2012 Battleground State elections that might influence the race for POTUS:
(click here for Battleground state polling - successfully predicting POTUS since 1964)
(click here for Gender Gap Swing polling - successfully predicting POTUS since...)
(click here for Independent polling...)
Colorado [9] --- House: 4 (R), 3 (D)
Florida [29] --- Senate: Nelson (D) vs Mack (R)
Missouri [10] --- Senate: McCaskill (D) vs Akin (R)
North Carolina [15] --- Governor: McCrory (R) vs Dalton (D)
Ohio [18] --- Senate: Brown (D) vs Mandel (R)
Pennsylvania [20] --- Senate: Casey (D) vs Smith (R)
Virginia [13] --- Senate: Kaine (D) vs Allen (R)
11/2/12
CO --- R +2
FL --- D +5 (+1)
MO --- D +3
NC --- R +13
OH --- D +3 (-1)
PA --- D +5
VA --- R +1 (+1)
Advantage EVEN (O -0.14)
10/30/12
CO --- R +2
FL --- D +4 (-1)
MO --- D +3 (-1)
NC --- R +13 (+1)
OH --- D +4
PA --- D +5
VA --- even (D -1)
Advantage Obama @ 0.14 (-0.57)
10/26/12
CO --- R +2
FL --- D +5 (-2)
MO --- D +4 (+1)
NC --- R +12 (-1)
OH --- D +4 (-1)
PA --- D +5 (-1)
VA --- D +1
Advantage Obama @ 0.71 (-0.29)
10/19/2012
CO --- R +2
FL --- D +7 (-1)
MO --- D +3 (-1)
NC --- R +13
OH --- D +5
PA --- D +6 (-2)
VA --- D +1
Advantage Obama @ 1.00 (-0.57)
10/12/2012
CO --- R +2
FL --- D +8 (+1)
MO --- D +4 (+1)
NC --- R +13 (+1)
OH --- D +5
PA --- D +8 (-2)
VA --- D +1 (-1)
Advantage Obama @ 1.57 (-0.29)
10/5/2012
CO --- R +2
FL --- D +7
MO --- D +3 (-1)
NC --- R +12 (+1)
OH --- D +5
PA --- D +10
VA --- D +2 (+1)
Advantage Obama @ 1.86 (-0.14)
9/28/2012
CO --- R +2 (+1)
FL --- D +7
MO --- D +4 (+1)
NC --- R +11 (+1)
OH --- D +5
PA --- D +10 (-2)
VA --- D +1
Advantage Obama @ 2.0 (-0.43)
9/21/2012
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +7 (+1)
MO --- D +3
NC --- R +10
OH --- D +5 (+1)
PA --- D +12 (-1)
VA --- D +1 (+2)
Advantage Obama @ 2.43 (+0.43)
9/14/2012
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +6 (+1)
MO --- D +3 (+2)
NC --- R +10 (+2)
OH --- D +4 (+1)
PA --- D +13
VA --- R +1 (+1)
Advantage Obama @ 2.0 (+0.14)
9/7/2012
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +5
MO --- D +1 (+1)
NC --- R +8 (+1)
OH --- D +3 (-1)
PA --- D +13 (+1)
VA --- even
Advantage Obama @ 1.86
8/31/2012
CO --- R +1
FL --- D + 5 (+1)
MO --- even (R -4)
NC --- R +7
OH --- D +4 (-1)
PA --- D +12
VA --- even
Advantage Obama @ 1.86 (+0.57)
8/24/2012
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +4 (+1)
MO --- R +4 (-2)
NC --- R +7
OH --- D +5 (-1)
PA --- D +12
VA --- even (D -1)
Advantage Obama +1.29 (+0.15)
8/17/2012
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +3 (+1)
MO --- R +6 (+1)
NC --- R +7 (-1)
OH --- D +6 (-1)
PA --- D +12 (+1)
VA --- D +1 (+1)
Advantage Obama +1.14 (+0.28)
8/10/2012
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +2
MO --- R +5 (-1)
NC --- R +8
OH --- D +7 (+1)
PA --- D +11
VA --- even
Advantage Obama +0.86 (+0.29)
8/3/2012
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +2
MO --- R +6 (-1)
NC --- R +8 (-1)
OH --- D +6 (+1)
PA --- D +11
VA --- even
Advantage Obama +0.57 (+0.43)
7/27/2012
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +2
MO --- R +7 (+1)
NC --- R +9
OH --- D +5
PA --- D +11 (-1)
VA --- even
Advantage Obama +0.14 (-0.29)
7/20/2012
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +2 (-2)
MO --- R +6
NC --- R +9
OH --- D +5 (-1)
PA --- D +12
VA --- even (R -1)
Advantage Obama +0.43 (-0.28)
7/13/2012
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +4
MO --- R +6
NC --- R +9 (+1)
OH --- D +6
PA --- D +12 (+1)
VA --- R +1
Advantage Obama +0.71
7/6/2012
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +4 (-1)
MO --- R +6
NC --- R +8
OH --- D +6
PA --- D +11
VA --- R +1 (+1)
Advantage Obama +0.71 (-0.29)
6/29/2012
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +5
MO --- R +6 (+1)
NC --- R +8 (+1)
OH --- D +6 (+1)
PA --- D +11
VA --- even (D -1)
Advantage Obama +1.0 (-0.29)
6/22/2012
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +5 (-1)
MO --- R +5 (+1)
NC --- R +7 (+1)
OH --- D +5 (-1)
PA --- D +11
VA --- D +1
Advantage Obama +1.29 (-0.57)
6/15/2012
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +6
MO --- R +4 (+1)
NC --- R +6 (+1)
OH --- D +6
PA --- D +11 (+1)
VA --- D +1
Advantage Obama +1.86 (-0.14)
6/1/2012:
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +6
MO --- R +3 (-1)
NC --- R +5 (-1)
OH --- D +6 (-1)
PA --- D +10 (+1)
VA --- D +1
Adavntage Obama +2 (+0.29)
5/25/2012:
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +6 (-3)
MO --- R +4 (+1)
NC --- R +6
OH --- D +7 (+1)
PA --- D +9 (-1)
VA --- D +1 (+1)
Advantage Obama +1.71 (-0.43) [80-34]
5/18/2012:
CO --- R +1 (+1)
FL --- D +9
MO --- R +3 (-1)
NC --- R +6
OH --- D +6 (+1)
PA --- D +10
VA --- even
Advantage Obama +2.14 (+0.14) [67-34]
5/11/2012:
CO --- even (R -1)
FL --- D +9
MO --- R +4 (+2)
NC --- R +6 (+1)
OH --- D +5
PA --- D +10
VA --- even (R -1)
Advantage Obama +2.00 (-0.14) [67-25]
5/4/2012:
CO --- R +1
FL --- D +9
MO --- R +2
NC --- R +5
OH --- D +5
PA --- D +10
VA --- R +1
Advantage Obama +2.14 [67-47]
(secret sauce polling)
Monday, April 30, 2012
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Gender Gap, President, Election, Exit Polls, 1976 - 2008, 2012 Polling
Below these tables are polls that take into account the gender gap between Obama and Romney.
In 2008, based on exit polls, Obama's gender gap advantage over McCain was 14 points.
As a prediction model, whomever wins the gender gap swing from the previous election wins the presidency...
PAR Poll Average (Post Denver Debate):
Women: Obama +7%
Men: Romney +8.6%
Gap Swing: Romney +15.6%
Poll Indicator for PAR POTUS Prediction Model: Romney
11/5/12 Monmouth/SurveyUSA
Women: Obama 51-46%; W Gap = Obama +5
Men: Romney 51-44%; M Gap = Romney +7
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +16
11/4/12 CNN/ORC
Women: Obama 53-45%; W Gap = Obama +8
Men: Romney 53-44%; M Gap = Romney +9
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +15
11/4/12 Pew
Women: Obama 53-40%; W Gap = Obama +13
Men: Romney 50-42%; M Gap = Romney +8
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +9
11/4/12 Battleground/GWU
Women: Obama 53-45%; W Gap = Obama +8
Men: Romney 52-44%; M Gap = Romney +8
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +14
11/2/12 ABC/WaPo
Women: Obama 50-48%; W Gap = Obama +2
Men: Romney 51-45%; M Gap = Romney +6
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +18
10/31/12 FOXN
Women: Obama 50-42%; W Gap = Obama +8
Men: Romney 51-42%; M Gap = Romney +9
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +15
10/30/12 CBS/NYT
Women: Obama 52-44%; W Gap = Obama +8
Men: Romney 51-44%; M Gap = Romney +7
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +13
10/29/12 Pew
Women: Obama 50-44%; W Gap = Obama +6
Men: Romney 51-44%; M Gap = Romney +7
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +15
10/29/12 Politico/GWU
Women: Obama 54-43%; W Gap = Obama +11
Men: Romney 55-43%; M Gap = Romney +12
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +15
10/25/12 AP
Women: Obama 47-47%; W Gap = even
Men: Romney 47-42%; M Gap = Romney +5
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +19
10/22/12 Monmouth/SurveyUSA
Women: Obama 49-45%; W Gap = Obama +4
Men: Romney 51-40%; M Gap = Romney +11
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +21
10/21/12 NBC/WSJ:
Women: Obama 51-43%; W Gap = Obama +8
Men: Romney 53-43%; M Gap = Romney +10
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +16
10/19/12 Hartford Courant/UCONN
Women: Obama 55-38%; W Gap = Obama +17
Men: Romney 53-41%; M Gap = Romney +12
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +9
10/16/12 Hempstead Debate
10/15/12 IBD/TIPP
Women: Obama 49-45%; W Gap = Obama +4
Men: Romney 49-44%; M Gap = Romney +5
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +15
10/11/12 Monmouth/SurveyUSA
Women: Obama 48-46%; W Gap = Obama +2
Men: Romney 49-44%; M Gap = Romney +5
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +17
10/10/2012 FOXN
Women: Obama 49-41%; W Gap = Obama +8
Men: Romney 51-41%; M Gap = Romney +10
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +16
10/10/2012 IBD/TIPP
Women: Obama 50-36%; W Gap = Obama +14
Men: Romney 57-42%; M Gap = Romney +15
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +15
10/8/2012 Pew
Women: even 47-47%; W Gap = even
Men: Romney 51-43%; M Gap = Romney +8
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +22
10/3/2012 Denver Debate
10/2/2012 National Journal
Women: Obama 51-44%; W Gap = Obama +7
Men: Romney 50-42%; M Gap = Romney +8
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +15
10/2/2012 Quinnipiac
Women: Obama 56-38%; W Gap = Obama +18
Men: Romney 52-42%; M Gap = Romney +10
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +6
10/1/2012 CNN/ORC
Women: Obama 53-44%; W Gap = Obama +9
Men: Romney 50-47%; M Gap = Romney +3
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +8
9/27/2012 USAToday/Gallup
Women: Obama 57-35%; W Gap = Obama +22
Men: Romney 51-35%; M Gap = Romney +16
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +8
9/10/2012 IBD/CSM/TIPP
Women: Obama 51-40%; W Gap = Obama +11
Men: Romney 48-40%; M Gap = Romney +8
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +11
8/27/2012 ABC/Wash Post
Women: Obama 49-43%; W Gap = Obama +6
Men: Romney 51-42%; M Gap = Romney +9
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +17
8/23/2012 FOXN
Women: Obama 48-42%; W Gap = Obama +6
Men: Romney 48-40%; M Gap = Romney +8
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +16
8/11/2012 IBD/CSM/TIPP
Women: Obama 46-37%; W Gap = Obama +9
Men: Obama 47-41%; M Gap = Obama +6
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Obama +1
8/8/2012 CNN/ORC
Women: Obama 53-44%; W Gap = Obama +9
Men: Obama 51-45%; M Gap = Obama +6
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Obama +1
7/11/2012 Quinnipiac
Women: Obama 47-40%; W Gap = Obama +7
Men: Romney 51-39%; M Gap = Romney +12
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +19
5/22/201 WSJ/NBC
Women: Obama 53-38%; W Gap = Obama +17
Men: Romney 49-40%; M Gap = Romney +9
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +6
5/14/2012 CBS/NYT
Women: Romney 46-44%
Men: Romney 45-42%
W Gap = Romney +2
M Gap = Romney +3
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +19
5/7/2012 IDB/CSM/TIPP
Women: Obama 49-40%
Men: Romney 46-43%
W Gap = Obama +9
M Gap = Romney +3
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +8
5/6/2012 Battleground
W Gap = Obama +7 (swing -6 from 2008)
M Gap = Romney +7 (swing +8 from 2008)
Gap Swing Advantage = Romney +14
5/3/2012 Quinnipiac*
Women: Obama 49-38%
Men: Romney 46-40%
W Gap = Obama +11 (swing -2 from 2008)
M Gap = Romney +6 (swing +7 from 2008)
Gap Swing Advantage = Romney +9
*this poll only takes into account 3 swing states
FL:
Women: Obama 44-42%
Men: Romney 46-42%
OH:
Women: Obama 50-37%
Men: Romney 48-38%
PA:
Women: Obama 52-35%
Men: Romney 44-41%
4/18/2012 CBS/NYT
Obama leads Romney among women 49-43%
(married women favor Romney over Obama 49-42%)
Romney leads Obama among men 49-43%
W Gap = Obama +6 (swing -7 from 2008)
M Gap = Romney +6 (swing +7 from 2008)
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 to 2012 = Romney +14
4/17/2012 Pew
Obama leads Romney among women 53-40%
Romney leads Obama among men 50-44%
W Gap = Obama +13 (swing of 0 from Obama 2008)
M Gap = Romney +6 (swing of +7 from R 2008)
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 to 2012 = Romney +7
4/16/2012 CNN
Obama leads Romney among women, 55-39%
Obama leads Romney among men, 49-46%
W Gap = Obama +16 (swing of +3 from Obama 2008)
M Gap = Obama +3 (swing of +2 from Obama 2008)
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 to 2012 = Obama +5
4/12/2012 FOXN
Obama leads Romney among women, 49-41%
Romney leads Obama among men 52-38%
W Gap = Obama +8 (swing of -5 from Obama 2008)
M Gap = Romney +14 (swing of +15 from R 2008)
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 to 2012 = Romney +20
4/10/2012 ABC/WaPo
Obama leads Romney among women, 57-38%
Romney leads Obama among men 52-44%
W Gap = Obama +19 (swing of +6 from Obama 2008)
M Gap = Romney +8 (swing of +9 from R 2008)
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Romney +3
3/26/2012 Gallup/USA Today*
Obama leads Romney among women 56-38%
Romney leads Obama among men 48-47%
W Gap = Obama +18 (swing of +5 from Obama 2008)
M Gap = Romney +1 (swing of +2 from R 2008)
Gap Swing Advantage from 2008 = Obama +3
*this poll only takes into account 12 swing states
Friday, March 16, 2012
Election Polls, Battleground States, CO, FL, MO, NC, OH, PA, VA, Electoral College, President, Obama, Romney, predicted winner
270 Electoral votes needed for victory
Assuming as a given: Obama 222 (-38); Romney 181 (-89)
(114) Colorado 9, Florida 29, Missouri 10, North Carolina 15, Ohio 18, Pennsylvania 20, Virginia 13
*since 1964, margin average decides POTUS...
**Data represents poll sample weights ranging from +6 Democrat to +1 Republican
11/5/2012
CO 49 - 48 Romney +1
FL 49 - 48 Romney +1
MO 55 - 44 Romney +11 (-1)
NC 51 - 48 Romney +3 (-1)
OH 49 - 48 Obama +1 (-1)
PA 52 - 48 Obama +4 (-1)
VA 49 - 48 Romney +1
Advantage Romney @ 1.86
11/1/2012
CO 49 - 48 Romney +1 (+1)
FL 49 - 47 Romney +2
MO 56 - 44 Romney +12 (+2)
NC 50 - 46 Romney +4 (-1)
OH 49 - 47 Obama +2
PA 48 - 43 Obama +5
VA 48 - 47 Romney +1
POTUS: Romney @ 1.86 (+0.29)
10/27/2012
CO 47 - 47 even (-2)
FL 48 - 46 Romney +2 (-1)
MO 52 - 42 Romney +10 (+2)
NC 51 - 46 Romney +5 (+1)
OH 48 - 46 Obama +2 (+1)
PA 48 - 43 Obama +5
VA 48 - 47 Romney +1
POTUS: Romney @ 1.57 (-0.14)
10/24/2012
CO 48 - 46 Romney +2 (+2)
FL 49 - 46 Romney +3
MO 50 - 42 Romney +8
NC 50 - 46 Romney +4
OH 47 - 46 Obama +1 (-1)
PA 48 - 43 Obama +5
VA 48 - 47 Romney +1
POTUS: Romney @ 1.71 (+0.42)
[10/22 - Boca Raton Debate]
10/19/2012
CO 46 - 46 even (R -1)
FL 49 - 46 Romney +3 (+1)
MO 48 - 40 Romney +8 (+2)
NC 49 - 45 Romney +4 (+1)
OH 47 - 45 Obama +2 (+1)
PA 48 - 43 Obama +5 (-1)
VA 47 - 46 Romney +1 (+2)
POTUS: Romney @ 1.29 (+0.72)
[10/16 - Hempstead Debate]
10/12/2012
CO 45 - 44 Romney +1 (+1)
FL 47 - 45 Romney +2 (+2)
MO 46 - 40 Romney +6
NC 47 - 44 Romney +3 (+1)
OH 46 - 45 Obama +1 (-1)
PA 47 - 41 Obama +6 (-1)
VA 46 - 45 Obama +1
POTUS: Romney @ 0.57 (+0.86)
10/5/2012
CO 44 - 44 even (-2)
FL 45 - 45 even (-2)
MO 46 - 40 Romney +6 (-1)
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2
OH 46 - 44 Obama +2 (-1)
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7
VA 46 - 45 Obama +1 (-1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.29 (-0.71)
[10/3 - Denver Debate]
9/28/2012
CO 45 - 43 Obama +2
FL 45 - 43 Obama +2
MO 47 - 40 Romney +7
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2
OH 46 - 43 Obama +3 (-1)
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7 (-1)
VA 46 - 44 Obama +2
POTUS: Obama @ 1.00 (-0.29)
9/21/2012
CO 45 - 43 Obama +2 (-1)
FL 46 - 44 Obama +2 (+1)
MO 47 - 40 Romney +7
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2 (-1)
OH 46 - 42 Obama +4 (+1)
PA 48 - 40 Obama +8
VA 46 - 44 Obama +2 (+1)
POTUS: Obama @ 1.29 (+0.43)
9/14/2012
CO 46 - 43 Obama +3 (+1)
FL 45 - 44 Obama +1
MO 47 - 40 Romney +7 (-1)
NC 46 - 43 Romney +3 (+1)
OH 45 - 42 Obama +3 (+1)
PA 48 - 40 Obama +8
VA 45 - 44 Obama +1
POTUS: Obama @ 0.86 (+0.29)
9/7/2012
CO 45 - 43 Obama +2
FL 45 - 44 Obama +1 (-1)
MO 48 - 40 Romney +8 (+1)
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2
OH 44 - 42 Obama +2
PA 48 - 40 Obama +8
VA 45 - 44 Obama +1 (+1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.57 (-0.14)
8/31/2012
CO 44 - 42 Obama +2
FL 45 - 43 Obama +2 (+1)
MO 47 - 40 Romney +7 (+1)
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2
OH 44 - 42 Obama +2 (-1)
PA 48 - 40 Obama +8
VA 44 - 44 even
POTUS: Obama @ 0.71 (-0.15)
8/24/2012
CO 45 - 43 Obama +2 (+1)
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1 (-1)
MO 46 - 40 Romney +6 (-1)
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2
OH 45 - 42 Obama +3 (+1)
PA 48 - 40 Obama +8 (+1)
VA 44 - 44 even
POTUS: Obama @ 0.86 (+0.43)
8/17/2012
CO 44 - 43 Obama +1 (+1)
FL 45 - 43 Obama +2 (-1)
MO 47 - 40 Romney +7 (-1)
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2
OH 44 - 42 Obama +2 (-1)
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7
VA 44 - 44 even (Obama - 1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.43 (-0.14)
8/10/2012
CO 43 - 43 even
FL 45 - 42 Obama +3 (+1)
MO 48 - 40 Romney +8
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2 (-1)
OH 45 - 42 Obama +3
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7
VA 45 - 44 Obama +1 (+1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.57 (+0.28)
8/3/2012
CO 43 - 42 Obama +1 (-1)
FL 44 - 42 Obama +2 (+1)
MO 48 - 40 Romney +8 (+1)
NC 46 - 43 Romney +3 (+1)
OH 45 - 42 Obama +3 (+1)
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7 (+1)
VA 44 - 44 even
POTUS: Obama @ 0.29
7/27/2012
CO 44 - 42 Obama +2
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1
MO 47 - 40 Romney +7 (+1)
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2
OH 45 - 43 Obama +2 (+1)
PA 46 - 40 Obama +6
VA 43 - 43 even (Obama -1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.29 (-0.14)
7/20/2012
CO 43 - 41 Obama +2 (-1)
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1
MO 46 - 40 Romney +6
NC 44 - 42 Romney +2 (-1)
OH 44 - 43 Obama +1 (+1)
PA 46 - 40 Obama +6 (-1)
VA 43 - 42 Obama +1
POTUS: Obama @ 0.43
7/13/2012
CO 44 - 41 Obama +3
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1
MO 46 - 40 Romney +6
NC 45 - 42 Romney +3
OH even
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7 (+1)
VA 43 - 42 Obama +1 (-1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.43
7/6/2012:
CO 44 - 41 Obama +3
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1
MO 46 - 40 Romney +6
NC 45 - 42 Romney +3 (+1)
OH 43 - 43 even (Romney -1)
PA 46 - 40 Obama +6
VA 44 - 42 Obama +2
POTUS: Obama @ 0.43
6/29/2012:
CO 44 - 41 Obama +3 (+1)
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1 (+1)
MO 46 - 40 Romney +6 (+1)
NC 44 - 42 Romney +2
OH 43 - 42 Romney +1 (-1)
PA 46 - 40 Obama +6 (-1)
VA 44 - 42 Obama +2 (-1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.43
6/22/2012:
CO 44 - 42 Obama +2 (+1)
FL 44 - 44 even
MO 45 - 40 Romney +5
NC 44 - 42 Romney +2
OH 43 - 41 Romney +2 (+1)
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7 (-1)
VA 45 - 42 Obama +3
POTUS: Obama @ 0.43
6/15/2012:
CO 43 - 42 Obama +1
FL 45 - 44 Romney+1
MO 45 - 40 Romney +5 (+1)
NC 44 - 42 Romney +2 (+1)
OH 43 - 42 Romney +1 (+1)
PA 47 - 39 Obama +8
VA 45 - 42 Obama +3 (+1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.43 (-0.28)
6/8/2012:
CO 43 - 42 Obama +1 (-1)
FL 45 - 44 Romney +1 (+1)
MO 45 - 41 Romney +4 (+1)
NC 44 - 43 Romeny +1
OH 43 - 43 even (Obama -1)
PA 47 - 39 Obama +8
VA 45 - 43 Obama +2
POTUS: Obama @ 0.71 (-0.58)
6/1/2012:
CO 44 - 42 Obama +2 (-1)
FL 45 - 45 even
MO 44 - 41 Romeny +3 (-1)
NC 44 - 43 Romney +1
OH 44 - 43 Obama +1 (-1)
PA 47 - 39 Obama +8
VA 45 - 43 Obama +2
POTUS: Obama @ +1.29 (-0.14)
5/25/2012:
CO 45 - 42 Obama +3
FL 44 - 44 even (Obama -1)
MO 45 - 41 Romney +4
NC 44 - 43 Romney +1
OH 45 - 43 Obama +2
PA 47 - 39 Obama +8
VA 44 - 42 Obama +2
POTUS: Obama @ 1.43 (-0.14)
5/18/2012:
CO 45 - 42 Obama +3
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1
MO 45 - 41 Romney +4 (+1)
NC 44 - 43 Romney +1 (+2)
OH 45 - 43 Obama +2
PA 47 - 39 Obama +8 (+1)
VA 44 - 42 Obama +2
POTUS: Obama @ +1.57 (-0.29)
5/11/2012:
CO 45 - 42 Obama +3 (-1)
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1 (-1)
MO 44 - 41 Romney +3
NC 44 - 43 Obama +1
OH 45 - 43 Obama +2 (-1)
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7 (+1)
VA 44 - 42 Obama +2 (+1)
POTUS: Obama @ +1.86 (-0.14)
5/4/2012:
CO 45 - 41 Obama +4 (+1)
FL 44 - 42 Obama +2 (-1)
MO 44 - 41 Romney +3
NC 44 - 43 Obama +1 (-1)
OH 45 - 42 Obama +3 (-1)
PA 46 - 40 Obama +6 (+1)
VA 44 - 43 Obama +1
POTUS: Obama @ +2.00 (-0.14)
4/27/2012:
CO 45 - 42 Obama +3 (-1)
FL 45 - 42 Obama +3
MO 44 - 41 Romney +3 (-1)
NC 44 - 42 Obama +2
OH 45 - 41 Obama +4
PA 45 - 40 Obama +5
VA 44 - 43 Obama +1 (-1)
POTUS: Obama @ +2.14 (-0.15)
4/20/2012:
CO 45 - 41 Obama +4
FL 45 - 42 Obama +3
MO 44 - 40 Romney +4
NC 44 - 42 Obama +2 (-1)
OH 44 - 40 Obama +4
PA 45 - 40 Obama +5
VA 44 - 42 Obama +2
POTUS: Obama @ +2.29 (-0.14)
4/13/2012:
CO 46 - 42 Obama +4 (+1)
FL 44 - 41 Obama +3
MO 45 - 41 Romney +4
NC 45 - 42 Obama +3 (+1)
OH 45 - 41 Obama +4
PA 45 - 40 Obama +5 (-1)
VA 44 - 42 Obama +2 (-1)
POTUS: Obama @ +2.43 (0)
4/6/2012:
CO 45 - 42 Obama +3 (+1)
FL 44 - 41 Obama +3
MO 45 - 41 Romney +4 (+1)
NC 45 - 43 Obama +2
OH 45 - 41 Obama +4 (-1)
PA 46 - 40 Obama +6 (+1)
VA 44 - 41 Obama + 3 (-1)
POTUS: Obama @ +2.43 (-0.14)
3/30/2012:
CO 45 - 43 Obama + 2
FL 44 - 41 Obama +3
MO 45 - 42 Romney +3
NC 45 - 43 Obama +2
OH 46 - 41 Obama +5
PA 45 - 40 Obama +5 (-1)
VA 45 - 41 Obama +4
POTUS: Obama @ +2.57 (-0.14)
3/23/2012:
CO 45 - 43 Obama +2
FL 44 - 41 Obama +3
MO 45 - 42 Romney +3
NC 46 - 44 Obama +2 (-1)
OH 46 - 41 Obama +5 (+1)
PA 46 - 40 Obama +6
VA 45 - 41 Obama +4 (+1)
POTUS: Obama @ +2.71 (+0.14)
3/16/2012:
CO 45 - 43 Obama +2
FL 45 - 42 Obama +3
MO 44 - 41 Romney +3
NC 46 - 43 Obama +3
OH 45 - 41 Obama +4
PA 45 - 39 Obama +6
VA 45 - 42 Obama +3
POTUS: Obama @ +2.57
(Secret Sauce Polling)
Assuming as a given: Obama 222 (-38); Romney 181 (-89)
(114) Colorado 9, Florida 29, Missouri 10, North Carolina 15, Ohio 18, Pennsylvania 20, Virginia 13
*since 1964, margin average decides POTUS...
**Data represents poll sample weights ranging from +6 Democrat to +1 Republican
11/5/2012
CO 49 - 48 Romney +1
FL 49 - 48 Romney +1
MO 55 - 44 Romney +11 (-1)
NC 51 - 48 Romney +3 (-1)
OH 49 - 48 Obama +1 (-1)
PA 52 - 48 Obama +4 (-1)
VA 49 - 48 Romney +1
Advantage Romney @ 1.86
11/1/2012
CO 49 - 48 Romney +1 (+1)
FL 49 - 47 Romney +2
MO 56 - 44 Romney +12 (+2)
NC 50 - 46 Romney +4 (-1)
OH 49 - 47 Obama +2
PA 48 - 43 Obama +5
VA 48 - 47 Romney +1
POTUS: Romney @ 1.86 (+0.29)
10/27/2012
CO 47 - 47 even (-2)
FL 48 - 46 Romney +2 (-1)
MO 52 - 42 Romney +10 (+2)
NC 51 - 46 Romney +5 (+1)
OH 48 - 46 Obama +2 (+1)
PA 48 - 43 Obama +5
VA 48 - 47 Romney +1
POTUS: Romney @ 1.57 (-0.14)
10/24/2012
CO 48 - 46 Romney +2 (+2)
FL 49 - 46 Romney +3
MO 50 - 42 Romney +8
NC 50 - 46 Romney +4
OH 47 - 46 Obama +1 (-1)
PA 48 - 43 Obama +5
VA 48 - 47 Romney +1
POTUS: Romney @ 1.71 (+0.42)
[10/22 - Boca Raton Debate]
10/19/2012
CO 46 - 46 even (R -1)
FL 49 - 46 Romney +3 (+1)
MO 48 - 40 Romney +8 (+2)
NC 49 - 45 Romney +4 (+1)
OH 47 - 45 Obama +2 (+1)
PA 48 - 43 Obama +5 (-1)
VA 47 - 46 Romney +1 (+2)
POTUS: Romney @ 1.29 (+0.72)
[10/16 - Hempstead Debate]
10/12/2012
CO 45 - 44 Romney +1 (+1)
FL 47 - 45 Romney +2 (+2)
MO 46 - 40 Romney +6
NC 47 - 44 Romney +3 (+1)
OH 46 - 45 Obama +1 (-1)
PA 47 - 41 Obama +6 (-1)
VA 46 - 45 Obama +1
POTUS: Romney @ 0.57 (+0.86)
10/5/2012
CO 44 - 44 even (-2)
FL 45 - 45 even (-2)
MO 46 - 40 Romney +6 (-1)
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2
OH 46 - 44 Obama +2 (-1)
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7
VA 46 - 45 Obama +1 (-1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.29 (-0.71)
[10/3 - Denver Debate]
9/28/2012
CO 45 - 43 Obama +2
FL 45 - 43 Obama +2
MO 47 - 40 Romney +7
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2
OH 46 - 43 Obama +3 (-1)
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7 (-1)
VA 46 - 44 Obama +2
POTUS: Obama @ 1.00 (-0.29)
9/21/2012
CO 45 - 43 Obama +2 (-1)
FL 46 - 44 Obama +2 (+1)
MO 47 - 40 Romney +7
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2 (-1)
OH 46 - 42 Obama +4 (+1)
PA 48 - 40 Obama +8
VA 46 - 44 Obama +2 (+1)
POTUS: Obama @ 1.29 (+0.43)
9/14/2012
CO 46 - 43 Obama +3 (+1)
FL 45 - 44 Obama +1
MO 47 - 40 Romney +7 (-1)
NC 46 - 43 Romney +3 (+1)
OH 45 - 42 Obama +3 (+1)
PA 48 - 40 Obama +8
VA 45 - 44 Obama +1
POTUS: Obama @ 0.86 (+0.29)
9/7/2012
CO 45 - 43 Obama +2
FL 45 - 44 Obama +1 (-1)
MO 48 - 40 Romney +8 (+1)
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2
OH 44 - 42 Obama +2
PA 48 - 40 Obama +8
VA 45 - 44 Obama +1 (+1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.57 (-0.14)
8/31/2012
CO 44 - 42 Obama +2
FL 45 - 43 Obama +2 (+1)
MO 47 - 40 Romney +7 (+1)
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2
OH 44 - 42 Obama +2 (-1)
PA 48 - 40 Obama +8
VA 44 - 44 even
POTUS: Obama @ 0.71 (-0.15)
8/24/2012
CO 45 - 43 Obama +2 (+1)
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1 (-1)
MO 46 - 40 Romney +6 (-1)
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2
OH 45 - 42 Obama +3 (+1)
PA 48 - 40 Obama +8 (+1)
VA 44 - 44 even
POTUS: Obama @ 0.86 (+0.43)
8/17/2012
CO 44 - 43 Obama +1 (+1)
FL 45 - 43 Obama +2 (-1)
MO 47 - 40 Romney +7 (-1)
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2
OH 44 - 42 Obama +2 (-1)
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7
VA 44 - 44 even (Obama - 1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.43 (-0.14)
8/10/2012
CO 43 - 43 even
FL 45 - 42 Obama +3 (+1)
MO 48 - 40 Romney +8
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2 (-1)
OH 45 - 42 Obama +3
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7
VA 45 - 44 Obama +1 (+1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.57 (+0.28)
8/3/2012
CO 43 - 42 Obama +1 (-1)
FL 44 - 42 Obama +2 (+1)
MO 48 - 40 Romney +8 (+1)
NC 46 - 43 Romney +3 (+1)
OH 45 - 42 Obama +3 (+1)
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7 (+1)
VA 44 - 44 even
POTUS: Obama @ 0.29
7/27/2012
CO 44 - 42 Obama +2
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1
MO 47 - 40 Romney +7 (+1)
NC 45 - 43 Romney +2
OH 45 - 43 Obama +2 (+1)
PA 46 - 40 Obama +6
VA 43 - 43 even (Obama -1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.29 (-0.14)
7/20/2012
CO 43 - 41 Obama +2 (-1)
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1
MO 46 - 40 Romney +6
NC 44 - 42 Romney +2 (-1)
OH 44 - 43 Obama +1 (+1)
PA 46 - 40 Obama +6 (-1)
VA 43 - 42 Obama +1
POTUS: Obama @ 0.43
7/13/2012
CO 44 - 41 Obama +3
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1
MO 46 - 40 Romney +6
NC 45 - 42 Romney +3
OH even
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7 (+1)
VA 43 - 42 Obama +1 (-1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.43
7/6/2012:
CO 44 - 41 Obama +3
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1
MO 46 - 40 Romney +6
NC 45 - 42 Romney +3 (+1)
OH 43 - 43 even (Romney -1)
PA 46 - 40 Obama +6
VA 44 - 42 Obama +2
POTUS: Obama @ 0.43
6/29/2012:
CO 44 - 41 Obama +3 (+1)
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1 (+1)
MO 46 - 40 Romney +6 (+1)
NC 44 - 42 Romney +2
OH 43 - 42 Romney +1 (-1)
PA 46 - 40 Obama +6 (-1)
VA 44 - 42 Obama +2 (-1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.43
6/22/2012:
CO 44 - 42 Obama +2 (+1)
FL 44 - 44 even
MO 45 - 40 Romney +5
NC 44 - 42 Romney +2
OH 43 - 41 Romney +2 (+1)
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7 (-1)
VA 45 - 42 Obama +3
POTUS: Obama @ 0.43
6/15/2012:
CO 43 - 42 Obama +1
FL 45 - 44 Romney+1
MO 45 - 40 Romney +5 (+1)
NC 44 - 42 Romney +2 (+1)
OH 43 - 42 Romney +1 (+1)
PA 47 - 39 Obama +8
VA 45 - 42 Obama +3 (+1)
POTUS: Obama @ 0.43 (-0.28)
6/8/2012:
CO 43 - 42 Obama +1 (-1)
FL 45 - 44 Romney +1 (+1)
MO 45 - 41 Romney +4 (+1)
NC 44 - 43 Romeny +1
OH 43 - 43 even (Obama -1)
PA 47 - 39 Obama +8
VA 45 - 43 Obama +2
POTUS: Obama @ 0.71 (-0.58)
6/1/2012:
CO 44 - 42 Obama +2 (-1)
FL 45 - 45 even
MO 44 - 41 Romeny +3 (-1)
NC 44 - 43 Romney +1
OH 44 - 43 Obama +1 (-1)
PA 47 - 39 Obama +8
VA 45 - 43 Obama +2
POTUS: Obama @ +1.29 (-0.14)
5/25/2012:
CO 45 - 42 Obama +3
FL 44 - 44 even (Obama -1)
MO 45 - 41 Romney +4
NC 44 - 43 Romney +1
OH 45 - 43 Obama +2
PA 47 - 39 Obama +8
VA 44 - 42 Obama +2
POTUS: Obama @ 1.43 (-0.14)
5/18/2012:
CO 45 - 42 Obama +3
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1
MO 45 - 41 Romney +4 (+1)
NC 44 - 43 Romney +1 (+2)
OH 45 - 43 Obama +2
PA 47 - 39 Obama +8 (+1)
VA 44 - 42 Obama +2
POTUS: Obama @ +1.57 (-0.29)
5/11/2012:
CO 45 - 42 Obama +3 (-1)
FL 44 - 43 Obama +1 (-1)
MO 44 - 41 Romney +3
NC 44 - 43 Obama +1
OH 45 - 43 Obama +2 (-1)
PA 47 - 40 Obama +7 (+1)
VA 44 - 42 Obama +2 (+1)
POTUS: Obama @ +1.86 (-0.14)
5/4/2012:
CO 45 - 41 Obama +4 (+1)
FL 44 - 42 Obama +2 (-1)
MO 44 - 41 Romney +3
NC 44 - 43 Obama +1 (-1)
OH 45 - 42 Obama +3 (-1)
PA 46 - 40 Obama +6 (+1)
VA 44 - 43 Obama +1
POTUS: Obama @ +2.00 (-0.14)
4/27/2012:
CO 45 - 42 Obama +3 (-1)
FL 45 - 42 Obama +3
MO 44 - 41 Romney +3 (-1)
NC 44 - 42 Obama +2
OH 45 - 41 Obama +4
PA 45 - 40 Obama +5
VA 44 - 43 Obama +1 (-1)
POTUS: Obama @ +2.14 (-0.15)
4/20/2012:
CO 45 - 41 Obama +4
FL 45 - 42 Obama +3
MO 44 - 40 Romney +4
NC 44 - 42 Obama +2 (-1)
OH 44 - 40 Obama +4
PA 45 - 40 Obama +5
VA 44 - 42 Obama +2
POTUS: Obama @ +2.29 (-0.14)
4/13/2012:
CO 46 - 42 Obama +4 (+1)
FL 44 - 41 Obama +3
MO 45 - 41 Romney +4
NC 45 - 42 Obama +3 (+1)
OH 45 - 41 Obama +4
PA 45 - 40 Obama +5 (-1)
VA 44 - 42 Obama +2 (-1)
POTUS: Obama @ +2.43 (0)
4/6/2012:
CO 45 - 42 Obama +3 (+1)
FL 44 - 41 Obama +3
MO 45 - 41 Romney +4 (+1)
NC 45 - 43 Obama +2
OH 45 - 41 Obama +4 (-1)
PA 46 - 40 Obama +6 (+1)
VA 44 - 41 Obama + 3 (-1)
POTUS: Obama @ +2.43 (-0.14)
3/30/2012:
CO 45 - 43 Obama + 2
FL 44 - 41 Obama +3
MO 45 - 42 Romney +3
NC 45 - 43 Obama +2
OH 46 - 41 Obama +5
PA 45 - 40 Obama +5 (-1)
VA 45 - 41 Obama +4
POTUS: Obama @ +2.57 (-0.14)
3/23/2012:
CO 45 - 43 Obama +2
FL 44 - 41 Obama +3
MO 45 - 42 Romney +3
NC 46 - 44 Obama +2 (-1)
OH 46 - 41 Obama +5 (+1)
PA 46 - 40 Obama +6
VA 45 - 41 Obama +4 (+1)
POTUS: Obama @ +2.71 (+0.14)
3/16/2012:
CO 45 - 43 Obama +2
FL 45 - 42 Obama +3
MO 44 - 41 Romney +3
NC 46 - 43 Obama +3
OH 45 - 41 Obama +4
PA 45 - 39 Obama +6
VA 45 - 42 Obama +3
POTUS: Obama @ +2.57
(Secret Sauce Polling)
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
US Labor Force, Participation Rate, 1984 - 2016
*12/2016: 95,102,000 able adults do not participate in the US workforce.
*10/2016: 94,609,000 US adults not participating in workforce, 425,000 increase from September.
*9/2016: 94,184,000 US adults are not participating in the workforce.
*6/2016: 94,330,000 US adults are not participating in the labor force.
*5/2016: 94,708,000 US adults are not participating in workforce; 458,000 dropped out from April to May.
*4/2016: Labor Force Participation Rate: 62.8%
*9/2015: 94,610,000 US adults are not participating in the labor force (56,647,000 women); labor participation rate: 62.4%
*6/2015: 93,626,000 US adults are not participating in the labor force; labor participation rate: 62.6%,
*4/2015: 93,194,000 US adults are not participating, 56,167,000 of which are women.
*7/2014: 92,120,000 US adults are not participating in the labor force.
*6/2014: 92,009,000 US adults are not participating in the labor force.
*5/2014: Labor participation rate: 62.8%. 92,594,000 US adults not in the labor force.
*4/2014: Labor participation rate: 63.2%.
*12/2013: Labor participation rate is 62.8%. Americans not in the labor force: 91.8 million.
*10/2013: 720,000 Americans leave the labor force. The labor force participation rate falls to 62.8%, the lowest level since 1978. One out of three adults is neither working nor actively looking for work.
*9/2013: 90,609,000 able bodied Americans are not participating in the US labor force, up 136,000 from August.
*8/2013: Labor participation rate is 63.2%, lowest August since 1978.
90,473,000 able bodied Americans are not participating in the US labor force.
*3/2013: Labor participation rate at 63.3%, labor force declined by 496,000 in March (663,000 if disability, welfare included). 89,967,000 not in labor force (9,460,000 have dropped out since Jan. 2009).
*2/2013: BLS: 296,000 Americans drop out of the labor force in February.
Number of people not in the labor force: 89,304,000.
*1/2013: BLS: 169,000 Americans drop out of the labor force in January.
Number of people not in the labor force now stands at a 89 million, up from 80.5 million in January 2009. There are currently 8.5 million more Americans not in the labor force than just four years ago.
*November 2012: BLS labor participation rate is 88,883,000 at 63.2%
*August 2012: 88,921,000 Americans not participating in the work force.
*In April 2012 the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 522,000 from 87,897,000 to 88,419,000. This is the highest on record. The reason why the unemployment dropped to 8.1% is that the labor force participation rate just dipped to a new 30 year low of 64.3%.
*In March 2012 the number of people not in US labor force at all time high at 87,897,000.
*January 2009, there are 80,507,000 able bodied Americans not participating in the US labor force.
*10/2016: 94,609,000 US adults not participating in workforce, 425,000 increase from September.
*9/2016: 94,184,000 US adults are not participating in the workforce.
*6/2016: 94,330,000 US adults are not participating in the labor force.
*5/2016: 94,708,000 US adults are not participating in workforce; 458,000 dropped out from April to May.
*4/2016: Labor Force Participation Rate: 62.8%
*9/2015: 94,610,000 US adults are not participating in the labor force (56,647,000 women); labor participation rate: 62.4%
*6/2015: 93,626,000 US adults are not participating in the labor force; labor participation rate: 62.6%,
*4/2015: 93,194,000 US adults are not participating, 56,167,000 of which are women.
*7/2014: 92,120,000 US adults are not participating in the labor force.
*6/2014: 92,009,000 US adults are not participating in the labor force.
*5/2014: Labor participation rate: 62.8%. 92,594,000 US adults not in the labor force.
*4/2014: Labor participation rate: 63.2%.
*12/2013: Labor participation rate is 62.8%. Americans not in the labor force: 91.8 million.
*10/2013: 720,000 Americans leave the labor force. The labor force participation rate falls to 62.8%, the lowest level since 1978. One out of three adults is neither working nor actively looking for work.
*9/2013: 90,609,000 able bodied Americans are not participating in the US labor force, up 136,000 from August.
*8/2013: Labor participation rate is 63.2%, lowest August since 1978.
90,473,000 able bodied Americans are not participating in the US labor force.
*3/2013: Labor participation rate at 63.3%, labor force declined by 496,000 in March (663,000 if disability, welfare included). 89,967,000 not in labor force (9,460,000 have dropped out since Jan. 2009).
*2/2013: BLS: 296,000 Americans drop out of the labor force in February.
Number of people not in the labor force: 89,304,000.
*1/2013: BLS: 169,000 Americans drop out of the labor force in January.
Number of people not in the labor force now stands at a 89 million, up from 80.5 million in January 2009. There are currently 8.5 million more Americans not in the labor force than just four years ago.
*November 2012: BLS labor participation rate is 88,883,000 at 63.2%
*August 2012: 88,921,000 Americans not participating in the work force.
*In April 2012 the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 522,000 from 87,897,000 to 88,419,000. This is the highest on record. The reason why the unemployment dropped to 8.1% is that the labor force participation rate just dipped to a new 30 year low of 64.3%.
*In March 2012 the number of people not in US labor force at all time high at 87,897,000.
*January 2009, there are 80,507,000 able bodied Americans not participating in the US labor force.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Class Warfare Warriors' Net Worth (Salary or Income) [Fed Campaign Contributions]
Joan Blades --- (Berkeley Systems co-founder, 1997 revenue $30 M, sold for $13.8 M)
Wes Boyd --- (Berkeley Systems co-founder w/ Joan Blades)
Mika Brzezinski --- $8 M
Zbigniew Brzezinski --- ?
David Brock --- ($250 K)
Deepak Chopra --- $80 M
Ben Cohen --- (w/ partner sold Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream in April 2000 for $326 M) [$156 K]
Robert Creamer, husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky --- (2005 $2.3 M bank fraud conviction w/ $100 K salary from illegal funds as Exec. Dir. of IPAF)
Matt Damon --- $65 M
Howard Dean --- $4 M
Maureen Dowd --- ?
Thomas Friedman --- $25 M ($550 K) (Lavin Agency client; speaking fee: $75 K)
Al Gore --- $200 M
David Graeber --- ?
Jerry Greenfield --- (w/ partner sold Ben & Jerry's in April 2000 for $326 M)
John Heilemann --- (Washington Speakers Bureau client; speaking fee: $10-15 K)
Katrina vanden Heuvel --- [$212 K]
Chris Hughes --- $935 M
Arianna Huffington --- $115 M
Valerie Jarrett --- ($173 K)
Van Jones --- $1.1 M
Stephen King --- $400 M [$285 K]
Paul Krugman --- $2.5 M In 2009 bought $1.7 M apartment w/ monthly maintenance fee of $1,820
Norman Lear --- $992 M [$1.05 M]
Rachel Maddow ---- $12.5 M ($2 M)
Bill Maher --- $28.7 M [$1 M]
Chris Matthews --- $16 M ($5 M)
Michael Moore --- $50 M [$37 K]
Piers Morgan --- $20 M ($2 M)
Markos Moulitsas ---- ?
Bill Moyers ---- ?
Barack Obama --- $11.8 M ($400 K)
Soledad O'Brien --- $5 M
Lawrence O'Donnell --- $8 M ($2 M)
Keith Olbermann --- $35 M
Nancy Pelosi --- $58 M
John Podesta --- ?
Robert Reich --- ($1.1 M income claimed on 2002 tax return; speaking fee: $40 K)
Jeffrey Sachs --- ?
Diane Sawyer --- $40 M ($12 M)
Ed Schultz --- $11.5 M
Al Sharpton --- $5 M [$144 K]
Tavis Smiley --- $10 M
Hilda Solis --- $1 M ($200 K)
George Soros --- $22 Billion [$3.8 M]
George Stephanopolous --- ($8 M)
Matt Taibbi --- (Lavin Agency client...)
Richard Trumka --- ($293 K)
Cenk Uygur --- $3.5 M
Joan Walsh --- ($492 K)
Elizabeth Warren --- $14.6 M ($431 K from 1/2010 to 12/2011) Purchased $740K DC condo
Brian Willams --- $30M ($12.5M)
Matt Yglesias --- ?
Fareed Zakaria --- $4 M
To search Federal campaign contributions...
HistoryByCalendar
Wes Boyd --- (Berkeley Systems co-founder w/ Joan Blades)
Mika Brzezinski --- $8 M
Zbigniew Brzezinski --- ?
David Brock --- ($250 K)
Deepak Chopra --- $80 M
Ben Cohen --- (w/ partner sold Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream in April 2000 for $326 M) [$156 K]
Robert Creamer, husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky --- (2005 $2.3 M bank fraud conviction w/ $100 K salary from illegal funds as Exec. Dir. of IPAF)
Matt Damon --- $65 M
Howard Dean --- $4 M
Maureen Dowd --- ?
Thomas Friedman --- $25 M ($550 K) (Lavin Agency client; speaking fee: $75 K)
Al Gore --- $200 M
David Graeber --- ?
Jerry Greenfield --- (w/ partner sold Ben & Jerry's in April 2000 for $326 M)
John Heilemann --- (Washington Speakers Bureau client; speaking fee: $10-15 K)
Katrina vanden Heuvel --- [$212 K]
Chris Hughes --- $935 M
Arianna Huffington --- $115 M
Valerie Jarrett --- ($173 K)
Van Jones --- $1.1 M
Stephen King --- $400 M [$285 K]
Paul Krugman --- $2.5 M In 2009 bought $1.7 M apartment w/ monthly maintenance fee of $1,820
Norman Lear --- $992 M [$1.05 M]
Rachel Maddow ---- $12.5 M ($2 M)
Bill Maher --- $28.7 M [$1 M]
Chris Matthews --- $16 M ($5 M)
Michael Moore --- $50 M [$37 K]
Piers Morgan --- $20 M ($2 M)
Markos Moulitsas ---- ?
Bill Moyers ---- ?
Barack Obama --- $11.8 M ($400 K)
Soledad O'Brien --- $5 M
Lawrence O'Donnell --- $8 M ($2 M)
Keith Olbermann --- $35 M
Nancy Pelosi --- $58 M
John Podesta --- ?
Robert Reich --- ($1.1 M income claimed on 2002 tax return; speaking fee: $40 K)
Jeffrey Sachs --- ?
Diane Sawyer --- $40 M ($12 M)
Ed Schultz --- $11.5 M
Al Sharpton --- $5 M [$144 K]
Tavis Smiley --- $10 M
Hilda Solis --- $1 M ($200 K)
George Soros --- $22 Billion [$3.8 M]
George Stephanopolous --- ($8 M)
Matt Taibbi --- (Lavin Agency client...)
Richard Trumka --- ($293 K)
Cenk Uygur --- $3.5 M
Joan Walsh --- ($492 K)
Elizabeth Warren --- $14.6 M ($431 K from 1/2010 to 12/2011) Purchased $740K DC condo
Brian Willams --- $30M ($12.5M)
Matt Yglesias --- ?
Fareed Zakaria --- $4 M
To search Federal campaign contributions...
HistoryByCalendar
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Steve Jobs describes his philosophy to Walter Isaacson
Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That's had a big impact on my work.
If you just sit and observe, you will see how restless your mind is. If you try to calm it, it only makes it worse, but over time it does calm, and when it does, there's room to hear more subtle things - that's when your intuition starts to blossom and you start to see things more clearly and be in the present more. Your mind just slows down and you see a tremendous expanse in the moment. You see so much more than you could see before. It's a discipline; you have to practice it.
Your thoughts construct patterns like scaffolding in your mind. You are really etching chemical patterns. In most cases, people get stuck in those patterns, just like grooves in a record, and they never get out of them.
If you want to live your life in a creative way, as an artist, you have to not look back too much. You have to be willing to take whatever you've done and whoever you were and throw them away.
The more the outside world tries to force an image of you, the harder it is to continue to be an artist, which is why a lot of times, artists have to say, "Bye. I have to go. I'm going crazy and I'm getting out of here." And they go and hibernate somewhere. Maybe later they re-emerge a little differently.
For most things in life, the range between the best and average is 30% or so. The best airplane flight, the best meal, they may be 30% better than your average one... I realize that A Players like to work with A players, they just didn't like working with C players... My role model was J. Robert Oppenheimer. I read about the type of people he sought for the atom bomb project. I wasn't nearly as good as he was, but that's what I aspired to do.
From the earliest days at Apple, I realized that we thrived when we created intellectual property. If people copied or stole our software, we'd be out of business. If we weren't protected, there'd be no incentive for us to make new software or product designs. If protection of intellectual property begins to disappear, creative companies will disappear or never get started.
I'm one of the few people who understands how producing technology requires intuition and creativity, and how producing something artistic takes real discipline.
The older I get, the more I see how much motivations matter... If you don't love something, you're not going to go the extra mile, work the extra weekend, challenge the status quo as much.
Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help make the big choices in life. Because almost everything - all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know how to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.
My passion has been to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products. Everything else was secondary. Sure, it was great to make a profit, because it allowed you to make great products. But the products, not the profits, were the motivation... It's a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything: the people you hire, who gets promoted, what you discuss in meetings.
Some people say, "Give the customers what they want." But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, "If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, 'A faster horse!'" People do not know what they want until you show it to them. That's why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page.
Edwin Land of Polaroid talked about the intersection of the humanities and science. I like that intersection. There's something magical about that place. There are a lot of people innovating, and that's not the main distinction of my career. The reason Apple resonates with people is that there's a deep current of humanity in our innovation. I think that great artists and great engineers are similar, in that they both have a desire to express themselves... Great artists like Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo were also great at science. Michelangelo new a lot about how to quarry stone, not just how to be a sculptor.
People pay us to integrate things for them, because they don't have time to think about this stuff 24/7. If you have an extreme passion for producing great products, it pushes you to be integrated, to connect your hardware and your software and content management. You want to break new ground, so you have to do it yourself. If you want to allow your products to be open to other hardware or software, you have to give up some of your vision.
I hate when people call themselves "entrepreneurs" when what they're really trying to do is launch a startup and then sell or go public, so they can cash in and move on. They're unwilling to do the work it takes to build a real company, which is the hardest part of the business. That's how you really make a contribution and add to the legacy of those who went before you. You build a company that will still stand for something a generation or two from now. That's what Walt Disney did, and Hewlett and Packard, and the people who built Intel. They created a company to last, not just to make money, that's what I want Apple to be.
I don't think I run roughshod over people, but if something sucks, I tell people to their face. It's my job to be honest. I know what I'm talking about, and I usually turn out to be right. That's the culture I tried to create. We are brutally honest with each other... where we are yelling at each other, and it's some of the best times I've ever had. I feel totally comfortable saying "Ron, that store looks like shit" in front of everyone else. Or I might say "God, we really fucked up the engineering on this" in front of the person that's responsible. That's the ante for being in the room...
I was hard on people sometimes, probably harder than I needed to be... But somebody's got to do it. I figured it was my job to make sure that the team was excellent, and if I didn't do it, nobody was going to do it.
You always have to keep pushing to innovate. Dylan could have done protest songs forever... but he didn't. He had to move on, and when he did, by going electric in 1965, he alienated a lot of people. His 1966 Europe tour was his greatest. He would come out and do some acoustic guitar, and the audience loved him. Then he brought out what came to be known as The Band, and they would all do an electric set, and the audience sometimes booed. There was one point where he was about to sing "Like a Rolling Stone" and someone yelled "Judas!" And Dylan then says, "Play it fucking loud!" And they did. The Beatles were the same way. They kept evolving, moving, refining their art. That's what I've tried to do - keep moving. Otherwise, as Dylan says, if your not busy being born, you're busy dying.
What drove me? I think most creative people want to express appreciation for being able to take advantage of the work that's been done by others before us. I didn't invent the language or mathematics I use... It's about trying to express something in the only way that most of us know how - because we can't write Bob Dylan songs or Tom Stoppard plays. We try to use the talents we do have to express our deep feelings, to show our appreciation of all the contributions that came before us, and to add something to that flow. That's what has driven me.
If you just sit and observe, you will see how restless your mind is. If you try to calm it, it only makes it worse, but over time it does calm, and when it does, there's room to hear more subtle things - that's when your intuition starts to blossom and you start to see things more clearly and be in the present more. Your mind just slows down and you see a tremendous expanse in the moment. You see so much more than you could see before. It's a discipline; you have to practice it.
Your thoughts construct patterns like scaffolding in your mind. You are really etching chemical patterns. In most cases, people get stuck in those patterns, just like grooves in a record, and they never get out of them.
If you want to live your life in a creative way, as an artist, you have to not look back too much. You have to be willing to take whatever you've done and whoever you were and throw them away.
The more the outside world tries to force an image of you, the harder it is to continue to be an artist, which is why a lot of times, artists have to say, "Bye. I have to go. I'm going crazy and I'm getting out of here." And they go and hibernate somewhere. Maybe later they re-emerge a little differently.
For most things in life, the range between the best and average is 30% or so. The best airplane flight, the best meal, they may be 30% better than your average one... I realize that A Players like to work with A players, they just didn't like working with C players... My role model was J. Robert Oppenheimer. I read about the type of people he sought for the atom bomb project. I wasn't nearly as good as he was, but that's what I aspired to do.
From the earliest days at Apple, I realized that we thrived when we created intellectual property. If people copied or stole our software, we'd be out of business. If we weren't protected, there'd be no incentive for us to make new software or product designs. If protection of intellectual property begins to disappear, creative companies will disappear or never get started.
I'm one of the few people who understands how producing technology requires intuition and creativity, and how producing something artistic takes real discipline.
The older I get, the more I see how much motivations matter... If you don't love something, you're not going to go the extra mile, work the extra weekend, challenge the status quo as much.
Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help make the big choices in life. Because almost everything - all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know how to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.
My passion has been to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products. Everything else was secondary. Sure, it was great to make a profit, because it allowed you to make great products. But the products, not the profits, were the motivation... It's a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything: the people you hire, who gets promoted, what you discuss in meetings.
Some people say, "Give the customers what they want." But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, "If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, 'A faster horse!'" People do not know what they want until you show it to them. That's why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page.
Edwin Land of Polaroid talked about the intersection of the humanities and science. I like that intersection. There's something magical about that place. There are a lot of people innovating, and that's not the main distinction of my career. The reason Apple resonates with people is that there's a deep current of humanity in our innovation. I think that great artists and great engineers are similar, in that they both have a desire to express themselves... Great artists like Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo were also great at science. Michelangelo new a lot about how to quarry stone, not just how to be a sculptor.
People pay us to integrate things for them, because they don't have time to think about this stuff 24/7. If you have an extreme passion for producing great products, it pushes you to be integrated, to connect your hardware and your software and content management. You want to break new ground, so you have to do it yourself. If you want to allow your products to be open to other hardware or software, you have to give up some of your vision.
I hate when people call themselves "entrepreneurs" when what they're really trying to do is launch a startup and then sell or go public, so they can cash in and move on. They're unwilling to do the work it takes to build a real company, which is the hardest part of the business. That's how you really make a contribution and add to the legacy of those who went before you. You build a company that will still stand for something a generation or two from now. That's what Walt Disney did, and Hewlett and Packard, and the people who built Intel. They created a company to last, not just to make money, that's what I want Apple to be.
I don't think I run roughshod over people, but if something sucks, I tell people to their face. It's my job to be honest. I know what I'm talking about, and I usually turn out to be right. That's the culture I tried to create. We are brutally honest with each other... where we are yelling at each other, and it's some of the best times I've ever had. I feel totally comfortable saying "Ron, that store looks like shit" in front of everyone else. Or I might say "God, we really fucked up the engineering on this" in front of the person that's responsible. That's the ante for being in the room...
I was hard on people sometimes, probably harder than I needed to be... But somebody's got to do it. I figured it was my job to make sure that the team was excellent, and if I didn't do it, nobody was going to do it.
You always have to keep pushing to innovate. Dylan could have done protest songs forever... but he didn't. He had to move on, and when he did, by going electric in 1965, he alienated a lot of people. His 1966 Europe tour was his greatest. He would come out and do some acoustic guitar, and the audience loved him. Then he brought out what came to be known as The Band, and they would all do an electric set, and the audience sometimes booed. There was one point where he was about to sing "Like a Rolling Stone" and someone yelled "Judas!" And Dylan then says, "Play it fucking loud!" And they did. The Beatles were the same way. They kept evolving, moving, refining their art. That's what I've tried to do - keep moving. Otherwise, as Dylan says, if your not busy being born, you're busy dying.
What drove me? I think most creative people want to express appreciation for being able to take advantage of the work that's been done by others before us. I didn't invent the language or mathematics I use... It's about trying to express something in the only way that most of us know how - because we can't write Bob Dylan songs or Tom Stoppard plays. We try to use the talents we do have to express our deep feelings, to show our appreciation of all the contributions that came before us, and to add something to that flow. That's what has driven me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
