Warning: The first part of this post includes large quantities of sarcasm.
According to a CBS/New York Times poll of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. IT'S OVER. Obama has opened up a huge lead in the poll. Governor Mitt Romney should just give up now, because it's just a waste of time.
The results are these:
Florida: Obama 53%, Romney 44% (Obama +9%)
Ohio: Obama 53%, Romney 43% (Obama +10%)
Pennsylvania: Obama 54%, Romney 42% (Obama +12%)
It is OVER. Right? Come on. Obama's doing GREAT in those three critical states!
What? You want me to look past Page One? You want the poll sample? Okay, let's look at that:
Florida: Democrat 36%, Republican 27%, Independent 33% (Democrat +9%)
Ohio: Democrat 35%, Republican 26%, Independent 35% (Democrat +9%)
Pennsylvania: Democrat 39%, Republican 29%, Independent 27% (Democrat +10%)
WHOA! That doesn't sound right, does it? I mean, surely there must be data from the last Presidential elections, right? Oh wait, there is:
Florida Turnout: 2008 - Democrat +3 - 2004 - Republican +4% - 2000 - Democrat +2%.
(Note: NEVER near a 9% Democrat advantage.)
Ohio Turnout: 2008 - Democrat +8% - 2004 Republican +5% - 2000 Democrat +1%
(Note: not a 9% turnout even in the Democrat sweep in '08.)
(Could not locate Pennsylvania data).
Now here's some cold water for you Democrats, as if basic math doesn't do it. If Obama has such a commanding lead in these states, why campaign there? Please, explain. I mean, Obama has a commanding lead in New York, and I don't see him campaigning there.
Bottom line is Obama is in real trouble. The Drive-By Media wouldn't be using these preposterous samples if he wasn't. The only plausible explanation is an attempt to suppress and repress Republican votes to make Obama's chances better. Because here in the Real World, they just aren't that good.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Romney is a Strong Debater, MSM Will Claim Otherwise
The first of four debates is a week away. Mitt Romney could genuinely use a good performance in these debates. (I won't go so far as to say Mitt NEEDS a great performance, because I do not believe for a minute these Drive-By Media polls that show Obama winning comfortably or even at all.)
Now I watched nearly every debate in the Republican primary season. I blogged on most of them. While I think Mitt was sometimes out debated by Newt Gingrich, President Obama is no Newt. Take away his podium and all of a sudden Obama doesn't sound so smart.
The fact is I spent a lot of those debates rooting against Governor Romney and being frustrated at how well he performed in those debates because it meant my candidate (as you regular readers should know, I endorsed Newt Gingrich in the primary season) was losing ground.
Now I flat out guarantee you that the Drive-By Media is going to say that Obama won the debates in post-game. It turns out reality isn't much of a concern to the Drive-Bys. I can say this with such confidence because I remember the same Drive-By Media calling the flat retread of a convention by the Democrats brilliant and the energetic celebration of American by the Republicans flat. Just to shock you folks, the Drive-By Media is in the tank for Obama so they won't report reality.
However, the good news is the majority of Americans don't trust the media! According to Gallup, 60% of Americans trust the media very little or not at all. To get more specific, 58% of Democrats trust the media (shocker) while only 31% of Independents and 26% of Republicans trust the media.
Here's the reality: Barack Obama is not used to being questioned. He's used to kid gloves. You start daring to question his brilliance and he gets more flustered than a hen thrown out of a helicopter 100 feet off the ground. (You're welcome for that visual.) If Mitt actually goes after him he's going to slam dunk Obama in these debates. Ditto for Paul Ryan in his debate with Joe Biden.
I'll be back in a week to point out I was right, but for now you've got the prediction in writing. Be prepared for Mitt to mop the floor with Obama. Also be prepared for the Drive-By Media to tell you to try their weird Jedi Mind Trick and tell you that you did not see what you saw.
Now I watched nearly every debate in the Republican primary season. I blogged on most of them. While I think Mitt was sometimes out debated by Newt Gingrich, President Obama is no Newt. Take away his podium and all of a sudden Obama doesn't sound so smart.
The fact is I spent a lot of those debates rooting against Governor Romney and being frustrated at how well he performed in those debates because it meant my candidate (as you regular readers should know, I endorsed Newt Gingrich in the primary season) was losing ground.
Now I flat out guarantee you that the Drive-By Media is going to say that Obama won the debates in post-game. It turns out reality isn't much of a concern to the Drive-Bys. I can say this with such confidence because I remember the same Drive-By Media calling the flat retread of a convention by the Democrats brilliant and the energetic celebration of American by the Republicans flat. Just to shock you folks, the Drive-By Media is in the tank for Obama so they won't report reality.
However, the good news is the majority of Americans don't trust the media! According to Gallup, 60% of Americans trust the media very little or not at all. To get more specific, 58% of Democrats trust the media (shocker) while only 31% of Independents and 26% of Republicans trust the media.
Here's the reality: Barack Obama is not used to being questioned. He's used to kid gloves. You start daring to question his brilliance and he gets more flustered than a hen thrown out of a helicopter 100 feet off the ground. (You're welcome for that visual.) If Mitt actually goes after him he's going to slam dunk Obama in these debates. Ditto for Paul Ryan in his debate with Joe Biden.
I'll be back in a week to point out I was right, but for now you've got the prediction in writing. Be prepared for Mitt to mop the floor with Obama. Also be prepared for the Drive-By Media to tell you to try their weird Jedi Mind Trick and tell you that you did not see what you saw.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
When Carter Beat Reagan (According to Pre-Election Polls)
Oh, you thought the 2012 Election polls that show a very weak incumbent President in a surprisingly close election with his challenger?
In 1980, as the American Spectator reminded us recently, The New York Times was showing President Jimmy Carter in a horse race with challenger Ronald Reagan in several crucial swing states.
The states in question were:
Texas: About a month before Election '80, the Times told it's readers the race sat at Carter 40%, Regan 39%. On Election Day, Reagan won the state by 13%. A 14% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.
Pennsylvania: The Times claimed that, again about a month before the election, Reagan was leading Carter by only 2%. On Election Day, Regan won the state by 7%. A 5% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.
Illinois: About two weeks before the election, the Times stated that Illinois was "too close to call." According to their recent CBS/New York Times poll, Reagan was leading Carter 34% to 33%. On Election Day, Reagan won the state 49% to 41%. A 7% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.
Ohio: Again, about two weeks before the election, the Times called Ohio a close race, with Reagan leading Carter by only 2%. On Election Day, Reagan won Ohio by 10%. An 8% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.
Florida: This time the Times refused to publish their own poll. Instead, they quoted "recent local newspaper polls" that showed Reagan leading Carter by 2%. On Election Day, Reagan beat Carter to win Florida by a staggering 17%. A 15% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.
New York: Imagine New York as a swing state? (As a lifelong resident I cannot.) But in 1980, the Times, just over a week before the election, stated that Carter was leading Reagan by 9%. On Election Day, Reagan won New York by 2%. An 11% swing from the polls.
Michigan: In Michigan, the Times did not report the actual race as it sat that day, save for saying it was close. On Election Day, Reagan won by 6%.
Nationally: A week before the election, the New York Times/CBS Poll had Carter leading Reagan 39% to 38%. On Election Day, Reagan beat Carter by 10%. An 11% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.
So friends, when we look at history, especially when we're looking at a weak President who is oddly reminiscent of Jimmy Carter in his policies, success (or lack there of) and the Drive-By Media is again trying to tell tales about how close the race is or how Obama is winning, just remember the Election of 1980. And how Carter beat Reagan. Oh wait...
* Swing State in 2012
Source: The American Spectator -How Carter Beat Reagan
In 1980, as the American Spectator reminded us recently, The New York Times was showing President Jimmy Carter in a horse race with challenger Ronald Reagan in several crucial swing states.
The states in question were:
- California
- Texas
- Pennsylvania
- Illinois
- Ohio *
- New Jersey
- Florida *
- New York
- Michigan *
Texas: About a month before Election '80, the Times told it's readers the race sat at Carter 40%, Regan 39%. On Election Day, Reagan won the state by 13%. A 14% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.
Pennsylvania: The Times claimed that, again about a month before the election, Reagan was leading Carter by only 2%. On Election Day, Regan won the state by 7%. A 5% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.
Illinois: About two weeks before the election, the Times stated that Illinois was "too close to call." According to their recent CBS/New York Times poll, Reagan was leading Carter 34% to 33%. On Election Day, Reagan won the state 49% to 41%. A 7% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.
Ohio: Again, about two weeks before the election, the Times called Ohio a close race, with Reagan leading Carter by only 2%. On Election Day, Reagan won Ohio by 10%. An 8% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.
Florida: This time the Times refused to publish their own poll. Instead, they quoted "recent local newspaper polls" that showed Reagan leading Carter by 2%. On Election Day, Reagan beat Carter to win Florida by a staggering 17%. A 15% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.
New York: Imagine New York as a swing state? (As a lifelong resident I cannot.) But in 1980, the Times, just over a week before the election, stated that Carter was leading Reagan by 9%. On Election Day, Reagan won New York by 2%. An 11% swing from the polls.
Michigan: In Michigan, the Times did not report the actual race as it sat that day, save for saying it was close. On Election Day, Reagan won by 6%.
Nationally: A week before the election, the New York Times/CBS Poll had Carter leading Reagan 39% to 38%. On Election Day, Reagan beat Carter by 10%. An 11% swing in Reagan's favor from the pre-election polls.
So friends, when we look at history, especially when we're looking at a weak President who is oddly reminiscent of Jimmy Carter in his policies, success (or lack there of) and the Drive-By Media is again trying to tell tales about how close the race is or how Obama is winning, just remember the Election of 1980. And how Carter beat Reagan. Oh wait...
* Swing State in 2012
Source: The American Spectator -How Carter Beat Reagan
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Obama has an Independent and Undecided Voter Problem
President Obama has two major problems this election, despite the Drive-By Media's questionable polls that show him leading Governor Mitt Romney by a couple of points.
Number one, Governor Romney leads with Independents. He has continued to lead President Obama with Independents pretty much since he was the nominee. Now in 2008, President Obama beat Senator John McCain significantly with Independents. He cannot win without winning Independents, friends. That's just a fact.
Now the President has another issue. He still cannot get above 50% in almost any poll (without a preposterous Democrat skew in the sample anyway) and is below 50% in most battleground states. According to political strategist Dick Morris (who is most famously known for his work with Bill Clinton in both his campaigns and Presidency), had this to say:
The fact is that the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent. In 1980 (the last time an incumbent Democrat was beaten), for example, the Gallup Poll of October 27th had Carter ahead by 45-39. Their survey on November 2nd showed Reagan catching up and leading by three points. In the actual voting, the Republican won by nine. The undecided vote broke sharply — and unanimously — for the challenger.
An undecided voter has really decided not to back the incumbent. He just won’t focus on the race until later in the game.
So, when the published poll shows Obama ahead by, say, 48-45, he’s really probably losing by 52-48!
- Dick Morris, "Why the Polls Underestimate the Romney Vote"
Our friends over at Examiner.com found a similar problem for the President in swing states. Using a recent Purple Strategies poll, Examiner had this to say:
For the purpose of their analysis, precise calculations will be made from the polling data and the undecided voters will be calculated to go 80 percent for Romney. Odds are likely they will support Romney in higher percentages.
The five states, in dark red in the map above, (shown below here) are worth 84 electoral votes. Both candidate needs most if not all of these states to win the election. The light blue and pink states on the map above are all the other states not included in these five surveyed by Purple Strategies and covered in this article....
These numbers today indicate a strong chance that Mitt Romney will win the 84 electoral votes of these five states. But before the real votes are cast, we still have three presidential debates and just over six weeks of campaigning yet to occur. That's a long time and a lot of opportunities for a lot to happen and be done by both campaigns. There is time for polling numbers to change but fewer voters who may change their minds. In each of the states in the Purple Poll of those five swing states, at least 90 percent of the voters in each states reported they are unlikely to change their preferences between now and November.
- "Mitt Romney likely win of five key swing states shown by Purple Poll surveys" - Examiner.com
While the President is shown to have a few point lead in the states in question (Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado) he remains under 50% in all five states. Given that it is reasonable to surmise that 80% of undecided voters at this point in the game will likely go against Obama (after all he's had nearly 4 years to get them to vote for him), Governor Romney can be projected to win those five states, and thus the White House.
Here's the Examiner's projected Electoral College map:
Compare that, interestingly enough, to the Biblical Conservatism model put together earlier this week (and published on our Facebook Page which you should go like, by the way):
Now, in my estimate I projected Minnesota and Pennsylvania as potentially going red because Obama can't get over 50% in those states this close to the election. Either way, those two states won't change the outcome. Now let's look at these two models compared to the University of Colorado projection:
You'll notice the states in question amongst the three models (PA, IA, MI, MN and NV) could only change the outcome if Obama won every single one of those states. Each model is based on a different concept. Mine is using states where Obama is not above 50% and acting on the expectation that undecided voters will break for Romney hard as they have in previous elections. (Yes I'm aware my projections include a couple of rosy scenarios in MN, MI and PA, but again those three are not in a position to impact the election if I am incorrect.) The University of Colorado's projection is based on economic and historical factors. Examiner's is based on a lot of the same factors mine is, although they consider MN, MI and PA as likely to go to Obama.
Either way, friends, both the Undecided Voter and the Independent Voters add up to a poor scenario for Obama. Keep remembering that, and keep your heads up, friends!
Number one, Governor Romney leads with Independents. He has continued to lead President Obama with Independents pretty much since he was the nominee. Now in 2008, President Obama beat Senator John McCain significantly with Independents. He cannot win without winning Independents, friends. That's just a fact.
Now the President has another issue. He still cannot get above 50% in almost any poll (without a preposterous Democrat skew in the sample anyway) and is below 50% in most battleground states. According to political strategist Dick Morris (who is most famously known for his work with Bill Clinton in both his campaigns and Presidency), had this to say:
The fact is that the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent. In 1980 (the last time an incumbent Democrat was beaten), for example, the Gallup Poll of October 27th had Carter ahead by 45-39. Their survey on November 2nd showed Reagan catching up and leading by three points. In the actual voting, the Republican won by nine. The undecided vote broke sharply — and unanimously — for the challenger.
An undecided voter has really decided not to back the incumbent. He just won’t focus on the race until later in the game.
So, when the published poll shows Obama ahead by, say, 48-45, he’s really probably losing by 52-48!
- Dick Morris, "Why the Polls Underestimate the Romney Vote"
Our friends over at Examiner.com found a similar problem for the President in swing states. Using a recent Purple Strategies poll, Examiner had this to say:
For the purpose of their analysis, precise calculations will be made from the polling data and the undecided voters will be calculated to go 80 percent for Romney. Odds are likely they will support Romney in higher percentages.
The five states, in dark red in the map above, (shown below here) are worth 84 electoral votes. Both candidate needs most if not all of these states to win the election. The light blue and pink states on the map above are all the other states not included in these five surveyed by Purple Strategies and covered in this article....
These numbers today indicate a strong chance that Mitt Romney will win the 84 electoral votes of these five states. But before the real votes are cast, we still have three presidential debates and just over six weeks of campaigning yet to occur. That's a long time and a lot of opportunities for a lot to happen and be done by both campaigns. There is time for polling numbers to change but fewer voters who may change their minds. In each of the states in the Purple Poll of those five swing states, at least 90 percent of the voters in each states reported they are unlikely to change their preferences between now and November.
- "Mitt Romney likely win of five key swing states shown by Purple Poll surveys" - Examiner.com
While the President is shown to have a few point lead in the states in question (Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado) he remains under 50% in all five states. Given that it is reasonable to surmise that 80% of undecided voters at this point in the game will likely go against Obama (after all he's had nearly 4 years to get them to vote for him), Governor Romney can be projected to win those five states, and thus the White House.
Here's the Examiner's projected Electoral College map:
Compare that, interestingly enough, to the Biblical Conservatism model put together earlier this week (and published on our Facebook Page which you should go like, by the way):
Now, in my estimate I projected Minnesota and Pennsylvania as potentially going red because Obama can't get over 50% in those states this close to the election. Either way, those two states won't change the outcome. Now let's look at these two models compared to the University of Colorado projection:
You'll notice the states in question amongst the three models (PA, IA, MI, MN and NV) could only change the outcome if Obama won every single one of those states. Each model is based on a different concept. Mine is using states where Obama is not above 50% and acting on the expectation that undecided voters will break for Romney hard as they have in previous elections. (Yes I'm aware my projections include a couple of rosy scenarios in MN, MI and PA, but again those three are not in a position to impact the election if I am incorrect.) The University of Colorado's projection is based on economic and historical factors. Examiner's is based on a lot of the same factors mine is, although they consider MN, MI and PA as likely to go to Obama.
Either way, friends, both the Undecided Voter and the Independent Voters add up to a poor scenario for Obama. Keep remembering that, and keep your heads up, friends!
Monday, September 24, 2012
The Drive-By Media Keeps Doubling Down on Skewed Polls
We've talked about this so many times here at Biblical Conservatism: the Drive-By Media is cooking polls to show Obama winning (and keep the Real Clear Politics average showing Obama leading).
Here's a few examples:
The Pew Research Center had to oversample Democrats by 9% to get Obama to +8%.
The University of Connecticut had to oversample Democrats by 8% to get Obama to +3%.
Monmouth University had to oversample Democrats by 4% to get Obama to +3%.
The National Journal had to oversample Democrats by 6% to get Obama to +7%. They also undersampled Independents (who are consistently leaning comfortably to Romney) by 5%.
Every bit of this is based on using an even polling sample. Even that is generous to Democrats, by the way. Rasmussen's poll of voter identification (which is run monthly and talks to hundreds of thousands of voters) shows voter ID at Republican 37%, Democrat 33% and Independent at 29%.
When unskewing the data using Rasmussen's Voter ID data, Examiner.com found Romney leading 49%-46% in the Pew Poll, Romney leading 51% to 45% in the University of Connecticut Poll, Romney leading 50% to 45% in the Monmouth University Poll,
and Romney leading 48% to 46% in the National Journal Poll.
Gallup and Rasmussen, our two already unskewed polls have the race ostensibly tied, for the record. Whether or not the unskewed polls show that the Drive-By Media is hiding the problem or if their polls are purely cooked to help Obama I do not know. At any rate, if you believe the Drive-By Media polls, you are officially nuts. We are going to win in November, friends. Let not your heart be troubled. Game on!
Here's a few examples:
The Pew Research Center had to oversample Democrats by 9% to get Obama to +8%.
The University of Connecticut had to oversample Democrats by 8% to get Obama to +3%.
Monmouth University had to oversample Democrats by 4% to get Obama to +3%.
The National Journal had to oversample Democrats by 6% to get Obama to +7%. They also undersampled Independents (who are consistently leaning comfortably to Romney) by 5%.
Every bit of this is based on using an even polling sample. Even that is generous to Democrats, by the way. Rasmussen's poll of voter identification (which is run monthly and talks to hundreds of thousands of voters) shows voter ID at Republican 37%, Democrat 33% and Independent at 29%.
When unskewing the data using Rasmussen's Voter ID data, Examiner.com found Romney leading 49%-46% in the Pew Poll, Romney leading 51% to 45% in the University of Connecticut Poll, Romney leading 50% to 45% in the Monmouth University Poll,
and Romney leading 48% to 46% in the National Journal Poll.
Gallup and Rasmussen, our two already unskewed polls have the race ostensibly tied, for the record. Whether or not the unskewed polls show that the Drive-By Media is hiding the problem or if their polls are purely cooked to help Obama I do not know. At any rate, if you believe the Drive-By Media polls, you are officially nuts. We are going to win in November, friends. Let not your heart be troubled. Game on!
Friday, September 21, 2012
Visual Explanation: How to Get Obama to Lead (Using a Skewed Sample)
Just stop buying the Drive-By Media's polls, friends...
For Pew to arrive at this poll result:
They need to use THIS sample...
For the AP to arrive at this Result:
They had to use THIS poll sample:
Friends, the Drive-By Media is using highly cooked polls because, if they used the real electorate, Obama would be losing and losing significantly.
Sources:
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Romney Video Shows Democrat Desperation
Monday night, the Democrat party released a video of Mitt Romney speaking to donors behind closed doors (in May, mind you) stating that his strategy wasn't to focus on the 47% of Americans that pay no taxes, because his message of cutting taxes wouldn't strike a chord with them. This was later spun by the Left to say that Romney doesn't care about that 47%.
Now there are a few details that the Drive-By Media is not addressing. One, this event happened, as I said before, in May. The tape was made live so apparently someone had it four months ago. It was posted on You Tube three full weeks ago, supposedly found by none other than Jimmy Carter's grandson.
So then it was released on Monday to the press. Let's discuss what was happening that day. Well, President Obama was tanking on the world stage with his terrible response to the attacks on our embassies in Libya and Egypt. The Drive-By Media was telling us the real problem was Mitt Romney responding, rather than Barack Obama's lack of a response. Then (all of a sudden!) this story breaks and the Drive-By Media is trumpeting THAT!
Now let me review. The video was found (at the latest) three weeks ago. It went around Twitter when it happened, friends. The Media did not care. The Democrats did not care. Now Obama's in trouble and that story comes out.
Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin really hit it on the nose when she compared this tactic to the dog in the movie "Up" who was distracted by every passing trifle, famously by yelling, in mid sentence, "SQUIRREL!" Said Malkin:
Embassy attacks? Quick, find a squirrel! Warnings ignored? Squirrel! American troops killed by long-plotting jihadis exploiting security weaknesses? Squirrel! First Amendment sabotage by White House officials in the name of political correctness? Squirrel! Chronic joblessness, high gas prices, exploding dependency? Squirrel! Squirrel! Squirrel!
(Source: Romney’s “secret video” and the Dem politics of “Squirrel!”)
I believe the reality is this story was being saved as an October surprise. No, you cannot tell me this was "just reporting the news when it happened" or else this would've come out 3 weeks ago minimum if not months ago. This is old news by at least 3 weeks. But Obama was in deep dog-doo. So they broke out this story now.
Trust me, friends. If this election was held today, Mitt Romney would win. He would win huge. If the polls weren't cooked they'd show that fact. So the Democrats have to holler SQUIRREL!
Now there are a few details that the Drive-By Media is not addressing. One, this event happened, as I said before, in May. The tape was made live so apparently someone had it four months ago. It was posted on You Tube three full weeks ago, supposedly found by none other than Jimmy Carter's grandson.
So then it was released on Monday to the press. Let's discuss what was happening that day. Well, President Obama was tanking on the world stage with his terrible response to the attacks on our embassies in Libya and Egypt. The Drive-By Media was telling us the real problem was Mitt Romney responding, rather than Barack Obama's lack of a response. Then (all of a sudden!) this story breaks and the Drive-By Media is trumpeting THAT!
Now let me review. The video was found (at the latest) three weeks ago. It went around Twitter when it happened, friends. The Media did not care. The Democrats did not care. Now Obama's in trouble and that story comes out.
Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin really hit it on the nose when she compared this tactic to the dog in the movie "Up" who was distracted by every passing trifle, famously by yelling, in mid sentence, "SQUIRREL!" Said Malkin:
Embassy attacks? Quick, find a squirrel! Warnings ignored? Squirrel! American troops killed by long-plotting jihadis exploiting security weaknesses? Squirrel! First Amendment sabotage by White House officials in the name of political correctness? Squirrel! Chronic joblessness, high gas prices, exploding dependency? Squirrel! Squirrel! Squirrel!
(Source: Romney’s “secret video” and the Dem politics of “Squirrel!”)
I believe the reality is this story was being saved as an October surprise. No, you cannot tell me this was "just reporting the news when it happened" or else this would've come out 3 weeks ago minimum if not months ago. This is old news by at least 3 weeks. But Obama was in deep dog-doo. So they broke out this story now.
Trust me, friends. If this election was held today, Mitt Romney would win. He would win huge. If the polls weren't cooked they'd show that fact. So the Democrats have to holler SQUIRREL!
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Even Democrat Pollsters Admit Media is Cooking Polls
I've spent the last couple months pointing out how ridiculous a prediction it is to say that the 2012 Election turnout will be +6% for Democrats (or +8% or +10% or whatever) not to mention the undersampling of Independents (who by the way are continuing to favor Mitt Romney).
I've continued to listen to people tell me that group think and collusion by the Drive-By Media is akin to scientific evidence that this is what the election will turnout as (since the same media outlets keep finding the same sample in "random" samples).
However, two Democrat pollsters gave interviews to corroborate what I've been saying for quite some time: These samples are NOT reflective of what the likely voter turnout will be in 2012. First, Douglas Schoen, Democrat pollster who worked on such campaigns as Bill Clinton Michael Bloomberg. When asked if the polling samples accurately reflect the probable electorate:
"The simple answer is no...the bottom line is there were seven percent more Democrats in the electorate in 2008 than there were Republicans. That's from the exit polls and that's about as accurate as you can get...President Obama won by about seven points. Given 90 percent of Democrats vote for the Democrat and 90 percent of Republicans vote for the Republican, every time you reduce the margin between the parties by one point, roughly it's about one point off the margin."
Later, Schoen said:
“Saying that America has gotten more Democratic than 2008, which is a questionable assumption.”
The second pollster was Democrat Insider Patrick Caddell, who worked for the campaigns of George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, and past Senate campaigns for now Vice President Joe Biden.. He said of the recent polling samples:
"What you have is an act of utter irresponsibility, in my opinion."
Later in the interview, Caddell said,
"They shouldn't be running these...(they) are having an effect on this election that is really bad."And further, Caddell said,
"The key issue in this business is integrity...here's the real issue, the explicit message in all of this is, you got to tell the truth, I don't believe that anyone doing a poll today, for whoever, could credibly release numbers that are plus 11 for the Democratic Party."
Friends, I would argue that showing a skew period for Democrats is irresponsible. 2010 exit polls showed a dead heat. Rasmussen and Gallup's regular tracking polls of voter identification show either a Republican advantage or an even split. When two Democrat pollsters are admitting it, I think that says an awful lot.
As Caddell said, they are having an effect on this election with these polls. It remains my contention that that is precisely their goal. They do not want to reflect the electorate. They want to effect it.
I've continued to listen to people tell me that group think and collusion by the Drive-By Media is akin to scientific evidence that this is what the election will turnout as (since the same media outlets keep finding the same sample in "random" samples).
However, two Democrat pollsters gave interviews to corroborate what I've been saying for quite some time: These samples are NOT reflective of what the likely voter turnout will be in 2012. First, Douglas Schoen, Democrat pollster who worked on such campaigns as Bill Clinton Michael Bloomberg. When asked if the polling samples accurately reflect the probable electorate:
"The simple answer is no...the bottom line is there were seven percent more Democrats in the electorate in 2008 than there were Republicans. That's from the exit polls and that's about as accurate as you can get...President Obama won by about seven points. Given 90 percent of Democrats vote for the Democrat and 90 percent of Republicans vote for the Republican, every time you reduce the margin between the parties by one point, roughly it's about one point off the margin."
Later, Schoen said:
“Saying that America has gotten more Democratic than 2008, which is a questionable assumption.”
The second pollster was Democrat Insider Patrick Caddell, who worked for the campaigns of George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, and past Senate campaigns for now Vice President Joe Biden.. He said of the recent polling samples:
"What you have is an act of utter irresponsibility, in my opinion."
Later in the interview, Caddell said,
"They shouldn't be running these...(they) are having an effect on this election that is really bad."And further, Caddell said,
"The key issue in this business is integrity...here's the real issue, the explicit message in all of this is, you got to tell the truth, I don't believe that anyone doing a poll today, for whoever, could credibly release numbers that are plus 11 for the Democratic Party."
Friends, I would argue that showing a skew period for Democrats is irresponsible. 2010 exit polls showed a dead heat. Rasmussen and Gallup's regular tracking polls of voter identification show either a Republican advantage or an even split. When two Democrat pollsters are admitting it, I think that says an awful lot.
As Caddell said, they are having an effect on this election with these polls. It remains my contention that that is precisely their goal. They do not want to reflect the electorate. They want to effect it.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Obama Spiked the Football on Bin Laden, Caused Arab Unrest?
The Drive-By Media would love you to believe the problems in Egypt, Libya and the rest of the Middle East is over a video made and published on You Tube...or a radical Christian pastor (that even Christians abhor as wrong)...but the one very obvious question is not being asked: is the problem Obama "spiking the football" after killing Osama Bin Laden?
Before you start in on me and how it's Bush's fault...(or Mitt Romney's for reacting or global warming or killer bees or whatever silly excuse liberals choose today), remember how Obama was going to make the world love us just by being him? Yeah, about that...hasn't happened, has it?
Oh, and by the way, there's this:
Before you start in on me and how it's Bush's fault...(or Mitt Romney's for reacting or global warming or killer bees or whatever silly excuse liberals choose today), remember how Obama was going to make the world love us just by being him? Yeah, about that...hasn't happened, has it?
Oh, and by the way, there's this:
We also have the intelligence to suggest that this attack was planned and well in place before any videos or any other baloney that it's being blamed on occurred.
Now, please tell me, Mr. Obama Apologist: If the problem is this video, please explain to me why it's Osama Bin Laden that the protestors are screaming about?
Could it be that the real problem is Obama policies? Do you think maybe, just maybe it's because Obama's shown himself weak to terrorists? Or maybe, just maybe it's because Obama went and "spiked the football" and bragged over and over and over again about killing Bin Laden?
Or maybe, just maybe, we could surmise it's both. Because I lived through 7 anniversaries of 9/11 under President Bush. Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and all the other Islamic extremists didn't pull this sort of attack.
So today we've got the Drive-By Media focused on something Mitt Romney said TWO MONTHS AGO to donors talking about strategy. THAT'S the focus because apparently that's the important thing (not the fact that Obama spiking the football on the Bin Laden killing caused riots). Yep. That's the Media's priority. We must not let them do it! This is the news story!
Now, please tell me, Mr. Obama Apologist: If the problem is this video, please explain to me why it's Osama Bin Laden that the protestors are screaming about?
Could it be that the real problem is Obama policies? Do you think maybe, just maybe it's because Obama's shown himself weak to terrorists? Or maybe, just maybe it's because Obama went and "spiked the football" and bragged over and over and over again about killing Bin Laden?
Or maybe, just maybe, we could surmise it's both. Because I lived through 7 anniversaries of 9/11 under President Bush. Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and all the other Islamic extremists didn't pull this sort of attack.
So today we've got the Drive-By Media focused on something Mitt Romney said TWO MONTHS AGO to donors talking about strategy. THAT'S the focus because apparently that's the important thing (not the fact that Obama spiking the football on the Bin Laden killing caused riots). Yep. That's the Media's priority. We must not let them do it! This is the news story!
Monday, September 17, 2012
Unemployment "Improvement" is a Facade
August unemployment numbers were released on a couple weeks ago, and even the Drive-By Media was admitting the numbers are terrible, especially for Obama. According to the numbers, 96,000 jobs were created. What isn't being trumpeted, however, is that 368,000 people dropped out of the workforce. So nearly four times as many people left the workforce as found work.
Here's the reality, friends: the only reason the unemployment dropped is because there are now far fewer people in the workforce according to the numbers. Fact is if the workforce was the same and so many hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans have officially left the workforce and therefore do not count in the unemployment numbers.
It's been said countless times, friends, if there were the same number of people in the workforce looking for work, unemployment would be over 11%. The idea that 9 million unemployed Americans simply do not count is preposterous.
Here's the real skinny, friends. The President is in deep trouble. His small convention bump will evaporate as quickly as the bump in his approval when the Navy SEALs killed Osama Bin Laden under the weight of Mitt Romney's new ability to spend his campaign cash.
It will be impossible for Obama to tell people they are better off than they were 4 years ago because they are living the reality. When you drive a 4-cylinder car that's only 3 years old and it costs you over $60 to fill your gas tank, no amount of political spin will change your perception of the economy. When the same groceries that cost you $100 in 2009 now costs you $150, guess what...no amount of political spin will change it. When you've been looking for work so long that you've dropped out of the workforce, no amount of political spin will make you believe you are better off than you were four years ago. Friends, we are still on the verge of victory.
Keep fighting and keep believing. Game on.
Source: Are you better off? Just 96,000 jobs added in August as 368,000 people LEAVE the workforce in bleak employment report dealing blow to Obama re-election hopes.
This ad was not paid for by any political campaign. It has been included as part of this blogger's
personal endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney for President. It is not subject to equal time rights.
Here's the reality, friends: the only reason the unemployment dropped is because there are now far fewer people in the workforce according to the numbers. Fact is if the workforce was the same and so many hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans have officially left the workforce and therefore do not count in the unemployment numbers.
It's been said countless times, friends, if there were the same number of people in the workforce looking for work, unemployment would be over 11%. The idea that 9 million unemployed Americans simply do not count is preposterous.
Here's the real skinny, friends. The President is in deep trouble. His small convention bump will evaporate as quickly as the bump in his approval when the Navy SEALs killed Osama Bin Laden under the weight of Mitt Romney's new ability to spend his campaign cash.
It will be impossible for Obama to tell people they are better off than they were 4 years ago because they are living the reality. When you drive a 4-cylinder car that's only 3 years old and it costs you over $60 to fill your gas tank, no amount of political spin will change your perception of the economy. When the same groceries that cost you $100 in 2009 now costs you $150, guess what...no amount of political spin will change it. When you've been looking for work so long that you've dropped out of the workforce, no amount of political spin will make you believe you are better off than you were four years ago. Friends, we are still on the verge of victory.
Keep fighting and keep believing. Game on.
Source: Are you better off? Just 96,000 jobs added in August as 368,000 people LEAVE the workforce in bleak employment report dealing blow to Obama re-election hopes.
A quick note to my regular readers: Have you Liked Biblical Conservatism on Facebook
yet? You're missing out! The page is now more than just links to the
website. Monday-Friday I link many of the articles and polls I read as
well as some fun political cartoons and memes! If you haven't Liked us
yet, click here to find out what you're missing!
This ad was not paid for by any political campaign. It has been included as part of this blogger's
personal endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney for President. It is not subject to equal time rights.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Why are Polls Still Using 2008 as their Turnout Measure?
Liberal polls are continuing to use their bad polling samples to claim Obama is winning. It's officially ridiculous. They are continuing to use samples that show a Democrat turnout advantage that, by the way, didn't exist in 2010 and shouldn't be expected in 2012.
We've got Democracy Corps that used a polling sample of 41% Democrat, 30% Republican and 28% Independent (Democrat advantage +11%) to achieve an Obama lead of +5%.
Then we've got a Reuters poll that used a sample of Democrat 47%, Republican 38%, Independent 15% - the sample included Independent leaners. (Democrat advantage +9%) to arrive at an Obama lead of +3%
Earlier this week we had a Washington Post-ABC Poll which used a sample of Democrat 32%, Republican 26% and Independent 37% (Democrat advantage +6%) to achieve an Obama lead of +1%
Even a Fox News poll has Obama up +5%. I know liberals are out there saying "HA! EVEN FOX NEWS says Obama is winning!" Except one problem: In Fox News' latest poll is oversampling Democrats by +6% (which baffles me) in THEIR poll, using a sample of Democrats 42%, Republicans 36%, Independents 19%.
Rasmussen remains the only grownup in the room with their polling sample. They are predicting a turnout in 2012 of +1 in favor of Republicans (a conservative estimate). Now, and here's the shocking fact (sarcasm) this reflects the 2010 election turnout within 1%! (Source)
Gallup was using a similar polling sample to Rasmussen, and was showing Obama and Romney neck and neck. That was, until the Obama Administration began to pressure Gallup behind the scenes to change their sample to make it more favorable to Obama.
Fox, to be honest, I think is spending too much time trying to get the liberal media and liberals in general to stop making fun of their "lack of balance." (Which is the most hilarious example of the pot calling the kettle black I've ever seen!) which leads them to use samples that the Left would approve of this time around.
Now friends, I think the polls that will really matter will be within 1-2 weeks of the election. Because that's when the Media is going to have to worry about their reliability ratings and they'll stop using bad samples. Remember that in 1980 only a few weeks before the Election of 1980 Gallup had Carter beating Reagan (Reagan won in a landslide).
Friends, the only polling sample that is making a reasonable guess at the real election turnout for 2012 of +1 for the GOP is Rasmussen (the same poll that was rated most reliable in 2012). And that poll has Romney beating Obama by 3%.
Fact of the matter is the Drive-By Media isn't using polls to show public opinion. They are trying to shape it. We must not let them. We are headed for victory in November, both in Congress and the Presidency. Game on.
We've got Democracy Corps that used a polling sample of 41% Democrat, 30% Republican and 28% Independent (Democrat advantage +11%) to achieve an Obama lead of +5%.
Then we've got a Reuters poll that used a sample of Democrat 47%, Republican 38%, Independent 15% - the sample included Independent leaners. (Democrat advantage +9%) to arrive at an Obama lead of +3%
Earlier this week we had a Washington Post-ABC Poll which used a sample of Democrat 32%, Republican 26% and Independent 37% (Democrat advantage +6%) to achieve an Obama lead of +1%
Even a Fox News poll has Obama up +5%. I know liberals are out there saying "HA! EVEN FOX NEWS says Obama is winning!" Except one problem: In Fox News' latest poll is oversampling Democrats by +6% (which baffles me) in THEIR poll, using a sample of Democrats 42%, Republicans 36%, Independents 19%.
Rasmussen remains the only grownup in the room with their polling sample. They are predicting a turnout in 2012 of +1 in favor of Republicans (a conservative estimate). Now, and here's the shocking fact (sarcasm) this reflects the 2010 election turnout within 1%! (Source)
Gallup was using a similar polling sample to Rasmussen, and was showing Obama and Romney neck and neck. That was, until the Obama Administration began to pressure Gallup behind the scenes to change their sample to make it more favorable to Obama.
Fox, to be honest, I think is spending too much time trying to get the liberal media and liberals in general to stop making fun of their "lack of balance." (Which is the most hilarious example of the pot calling the kettle black I've ever seen!) which leads them to use samples that the Left would approve of this time around.
Now friends, I think the polls that will really matter will be within 1-2 weeks of the election. Because that's when the Media is going to have to worry about their reliability ratings and they'll stop using bad samples. Remember that in 1980 only a few weeks before the Election of 1980 Gallup had Carter beating Reagan (Reagan won in a landslide).
Friends, the only polling sample that is making a reasonable guess at the real election turnout for 2012 of +1 for the GOP is Rasmussen (the same poll that was rated most reliable in 2012). And that poll has Romney beating Obama by 3%.
Fact of the matter is the Drive-By Media isn't using polls to show public opinion. They are trying to shape it. We must not let them. We are headed for victory in November, both in Congress and the Presidency. Game on.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Obama's (Lack of) Response to Libyan Attack was Disgraceful, Romney's was Presidential
As I'm sure you are aware, the United States Embassy in Cairo, Libya was attacked and our ambassador was killed.
So here's what the US Embassy said shortly before the attacks:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
Wow. Friends, WE apologized BEFORE we were attacked. We're apologizing for "hurting the religious feelings of Muslims?" Well apparently it wasn't a good enough apology, because then they attacked.
I know we're going to hear how "It wasn't Obama!" but friends, the administration absolutely cleared this statement. Americans were attacked overseas. Frankly if the President DIDN'T know about this that says what a weak leader we have elected President.
Now let me ask you a question: Do "hurt feelings" justify violence? Do "hurt feelings" justify murder? OF COURSE NOT! I don't care how badly your politically correct feelings are hurt...you do not get to kill Americans (or anyone else, frankly).
One man was Presidential yesterday in the wake of this. No, it wasn't the actual President of the United States. It was the man who I believe will be President in a mere four months, Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney had a chance yesterday to look Presidential, and he nailed it. (President Obama had an opportunity to be weak and pandering...and he nailed that opportunity as well as Governor Romney nailed the opportunity to look Presidential.) It was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan when Americans held hostage in Iran boarded a plane to go home as Reagan was sworn in as President.
Here's what Governor Romney said in the wake of the attack:
It wasn't until far later in the statement that Romney condemned the liberal attempt to apologize. Of course that's what the liberal media is focused on...and not how weak Obama was in a difficult moment. How dare Governor Romney criticize poor Obama...he's had it so tough! Friends, I'd like to remind the Drive-By Media of something important: Mitt Romney, in addition to being a candidate for President, is also a citizen. That means, for four months more anyway, Barack Obama is Mitt's President too...and in this country it is not only our right to question our leaders it is our responsibility. Even if that President has thin skin.
My friends, we need a real leader. President Obama has clearly refused to be that. Mitt Romney I am convinced will lead. And that's the kind of President this nation deserves.
This ad was not paid for by any political candidate, party or PAC. It has been posted as part of this Blogger's personal endorsement of Mitt Romney for President. It is not subject to equal time laws.
So here's what the US Embassy said shortly before the attacks:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
Wow. Friends, WE apologized BEFORE we were attacked. We're apologizing for "hurting the religious feelings of Muslims?" Well apparently it wasn't a good enough apology, because then they attacked.
I know we're going to hear how "It wasn't Obama!" but friends, the administration absolutely cleared this statement. Americans were attacked overseas. Frankly if the President DIDN'T know about this that says what a weak leader we have elected President.
Now let me ask you a question: Do "hurt feelings" justify violence? Do "hurt feelings" justify murder? OF COURSE NOT! I don't care how badly your politically correct feelings are hurt...you do not get to kill Americans (or anyone else, frankly).
One man was Presidential yesterday in the wake of this. No, it wasn't the actual President of the United States. It was the man who I believe will be President in a mere four months, Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney had a chance yesterday to look Presidential, and he nailed it. (President Obama had an opportunity to be weak and pandering...and he nailed that opportunity as well as Governor Romney nailed the opportunity to look Presidential.) It was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan when Americans held hostage in Iran boarded a plane to go home as Reagan was sworn in as President.
Here's what Governor Romney said in the wake of the attack:
It wasn't until far later in the statement that Romney condemned the liberal attempt to apologize. Of course that's what the liberal media is focused on...and not how weak Obama was in a difficult moment. How dare Governor Romney criticize poor Obama...he's had it so tough! Friends, I'd like to remind the Drive-By Media of something important: Mitt Romney, in addition to being a candidate for President, is also a citizen. That means, for four months more anyway, Barack Obama is Mitt's President too...and in this country it is not only our right to question our leaders it is our responsibility. Even if that President has thin skin.
My friends, we need a real leader. President Obama has clearly refused to be that. Mitt Romney I am convinced will lead. And that's the kind of President this nation deserves.
To my regular readers: Have you liked Biblical Conservatism on Facebook yet? YOU ARE MISSING OUT on the news I read to prepare this blog and the political and political cartoons and memes that make me laugh! Click here to see the page and ,like us!
This ad was not paid for by any political candidate, party or PAC. It has been posted as part of this Blogger's personal endorsement of Mitt Romney for President. It is not subject to equal time laws.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Romney 53%, Obama 45% (If CNN's Poll Wasn't Skewed)
No, it wasn't me who did that math. It was the Washington Examiner. They took the polling sample from the most recent CNN Poll and changed it to reflect the real electorate. The results, once Republicans weren't undersampled and Independents RIDICULOUSLY undersampled, was Romney 53%, Obama 45%. Now THAT'S more like it!
I've been pointing out the ridiculousness of the polling samples used by many Drive-By Media sources have continued to use this election. Oversampling Democrats, undersampling Republicans, and woefully ignoring Independents. The sample was Democrats 50%, Republicans 45%, Independents a mere 5%!
Now CNN refused to show that sample in their poll. It took behind the scenes work by The Washington Examiner to uncover the sampling problems. But seriously, 5% Independents??? Yet another thing to keep in mind: According to the same CNN Poll shows Romney beating Obama with Independents by 14%! Friends, there is NO WAY that Obama loses Independents by 14% in a real electorate and somehow beats Romney period, let alone by 6%.
Again according to the Washington Examiner, once the sample is adjusted to reflect the actual electorate and not the Democrat and Drive-By Media fantasy electorate, The results would be Romney 53% - Obama 45%. Friends, that's a big win for Governor Romney. That's what these ridiculous polling samples are hiding.
They want you discouraged. They want you to feel that Governor Romney can't win and President Obama can't lose. The truth is quite the opposite. Mitt Romney is doing very well and is about to defeat Barack Obama in November. Trust me, friends, we're about to win, and no amount of skewed polls will change it.
Sources:
Washington Examiner: Questions raised about skewed CNN poll showing Obama up 6 points over Romney
Washington Examiner: Mitt Romney would lead eight in unskewed data from newest CNN/ORC poll
Washington Post: Post-convention poll shows Obama holds slight lead over Romney
I've been pointing out the ridiculousness of the polling samples used by many Drive-By Media sources have continued to use this election. Oversampling Democrats, undersampling Republicans, and woefully ignoring Independents. The sample was Democrats 50%, Republicans 45%, Independents a mere 5%!
Now CNN refused to show that sample in their poll. It took behind the scenes work by The Washington Examiner to uncover the sampling problems. But seriously, 5% Independents??? Yet another thing to keep in mind: According to the same CNN Poll shows Romney beating Obama with Independents by 14%! Friends, there is NO WAY that Obama loses Independents by 14% in a real electorate and somehow beats Romney period, let alone by 6%.
Again according to the Washington Examiner, once the sample is adjusted to reflect the actual electorate and not the Democrat and Drive-By Media fantasy electorate, The results would be Romney 53% - Obama 45%. Friends, that's a big win for Governor Romney. That's what these ridiculous polling samples are hiding.
They want you discouraged. They want you to feel that Governor Romney can't win and President Obama can't lose. The truth is quite the opposite. Mitt Romney is doing very well and is about to defeat Barack Obama in November. Trust me, friends, we're about to win, and no amount of skewed polls will change it.
Sources:
Washington Examiner: Questions raised about skewed CNN poll showing Obama up 6 points over Romney
Washington Examiner: Mitt Romney would lead eight in unskewed data from newest CNN/ORC poll
Washington Post: Post-convention poll shows Obama holds slight lead over Romney
Remember, friends, all these links and many many more are posted on the Biblical Conservatism Facebook Page! Like us to keep up on all the news throughout the day!
This ad was not paid for by any political campaign or PAC. It has been posted as part of this blogger's personal endorsement of Mitt Romney and is not subject to equal time laws.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Reflections on Post-Convention Polls
A lot of conservatives are starting to squirm a little bit on the back of President Obama getting a measly few point polling bump after his convention. There are conservatives who genuinely believe this means Obama has this election in the bag. Friends, I'm here to tell you this is not true. I'm here to give you a big dose of reality.
Four polls have been published since the Democrat Convention (I'm counting the daily rolling averages of Rasmussen (3-day average) and Gallup (7-day average) each as one poll. Of the four, the voracity of three can be questioned. So let's start with Gallup.
Yes, I still consider Gallup one of the most reliable polls. However, I do find it funny that: The Obama Administration called in Gallup and read them the riot act about the polling samples they used, which uses a sample that reflects the actual 2010 electorate (and not the 2008 electorate or exit polls or some fantasy electorate dreamed up by Heaven knows who). When Gallup refused to change their methodology, the Department of Justice gets involved with a lawsuit against Gallup that has nothing to do with the election. (Sources*: Washington Times, Dick Morris)
Then we have two fine poll cookers: CNN and Tipp Online. First to CNN:
CNN published this poll of likely voters (supposedly likely voters anyway) on Monday claims President Obama leads Governor Romney 52% to 46%. A few red flags go up on this poll. For one, the polling sample is not implicitly published. That alone gives me reason to question it. Secondly, the polling sample was only about 700 voters, insufficient to get a good snapshot of the national population. Thirdly, and this is the big red flag that screams of a cooked polling sample, the poll says that of the individuals polled gave the Democrat Party a 51% favorability rating and Republicans only 42% favorability rating. Except that according to Gallup, who conducted a straight up poll of party favorability and found the GOP with 43% favorability and the Democratic Party 42% favorability. This data, in the absence of seeing the actual poll sample, makes me believe Democrats were oversampled.
Now to Tipp Online:
The Tipp Online poll of registered voters was at least honest enough to publish their sample. Their poll claims President Obama is beating Governor Romney 46% to 44%. Just the fact that polling registered voters is an advantage to Democrats of 2-4% so that means Romney with likely voters is either tied or winning by 1-2%. Then let's look at the poll sample, shall we? It was Democrats 36%, Republicans 31% Independents 30%. So friends there was a 5% oversample of Democrats.
Apparently, the fine folks at Tipp want you to believe that the Election 2010 didn't happen. You know, that massive landslide victory for conservatism two years ago? Yeah, that. Apparently President Obama has somehow gained popularity after that...because he...uhhh...well I'm not entirely sure what but he did something I guess. He cares...so I guess that's it?
Now I would be remiss if I didn't also give you a nice history lesson. In 1980, Jimmy Carter got a post-convention bump that put him 4% ahead of Ronald Reagan. Carter lost to Reagan by 9% that November. In 1988, Michael Dukakis was beating Vice President George H.W. Bush by 17% after his convention. Dukakis lost to Bush by 9% that November. Both Reagan and Bush won over 400 Electoral Votes in those elections by the way. (In 1980, Carter won only 6 states and Washington D.C. In 1988, Dukakis won only 10 states and Washington D.C.)
Friends, convention bumps don't mean much, even if we take the polls at face value. History proves it. When you add in the fact that the Drive-By Media is cooking polls and threatening pollsters to make the bump happen, well, I'd say Obama's still in trouble.
Quick after note: I wrote this post on Monday, 9/10/12. On that date, Rasmussen had Obama +5 over Romney. On Tuesday, 9/11/12, Rasmussen's poll shows Obama's lead down to +3. I predict it will continue to drop tomorrow and by Thursday it will be back to a dead heat.
A second poll posted on on Tuesday 9/11/12 from Washington Post-ABC Obama up +1, but the poll oversampled Democrats +6. As I told you, we're back to square one and Romney is winning with the real electorate.
Four polls have been published since the Democrat Convention (I'm counting the daily rolling averages of Rasmussen (3-day average) and Gallup (7-day average) each as one poll. Of the four, the voracity of three can be questioned. So let's start with Gallup.
Yes, I still consider Gallup one of the most reliable polls. However, I do find it funny that: The Obama Administration called in Gallup and read them the riot act about the polling samples they used, which uses a sample that reflects the actual 2010 electorate (and not the 2008 electorate or exit polls or some fantasy electorate dreamed up by Heaven knows who). When Gallup refused to change their methodology, the Department of Justice gets involved with a lawsuit against Gallup that has nothing to do with the election. (Sources*: Washington Times, Dick Morris)
Then we have two fine poll cookers: CNN and Tipp Online. First to CNN:
CNN published this poll of likely voters (supposedly likely voters anyway) on Monday claims President Obama leads Governor Romney 52% to 46%. A few red flags go up on this poll. For one, the polling sample is not implicitly published. That alone gives me reason to question it. Secondly, the polling sample was only about 700 voters, insufficient to get a good snapshot of the national population. Thirdly, and this is the big red flag that screams of a cooked polling sample, the poll says that of the individuals polled gave the Democrat Party a 51% favorability rating and Republicans only 42% favorability rating. Except that according to Gallup, who conducted a straight up poll of party favorability and found the GOP with 43% favorability and the Democratic Party 42% favorability. This data, in the absence of seeing the actual poll sample, makes me believe Democrats were oversampled.
Now to Tipp Online:
The Tipp Online poll of registered voters was at least honest enough to publish their sample. Their poll claims President Obama is beating Governor Romney 46% to 44%. Just the fact that polling registered voters is an advantage to Democrats of 2-4% so that means Romney with likely voters is either tied or winning by 1-2%. Then let's look at the poll sample, shall we? It was Democrats 36%, Republicans 31% Independents 30%. So friends there was a 5% oversample of Democrats.
Apparently, the fine folks at Tipp want you to believe that the Election 2010 didn't happen. You know, that massive landslide victory for conservatism two years ago? Yeah, that. Apparently President Obama has somehow gained popularity after that...because he...uhhh...well I'm not entirely sure what but he did something I guess. He cares...so I guess that's it?
Now I would be remiss if I didn't also give you a nice history lesson. In 1980, Jimmy Carter got a post-convention bump that put him 4% ahead of Ronald Reagan. Carter lost to Reagan by 9% that November. In 1988, Michael Dukakis was beating Vice President George H.W. Bush by 17% after his convention. Dukakis lost to Bush by 9% that November. Both Reagan and Bush won over 400 Electoral Votes in those elections by the way. (In 1980, Carter won only 6 states and Washington D.C. In 1988, Dukakis won only 10 states and Washington D.C.)
Friends, convention bumps don't mean much, even if we take the polls at face value. History proves it. When you add in the fact that the Drive-By Media is cooking polls and threatening pollsters to make the bump happen, well, I'd say Obama's still in trouble.
Quick after note: I wrote this post on Monday, 9/10/12. On that date, Rasmussen had Obama +5 over Romney. On Tuesday, 9/11/12, Rasmussen's poll shows Obama's lead down to +3. I predict it will continue to drop tomorrow and by Thursday it will be back to a dead heat.
A second poll posted on on Tuesday 9/11/12 from Washington Post-ABC Obama up +1, but the poll oversampled Democrats +6. As I told you, we're back to square one and Romney is winning with the real electorate.
*All denoted articles were linked recently on Biblical Conservatism's Facebook
Page...
which you should like to get such updates daily! Click here to like us on Facebook!
which you should like to get such updates daily! Click here to like us on Facebook!
This ad was not paid for by any political campaign or PAC. It has been included as part of this blogger's
personal endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney for President. It is not subject to equal time rights.
personal endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney for President. It is not subject to equal time rights.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Reactions to the Democrat Convention (A Tale of Two Conventions)
Two conventions in one, to be specific. For those who actually bothered to watch the live feed of the Democrat convention before the prime time broadcasts kicked off on the networks and cable news channels, we saw a very different Democrat convention than those who only saw the prime time broadcasts.
When few were watching save for political junkies on either side and party faithful, it was the standard demagoguery we've come to accept from the Democrats. You know "Republicans want old people to die!" or "Republicans are mean spirited!" or "Paul Ryan wants to push granny off a cliff!" that has no basis in reality. Then, when the national audience tuned it, they campaign turned into a challenger campaign.
I found myself watching Obama's speech on Thursday thinking to myself "does the President realize we've all lived through the last 3 years and 8 months...and we know he's actually been President for that long?" It was a speech suited for a challenger trying to lay out a vision but not a plan. Friends, I have a vision of America where everyone is a New York Mets fan. It's a lovely vision for me. I've got absolutely no way to make it happen (neither by the way does the Mets ownership...but that's a different problem entirely). Same goes for the President. Rather, the Democrat plan for the nation, as they presented in their convention, seems to look like this:
I genuinely wish it was better than this because I do want America to improve. Granted, I also know my history and realize fully that the liberal plan has been tried before and failed every time it's been tried so why would today differ?
Obama's speech was high on rhetoric and incredibly low on substance. As I said, it was suited better for a challenger than an incumbent. And even Mitt Romney's challenger speech included a 5-Point Plan. Obama's included...well, see the ObamaPants Gnomes above. As I said earlier this week, Obama's platform is basically:
Here's what should really make Obama nervous: He has thrown absolutely everything he's got at Governor Romney. From the phantom "War on Women" (because wanting to protect the unborn is somehow anti-women because...ummm...racism?) to attempts from an Obama SuperPAC to saddle Governor Romney with the death of a woman from lack of health insurance even though she totally had health insurance, none of it has stuck. President Obama is out of options. He's thrown every bit of mud he can...most of it completely invalid...and he's gotten precisely nowhere. The race is still ostensibly tied.
So what did President Obama do with his big speech...his chance to make his case? He regurgitated the same baloney he did in 2008...as if he didn't have a record. Not only that, but he gave basically the same speech that Jimmy Carter gave in 1980 at the Democrat National Convention. Same lines. Same liberal playbook. "We're importing less oil!" (Because Americans are driving less due to the high cost of fuel.) Unemployment is down! (Because there are less jobs to be had and hundreds of thousands have dropped out of the workforce...oh and don't mention that if there were the same number of jobs available as there were in 2009 when Obama took office, unemployment would be over 11%).
The reality is Obama phoned in that speech. The soaring rhetoric was gone. Even Drive-By Media outlets were commenting about how Obama has lost his luster, how Obama hasn't given a good speech in four years. The reality is the Drive By Media is preparing to throw Obama overboard to protect the ideology of liberalism. Trust me, if it becomes clear Obama is about to lose, the story will be "Liberalism didn't fail...it was just Obama!"
My final thought on this convention is the utter silliness of their message. Think about it. "The Republicans are waging a war on women!" Then their star at the convention was Bill Clinton (a man accused of rape, sexual harassment, and more affairs that can be enumerated). Their slogan was "Forward!" now please welcome the star of the Democrat convention, Bill Clinton (who left office nearly TWELVE YEARS AGO).
Yes, Obama got a bit of a convention bump. But historically, convention bumps don't last, especially when the challenger now has access to tens of millions of dollars to spend on campaigning. I remember in 2004 walking into a room carrying a USA Today showing the Gallup poll with President Bush leading Senator John F. Kerry by 10% after the Republican Convention. Bush won by 3%, by the way.
Oh, and with the election less than 60 days away, Mitt Romney has a campaign bank at his disposal of $100 million. Mark my words: We are about to see Governor Romney take the lead, keep it, and win. Game on.
When few were watching save for political junkies on either side and party faithful, it was the standard demagoguery we've come to accept from the Democrats. You know "Republicans want old people to die!" or "Republicans are mean spirited!" or "Paul Ryan wants to push granny off a cliff!" that has no basis in reality. Then, when the national audience tuned it, they campaign turned into a challenger campaign.
I found myself watching Obama's speech on Thursday thinking to myself "does the President realize we've all lived through the last 3 years and 8 months...and we know he's actually been President for that long?" It was a speech suited for a challenger trying to lay out a vision but not a plan. Friends, I have a vision of America where everyone is a New York Mets fan. It's a lovely vision for me. I've got absolutely no way to make it happen (neither by the way does the Mets ownership...but that's a different problem entirely). Same goes for the President. Rather, the Democrat plan for the nation, as they presented in their convention, seems to look like this:
 |
| Original Photo comes from South Park's Episode "Gnomes" Used under Fair Use laws. |
I genuinely wish it was better than this because I do want America to improve. Granted, I also know my history and realize fully that the liberal plan has been tried before and failed every time it's been tried so why would today differ?
Obama's speech was high on rhetoric and incredibly low on substance. As I said, it was suited better for a challenger than an incumbent. And even Mitt Romney's challenger speech included a 5-Point Plan. Obama's included...well, see the ObamaPants Gnomes above. As I said earlier this week, Obama's platform is basically:
Here's what should really make Obama nervous: He has thrown absolutely everything he's got at Governor Romney. From the phantom "War on Women" (because wanting to protect the unborn is somehow anti-women because...ummm...racism?) to attempts from an Obama SuperPAC to saddle Governor Romney with the death of a woman from lack of health insurance even though she totally had health insurance, none of it has stuck. President Obama is out of options. He's thrown every bit of mud he can...most of it completely invalid...and he's gotten precisely nowhere. The race is still ostensibly tied.
So what did President Obama do with his big speech...his chance to make his case? He regurgitated the same baloney he did in 2008...as if he didn't have a record. Not only that, but he gave basically the same speech that Jimmy Carter gave in 1980 at the Democrat National Convention. Same lines. Same liberal playbook. "We're importing less oil!" (Because Americans are driving less due to the high cost of fuel.) Unemployment is down! (Because there are less jobs to be had and hundreds of thousands have dropped out of the workforce...oh and don't mention that if there were the same number of jobs available as there were in 2009 when Obama took office, unemployment would be over 11%).
The reality is Obama phoned in that speech. The soaring rhetoric was gone. Even Drive-By Media outlets were commenting about how Obama has lost his luster, how Obama hasn't given a good speech in four years. The reality is the Drive By Media is preparing to throw Obama overboard to protect the ideology of liberalism. Trust me, if it becomes clear Obama is about to lose, the story will be "Liberalism didn't fail...it was just Obama!"
My final thought on this convention is the utter silliness of their message. Think about it. "The Republicans are waging a war on women!" Then their star at the convention was Bill Clinton (a man accused of rape, sexual harassment, and more affairs that can be enumerated). Their slogan was "Forward!" now please welcome the star of the Democrat convention, Bill Clinton (who left office nearly TWELVE YEARS AGO).
Yes, Obama got a bit of a convention bump. But historically, convention bumps don't last, especially when the challenger now has access to tens of millions of dollars to spend on campaigning. I remember in 2004 walking into a room carrying a USA Today showing the Gallup poll with President Bush leading Senator John F. Kerry by 10% after the Republican Convention. Bush won by 3%, by the way.
Oh, and with the election less than 60 days away, Mitt Romney has a campaign bank at his disposal of $100 million. Mark my words: We are about to see Governor Romney take the lead, keep it, and win. Game on.
A quick note to my regular readers: Have you Liked Biblical Conservatism on Facebook yet? You're missing out! The page is now more than just links to the website. Monday-Friday I link many of the articles and polls I read as well as some fun political cartoons and memes! If you haven't Liked us yet, click here to find out what you're missing!
This ad was not paid for by any political campaign. It has been included as part of this blogger's
personal endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney for President. It is not subject to equal time rights.
personal endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney for President. It is not subject to equal time rights.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Obama is Losing Independents by 15% in Democrat Poll
The news is a week old, I'm afraid, but there's been so much else going on I've been backed up on important stories to cover. However, it was the Democrat group Democracy Corps (run by former Clinton adviser James Carville) who broke the story that in their poll, the President is losing to Mitt Romney with Independents by 15%. That's huge, especially considering that Obama won Independents by 8% in 2008. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that's a 23% swing in favor of the GOP from 2012).
The overall poll claimed that the President was leading Governor Romney by 2%...but that does include a +6% Democrat oversample. Translation: In the real world with an appropriately even sample or even a couple point GOP advantage which can be legitimately be guessed given the difference in voter engagement, it is reasonable to presume that Romney is actually beating Obama by about 3-4% (which is what the only poll of likely voters that doesn't include a fantasy electorate with a Democrat turnout advantage is showing).
To my regular readers:
Are you a fan of Biblical Conservatism on Facebook? If not, you want to be! Not only is every day's blog posted on the page but there is also a steady stream of links from the news articles I read daily to create this blog as well as some great humor via political memes and cartoons! Click here to find the page and like us!
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Voters Say Obama Doesn't Deserve Re-Election
Well it's about time somebody reported this! According to a poll conducted by the Hill, 52% of Americans say no, they are not better off than they were 4 years ago. 54% say President Obama does not deserve a second term.
The poll, which consisted of 1000 Likely Voters, clearly gives it's polling sample...and for a nice surprise, it doesn't use a fantasy electorate! Instead of using previous Presidential elections and wishful thinking, the Hill has estimated a small advantage in voter turnout by Republicans (+2% turnout over Democrats) which, given the mood of the country and the fact that Republicans are more excited to vote than Democrats by 2 to 1, is actually a conservative estimate (no pun intended) for the GOP advantage in voter turnout in 2012. The sample was 36% Republican, 34% Democrat and 30% Independent/Other.
Considering that a recent Rasmussen poll of personal party identification (not registration) shows that 37% of Americans self-identify as Republican while 33% self-identify as Democrats. This is significant, since recent polls showed an even trend when we consider self-identity with the GOP.
So when we look at a poll that actually resembles how the electorate will likely look in November, instead of a fantasy for how Democrats wish the electorate would look (through some miracle better for Democrats than 2008). So here in the real world, Democrats are primed to lose. Game on.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
A Brief List of Obama's Plans for His 2nd Term (According to his Campaign)
And now, a brief list of the things President Obama has stated he will do in a second term, according to things his campaign has stated:
Any questions?
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Reactions to the Republican Convention
If someone asked me to describe the Republican convention in one word I would say: HOMERUN!
The Left has gone absolutely crazy after this convention. They are screaming as loud as they can how conservatives are racist and inventing new ways to define racism. Apparently now it includes making jokes about Obama trying out for the PGA (that's the Professional Golfer's Association)...because CLEARLY saying Obama is trying out for the PGA is a reference to Tiger Woods and Tiger Woods had a very public fall from grace over his affairs with many women and therefore it is CLEAR that the Republicans are comparing Obama to Tiger Woods which means they are calling him an "oversexed black man" which is a classic racial stereotype HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS???
In all seriousness friends, you know you've hit a nerve when the Left can't use anything real to attack us and instead start becoming absolutely ridiculous. I see it regularly. I see it when someone starts posting every silly thing a random conservative who does not speak for all of us as if that one nutjob DOES speak for us. (These people also tend to ignore far more ridiculous statements from people like Vice President Joe Biden.)
The fact of the matter is the Republican Convention WASN'T packed with crazy statements. In fact, it was packed with good old fashioned American values. It was about saying "Yes, YOU DID BUILD IT!" You did work hard and build your business! You worked hard and succeeded! It wasn't the government who did it...as a matter of fact there wouldn't be roads and bridges if you hadn't built that business because it's TAXPAYERS who pay for roads and bridges and those taxpayers are either the business owners themselves or the employees of the business owners.
It was a celebration of what makes America great. We talked about the American dream and those a generation or two behind us who are seeing the dream happen for their children. It was talking about the son of Cuban immigrants whose father was a bartender and whose mother worked for K-Mart...and their son became a United States Senator. Or the woman whose husband died and she started her own business at age 50 to support her family...and saw her son become a 7 term Congressman, and that son is now running for Vice President. Or a man who took his family away from a war-torn nation and brought them here to America...and saw his son become Governor of Michigan and his grandson become Governor of Massachusetts...and that grandson is now the Republican Nominee for President.
We Republicans; despite the best efforts of the Left to call us racist or out of touch or whatever other ridiculous slander they are currently perpetuating; we are about the American Dream. We don't care what color your skin is and we don't care if you're rich or poor...we want you to have opportunity and freedom! Not equality of result because that can only happen by guaranteeing POOR results for all. But equality of opportunity and freedom? Well THAT we can guarantee you.
This convention made me proud to be a Republican and proud to be a conservative. That's why the Left has to demonize! They have nothing better to do! They cannot win a fair fight on ideas with us. What the Republican platform is about is American ideals, freedom, and opportunity to succeed. It's not about government government government it's about FREEDOM! So the Left is going to demonize. They're going to cry racism, bring out their phoney fact-checkers that repeat the falsehoods for them as if putting "non-partisan" on a group's label makes it so, they're going to talk about phoney wars on women and try to make Mitt Romney seem like a horrible person.
The truth is we are the party of American values and friends, after our convention, I am convinced that we are going to take back the White House this November! Game so very on!
The Left has gone absolutely crazy after this convention. They are screaming as loud as they can how conservatives are racist and inventing new ways to define racism. Apparently now it includes making jokes about Obama trying out for the PGA (that's the Professional Golfer's Association)...because CLEARLY saying Obama is trying out for the PGA is a reference to Tiger Woods and Tiger Woods had a very public fall from grace over his affairs with many women and therefore it is CLEAR that the Republicans are comparing Obama to Tiger Woods which means they are calling him an "oversexed black man" which is a classic racial stereotype HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS???
In all seriousness friends, you know you've hit a nerve when the Left can't use anything real to attack us and instead start becoming absolutely ridiculous. I see it regularly. I see it when someone starts posting every silly thing a random conservative who does not speak for all of us as if that one nutjob DOES speak for us. (These people also tend to ignore far more ridiculous statements from people like Vice President Joe Biden.)
The fact of the matter is the Republican Convention WASN'T packed with crazy statements. In fact, it was packed with good old fashioned American values. It was about saying "Yes, YOU DID BUILD IT!" You did work hard and build your business! You worked hard and succeeded! It wasn't the government who did it...as a matter of fact there wouldn't be roads and bridges if you hadn't built that business because it's TAXPAYERS who pay for roads and bridges and those taxpayers are either the business owners themselves or the employees of the business owners.
It was a celebration of what makes America great. We talked about the American dream and those a generation or two behind us who are seeing the dream happen for their children. It was talking about the son of Cuban immigrants whose father was a bartender and whose mother worked for K-Mart...and their son became a United States Senator. Or the woman whose husband died and she started her own business at age 50 to support her family...and saw her son become a 7 term Congressman, and that son is now running for Vice President. Or a man who took his family away from a war-torn nation and brought them here to America...and saw his son become Governor of Michigan and his grandson become Governor of Massachusetts...and that grandson is now the Republican Nominee for President.
We Republicans; despite the best efforts of the Left to call us racist or out of touch or whatever other ridiculous slander they are currently perpetuating; we are about the American Dream. We don't care what color your skin is and we don't care if you're rich or poor...we want you to have opportunity and freedom! Not equality of result because that can only happen by guaranteeing POOR results for all. But equality of opportunity and freedom? Well THAT we can guarantee you.
This convention made me proud to be a Republican and proud to be a conservative. That's why the Left has to demonize! They have nothing better to do! They cannot win a fair fight on ideas with us. What the Republican platform is about is American ideals, freedom, and opportunity to succeed. It's not about government government government it's about FREEDOM! So the Left is going to demonize. They're going to cry racism, bring out their phoney fact-checkers that repeat the falsehoods for them as if putting "non-partisan" on a group's label makes it so, they're going to talk about phoney wars on women and try to make Mitt Romney seem like a horrible person.
The truth is we are the party of American values and friends, after our convention, I am convinced that we are going to take back the White House this November! Game so very on!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)