Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Tuesday, March 11, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 906)
Politics, Video

The radical leftist quasi, so-called LGBT and women’s rights fanatics at FCKH8 are using young cursing girls to help promote widely debunked myths of equal pay and phony statistics of sexual assault. The disgraceful video aims to sell offensive, self-promoting T-Shirts, the proceeds of which they claim go to “charity groups” that advocate for leftist causes.

“Facing a future where women are still paid 23% less than men for the same work, and where 1 in 5 women are raped or sexually assaulted in gender-based violence, little girls between 6 and 13 years-old dressed as pretty pink princesses drop F-bombs to draw attention to society’s continued sexism,” the group stated to describe the video.

It get’s worse.

“What’s more offensive? A little girl saying f*ck or the sexist way society treats girls and women?” one little girl, whom they refer to as a “little lady” says in the video. The group argues “little ladies wearing “sparkling tiaras” to represent “the princess in distress stereotype,” and repeatedly saying the F-word, shouldn’t be as offensive to society as “pay inequality” and “rape.” The ridiculous, yet exploitive video also features a 12 year-old boy wearing a pink gown saying, “When you tell boys not to ‘act like a girl,’ it’s because you think it’s bad to be a girl.”

Of course, most of these statistics are the very same phony statistics pushed by the Obama administration daily. We previously reported on the sexual assault numbers, the 1 in 5 figure comes from the 2005-2007 Campus Sexual Assault Study, which has also been widely debunked by academics, government organizations and even Washington Post fact-checker, Glenn Kessler. While Kessler highlighted that the so-called study was conducted at just two schools, which yielded a staggeringly low response rate for such a magnanimous claim, there are far more troubling irregularities.

In fact, to an outside observer, there is a clear ill-intent to obfuscate the truth for political gain.

Using the administration’s numbers, University of Michigan economist Mark Perry did the number crunching and found it’s more like 1 in 20 or 1 in 30. But even that may be too high because, considering the government’s own findings, the claims don’t even make sense. They arrive at a conclusion that — frankly — is impossible to know.

The Justice Department estimates that fewer than 5 percent of completed and attempted rapes of college women are reported to law enforcement officials. Worth noting — that is, if we want to actually pursue legitimate policy — that number is far below the rate for the country as a whole, where roughly 40 percent of all sexual assaults are reported.

For starters, two-thirds of the college women cited in the study and counted as rape victims were drug or alcohol related instances, with the victims themselves saying they did not think they were raped. Further, only a handful out of these particular “victims” even reported suffering from some psychological harm.

“Drug- and/or alcohol-enabled sexual assault,” which represented roughly 70 percent of all the “rape” incidents in the study, consisted of instances of unconsciousness or incapacitation, but also flat-out cases of intoxication. Just to clarify, getting drunk and making a bad decision is not the same as passing out and being sexually assaulted by a predator, man or woman. Intoxication can cloud a woman’s or man’s judgment and blur the lines of consent, as well as result in someone giving it who might have otherwise declined to give it.

On equal pay for women, when I say widely debunked, I mean widely debunked. Forbes, CBS News, the Washington Post, and even the Daily Beast all have addressed this myth in great detail. However, they all conclude one could only arrive at these phony numbers if they were to conveniently and unfairly exclude the unique differences between men and women.

The radical leftist quasi, so-called LGBT and

World

[wzslider transition=”‘flash'” info=”true” lightbox=”true”]

Canadian authorities confirmed late Wednesday they’ve identified the shooter in an apparent terror attack on Parliament Hill in Ottawa as Michael Joseph Hall, 32, also known as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau. The shooting, which left a soldier dead and put the nation’s capital on lockdown, came just two days after another terror attack in Quebec.

Two Canadian soldiers were run over in Quebec on Monday by a jihadist, leaving one of them fatally injured. Now, one U.S. intel official told PPD that the attacks came as no surprise, and were described as “an unfortunate expectation” due to alarming amounts of “chatter” between homegrown Islamic radicals and overseas jihadist groups. Further, U.S. officials worry the latest Canadian terror attacks are the just tip of the iceberg, the product of an organized effort to target members of the military and law enforcement agencies in nations that belong to the coalition fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

And it isn’t over, yet.

According to one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity, both domestic and foreign Islamic radicals have been planning attacks of this nature for months, and a number of known-jihadists have simply vanished.

U.S. and Canadian intel officials are looking for Canadian native Amer el-Maati, a member of al-Qaida who trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and another Canadian-born jihadist, Faker Ben Abdelaziz Boussora. The latter also has ties to al-Qaida, was trained in Afghanistan, and is suspected of playing a part in a thwarted “major terrorist plot” along the U.S.-Canadian border earlier this year.

Speaking of borders, the official also claimed U.S. intel agencies are investigating whether there is a connection between Wednesday’s terror attack and the attack Monday, as well as whether individuals involved may have had any connection to other recent events, which were previously thought to be unrelated.

Afghan soldiers Maj. Jan Mohammad Arash, 48, Capt. Mohammad Nasir Askarzada, 18, and Capt. Noorullah Aminyar, 20, were caught attempting to cross the Canadian border near Niagara Falls in late September. The men arrived at Camp Edwards on Sept. 11 — of all days — for a joint training exercise, but disappeared after they fled from a Cape Cod military base. The Pentagon told PPD after they were apprehended that they did not believe the three men posed a threat to U.S. security.

But according to intel officials, the truth is two-fold. The Pentagon and State Department vetting processes are deeply flawed and, in these instances, the sensitive politics of U.S.-Afghan relations took precedent over U.S.-Canadian national security interests. The practice of targeting members of the military with similar jihadi tactics and motivations has been a serious problem in Afghanistan. What are known as “green on blue” attacks accounted for 1 in 7 of all NATO deaths in 2014. Officials now fear Islamic radicals may be importing these brazen, broad-daylight attacks.

“We’re not sure what they [missing Afghan soldiers] were up to or if they or others were plotting similar attacks,” the official said. “Because members of the administration are concerned about growing distrust [between U.S. and Afghan officials], it wasn’t something we were pushed to pursue.”

The three Afghan soldiers who disappeared from the Cape Cod base weren’t alone. Mohd Naweed Samimi, 24, and Mohammad Yasin Ataye, 22, vanished from a DEA training program in Quantico, Virginia, at roughly the same time on Sept. 13. Authorities apprehended the two men in Buffalo, New York, approximately just 25 miles from the location authorities found the other three Afghan soldiers — Rainbow Bridge at Niagara Falls.

Little information is known about Michael Joseph Hall, or Zehaf-Bibeau, except that he was born in 1982 and was placed on a “watch list” in Canada and had his passport revoked. Other than the fact he was a recent convert to Islam and believed to be a native of Canada, officials are not saying for certain if a connection exists, though they admit the probability is high.

“Unfortunately, we are likely to see more of these attacks or attempts at them elsewhere,” the official said. “It is the radical ideology — not necessarily a person — that connects them all. But the information we have points to more than what we’ve seen today.”

Hall shot an honor guard at “point-blank” range at the National War Memorial before turning his attention to Parliament Hill, where the sergeant-at-arms fatally shot him.

Officials confirmed the identity of one suspect

Economy

U.S. consumer prices rose marginally in September but too slow for the Federal Reserve to decide not to keep interest rates low for the foreseeable future. The Labor Department said on Wednesday its Consumer Price Index edged up 0.1 percent last month as a rise in food and shelter costs offset a broad decline in energy prices.

The CPI had dropped 0.2 percent in August and economists had expected a flat reading in September, while U.S. Treasury debt prices predictably fell on the reading. The dollar rose modestly.

In the 12 months through September, the CPI increased 1.7 percent after a similar rise in August. A separate index that tracks price changes for urban wage earners and clerical workers, which is used to make cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security payments, rose 1.7 percent in the third quarter from the year earlier even as wages were stagnant.

Increases in shelter and medical care costs drove the overall index increas, while the so-called core CPI, which excludes food and energy prices, ticked up 0.1 percent last month after being unchanged in August. In the 12 months through September, the core CPI rose 1.7 percent after increasing by the same margin in August.

In September, energy prices fell for a third straight month, with gasoline prices falling 1.0 percent. Food prices, however, continued to gain (0.3 percent) after increasing 0.2 percent in August.

The shelter index was up 3.0 percent in the 12 months through September, which is the largest gain since January 2008, but within the core CPI, shelter costs increased 0.3 percent in September after rising 0.2 percent in August.

The medical care index also increased again 0.2 percent, with prices for nonprescription drugs increasing 1.5 percent and hospital services gaining 0.3 percent.

U.S. consumer prices rose marginally in September

Polls

Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, John Barrasso

President Barack Obama, left, Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), center, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-NV), right. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

The Republican Party is beginning to widen their lead over Democrats on the PPD average of generic ballot surveys in the final weeks of the 2014 midterms. There has been slow but steady movement toward the GOP since the mid-summer months, with Democrats losing a small but tenuous lead among registered voters in post-Labor Day likely voter models.

However, now, the Republican candidates are preferred even by registered voters for the first time this cycle in the NBC News/Wall St. Journal/Annenberg Poll, and have increased their margin in the other surveys. Other pundits have been suggesting the generic ballot was remarkably stable and, to some extent, that’s true. But the trend has shown a pretty clear and consistent move to the GOP, which appears to be speeding up a bit.

[table id=3 /]

Republicans hold a 4.2-point lead on the average generic ballot as of Wednesday — with just under 2 weeks until Election Day — which is outside the margin of error and significant when you consider how long early voting has been underway. In August, we discussed just how critical the generic ballot results were to election outcomes in the month of September, and suggested the numbers pointed to further Republican gains. Until the summer and early fall of the actual midterm election year, the results of the generic congressional ballot have little predictive value.

Further, the better Republicans are performing on the survey in early September, the more actual seats the Republican Party is likely to gain, which may skew early predictions in favor of the Democratic Party. Also, historically Republicans pick up more seats on a point-for-point basis. In other words, on average, a 10-point advantage for Democrats yields just a 12-seat swing, while an identical lead for Republicans yields a 23-seat swing, on average.

[table id=11 /]

From the table above, we get a visual picture both of how much the generic congressional ballot understates Republican support, and the daunting task facing Democrats. Considering Republican redistricting after their 2010 gains, it is entirely possible that this model actually understates their support further, though their potential pick-up opportunities — as I’ll explain further shortly — will most likely limit any chance to properly gauge that in 2014.

As we have hammered over and over, presidential job approval is a statistically significant variable when gauging midterm election outcomes since 1980. In 2010, though the Democrats aren’t as exposed in the House this year, President Obama’s approval rating was roughly 45 percent. In fact, because there are fewer opportunities in 2014 and Republican pickup opportunities are likely to be limited, we might expect less damage this time around even though Obama’s approval rating may just be lower.

Since 1912, when the House expanded to 435 seats, the president’s party has lost an average of 29 House seats in the “six year itch” midterm election. However, Democratic losses are likely to be limited in 2014 due to the fact that Democrats are only defending 201 seats this year, and it is all about the particular districts.

The U.S. Senate races, however, are another story.

The Republican Party is beginning to widen

Opinion, Video

 

For decades, the AEI Election Watch series has offered serious historical commentary and the latest election insights from the people who know politics best. With so much to discuss and even more at stake, these are two events you cannot afford to miss.

Speaker Biographies

Michael Barone is senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner and a resident fellow at AEI. He is a contributor to Fox News Channel, author of “Shaping Our Nation: How Surges of Migration Transformed America and Its Politics” (Crown Forum, October 2013), and coauthor of “The Almanac of American Politics.” Over the years, he has written for many publications in the United States and several other countries, including The Economist, the Times Literary Supplement, the Daily Telegraph, and the Sunday Times of London. Barone received the Bradley Prize from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in 2010, the Barbara Olsen Award from The American Spectator in 2006, and the Carey McWilliams Award from the American Political Science Association in 1992. Barone lives in Washington, DC. He has traveled to all 50 states and all 435 congressional districts. He has also traveled to 54 foreign countries and has reported on recent elections in Great Britain, Italy, Russia, and Mexico.

Karlyn Bowman compiles and analyzes American public opinion using available polling data on a variety of subjects, including the economy, taxes, the state of workers in America, environment and global warming, attitudes about homosexuality and gay marriage, the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement and free trade, the war in Iraq, and women’s attitudes. In addition, she has studied and spoken about the evolution of American politics because of key demographic and geographic changes. She has often lectured on the role of think tanks in the United States.

John Fortier joined the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) in April 2011. He is a political scientist who focuses on governmental and electoral institutions. Before coming to BPC, he was a research fellow at AEI, where he served as the principal contributor to the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project, executive director of the Continuity of Government Commission, and project manager of the Transition to Governing Project. He also served as director of the Center for the Study of American Democracy at Kenyon College. Fortier is the author of “Absentee and Early Voting: Trends, Promises and Perils” (AEI Press, 2006), author and editor of “After the People Vote: A Guide to the Electoral College” (AEI Press), and author and coeditor, with Norman Ornstein, of “Second Term Blues: How George W. Bush Has Governed” (Brookings Press, 2007). He is also the author of numerous academic articles in political science and law journals. Fortier has been a regular columnist for The Hill and Politico, is a frequent commentator on elections and government institutions, and has appeared on ABC’s “Nightline,” CNN, Fox News, PBS’s “News Hour,” CBS News, NBC’s “Today Show,” C-SPAN, NPR, Bloomberg, and BBC. He has also taught at Kenyon College, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Delaware, Harvard University, and Boston College.

Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, studies and provides commentary on American politics. His work focuses on how to address, consistent with conservative principles, the electoral challenges facing modern American conservatism. This work will culminate in a book titled “New Century, New Deal: How Conservatives Can Win Hearts, Minds, and Elections.” Olsen has worked in senior executive positions at many center-right think tanks. He most recently served from 2006 to 2013 as vice president and director of the National Research Initiative at AEI. He previously worked as vice president of programs at the Manhattan Institute and president of the Commonwealth Foundation. His work has been featured in many prominent publications, including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, National Review, and The Weekly Standard.

Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at AEI, is a long-time observer and scholar of Congress and politics. He writes a weekly column for National Journal and The Atlantic called “Washington Inside Out.” For 30 years, he was an election-eve analyst for CBS News; in 2012, he was a principal on-air election-eve analyst for BBC News. He served as codirector of the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project and participates in AEI’s Election Watch event series. He helped create the Continuity of Government Commission, for which he is senior counselor. Ornstein led a working group of scholars and practitioners that helped shape the McCain-Feingold law, which reformed the campaign financing system. Ornstein played a major role in Senate committee reform, in the creation of the Congressional Office of Compliance, and in the creation of the House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics. He was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2004 and currently directs the Academy Project on Stewarding America. His many books include “The Permanent Campaign and Its Future” (AEI Press, 2000), “The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track” (with Thomas Mann, Oxford University Press, 2006), and, most recently, the New York Times bestseller “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism” (with Thomas Mann, Basic Books, May 2012), which was updated in paperback version in September 2013, named Book of the Year by Ezra Klein’s Wonkblog, named one of the 10 best books on politics in 2012 by The New Yorker, and named one of the best books of 2012 by The Washington Post.

For decades, the AEI Election Watch series

Polls

Houston_Mayor_Annise_Parker

Houston Mayor Annise Parker, a lesbian, is trying to force religious leaders to provide the government with copies of their sermons. (Photo: AP/LM Otero)

Houston Mayor Annise Parker, a lesbian, recently subpoenaed sermons, speeches and private communications by pastors in the city opposed to a proposed gay rights ordinance. While the religious community was predictably up-in-arms about the First Amendment violation, a new survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports found voters strongly oppose the mayor’s actions.

The survey found 77 percent of likely voters say they do not believe the government should be allowed to prosecute religious leaders for their comments and beliefs when they criticize government and social justice policies that violate the basic tenets of their religion. Only 14 percent say the government should be able to ignore the First Amendment and prosecute religious leaders when they speak out about policy that contradicts their beliefs.

Further, by a 40 – 34 percent margin, voters leans toward believing criticism by religious leaders of policies that violate their faith is not politics.

A whopping 80 percent view freedom of religion as “Very Important,” and 54 percent say the government is a threat rather than a protector of their rights. Opposition to the Houston Mayor cuts across party lines.

Regardless of their partisan affiliation — though there are fewer on the left who agree — voters think the government should not be allowed to prosecute religious leaders who criticize government and social policies that violate their basic religious beliefs. While Republicans (77 percent) and nonaffiliated voters (65 percent) are adamant about this, Democrats don’t believe that nearly as strongly. Democrats agree by a much narrower 46 – 35 percent margin.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on October 17-18, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Interested in church-state relations and the history of religion in America?

[mybooktable book=”our-virtuous-republic-forgotten-clause-american-social-contract” display=”summary”]

Voters strongly oppose effort by Houston Mayor

Politics

Obama amnesty executive order

In large part due to the media blackout, President Obama plans to ram an unpopular policy down the throats of the American people.

Newly uncovered government print orders are requesting vendors supply upwards of 34 million blank work permits and green cards, suggesting Obama will grant executive amnesty after the November elections. Breitbart.com uncovered a draft solicitation for bids issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) dated Oct. 6, which states vendors must have the capacity to deal with a “surge” of 9 million id cards in one year “to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements.”

“The requirement is for an estimated 4 million cards annually with the potential to buy as many as 34 million cards total. The ordering periods for this requirement shall be for a total of five (5) years,” the document said.

The enormous number far exceeds Democrats’ long-time repeated claims of between 8 and 12 million illegal aliens residing in the United States.

“The guaranteed minimum for each ordering period is 4,000,000 cards. The estimated maximum for the entire contract is 34,000,000 cards,” the government solicitation says.

Front loading such an enormous number of applications not only smells of dirty political tricks, but actually poses a public safety risk. According to Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the policy will put Americans at risk.

“There aren’t enough federal employees from here to Pluto to do adequate background checks on 34 million,” said Dane.

Dane told Watchdog.org that President Obama appears “to be getting his ducks in a row” before legalizing illegal residents by executive fiat following the midterm elections. Without a Republican-controlled Senate to block the appropriations made by the executive branch, amnesty for upwards of 34 million illegal immigrants is a certainty.

A USCIS official told MailOnline the solicitation for green cards was published “in case the president makes the move we think he will.”

President Obama over the summer delayed granting amnesty when — fueled by a surge of illegal immigrations pouring over the border — the polls took a turn for the worst. Illegal immigration activists were furious, but the president said “the politics of immigration have changed” due to the border crisis.

Red-state Democrats pressured the president to hold off on granting executive amnesty, which apparently, they plan to do after the voters can hold them accountable.

Newly uncovered government print orders request vendors

Politics, Video

Monica_Lewinsky_Speech

Monica Lewinsky addresses her affair with former President Bill Clinton and the Internet’s ability to shred reputations at the Forbes Under 30 Summit in Philadelphia.

Monica Lewinsky spoke at the Forbes Under 30 Summit in Philadelphia on her affair with President Bill Clinton and her experience with the Internet’s ability to shred reputations. The most well-known intern ever, said she fell in love with her “boss” and former president Bill Clinton.

“There are those who say, Monica, why don’t you just shut up? Why don’t you just go away?” Lewinsky said. “They said it in June, after a piece I wrote in Vanity Fair, my first public words in over ten years. And they will say it today after this one, my first major public talk, ever, and they will say it tomorrow and the day after that.”

The Clinton attack machine came out again in full force after her Vanity Fair article, in which she discussed how the Clinton attacks destroyed her life.

“‘They’ never shut up,” she said of the talking heads.

Lewinsky says she won’t be deterred by future attacks, because she believes she can offer insight to a problem that is quickly gaining in importance in U.S. society — cyber bullying.

“The problem is that I believe in the power of story. In the power of stories to inspire, comfort, educate and change things for the better: fictional stories, stories from history, news stories and yes, personal stories,” she said during the speech. “I believe my story can help.”

The Vanity Fair interview was the first in roughly 10 years from Ms. Lewinsky, who is now again in the public eye amid a near certainty that Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2016. She says, however, it is helping — not Hillary — that has caused her to reemerged into the public spotlight.

“Help to do something to change the culture of humiliation we inhabit and that inhabits us. I had been publicly silent for a decade. But now, I must – as T.S. Eliot’s Prufrock said – disturb the universe.”

Monica Lewinsky spoke at the Forbes Under

Elections

tom_cotton_mark_pryor_arkansas_senate_race_ap

Vulnerable incumbent Democrat Mark Pryor (left) and Republican Rep. Tom Cotton (right) are pictured in this composite image. (Photos: AP)

Republican Rep. Tom Cotton is now heavily favored to defeat incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor in the Arkansas Senate race this November, resulting in a much-needed net gain for the GOP. Recent data have increased Cotton’s chances of victory to 84 percent, up from 70 percent when we last visited the race, resulting in a strong Likely Republican rating and almost no chance that Pryor ends up holding on.

Let’s take a look at the commentary, analysis, polling, state data and, of course, you can always get an idea of the overall political landscape by checking out the 2014 Senate Map and generic ballot tabs on the end.

[tabs id=”ARSen” title=”Arkansas Senate Race – Cotton Vs. Pryor”] [tab title=”Commentary”]

The PPD model has always been more bullish on Rep. Tom Cotton in the Arkansas Senate race juxtaposed to other models, particularly the well-respected guys at Crystal Ball. We even previously disputed a decision they made to move the race to “Leans Democrat” some months back based on one PPP Poll before again moving it all the way to back to “Leans Republican” where it sits now.

We have always been pretty clear on our assessment, which is, even though Mark Pryor is a strong candidate and is certainly no Blanche Lincoln, it is more likely than not that he is going to lose. Now, both the public polling and PPD tracking data are converging with the “big picture” fundamentals.

Since mid-August, a single poll — CNN/Opinion Research — found him polling at 47 percent support. Pryor’s challenged by the reality he must run stronger than usual for a Democrat in the only swing region of the state remaining — the South — which means he must outperform in Arkansas’s 4th Congressional District, and you may have already guessed that it happens to be represented by Mr. Cotton. The district has continued to trend Republican, voting for Mitt Romney by a 26-point margin and currently has a PVI (Partisan Voting Index) of R+15.

In our analysis, we’ll talk more about the landscape in Arkansas county-by-county, and how each candidate is performing. The bottom line, Pryor isn’t just statistically challenged because of the estimated composition of the midterm electorate. With these numbers, even in an environment similar to presidential election level turnout, Pryor would still lose.

[/tab]

[tab title=”Analysis”]

In order to put the data into context, let’s take a look at the 2002 Arkansas Senate race results by county, when Pryor defeated a then-severely damaged candidate, Tim Hutchinson, 53.90 to 46.10 percent.

arkansas senate race

This was a particularly strong performance for Pryor considering 2002 was a fairly good Republican year. But if we look at the counties Pryor carried with 60 percent or more of the vote (dark blue) and 50 – 59 percent (light blue), then 1) the past performance is even more impressive, and 2) we will have a more in-depth understanding of Pryor’s current challenges. Forgive the rendition of the map, but you’ll get the point.

2002 Arkansas Senate race Pryor 60+ counties

Pryor was able to hold down Hutchinson’s margins in the reliably Republican regions, including in the Northwest, save for Benton. He won Pulaski County handily, which is where Little Rock is located, but also did well in its suburbs. Obviously, he carried the Delta counties by overwhelming margins, largely because it is one of the few regions of the state with a substantial black voter presence.

But, even with all of that aside, Pryor’s relatively narrow win came from his performance in southern Arkansas. This is where Pryor’s father comes into consideration. He represented the area in Congress, and Pryor carried almost all of these counties.

It is fair to call southern Arkansas a borderline swing region of the state. Prior Democrats who went down in defeat were very close to mirroring Pryor’s performance in the Delta and in Pulaski County. However, because they were not as strong in the southern region of the state, they lost. In 2000, Al Gore split these counties with George Bush, and lost the state by five points. In 2004, John Kerry lost nearly all of them. Demonstrating Pryor’s strength, Kerry and Gore didn’t come anywhere near the 70 percent level of support that Pryor enjoyed, even in the Democrat-friendly counties they won.

While Democrats typically perform well in the Delta, Little Rock and southern Arkansas, all of these counties combined cannot deliver a Democratic victory without duplicating or coming close to duplicating Pryor’s 2002 performance in the “southern swing” region. Why is this unlikely? Well, a large part of the region falls within Arkansas’s 4th Congressional District, which again, is Cotton country. Take a look at the map below, and zoom in a few clicks if necessary.

Notice the overlap? As of now, Cotton leads Pryor in both recent polling and PPD tracking in the 4th Congressional District by an average 48.5 – 40.5 percent. In fact, unsurprisingly, Pryor holds a smaller 5.5 percent lead in only one district, the Democratic-leaning 2nd Congressional District. Meanwhile, Cotton holds commanding leads in the 1st and 3rd Congressional Districts.

The bottom line is that Mr. Pryor simply does not have enough votes to avoid defeat. Even if we were to assume a more favorable Democratic electorate — say the 2012 election cycle — Pryor would actually lose support, and would still trail by a healthy 8-point margin.

Of course, in politics anything can happen in two weeks. But, realistically, no one anticipates it will. It would have to be a truly earth-shattering event to change voters’ minds to the tune of 10-points at this point. I hesitate to ever call a race safe, but the GOP can count this one as a net pickup.

[/tab]
[tab title=”Polls”]

Poll Date Sample MoE Cotton (R) Pryor (D) Raw Spread PPD Spread
PPD Average 8/18 – 10/16 — — 47.3 41.2 Cotton +6.1 Cotton +8
Talk Business Poll* 10/15 – 10/16 2075 LV 2.2 49 40.5 Cotton +9.5
Rasmussen Reports 10/13 – 10/15 940 LV 4 47 44 Cotton +3
FOX News* 10/4 – 10/7 707 LV 3.5 46 39 Cotton +7
CBS News/NYT/YouGov 9/20 – 10/1 1991 LV 2 45 41 Cotton +4
Rasmussen Reports 9/24 – 9/25 750 LV 4 47 40 Cotton +7
USA Today/Suffolk* 9/20 – 9/23 500 LV 4.4 43 44.8 Pryor +1.8
Public Policy Polling (D) 9/18 – 9/21 1453 LV 2.6 45 39 Cotton +6
Gravis Marketing 9/8 – 9/11 902 LV 4 47 43 Cotton +5
NBC News/Marist* 9/2 – 9/4 639 LV 3.9 45 40 Cotton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 8/28 – 9/2 523 LV 4.5 49 47 Cotton +2
CBS News/NYT/YouGov 8/18 – 9/2 1572 LV 3.0 43 39 Cotton +4

(Please note: Our model uses separately calculated averages from weighted polls based on PPD’s Pollster Scorecard. Above is the raw spread and average.)[/tab]
[tab title=”State Data”]

POLITICS

 Arkansas National Average
Partisanship
% Republican/Lean Republican 39 39
% Democratic/Lean Democratic 41 43
Registered Republicans N/A —
Registered Democrats N/A —
Unaffiliated/Undeclared N/A —
Ideology
% Conservative 41 36
% Moderate 35 36
% Liberal 17 23
Presidential Job Approval
% Approve 32.5 40.6
Partisan Voting Index
Strongly Republican R+14 —

[/tab]

[tab title=”2014 Senate Map”]

[show-map id=’1′]

LEGEND: SAFE DEM | LIKELY DEM | LEANS DEM | TOSS-UP | LEANS GOP | LIKELY GOP | SAFE GOP

[/tab]

[tab title=”Generic Ballot”]

[table id=3 /]

[/tab]

[/tabs]

Republican Rep. Tom Cotton is now heavily

Politics

Michelle Nunn and Barack Obama

Georgia Democrat nominee for U.S. Senate Michelle Nunn and President Barack Obama.

Jim McGrath, a spokesman for former President George H.W. Bush, said the Democratic nominee for Senate in Georgia was “repeatedly and consistently told that President Bush did not want them to use his photo as part of this campaign.”

The former president endorsed Republican David Perdue over Michelle Nunn, but you would never know it from her ads. In her new “Familiar,” Nunn tried to explain away the photo above that the GOP has used to tie her to President Obama, who is deeply unpopular nationwide and in the Peach State.

“Apparently, the Nunn team feels they can repeatedly disregard the former president’s wishes, which is very disappointing because it’s so disrespectful,” said McGrath.

The Nunn camp appears to be simply ignoring calls from the former president to stop running the ads, opting instead to run the risk of voters becoming aware of the deception. When asked to respond, Nunn spokesman Nathan Click said that she “has the utmost respect for President Bush and their work together at Points of Light.”

What? That’s not exactly the issue, is it?

This is the second time Nunn has made headlines for using the former president to curry favor with Georgian voters, with a similar situation occurring back in April.

McGrath said in an email that “several of the president’s representatives have discreetly and directly communicated to all levels of the Nunn campaign that his photo was not to be used under any circumstance.”

The Georgia Senate race has tightened in recent weeks, though the race is still Perdue’s to lose, according to PPD’s 2014 Senate Map Predictions model.

The HW Bush camp said Michelle Nunn

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe