process in 2012 is going to be unconventional!

There is speculation everywhere about possible late-entering GOP candidates like Sarah Palin of Jeb Bush.  There are also thoughts that Dr. Chuck Baldwin, Presidential Candidate for the Constitutional Party, might still jump in again, or that Ron Paul could make a 3rd Party run if he doesn’t get the GOP nomination (highly unlikely on both counts in my opinion) and then there is the Trump factor.  There are some other speculations, but these are the ones that matter or could make a difference.

If you’re Sarah Palin, Donald Trump or Jeb Bush, all you have to do is open your mouth and the speculation runs wild and generates news on both sides.  And that is because all any of those three need to do is say, “I’m in” and the entire race changes.

Palin announced in October she wasn’t running for president. Bush has been saying it for two years. But both were  back in the headlines last week with some timely thoughts on American politics and the present GOP field.

Palin might just have been having some fun, but told Fox News it wasn’t too late for someone to get into the Republican contest. Plus the former Alaska governor admitted she wasn’t yet impressed enough with any of the current gang of seven candidates to make her endorsement.

“You know, it’s not too late for folks to jump in. I don’t know, who knows what will happen in the future,” Palin mused. “You know, my endorsement is going to be with sincerity and enthusiasm and I’m just not there yet with the field as it stands.”

Does this mean Palin is reconsidering her decision. There’s no sign one way or the other that she is taking another look. But,  Palin’s comment generated dozens of headlines raising the possibility.  And according to ElectionMeter, she is more popular than Mitt Romney.

Per ElectionsMeter: Sarah Palin More Popular Than Mitt Romney, Republican Party

h/t to Gary P. Jackson at a Time for Choosing

ElectionsMeter tracks 90 day popularity trends. In the quarter ending December 23, 2011, Sarah Palin rates higher than Mitt Romney, and the Republican Party as a whole. This is an online poll, so not as scientific as others, but telling none the less.

Sarah Palin 49.4%:

Mitt Romney 48%:

GOP 42.6%:

The most popular person in this poll though isn’t a politician at all. Dr Martin Luther King is by far, the most popular in this poll at 57.6%:

And ditto for Jeb Bush, who was out with an op-ed piece in last week’s Wall Street Journal (See link) on the threat leaders in Washington pose to capitalism and economic freedom.

Again, there is nothing – other than the timing of the piece, just ahead of the Iowa caucuses – to suggest Bush might be giving second thought to a late ‘for the sake of the party’ run in 2012.  But it was enough to generate a lot of speculation.

It has long been assumed that Bush, if he was ever to run for president, would wait until 2016, giving some space between his candidacy and his brother George W. Bush’s term in office. And with good reason. If Rick Perry has suffered from the fact that he shares only the title – Texas governor – with George W. Bush, then it’s a safe to say Jeb would suffer from having the same last name. For many Americans, not just Democrats, it’s likely still too soon to even contemplate another Bush in the White House. let along elect one.  But that won’t stop anyone from speculating.

And then there is Donald Trump who just switched parties from Republican to Independent and who has said all along that he was leaving the door open to running as a 3rd party candidate if he was unhappy with the GOP’s nominee.  The fact that each of the present GOP candidates has visited Mecca (Trump Tower) this election season to get Trump’s blessing, advice and perhaps an endorsement and then declined to participate in the NewsMax GOP debate scheduled for December 27th where Trump would have been the host was surely the catalyst for this move.  According to Politico, which first reported Trump's party switch, he will still be able to vote in the New York presidential primary next April. Trump had once also been a registered Democrat.

My thoughts on the Trump are that if his concern is really for the good of the country he should re-register as a Democrat and run against Obama in the Democratic Primary.  There might be enough moderates and Dems just fed –up with Obama that maybe he could beat him and if not he’d weaken him and cause him to have to use up a good chunk of his war chest.  And if he won the Democratic nomination and beat the GOP’s candidate, we’d still be better off.

A straight third party run will guarantee 4 more years of Obama and a move from the United State of America becoming the United Socialist-States of America and a weak contender on the world stage.

As for Palin, I think she is a lot stronger and more popular than we think or than the media has allowed us to think. And I also believe that if she jumped it, it would clear the field.  We’d have Palin and Romney plus Gingrich and Paul for just a short while longer. If she doesn’t run she might be a smart consideration for VP for Mitt Romney who looks like he will be the GOP candidate if Palin doesn’t run.

And as for Jeb, he’d be smart not to jump in now.  The “W” wounds, whether you think fair or not are still too fresh!

2012 will absolutely be the most important election of our lives! Let us make sure that we and everyone we encounter understand what is at stake, why it matters and what is true, as well as to make sure that voter registration, the actual voting process, and the vote count is honest and accurate.

Why the U.S. Should Listen to India's Voters

Last November, 131 million Americans voted, and the whole world took notice. Over the last month, about 700 million Indians voted, and most Americans, like most of the world, didn't much notice.

To be sure, American elections are more important to people all over the world than those in any other country. But the election in India is more important to Americans than most of us realize. Including, perhaps, our president.

This was not always so. During the Cold War, India was something of a de facto ally of the Soviet Union. This was due in part to our alliance with its rival neighbor Pakistan, but also to a feeling of solidarity with the U.S.S.R. on the part of the ruling Congress Party and its two historic leaders, Jawaharlal Nehru and his daughter Indira Gandhi.

The Congress vision of India was built on three pillars: socialism, autarky and secularism. Socialism meant a government-driven economy policed by a Permit Raj -- government bureaucrats had to approve every economic change. Autarky meant cutting India off from world trade, so that local industries could grow. Secularism meant toleration of religious diversity in a nation with both a large Hindu majority and the world's second-largest Muslim population.

The fall of the Soviet Union removed two of these three pillars. Manmohan Singh, then finance minister and now prime minister, began dismantling the Permit Raj. Successive governments led by the Congress Party and the Hindu nationalist BJP opened up India to trade, and export industries grew. Secularism remained, embraced by the Congress and not entirely repudiated by the BJP.

With the de facto alliance with the Soviets defunct, India was now open to an American alliance. Bill Clinton became the first U.S. president to visit India in years. George W. Bush moved further, cultivating closer ties with India and signing and getting ratified a nuclear cooperation treaty.

It became obvious that we had much in common. Both countries have a large and capable military, both have nuclear weapons, both have electoral democracies and English common law traditions, and both are prime targets of Islamist extremists. After Sept. 11, when Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf made a U-turn and promised to help the United States in Afghanistan, he did so in the awareness that the United States had a friend on the other side of his border.

India also has the potential to contain the power of China, in conjunction with other well-armed democracies around its periphery -- Japan, South Korea and Australia. Its economy has been growing almost as fast as China's, and it now has a middle class of perhaps 200 million people.

The election held over four weeks in April and May has produced a result very much to our advantage. The Congress Party has been returned to power with a larger share of the vote than indicated by pre-election and exit polls and will no longer need Communists and left-wingers for majorities in the Lok Sabha. The BJP attacked Congress for being too close to the United States; voters evidently decided that this was not a minus but a plus.

All of which puts the ball in Barack Obama's court. He has scarcely mentioned India in public since he became president, even as he has been making emollient noises to the mullah regime in Iran. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, said publicly she wouldn't object to China's abuses of human rights, while India has worked hard to uphold human rights.

The United States is preoccupied with the turmoil inside Pakistan, as well as with Pakistan's problematic role in the fight against the Taliban. But building closer relations with India would give us more leverage in Islamabad. Clinton, who played a constructive role in her husband's outreach to India, should understand this. Perhaps Obama does, too.

But it's hard to tell. Obama has continued military operations in Iraq and stepped them up in Afghanistan, but otherwise he is banking heavily on the proposition that he can persuade those who have been our sworn enemies that they should be our friends. Maybe that will work. But in the meantime, it would not hurt to show some solicitude for our friends in India, with whom we share strategic interests and moral principles. The 700 million voters of India have chosen to be our ally. We should take them up on it.

by Michael Barone - a senior writer with U.S. News & World Report and the principal co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, published by National Journal every two years. He is also author of Our Country: The Shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan, The New Americans: How the Melting Pot Can Work Again, the just-released Hard America, Soft America: Competition vs. Coddling and the Competition for the Nation's Future

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power