Archive for the ‘That’s A Fact’ Category

Solar Warnings, Global Warming and Crimes Against Humanity

February 4, 14

Free Malaysia Today:

Malaysia Today:

New Straits Times:

——————————————–

Full text of my letter follows, with added links and inserted graph from http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com:

Solar warnings, global warming and crimes against humanity

Malaysian Realist

United States Secretary of State John Kerry was in Indonesia where he issued a renewed call to arms to combat climate change, calling it a “weapon of mass destruction”.

We’ve been seeing a lot of unexpectedly cool weather across the world. While this may be explained by local phenomenon such as the Northeast Monsoon in Malaysia and the Polar Vortex in the USA, a longer term trend of worldwide cooling is headed our way.

I say this because the sun – the main source of light and heat for our planet – is approaching a combined low point in output. Solar activity rises and falls in different overlapping cycles, and the low points of several cycles will coincide in the near future:

A) 11-year Schwabe Cycle which had a minimum in 2008 and is due for the next minimum in 2019, then 2030. Even at its recent peak (2013) the sun had its lowest recorded activity in 200 years.

B) 87-year Gleissberg cycle which has a currently ongoing minimum period from 1997 – 2032, corresponding to the observed ‘lack of global warming’ (more on that later).

C) 210-year Suess cycle which has its next minimum predicted to be around 2040.

Hence, solar output will very likely drop to a substantial low around 2030 – 2040. This may sound pleasant for Malaysians used to sweltering heat, but it is really not a matter to be taken lightly. Previous lows such as the Year Without A Summer (1816) and the Little Ice Age (16th to 19th century) led to many deaths worldwide from crop failures, flooding, superstorms and freezing winters.

But what about the much-ballyhooed global warming, allegedly caused by increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Won’t that more than offset the coming cooling, still dooming us all to a feverish Earth?

Regarding this matter, it is now a plainly accepted fact that there has been no global temperature rise in the past 25 years. This lack of warming is openly admitted by: NASA; The UK Met Office; the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, as well as its former head Dr. Phil Jones (he of the Climategate data manipulation controversy); Hans von Storch (Lead Author for Working Group I of the IPCC); James Lovelock (inventor of the Gaia Theory); and media entities the BBC, Forbes, Reuters, The Australian, The Economist, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.

And this is despite CO2 levels having risen more than 13%, from 349 ppm in 1987 to 396ppm today. The central thesis of global warming theory – that rising CO2 levels will inexorably lead to rising global temperatures, followed by environmental catastrophe and massive loss of human life – is proven false.

(All the above are clearly and cleanly depicted by graphs, excerpts, citations and links in my collection at http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com – as a public service.)

This is probably why anti-CO2 advocates now warn of ‘climate change’ instead. But pray tell, exactly what mechanism is there for CO2 to cause climate change if not by warming? The greenhouse effect has CO2 trapping solar heat and thus raising temperatures – as we have been warned ad nauseum by climate alarmists – so how does CO2 cause climate change when there is no warming?

Solar activity is a far larger driver of global temperature than CO2 levels, because after all, without the sun there would be no heat for greenhouse gases to trap in the first place. (Remember what I said about the Gleissberg cycle above?)

And why is any of this important to you and I? It matters because countless resources are being spent to meet the wrong challenges. Just think of all the time, energy, public attention and hard cash that have already been squandered on biofuel mandates, subsidies for solar panels and wind turbines, carbon caps and credits, bloated salaries of dignitaries, annual jet-setting climate conferences in posh five-star hotels… To say nothing of the lost opportunities and jobs (two jobs lost for every one ‘green’ job created in Spain, which now has 26% unemployment!). And most of the time it is the common working man, the taxpayer, you and I who foot the bill.

What if all this immense effort and expenditure had been put towards securing food and clean water for the impoverished (combined 11 million deaths/year)? Or fighting dengue and malaria (combined 1.222 million deaths/year)? Or preserving rivers, mangroves, rainforests and endangered species? Or preparing power grids for the increased demand that more severe winters will necessitate – the same power grids now crippled by shutting down reliable coal plants in favour of highly intermittent wind turbines?

In the face of such dire needs that can be met immediately and effectively, continuing to throw away precious money to ‘possibly, perhaps, maybe one day’ solve the non-problem of CO2 emissions is foolish, arrogant and arguably malevolent. To wit, the UN World Food Programme just announced that they are forced to scale back aid to some of the 870 million malnourished worldwide due to a $1 billion funding shortfall and the challenges of the ongoing Syrian crisis. To put this is context, a billion is a mere pittance next to the tens of billions already flushed away by attempted adherence to the Kyoto Protocol (€6.2 billion for just Germany in just 2005 alone!).

During the high times for global warmist doomsaying, sceptics and realists who questioned the unproven theories were baselessly slandered as ‘anti-science’, ‘deniers’, ‘schills for big oil’… Or even ‘war criminals’ deserving Nuremberg-style trials for their ‘crimes against humanity’!

Even now in the midst of a quarter-century of no temperature change, John Kerry derided sceptics as ‘shoddy scientists’ and ‘extreme ideologues’ who are ‘burying their head in the sand’. Ironic then that nature herself seems to be acting the ‘extreme ideologue’ by refusing to cooperate with the fantasies of climate panickers!

Now that the tables are turned, just let it be known that it was not the sceptics who flushed massive amounts of global resources down the drain – while genuine human and environmental issues languished and withered in the empty shadow of global warming hysteria. Crimes against humanity, indeed.

———————————–

All that said, I totally do not expect any apologies to be forthcoming from Datuk Renji Sathiah.

And how about some illustrative comics via Global Warming Rage Comics:

Temperature Discontinuity-gate

January 27, 14

Add another to the list of climate data scandals!

Via Principia Scientific, discovered by Steven Goddard:

——————————————–

Breaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government

In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.

Goddard’s plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is entirely fictitious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.

Goddard continues: “I discovered a huge error in their adjustments between V1 and V2. This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998, which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999, but they didn’t in the US graph.”

It doesn’t look right, because they made a gigantic error (possibly intentional) going from USHCN V1 to V2. In V1 they adjusted recent temperatures upwards (thin line below) and made no adjustment to older temperatures.

“But when they switched to V2, they started adjusting older temperatures downwards, and left post-2000 temperatures more or less intact, ” says Goddard. This created a huge jump (greater than one degree) downwards for all years prior to 2000. You can see what they did in the animation below.

Blue line is thermometer data. Thin red line is V1 adjusted. Thick red line is V2 adjusted. They created more than 1 degree warming by reversing polarity of the adjustment in the pre-2000 years. This created a double downwards adjustment for the pre-1998 years, relative to the post 1998 years.

3 Minutes to Prove Yourself Smarter (or at Least More Hardworking and Duly Diligent) Than Matt Yglesias

August 1, 13

Via AoSHQ, Twitchy revealed Matt Yglesias @mattyglesias saying that tax rates do not affect pricing.

His logic goes thusly:

No. Taxes are paid on profits not sales. It’s irrelevant to pricing. – @mattyglesias

I had to stop and think it over. With pen and paper and a calculator.

It took all of 3 minutes to compare the following:

—————

Joe and Jane both sell the same widgets.

Widget cost is $1 a piece.

For inexplicable political reasons, Joe is taxed 15% (on nett profits, not sales as Matt Yglesias correctly states) while poor Jane is taxed 20%.

If Jane sells each widget at $3 a piece, she will have after-tax take-home money of (3.00 – 1.00) x (100% – 20%) = $1.60 a piece.

Whereas Joe can undercut her by selling widgets at $2.90 a piece, and he will have after-tax take-home money of (2.90 – 1.00) x (100% – 15%) = $1.615 a piece… More than Jane gets even though he sells cheaper!

—————

Three minutes to prove that different tax rates can incentivize different pricing.

So which is it, is Matt Yglesias too lazy or too blinkered to do one measly page of basic high school maths?

And to close, this is probably a fitting graphic (WARNING, THE FOLLOWING MAY MELT THE BRAINS OF LIBERALS AS SUNLIGHT VAPORIZES VAMPIRES!):

paulryanmath

Dow Jones Celebrates Obama’s Second Term Pretty Much the Same Way it Did His First Term

November 9, 12

By binge drinking their sorrows away:

Dow drops in post-election sell-off

NEW YORK — Wall Street greeted a second Obama term the way it greeted the first.

Investors dumped stocks Wednesday in the sharpest sell-off of the year. With the election only hours behind them, they focused on big problems ahead in Washington and across the Atlantic Ocean.

Frantic selling recalled the days after Obama’s first victory, as the financial crisis raged and stocks spiraled downward.

It was the worst day for stocks this year, but not the worst after an election. That distinction belongs to 2008, when Barack Obama was elected at the depths of the financial crisis. The Dow fell 486 points the next day.

Tipped by wits0, via FireAndreaMitchell: 45 companies announce layoff plans in 48 hours following Obama’s ‘victory’.

From MSN Money:

——————————

Yep, credit must go to Obama… The allergic reaction to his second term is nowhere near as bad as it was to his first term:

Plus plenty more at the link, stretching up to 2 weeks (and 1628 points down) from his first Election win.

See also related:

Obama’s Economic Successes: A Roundup – Dozens of graphs showing just why the markets don’t trust Obama

Obama, Please Stop Talking Sh*t:

Obama Stop Talking Sh*t

Four Years On, Stock Market Still Allergic to Obama

Obama Speaketh, Stock Market Crasheth:

Dow Jones Surges After 2011 GOP Debate

American Stock Exchange ‘Celebrates’ Obama With Record CRASHES – Repeatedly!

Why Obama Will Lose November 2012

October 23, 12

UPDATE 6 NOVEMBER 2012: The title of this post changed posthumously to ‘Why Obama Should Have Lost November 2012′.

————————————

So here is the laundry list of why I firmly believe Obama is headed out the door come Election 2012.

- JOB JOBS JOBS – it’s still the economy stupid! Romney is 12 points ahead on the economy. Here’s a few dozen graphs and videos proving that Obama’s 4 years not only failed to restore the economy, but instead made it WORSE! And from the many, these few in particular are very telling about the election:

one key economic data component has been quite good at predicting presidential elections, and that is consumer confidence. If the consumer confidence index is at 100 or higher, then the incumbent party is likely to win. If not, then the opposition party wins

The table above shows that consumer confidence levels correctly predicted the outcome in 9 of the past 11 presidential elections… The near-perfect predictive power of the consumer confidence index essentially says that at the time of voting, the single most important issue comes down to the economy. As James Carville once said, “it’s the economy, stupid!” Forget the tough talks on terrorism or the flowery talks of hope; voters are rewarding or punishing the incumbent on the economy.

- Polls have Obama barely ahead, tied or even behind by a whole bunch – Romney is ahead by 12 on the economy, 10 on national security, and 8 on job creation and energy policy! And remember, pre-election polls always slant towards the Democrat.

- Romney is on track to win the popular vote:

But the one scenario that political scientists deem virtually impossible is one where undecideds who have declined to support the incumbent all year suddenly break heavily in favor of him. For most of the remaining undecideds, the choice is between voting for the challenger and staying home… it’s also relatively rare for a candidate to win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College

- And personally Obama is being viewed more and more as unlikeable.

- No incumbent has won since 1930 when tied before the election eve! Romney is now actually running ahead of previous challengers.

- Debate one was the turning point where people realized Romney is a viable challenger, not some monster as caricatured by the liberal media – my coverage and outtakes here. In one night, Romney undid months and millions that Obama spent caricaturing him.

- Further debates solidified that positive perception, with more and more voters inclined for Romney and fewer for Obama. Romney managed the third debate by keeping cool and confident as he wooed voters and portrayed likeability while Obama snarked and combated. Tipped by wits0, the debates boosted Romney’s favorability:

- Obama’s firewall of formerly unassailable states is crumbling fast!

- Obamacare – it’s always been massively unpopular. Now that it’s been upheld – and declared a massive tax! – Romney benefits from the wave of support to repeal the hated law.

- Operation Fast & Furious and the invoking of executive privilege.

- The Bengazhi consulate massacre, and now CIA head David Petraeus is pointing the finger at Obama and a retired admiral is criticizing the cowardly nonaction.

- The preference cascade. The more people start admitting they are disappointed by Obama and won’t support him this time around, the more others are encouraged to reveal their true feelings because it’s suddenly ‘acceptable’ to. This can lead to an avalanche where there didn’t seem to be even a snowflake before. Further explanation about this phenomenon at here.

- Liberal media – which was in lockstep with him in 2008 now openly dissenting.

- Demo-rats fleeing the sinking ship as they sense impending defeat.

- Other formerly staunch supporters are ditching him in droves, narrow appeal.

- His 2008 crowd is unenthusedDems 10 times more unenthused than GOP (tipped by wits0).

- Whereas GOP supporters are much more fired up than in 2008 – in fact, it’s at an all time high!

- Further to that, Pew finds that 76% of GOP likely to vote, vs 62% Dem.

- Empty stadium – even at just 51 bucks a seat. Obama can’t even fill 5000 people. Meanwhile, thousands had to be turned away from Romney rally that can fit ten thousand.

- Two days to go, and Romney’s rally draws 30,000 against Obama’s 4,000! Photo tipped by wits0:

- Bain is a huge plus, not a minus, for Romney.

- Romney is a Mormon which still rubs many Evangelicals and Protestants the wrong way – but Obama sent him their support by default thanks to his abortion and gay marriage stances.

- The most recent national polls from four pollsters — Gallup, Monmouth University, Fox News and the Pew Research Center — all show Romney winning the white vote by more than 20 points. And he is favored by Independents by 19 points! That’s something no GOP presidential candidate has done since Reagan’s landslide 1984 reelection win!

- And guess who said that independents are what matters? Why, none other than Nate Silver…

- Swing voters have hugely unfavorable views of Obama. Meanwhile, Romney’s favorability keeps improving – especially among Independents. He’s also closed the gap with women and with affluent suburbs – more than any Republican in 20 years.

- Whoever wins the Independents also usually wins the important Ohio state.

- All this swing voter support comes into play for the Electoral College… No toss ups has the vote solidly in Obama’s hands:

…But factoring in the swing states has it a very much closer race, with only a 10-vote gap and 146 swing votes up for grabs to the most favored candidate:

Above two screenshots as at 30 October 2012, one week to the election. For instance, Ohio almost always outperforms the national average in support for the Republican.

- Michael Barone at The Examiner goes state by state and comes up with Romney 315, Obama 223.

- Meanwhile, the pro-Democrat Washington Post has moved Ohio from ‘Lean Obama’ to Toss Up. Pennsylvania and its 20 votes is in play.

- And Romney is outspending Obama in all states, to the tune of $30 million.

- And Romney is ahead by 1-2 points in Iowa according to multiple pollsters.

- Ahead by 1 point in Wisconsin.

- Liberal, democrat papers are endorsing Romney. Add the Florida Sun SentineL flipping to him:

We believe Romney’s past performance is a predictor of his future behavior. He’s proven himself to be a successful businessman. He rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics from scandal and mismanagement. He worked with a Democrat-dominated legislature as governor of Massachusetts to close a $3 billion budget deficit — without borrowing and raising taxes.

And the almost 100%-endorse-the-Democrat, Des Moines register:

Our discussion repeatedly circled back to the nation’s single most important challenge: pulling the economy out of the doldrums, getting more Americans back in the workforce in meaningful jobs with promising futures, and getting the federal government on a track to balance the budget in a bipartisan manner that the country demands.

Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate.

The former governor and business executive has a strong record of achievement in both the private and the public sectors. He was an accomplished governor in a liberal state. He founded and ran a successful business that turned around failing companies. He successfully managed the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Romney has made rebuilding the economy his No. 1 campaign priority — and rightly so.

As well as the other three leading Iowa newspapers… Did I say three? Make it the other FIVE biggest papers.

- And Chicago’s second biggest paper, The Daily Herald. As well as one of the largest and most influential New Hampshire papers, the Nashua Telegraph which flips to Romney..=

…What was that about a preference cascade? List of endorsements for each side here, and Romney clearly outnumbers Obama. This matters because newspapers are a proxy for their readers.

- Ouch, the Las Vegas Review Journal – the largest daily circulation paper in Nevada doesn’t spare the flames for Obama on Benghazi, the economy and energy!

- Speaking of Benghazi… Obama revealed refusing to call it a terrorist attack on national news.

- The Wisconsin Journal joins 29 other papers in flipping to Romney – versus just 3 that flipped to Obama.

- Early voter polls seem to lean heavily for Obama, but this is actually likely due to respondents lying to look good. UPDATE: Indeed, early voting now favors Romney.

- Obama is cannibalizing Ohio early voters who would have voted for him anyway come Election Day, while Romney has focused of getting low-propensity voters in addition to likely Election Day voters. Obama counties voter turnout are down while Bush/McCain counties are up.

- Ohio early voting is seeing a 270,000 vote swing towards Romney

- Romney has cut Obama’s early voter advantage in Iowa by 75%.

- Republicans outperform Democrats in Pennsylvania absentee ballots, 55% against 36%.

- Renowned war correspondent Michael Yon anti-endorses Obama:

And there he was. Our new President. I determined to support him until he proved unworthy. Almost four years later, many people have snapped out of the trance, and that includes many non-Americans here in Asia. Obama’s magic wand has been broken over the knee of reality.

I cannot speak about the economy, education or healthcare, but I can speak about Afghanistan. Obama cannot be faulted that Afghanistan is stone-aged, or that our military strategy was wrecked when he took office. It was. The bus was in a ditch. Obama showed up with a wrecker, promising to yank it out. Today the wrecker is in the ditch atop the bus.

Our young troops are something to be proud of, and if you saw them in action you would be amazed at their courage and professionalism. The mess we shoved them into is a national shame. We provided about half the troops required for the stated strategy, then began pulling them out against a domestic political deadline that has nothing to do with the war. The surge has been a complete waste of effort.

- Lots of graphs and analysis of past data and current trends, from Dem vs GOP voter turnout, party crossover votes, Independents, the 2010 elections, nonWhite voters all point to a Romney win.

- A list of tweets via here.

- Big names including a Las Vegas odds maker predict a Romney win.

- Karl Rove lists several of the above as his reasons why he thinks Romney will win.

- On why Intrade players and Obama supporters refuse to believe that he will lose.

- Tipped by wits0: 500 high ranking military figures endorse Romney, including top generals and Pentagon brass!

- Obama could lose from 13% to 16% of supporters – who could also double the blow by voting for Romney!

- Ace lays out his condensed reasons here… Especially on how it is absurd to expect LARGER Democrat turnout than in 2008 or 2010! I mean, CNN gets a 49-49 tie with D+11 – that is, with an eleven point advantage in turnout, Obama still only manages a tie! Especially when Republican affiliation advantage keeps growing.

- While back in reality, for the first time IN HISTORY, Republicans outnumber Democrats on election day according to two major polling firms!

- Less serious… The Redskin Rule favors Romney.

- The Complete List of Barack Obama’s Scandals, Misdeeds, Crimes and Blunders here!

PROVEN: Republicans More Well Informed than ‘Reality-Based Community’ Democrats

October 22, 12

Via AoSHQ, from Director Blue:

In a scientific survey of 1,168 adults conducted during September and October of last year, respondents were asked not only multiple-choice questions, but also queries using maps, photographs and symbols. Among other subjects, participants identified international leaders, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, nations on a world map, the current unemployment and poverty rates and war casualty totals.

In a 2010 Pew survey, Republicans outperformed Democrats on 10 of 12 questions, with one tie and Democrats outperforming Republicans on just 1 of the 12. In the latest survey, however, Republicans outperformed Democrats on every single one of 19 questions.

Related, Dems think the economy (THIS RECORD BREAKINGLY BAD ECONOMY!!!!) is doing just fiiiiiiiiiiine:

Red States Income Growth NINE TIMES Higher than Blue States

October 6, 12

Via AoSHQ from USA Today:

The income of those living in red states has climbed 4.6% since the recession began in December 2007, a USA TODAY analysis of total increases found. The average income of those living in blue states and swing states saw a much slower increase. The personal income of blue states has increased 0.5%, while in the swing states, income increased 1.4%.

More: Via AoSHQ, how Blue states are dying.

See also similar vein at Obama’s Economic Successes: A Roundup and Republican Led Economy VS Democrat Led Economy.

Obama’s You Didn’t Build That – Well, Roads Didn’t Build That For Sure

August 13, 12

Another in the Communist vs Capitalist vein, from IMAO:

See also North Korea vs South Korea: We Require More Minerals, Red Primer for Children and Diplomats: History of Communism in Cartoon Form, Full Version Available.

Every State That Elected a GOP Governor in 2010 Saw a Drop In Unemployment

July 16, 12

Via AosHQ via Breitbart.com:

Kansas – 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%

Maine – 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%

Michigan – 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4%

New Mexico – 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0%

Oklahoma – 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4%

Pennsylvania – 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%

Tennessee – 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6%

Wisconsin – 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9%

Wyoming – 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1%

Alabama – 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9%

Georgia – 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2%

South Carolina – 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5%

South Dakota – 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7%

Florida – 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3%

Nevada – 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2%

Iowa – 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0%

Ohio – 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%

On the other hand, the unemployment rate in states that elected Democrats in 2010 dropped, on average, as much as the national rate decline and, in some states such as New York, the unemployment rate has risen since January of 2011.

But remember, vote Obama and his party, because, uh, coincidence.

See also related which have tons of graphs:

Obama’s Economic Successes: A Roundup

Republican Led Economy VS Democrat Led Economy

‘Landslide’ Victories in US Presidential Elections: Obama vs Reagan

June 22, 12

I’ve covered Obama compared to Reagan before at here:

As well as other mentions of that great President.

Now I’ll rehash an old comment of mine that was in response to a naive Obama worshipper who mistakenly thought that Obama’s 2008 victory was anything close to a ‘landslide’.

———————–

First, we look at the percentage of votes as follows. Wikipedia: United States presidential election, 2008:

Barack Obama vs John McCain
Electoral vote 365 vs 173
States carried 28 + DC + NE-02 vs 22
Popular vote 69,456,897 vs 59,934,814 (116:100 ratio)
Percentage 52.9% vs 45.7%

Not a very impressive map, really.

Compared to Wikipedia: United States presidential election, 1980:

Ronald Reagan vs Jimmy Carter vs John B. Anderson
Electoral vote 489 vs 49 vs 0
States carried 44 vs 6 + DC vs 0
Popular vote 43,903,230 vs 35,480,115 vs 5,719,850 (124:100:16 ratio)
Percentage 51.6% vs 41.7% vs 6.70%

Lookit that sea of red!

1980 Reagan’s 489 electoral votes clearly outstrips Obama’s 365 electoral votes. But fair enough, Reagan got 51.6% of the popular vote against Obama’s 52.9% – though one could argue that the Independent contender John B. Anderson’s 6.70% would other wise have gone to Reagan (using Anderson’s 0 electoral votes as precedent) to give the Gipper a total of 58.30%.

And a 58.30% is not a wild fantasy, because now let’s look at the even more incredible Wikipedia: United States presidential election, 1984:

Ronald Reagan vs Walter Mondale
Electoral vote 525 vs 13
States carried 49 vs 1 + DC (Head to the link and look at the map! It’s almost entirely red!)
Popular vote 54,455,472 vs 37,577,352 (145:100 ratio)
Percentage 58.8% vs 40.6%

Now even the last few blue holdouts have almost all surrendered!

So in 1984, Reagan got a far higher ratio of the electoral vote, states and popular vote than Obama in 2008. Obama is a featherweight compared to what Reagan achieved!

And note that Reagan was running for a second term, which means people voted for his 4 years of proven policies – very different from the untested Obama benefiting from anti-Bush sentiment and a crony media that refused to vet him.

In fact, adjusting for total votes cast (2008′s 129,391,711 which is 40.59% more than 1984′s 92,032,824 or 52.04% more than 1980′s 85,103,195) due to expanding population, if Reagan’s popular votes percentages were adjusted to 2008′s voting population, 1984 Reagan would have gotten 76,558,948 votes – 7,102,051 more than Obama ever managed!

Via Dan Mitchell:

——————–

And if the 2010 elections are anything to judge by:

Then 2012 will see an even more massive landslide for the Republican nominee – just as 1980 saw Reagan first elected on the back of Carter’s failed Democrat policies!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 115 other followers

%d bloggers like this: