Obama, Romney Tied Among Likely Voters

By Shane Goldmacher

President Obama and Mitt Romney are deadlocked among likely voters as they prepare to square off in their first presidential debate, according to the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll.

The survey showed that voters remain resistant to either Obama or Romney holding full control of the federal government.

Obama and Romney each pulled in 47 percent support in the poll among likely voters. It is among the narrowest margins of several presidential surveys published ahead of the debate this week. Other polls have shown the president with a slim lead. In this survey, while the race is tied among likely voters, Obama has a 5-point lead, 49 percent to 44 percent, among registered voters.

The survey was conducted Sept. 27-30 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

Romney led in the poll among independents, 49 percent to 41 percent, with both candidates winning more than 90 percent support from their respective parties. The survey had Obama winning 81 percent of the nonwhite vote and Romney carrying 55 percent of white voters.

In estimating the turnout on Nov. 6, the poll projects an electorate that is 74 percent white, 11 percent African-American, and 8 percent Latino. The likely-voter party splits are 36 percent Democratic, 29 percent Republican, and 30 percent independent.

The estimates are similar to the 2008 turnout, when, according to CNN exit polling, 74 percent of voters were white, 13 percent black, and 9 percent Latino, with Democratic turnout at 39 percent, Republicans at 32 percent, and independents at 29 percent.

The poll also asked voters which party they would prefer to control the Congress. Democrats were favored there. A slim plurality of likely voters said they preferred that Democrats win enough seats to control the House and keep hold of the Senate, a positive sign for the party five weeks out from the election.

For the House, 45 percent of likely voters said they hoped the Democrats would win a majority, while 43 percent said they preferred that Republicans stay in charge. The margin grew slightly, 45 percent to 41 percent, among registered voters. The result is nearly unchanged from April 2012 (then 46 percent to 43 percent among registered voters) and October 2011 (then 43 percent to 41 percent among registered voters).

In the Senate, 47 percent of registered voters said they preferred Democrats stay in power, compared with 42 percent who hoped Republicans would win the four net seats needed to take control. That represents a slight dip in Democratic support from April 2012, when 50 percent of voters favored the Democrats compared with 39 percent who preferred the GOP.

Few independent analysts give the Democrats much of a chance to win the House in November, but control of the Senate is very much up for grabs.

The poll offered warning signs for both parties.

Whoever wins the presidency, voters don’t want to give the winner’s party a blank check to run the federal government. A solid majority of likely voters (55 percent) said that if Obama is reelected, they still hope that Republicans keep at least one chamber of Congress. Similarly, more than six in 10 voters said that if Romney wins, they prefer that Democrats keep at least one chamber “so they can act as a check” on his agenda.

The desire to curb whichever party is in power is shared by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Among Romney supporters, 32 percent still hope for Democrats to control at least one chamber. And among Obama backers, 23 percent want Republicans to wield the gavel in the House, the Senate, or both.

Notably, fewer than one in 10 likely voters said they didn’t want a check on either the Romney or Obama agenda.

The poll’s findings represent yet another expression of public uneasiness with both political parties.

Voters don’t trust either alone to govern, and they appear to hope the two sides will be able to bridge their differences.

Not that the public appears bullish on the possibility.

Asked why unemployment remains so high, a 53 percent majority blamed “fighting between Democrats and Republicans [that] has blocked needed government action.” Only 16 percent said it was because politicians in Washington have not “come up with any good ideas;” 19 percent said it was because there simply isn’t much that political leaders could do to reduce unemployment.

The results echoed earlier surveys, in July 2012 and October 2011, in which majorities of 52 percent and 54 percent, respectively, blamed “fighting between Democrats and Republicans” as the main reason for persistent high unemployment.

Much of official Washington has been frozen in conflict since Republicans were swept into the House in 2010, with Democrats controlling the Senate and Obama occupying the White House. The infighting, particularly sharp during the debt-ceiling battle during the summer of 2011 that led to the nation’s credit rating being cut for the first time, has clearly made an impression on voters.

After nearly two years of GOP rule in the House, voters believe that Democratic leaders in Congress are more likely to “genuinely seek compromise with a president from the other party.”

Forty-five percent of voters said Democratic leaders were more likely to compromise, while 31 percent said Republicans were, and 8 percent volunteered that neither party was more likely to do so.

The divide among partisans was telling. Far more Democrats viewed their own leaders as more willing to compromise (81 percent) than Republicans did (66 percent). Among independents, 40 percent saw Democrats as more willing to compromise, compared with only 30 percent for Republicans.

Jim Rogers: It's Going To Get Really "Bad After The Next Election"

By Terry Weiss, Money Morning

In a riveting interview on CNBC, legendary investor Jim Rogers warned Americans to prepare for "Financial Armageddon," saying he fully expects the economy to implode after the U.S. election.
 Rogers, who for years has been an outspoken critic of the Feds policies of "Quantitative Easing," says the world is "drowning in too much debt." He put the blame squarely on U.S. and European governments for abusing their "license to print money." In the U.S. alone, the national debt has surged to nearly $16 trillion, that's more than $50,000 for every American man, woman and child.
 "[They] need to stop spending money they don't have," Rogers said. "The solution to too much debt is not more debt... What would make me very excited is if a few people [in the government] went bankrupt..." Rogers added.

 Rogers also charged Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel with promoting dangerous policies that create the illusion the economy is stable... but are really only intended to buy time before their upcoming elections.

And according to these experts - who have presented their findings to the United Nations, the UK Parliament and a long list of world governments - the catastrophe may happen well before Americans hit the polls in November.

 "What this pattern represents is a dangerous countdown clock that's quickly approaching zero," said Keith Fitz-Gerald, the Chief Investment Strategist for the Money Map Press, who predicted the 2008 oil shock, the credit default swap crisis that helped bring about the recession, and the Greek and European fiscal catastrophe that is still wreaking havoc until this day.

 "The resulting chaos is going to crush Americans."

Another member of this team, Chris Martenson, a global economic trend forecaster, former VP of a Fortune 300, and an internationally recognized expert on the dangers of exponential growth in the economy, explained their findings further:

 "We found an identical pattern in our debt, total credit market, and money supply that guarantees they're going to fail," Martenson said. "This pattern is nearly the same as in any pyramid scheme, one that escalates exponentially fast before it collapses. Governments around the globe are chiefly responsible."

 "And what's really disturbing about these findings is that the pattern isn't limited to our economy. We found the same catastrophic pattern in our energy, food, and water systems as well."
 According to Martenson, these systems could all implode at the same time.
"Food, water, energy, money. Everything."

Dr. Kent Moors, one of the world's leading energy analysts, who advices 16 world governments on energy matters and who currently serves on two State Department task forces on energy, also voiced concerns over what he and his colleagues uncovered.

 "Most frightening of all is how this exact same pattern keeps appearing in virtually every system critical to our society and way of life," Dr. Moors stated.

"It's a pattern that's hard to see unless you understand the way a catastrophe like this gains traction," Dr. Moors says. "At first, it's almost impossible to perceive. Everything looks fine, just like in every pyramid scheme. Yet the insidious growth of the virus keeps doubling in size, over and over again - in shorter and shorter periods of time - until it hits unsustainable levels. And it collapses the system."
 Martenson points to the U.S. total credit market debt as an example of this unnerving pattern.

"For 30 years - from the 1940s through the 1970s - our total credit market debt was moderate and entirely reasonable," he says. "But then in seven years, from 1970 to 1977, it quickly doubled. And then it doubled again in seven more years. Then five years to double a third time. And then it doubled two more times after that.

"Where we were sitting at a total credit market debt that was 158% larger than our GDP in the early 1940s... By 2011 that figure was 357%."

Dr. Moors warns this type of unsustainable road to collapse can be seen today in our energy, food and water production. All are tightly connected and contributing to the economic disaster that lies directly ahead.

According to polls, the average American is sensing danger. A recent survey found that 61% of Americans believe a catastrophe is looming - yet only 15% feel prepared for such a deeply troubling event.

Fitz-Gerald says people should take immediate steps to protect themselves from what is happening.
"If our research is right," says Fitz-Gerald, "Americans will have to make some tough choices on how they'll go about surviving when basic necessities become nearly unaffordable and the economy becomes dangerously unstable."

"People need to begin to make preparations with their investments, retirement savings, and personal finances before it's too late," says Fitz-Gerald.

Will Bilderberg elect the next US president?

Around 150 of the world’s elite will meet outside of Washington, DC this week at the annual Bilderberg Conference, and although the agenda isn’t advertised to the public, some sources are already speaking out about what this year might bring.

Officially, the details of each Bilderberg Conference aren’t anything its members will go on the record to reveal. According to spectators that have kept a close eye on the event’s happenings each year, however, the annual conference has a reputation for being a kingmaker — and an elusive and exclusive one at that.

Speaking to RT earlier this month, radio host Alex Jones shared his expectations for the coming conference. According to the journalist, “Should the elite get behind Mitt Romney or Barack Obama?” is a question that he expects to be brought up for discussion. “Both men are bought and paid for by the same financial interests, and so the discussion will be which candidate can basically con the American people to lay down the tyranny for another four years.”

But does the biggest election of 2012 really rely that much on a mysterious meeting? Many people will tell you yes, and they are often willing to provide evidence to explain. Before becoming household names, politicians such as former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both attended Bilderberg conferences in the years before being elected to the Oval Office. Tony Blair was on hand at the 1993 gala before becoming prime minister of England in 1997, and the 2008 conference is believed to be the catalyst for that year’s US presidential election: rumors suggest that attendees settling on backing Barack Obama for the Democratic Party nomination at that year’s event, only for contender Hillary Clinton to bow out two days later.

“For an entire day, the media in Virginia and in DC saying, ‘Where’s Obama? Where’s Obama?’ And we were there saying he’s inside, the secret service is there,” Alex Jones recalls of the 2004 conference to RT.

As with 2004, this year's Bilderberg Conference will be held at the Chantilly, Virginia Westfield Marriott, and employees there are already privy to the fact that Jones will be ready to scrutinize every action he can witness from the grounds: on Tuesday, his reservation at the establishment was revoked and he was informed that he banned from the hotel; hours later, Jones’ Prison Planet website revealed that “all guests had been kicked out of the hotel, and offered one night’s accommodation at the Residence Inn in Chantilly (also Marriott owned).”

“Policy is being set there and this is one of the most elite meetings out there,” Jones told RT. That, many fear, is precisely why those close to the conference don’t want outsiders to have an inside scoop.

This year Jones expects details of the US presidential election to obviously be discussed, but perhaps the agenda item most interesting to many involves only one side of the race: rumors are quickly evolving about who and how the GOP will go about selecting a vice presidential nominee to run alongside their candidate of choice, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Al Kamen, a writer at the Washington Post, recently compared a recent speech from Senator Marco Rubio with one given at the 2004 Bilderberg Conference by John Edwards — which some say was instrumental in securing the VP nod back in 2004. The rumors of  Bilderberg being a launching pad for a Rubio run under Romney at this week’s conference has since been spun by reporters at Politico, Salon and elsewhere.