Almost half of Republican voters think ACORN stole the election for Obama

Public Policy Polling found that 49% of GOP voters nationally thought that ACORN stole the election for Obama. This is down from 52% who thought the same way after the 2008 election.

ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) was an NGO that helped low income groups get housing, register to vote, receive health care, etc. Conservatives working undercover made videos that exposed wrongdoing by some ACORN staff that created headlines for a time. ACORN filed for chapter 7 liquidation in November of 2010, and therefore did not exist at the time of the 2012 November elections.

The PPP poll also showed that one quarter of Republicans want their state to secede from the union. However, over half (56%) want to stay, while 19% are not sure.

Before the election polling found 39% of voters claimed to be Democrats with 37% Republicans. However, since the election, 44% consider themselves Democrats and only 32% Republicans.

Grover Norquist the anti-tax crusader turns out not to be well known nationally. 15% have a favorable opinion of him and 37% an unfavorable one, of those who knew who he was. Of those who had an opinion, only 23% of voters thought it important that the no-tax pledge be kept. 39% considered it not important.

While Obama's approval has gone up since the election, it is not by much. The last pre-election poll put his rating at 48% approve and 49% disapprove, but the ratio now is 50% approve as opposed to 47% disapprove.

The Bowles-Simpson plan to cut the deficit does not seem to be that well known to the general public even though many pundits discuss it. Of those who had an opinion 23% support the plan, while 16% oppose it. 60% had no opinion one way or the other.

Just for test purposes PPP invented a mythical Panetta/Burns plan of Leon Panetta, the present Defense Secretary and Conrad Burns a former senator. In spite of the fact that no such plan existed, 8% of voters supported the plan, while 17% were opposed.

How presidential debates are rigged to exclude third party candidates

There are two other candidates running for president who run in enough states that they could theoretically be elected president. Neither of these two candidates can take part in the presidential debates. Why?

Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, the presidential nominee of the Libertarian party is on the ballot in a total of 48 states. Dr Jill Stein, the nominee of the Green party, is running in 39 states. Since both could win one would think that they should be able to debate the issues with Romney and Obama.

But these debates are not run according to rules set out by the government. The rules are set by a non-profit organization called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). This group was created by the Democratic and Republican parties in 1987 as a bipartisan effort. An effort it would seem, to help keep presidential candidates other than those for the two main parties out of debates. At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Republican Frank Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates. Paul G. Kirk, then Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates. The rules were rigged to ensure the two parties kept the debates open only to their own nominees.

The present co-chairmen of the CPD represent each party. Frank Fahrenkopf is a former chair of the Republican National Committee. Michael D. McCurry the other co-chair was Bill Clinton's press secretary. The rules require that to take part in the debates presidential candidate must have received the support of at least 15% of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations.

However, without access to regular television, or to the debates, or to the huge sums of money necessary to obtain public awareness of a candidate, this level of support is difficult if not impossible to obtain. That is probably the whole idea!

The debates have the following sponsors:Anheuser-Busch, The Howard G. Buffet Foundation, Sheldon S. Cohen, Crowell & Moring, the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), The Kovler Fund and Southwest Airlines. Three former sponsors, the YWCA, Philips Electronics and BBH New York have withdrawn over the third party nominee access issue.

On Sept 21st of this year, the Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson filed an anti-trust suit against the CPD, the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee in the District of Columbia Circuit Court. The suit cites the Sherman Act and claims being excluded from the debates is a "restraint of trade" denying competition. For example, it prevents competition to potentially receive the presidential $400,000 annual salary. In a country that always emphasizes how important free choice is, it is a bit strange that free choice must be between the two chosen by the two main parties and no one else.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/334203#ixzz28QowGOMx

Obama raises more cash than Romney in August

For the first time in several months Obama and the Democrats raised more money than Romney and the Republicans. However, Romney probably still has more cash on hand than the Democrats.

The Democratic Party raised $114 million in August slightly more than the $111 million that Romney and crew were able to scrape up. Both parties hope to raise about $750 million before the election on November 6.

During the earlier part of the campaign in June and July Romney was able to bring in over $100 million a month while Obama and the Democrats brought in around $75 million each month. Campaign manager for Obama Jim Messina said:

"The key to fighting back against the special interests writing limitless cheques to support Mitt Romney is growing our donor base, and we did substantially in the month of August."

Messina claimed that the Democrats had added 317,000 donors who have never given before to the campaign. Messina went on:

"Fueled by contributions from more than 1.1 million Americans donating an average of 58 dollars - more than 317,000 who had never contributed to the campaign before - we raised a total of more than 114 million dollars."

In July Obama spent about $50 million mostly on ads. Romney is seen as having more cash which will no doubt be used to mount a surge of TV ads towards the end of the campaign. They will be directed against the president.

The Republicans claimed to have $168.5 million cash on hand at the beginning of September. The Democrats did not say how much cash they had on hand to start September.

Polls show that Obama is gaining more support and increasing his lead on Romney after the Democratic National Convention. A Gallup seven-day rolling average released Sunday showed Obama at 49% against Romney at 45%.

The amounts raised by each party only tell part of the story as both sides also are supported indirectly bu Super-PAC's. Conservative groups such as American Crossroads and Restore Our Future have raised more funds than their Democratic counterparts.

Independents and the few who are undecided will determine who ultimately wins the presidency. Former Clinton adviser Paul Begala noted in Newsweek

.".. when you factor out the undecideds in securely red or blue states (since their votes won’t change the Electoral College results), the election comes down to “around 4 percent of the voters in six states.”

No doubt the two parties will be spending all their cash on hand and then some with a deluge of ads to try and sway those undecided voters in those states their way.

Discussion about the election is always framed in terms of Democrats and Republicans. Although there are a number of other parties running and other presidential candidates they seem to fall under the radar of main stream media. Perhaps they have not raised enough money to be considered a player in the high stakes game of U.S. politics.