TexasCHLforum.com

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pol ... ls-sharply
Poll: Democratic enthusiasm falls sharply
By Jonathan Easley - 07/25/12 02:46 PM ET

Democrats are far less enthusiastic about the 2012 election than they were in 2004 and 2008, according to a new poll released on Wednesday.

A Gallup/USA Today poll found that only 39 percent of Democrats now say they are “more enthusiastic than usual” about the 2012 election. That’s down from 68 percent in 2004 and 61 in 2008.

Republicans, conversely, have seen a sharp rise since 2008, when only 35 percent said they were “more enthusiastic than usual.” In the latest survey, 51 percent said they were enthusiastic about the upcoming election, a 12-point advantage over the Democrats.

Other data points:

• a significant part of the decline in democrat enthusiasm has come since the Obama/Romney kicked off this year. Back in February, Democrat enthusiasm only trailed Republican enthusiasm 53 to 45.
• Obama's vote ceiling is expected to be lower this year than 4 years ago, and he can't take certain voter blocks for granted as before.
• For instance: even though Obama holds an almost 40 percent lead among Hispanic voters, according to an NBC News-Wall Street Journal-Telemundo poll released on Wednesday, that poll also found that only 68% of Hispanics are interested in the 2012 election—compared to 79% for the national average.

This is great news for republicans, if we can keep up that momentum.

Umm, what's a vote ceiling? Haven't heard that term before.

That's weird....there was another reply besides yours, but I guess it got deleted. Anyway.....

sjfcontrol wrote:Umm, what's a vote ceiling? Haven't heard that term before.

I think that "ceiling" refers to the total number of votes he was able to command in 2008, versus how it's shaking out this year. So, as they say in the article:

Obama’s ceiling for the 2012 election is widely believed to be lower than that of his unique and history-making 2008 run, so the president can’t afford to take for granted those groups that turned out for him with such energy in the last election.

In other words, he will likely have a lower turnout this year than 2012 because of the lack of enthusiasm in the base, and therefore he cannot afford to take any of his traditional grievance groups for granted.......which is too bad for him, because they're not showing as much enthusiasm this time around either.

And here is something not only telling, but downright scary:

http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-unrest-gear-283/
DHS gears up for civil unrest prior to presidential elections
Published: 28 July, 2012, 12:49
Reuters / Frank Polich

The Department of Homeland Security has ordered masses of riot gear equipment to prepare for potential significant domestic riots at the Republican National Convention, Democratic National Convention and next year’s presidential inauguration.

The DHS submitted a rushed solicitation to the Federal Business Opportunities site on Wednesday, which is a portal for Federal government procurement requisitions over $25,000. The request gave the potential suppliers only one day to submit their proposals and a 15-day delivery requirement to Alexandria, Virginia.

As the brief explains, “the objective of this effort is to procure riot gear to prepare for the 2012 Democratic and Republican National Conventions, the 2013 Presidential Inauguration and other future similar activities.”

Ask yourself this: Who's going to be rioting? Republicans aren't going to be rioting. That's not what we do. Conservatives aren't going to be rioting. That's not what we do. The Tea Party isn't going to be rioting. That's not what we do. So who is going to be rioting? Well, if it isn't republicans conservatives, or the Tea Party, then that leaves democrats, liberals, and the Occupy crowd. How does DHS have advanced knowledge of this?

The Annoyed Man wrote:That's weird....there was another reply besides yours, but I guess it got deleted.

That post that was deleted was mine. I deleted it myself as I felt that it might be too extreme for the reading public.

AEA wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:That's weird....there was another reply besides yours, but I guess it got deleted.

That post that was deleted was mine. I deleted it myself as I felt that it might be too extreme for the reading public.

Didn't seem too extreme to me.....but then maybe I've become an extremist.

Well, if you read it, you got my point. I still stand by it. I hope I am wrong.