President Obama has spent quite a lot of this Presidential campaign attacking Mitt Romney as out of touch because he's so wealthy. (Apparently the President's $10 million personal net worth makes him the average citizen.) He's been playing the class warfare game as well...saying the phrase "pay their fair share" so many times that it makes me want to lose my lunch. There's no fiscal reason for this mentality, as some basic math shows that raising taxes 4-5% on the top tax bracket will be as useful to reducing the deficit as attempting to water your lawn using one cup of water.
The question one must ask is this: is it working? No, according to a Gallup Poll from early in the campaign. Of all voters polled, a full 75% said that Romney's wealth made absolutely no difference as to whether or not they intended to vote for him. None whatsoever. An additional 4% of voters said that Mitt's wealth made them MORE likely to vote for him. That was a few months ago, prior to the debates, prior to Governor Romney becoming likable and preferable to the electorate.
Depending on how you look at it, Romney's wealth, or rather how he obtained it (through his own hard work and rising in business) is a big plus. It means he actually has participated in the economy, run a business, and clearly has more of a clue when it comes to fiscal matters than President Obama, who believes that somehow you can take money out of the economy then put it back in and grow the economy.
Bottom line, the majority of the people who are going to complain about Mitt's wealth weren't going to vote for Romney anyway. They're part of Obama's base, specifically the whiney, self-indulgent people who believe society owes them everything their little hearts desire (no, that's not all of Obama's base, just some). The President has absolutely nothing new to say...so he's going right back to the same pages of the liberal playbook.
Unfortunately, the President's record is his own worst enemy. The problem is, as a famous politician said in 2008, "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as
someone people should run from. You make a big election about small
things." Who was that? Oh, right. President Obama, accepting the Democratic nomination in 2008.
Now that all the new metaphoric bullets in the political gun have been fired, the President is bringing back old ones. For example, did you know Mitt Romney worked at Bain Captial? (Shocking!) There's nothing left. The Election is six days away, and the President has absolutely nothing left. The class warfare has failed. Mitt Romney is about to be elected our nation's 45th President. Game on.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Benghazi Should Be a Huge Scandal (But Media has Covered it Up)
I've waited a few weeks to discuss in full detail what happened six weeks ago in Benghazi. Oh, I've mentioned in here and there, but due to a host of issues in my personal life I've waited until now. But I believe the time has come to talk about what has transpired over the last six weeks.
What we have seen, friends is both a complete and utter tale of lies from the Obama Administration and the most inept cover up in political history. Yes, we all know what the President said the day after the attack...he used the word terrorism. Yes, we got that. But then what happened? He went on the View, he went on David Letterman, he sent various surrogates out on Sunday talk shows; and blamed a video.
They said it was spontaneous. They said it was just a protest that got out of hand. (People usually spontaneously protest with rocket propelled grenades and rocket launchers, right? Right? No?)
Then that story blew up in the President's face. So what did the Drive-By Media do? They've engaged in the cover up. It's the equivalent, as Rush Limbaugh has said over the past couple weeks, is the equivalent of "Woodward and Bernstein helping Nixon cover up Watergate."
The dominoes keep falling, by the way. The President claimed he didn't know about the attack. Except if he didn't know, that would make him the single most incompetent President in history. Not mentioning the fact that, if the President did know and did nothing, he's also been the most UNCARING President (given that he has run on how much he cares, this is especially poignant) in history.
My friends, here's the reality that the Drive-By Media is scrambling to cover up: In my opinion, the Obama Campaign made a calculated decision that admitting that Benghazi was a coordinated terrorist attack affiliated with Al Qaeda (who, according to the Obama Campaign is supposedly dead, since we killed Osama Bin Laden) would be akin to losing the President's best argument for his Foreign Policy strength. So they covered it up. They pretended it wasn't real. They blamed a video.
This President, according to many people in the intelligence community, the military, and other individuals in the know, had the opportunity to send in fighter jets and scramble the crowd. Or they could have let the ambassador have United States Marines guarding him instead of local anybodies from Libya. (Heck, our Ambassador to France has Marines guarding him!)
The bottom line is this: President Obama has failed in his first duty; protecting Americans. It's yet another reason why we must elect a new President next week. Period.
What we have seen, friends is both a complete and utter tale of lies from the Obama Administration and the most inept cover up in political history. Yes, we all know what the President said the day after the attack...he used the word terrorism. Yes, we got that. But then what happened? He went on the View, he went on David Letterman, he sent various surrogates out on Sunday talk shows; and blamed a video.
They said it was spontaneous. They said it was just a protest that got out of hand. (People usually spontaneously protest with rocket propelled grenades and rocket launchers, right? Right? No?)
Then that story blew up in the President's face. So what did the Drive-By Media do? They've engaged in the cover up. It's the equivalent, as Rush Limbaugh has said over the past couple weeks, is the equivalent of "Woodward and Bernstein helping Nixon cover up Watergate."
The dominoes keep falling, by the way. The President claimed he didn't know about the attack. Except if he didn't know, that would make him the single most incompetent President in history. Not mentioning the fact that, if the President did know and did nothing, he's also been the most UNCARING President (given that he has run on how much he cares, this is especially poignant) in history.
My friends, here's the reality that the Drive-By Media is scrambling to cover up: In my opinion, the Obama Campaign made a calculated decision that admitting that Benghazi was a coordinated terrorist attack affiliated with Al Qaeda (who, according to the Obama Campaign is supposedly dead, since we killed Osama Bin Laden) would be akin to losing the President's best argument for his Foreign Policy strength. So they covered it up. They pretended it wasn't real. They blamed a video.
This President, according to many people in the intelligence community, the military, and other individuals in the know, had the opportunity to send in fighter jets and scramble the crowd. Or they could have let the ambassador have United States Marines guarding him instead of local anybodies from Libya. (Heck, our Ambassador to France has Marines guarding him!)
The bottom line is this: President Obama has failed in his first duty; protecting Americans. It's yet another reason why we must elect a new President next week. Period.
Monday, October 29, 2012
In Memorial of Justin Lewis Glynn
Today at Biblical Conservatism I'm going to let the blog sit and not talk about politics or the election. The reason is because of this little fellow:
Little Justin is the dearly departed son of my best friend and fellow blogger, Martin the JC_Freak and his wife. You can read Martin's explanation of what happened to little Justin on his blog.
There's not much to say in a moment like this, except I ask for your prayers for my friends in this difficult time.
Justin, I'm sorry I didn't get to know you better down here, but I know I'll see you someday in Heaven. When I do, I'll show you how to throw a curve ball, just like I promised. Goodbye, my young friend. Dance with Jesus for a while for me, ok?
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
RCP Avg Strikes Again with Misleading Polls - This Time in Ohio
According to the Real Clear Politics Average in Ohio, the President is
leading Governor Romney by 1.7% in the so-called "poll of polls." As
I've said before, I am willing to at least give RCP the benefit of the
doubt, but still, this average includes four polls that either by
accident or design use highly Democrat skewed polls:
RCP is using four polls with skewed samples:
Survey USA, uses a +7% Democrat sample to get Obama to +3%. If we unskew that data to a +3% Democrat Sample, using Survey USA's own internal data of how Republicans, Democrats and Independents are polling, we find Romney with a slight lead of 44.7% to Obama's 44.0%
CBS/Quinnipiac, uses a +9% Democrat Sample to get Obama to +5%. If we unskew that to a +3% Democrat sample, and using CBS/Quinnipiac's own data, we find Obama's lead has cut to one tenth of the poll's prediction to 0.5%: Obama 45.8% to Romney 45.3%
Gravis Marketing used a sample of +9% Democrat, and that showed a tie. If we unskew it to a +3% Democrat sample and use Gravis' own internal data,
The PPP and Fox News polls could not be accurately unskewed because they did not publish their internal data did not provide the necessary breakdowns of how Republicans, Democrats and Independents intended to vote.
So apparently Obama is in fact losing Ohio, very slightly. This makes a difference. Lets look at the RCP "No Tossup" Map, shall we? This is the map using the skewed Ohio sample:
Now let's look at the map using our new data that unskews the samples to +3% Democrat instead of +7-9% Democrat:
One other issue for the President is he's at an average of 46.3%. Well below 50%. Historically you see undecided voters this late (12 days before the election) swing hard to the challenger. I'll even be generous and call it 2:1 for Romney. When that happens it's 51.7% Romney, 48.3% Obama.
Bottom line, exactly what I've been telling you is true: the RCP average, when a Drive-By Media source throws a wrench into the mix and skews the average, it spoils the entire sample. Here in reality, Romney is winning. And that's all that matters.
RCP is using four polls with skewed samples:
Survey USA, uses a +7% Democrat sample to get Obama to +3%. If we unskew that data to a +3% Democrat Sample, using Survey USA's own internal data of how Republicans, Democrats and Independents are polling, we find Romney with a slight lead of 44.7% to Obama's 44.0%
CBS/Quinnipiac, uses a +9% Democrat Sample to get Obama to +5%. If we unskew that to a +3% Democrat sample, and using CBS/Quinnipiac's own data, we find Obama's lead has cut to one tenth of the poll's prediction to 0.5%: Obama 45.8% to Romney 45.3%
Gravis Marketing used a sample of +9% Democrat, and that showed a tie. If we unskew it to a +3% Democrat sample and use Gravis' own internal data,
The PPP and Fox News polls could not be accurately unskewed because they did not publish their internal data did not provide the necessary breakdowns of how Republicans, Democrats and Independents intended to vote.
Now let's look at the map using our new data that unskews the samples to +3% Democrat instead of +7-9% Democrat:
One other issue for the President is he's at an average of 46.3%. Well below 50%. Historically you see undecided voters this late (12 days before the election) swing hard to the challenger. I'll even be generous and call it 2:1 for Romney. When that happens it's 51.7% Romney, 48.3% Obama.
Bottom line, exactly what I've been telling you is true: the RCP average, when a Drive-By Media source throws a wrench into the mix and skews the average, it spoils the entire sample. Here in reality, Romney is winning. And that's all that matters.
Letter Bag: No, Incumbents Do Not Historically win Close Elections
It's time for another fun Letter Bag post! Today's response is directed at an anonymous poster, who we shall hereby refer to as Malakali the Rancor Keeper (look that up so you can see how clever I am).
Before having his comment deleted because he violated Biblical Conservatism's Rules for Commenting, Malakali claimed that in close elections the incumbent wins, historically. Clearly the only history Malakali knows is 2004. Let me correct our dear rancor keeping friend:
Election 2000 there was no incumbent although incumbent VP Al Gore lost the election (he won the popular vote by .5% but lost in the Electoral College by 5 votes).
Election 1996 was a comfortable 9% victory for the incumbent Bill Clinton.
Election 1992 was a comfortable enough 5% victory for Clinton, but if we want to call 5% close, the incumbent lost.
Election 1988 had no incumbent, but the incumbent VP George Bush won by 8%.
Election 1984 was a landslide victory for the incumbent Ronald Reagan.
Election 1980 shortly before the election several polls had Carter winning by about 3-5% only a few weeks before the election. For example, on October 20, 1980, a New York Times Poll had Carter winning 45% to 43% (Remember there was a strong 3rd Party candidate, a Republican, John Anderson, who was at 10% in this poll). On October 27, 2008 the Times had the race at Carter 42%, Reagan 39% (Anderson 8%.) Reagan won.
Election 1976 Jimmy Carter won by 2% over incumbent Gerald Ford.
Election 1972 Richard Nixon won re-election in a landslide defeating George McGovern by 23% (which as a side note makes the Watergate Break-In one of the stupidest acts of cheating ever. It's like Major league ballplayers corking bats to play a junior college team.
Election 1968 there was no incumbent but Richard Nixon defeated the incumbent VP Hubert Humphrey by 1%.
Election 1964 Lyndon Johnson won handily with a 32% margin of victory.
Election 1960 there was no incumbent but John F. Kennedy beat the incumbent VP by less than 1% of the popular vote.
Election 1956 Dwight Eisenhower won by over 15% in landslide.
Election 1952 there was no incumbent nor did the incumbent Vice President run. For the record, Eisenhower won in a landslide.
So basically the incumbent lost in close elections in 1976 and 1980. The incumbent Vice President lost in close elections in 1960, 1968, and 2000. (In both 1960 and 2000, the incumbent Vice President lost in close elections as they attempted to succeed the highly popular term limited Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Bill Clinton.) Counting incumbent VPs with incumbent Presidents, that's five losses for incumbents in close elections to one win, and the 2004 Election wasn't as close as you'd like to believe (Bush won by 3%).
You see, Milakali, despite what the biased Drive-By Media is telling you, incumbents historically have LOST close elections. Especially when those incumbents are continually below 50% in the polls. Undecided voters this late do not break for the incumbent. That isn't history. The Left can keep talking about 2004 but I've just shown you FIFTY YEARS of history to argue your point. Even if we toss the incumbent VPs, that's still two losses for the incumbent to one win in close elections.
As Mitt Romney said in the 2008 Republican debates, quoting President John Adams, "Facts are stubborn things." And those facts just don't back what you desperately want to believe, Malakali. History has shown us that you will feel as crushed on Election Day as the original Malakali did when that gate crushed the Rancor.
Before having his comment deleted because he violated Biblical Conservatism's Rules for Commenting, Malakali claimed that in close elections the incumbent wins, historically. Clearly the only history Malakali knows is 2004. Let me correct our dear rancor keeping friend:
Election 2000 there was no incumbent although incumbent VP Al Gore lost the election (he won the popular vote by .5% but lost in the Electoral College by 5 votes).
Election 1996 was a comfortable 9% victory for the incumbent Bill Clinton.
Election 1992 was a comfortable enough 5% victory for Clinton, but if we want to call 5% close, the incumbent lost.
Election 1988 had no incumbent, but the incumbent VP George Bush won by 8%.
Election 1984 was a landslide victory for the incumbent Ronald Reagan.
Election 1980 shortly before the election several polls had Carter winning by about 3-5% only a few weeks before the election. For example, on October 20, 1980, a New York Times Poll had Carter winning 45% to 43% (Remember there was a strong 3rd Party candidate, a Republican, John Anderson, who was at 10% in this poll). On October 27, 2008 the Times had the race at Carter 42%, Reagan 39% (Anderson 8%.) Reagan won.
Election 1976 Jimmy Carter won by 2% over incumbent Gerald Ford.
Election 1972 Richard Nixon won re-election in a landslide defeating George McGovern by 23% (which as a side note makes the Watergate Break-In one of the stupidest acts of cheating ever. It's like Major league ballplayers corking bats to play a junior college team.
Election 1968 there was no incumbent but Richard Nixon defeated the incumbent VP Hubert Humphrey by 1%.
Election 1964 Lyndon Johnson won handily with a 32% margin of victory.
Election 1960 there was no incumbent but John F. Kennedy beat the incumbent VP by less than 1% of the popular vote.
Election 1956 Dwight Eisenhower won by over 15% in landslide.
Election 1952 there was no incumbent nor did the incumbent Vice President run. For the record, Eisenhower won in a landslide.
So basically the incumbent lost in close elections in 1976 and 1980. The incumbent Vice President lost in close elections in 1960, 1968, and 2000. (In both 1960 and 2000, the incumbent Vice President lost in close elections as they attempted to succeed the highly popular term limited Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Bill Clinton.) Counting incumbent VPs with incumbent Presidents, that's five losses for incumbents in close elections to one win, and the 2004 Election wasn't as close as you'd like to believe (Bush won by 3%).
You see, Milakali, despite what the biased Drive-By Media is telling you, incumbents historically have LOST close elections. Especially when those incumbents are continually below 50% in the polls. Undecided voters this late do not break for the incumbent. That isn't history. The Left can keep talking about 2004 but I've just shown you FIFTY YEARS of history to argue your point. Even if we toss the incumbent VPs, that's still two losses for the incumbent to one win in close elections.
As Mitt Romney said in the 2008 Republican debates, quoting President John Adams, "Facts are stubborn things." And those facts just don't back what you desperately want to believe, Malakali. History has shown us that you will feel as crushed on Election Day as the original Malakali did when that gate crushed the Rancor.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Obama was Petulant, Romney was Presidential
Yes, I know, the Drive-By Media is repeating the meme that "Obama won on points" in last night's debate. However, it also seems to be the consensus by the Drive-By Media that Romney won the debate season.
Joe Trippi put it this way last night on Fox News: "Romney scored six runs in the first debate. In the second Obama scored one run. In the third, another one run. Final Score: Romney 6, Obama 2." (I am paraphrasing.) Personally, I do not think Obama scored a run.
Rather, I think Obama was a pretentious jerk last night (which, by the way, comes naturally to him). He acted like a small child who knows everything (even when he doesn't) and talked down to both Governor Romney and the American people. He's so much smarter than everyone, you see, so we should just tryst whatever drivel comes out of his mouth.
Governor Romney, on the other hand, was Presidential. He spoke like the President. He spoke like a leader. He sounded confident in himself. He didn't have to talk down to his opponent to make his points. He didn't have to act like he was smarter than everyone to be perceived as intelligent. He simply WAS intelligent. He passed the Commander-in-Chief test.
"“I think Mitt Romney did something very important to his campaign tonight,” former presidential adviser David Gergen told CNN. “He passed the commander-in-chief test." (Newsmax: Pundits Proclaim: Romney Passes ‘Commander-in-Chief Test’)
Furthermore, even though Drive-By Journalists are saying, once again, that "Obama won on points," focus groups after the debate in swing states stated overwhelmingly they are voting for Romney after this debate. This was the case in the last debate as well.
Frankly, I'm fine with letting Obama win two debates on points, especially since as a whole Romney won debate season (as the Drive By Media is proclaiming). More importantly, I believe Governor Romney has established himself as a reasonable option for American voters. And given their lack of satisfaction with the President, I believe that's all it will take to convince them to vote.
Joe Trippi put it this way last night on Fox News: "Romney scored six runs in the first debate. In the second Obama scored one run. In the third, another one run. Final Score: Romney 6, Obama 2." (I am paraphrasing.) Personally, I do not think Obama scored a run.
Rather, I think Obama was a pretentious jerk last night (which, by the way, comes naturally to him). He acted like a small child who knows everything (even when he doesn't) and talked down to both Governor Romney and the American people. He's so much smarter than everyone, you see, so we should just tryst whatever drivel comes out of his mouth.
Governor Romney, on the other hand, was Presidential. He spoke like the President. He spoke like a leader. He sounded confident in himself. He didn't have to talk down to his opponent to make his points. He didn't have to act like he was smarter than everyone to be perceived as intelligent. He simply WAS intelligent. He passed the Commander-in-Chief test.
"“I think Mitt Romney did something very important to his campaign tonight,” former presidential adviser David Gergen told CNN. “He passed the commander-in-chief test." (Newsmax: Pundits Proclaim: Romney Passes ‘Commander-in-Chief Test’)
Furthermore, even though Drive-By Journalists are saying, once again, that "Obama won on points," focus groups after the debate in swing states stated overwhelmingly they are voting for Romney after this debate. This was the case in the last debate as well.
Frankly, I'm fine with letting Obama win two debates on points, especially since as a whole Romney won debate season (as the Drive By Media is proclaiming). More importantly, I believe Governor Romney has established himself as a reasonable option for American voters. And given their lack of satisfaction with the President, I believe that's all it will take to convince them to vote.
Monday, October 22, 2012
If the Obama Campaign Isn't Worried, They Should Be
Sorry so late today, Biblical Conservatives! Had a personal issue that kept me on the shelf all morning, but here's today's dose of Biblical Conservatism!
Despite what a few Drive-By Media skewed polls are now showing, Obama had better start worrying.
Let's start with a few reasons:
- Florida is now clearly moving to Romney's territory. A Rasmussen Poll released on Friday shows Romney leading Obama by 5% and over 50%.
- North Carolina is now being considered by Real Clear Politics as no longer a tossup but in the Romney column.
- Virginia is becoming more and more clearly in the Romney camp. It's been two full weeks since a poll showed Obama leading in Virginia.
- The Real Clear Politics "No Tossup Map" now puts all three of these three states in the Romney camp.
- The Real Clear Politics Electoral Map shows Romney leading Obama (map does not include any tossup states).
- Except for one anomalous poll (same poll in both), Iowa and Wisconsin are within the margin of error.
- A new poll now has Romney winning Pennsylvania by 4%.
- So many voters remain undecided at this stage in the game, and historically, undecideds break hard for the challenger.
- One final note. Two weeks ago, the Real Clear Politics "No Tossup Map" looked like this:
Today it looks like this:
No amount of tiny poll fluctuations will change the fact that the President should be worried. VERY worried, because Mitt Romney is on the precipice of victory in 15 days.
Since tonight is the final Presidential debate, tomorrow's article will go up about 1 pm EST. Thanks for reading!
Despite what a few Drive-By Media skewed polls are now showing, Obama had better start worrying.
Let's start with a few reasons:
- Florida is now clearly moving to Romney's territory. A Rasmussen Poll released on Friday shows Romney leading Obama by 5% and over 50%.
- North Carolina is now being considered by Real Clear Politics as no longer a tossup but in the Romney column.
- Virginia is becoming more and more clearly in the Romney camp. It's been two full weeks since a poll showed Obama leading in Virginia.
- The Real Clear Politics "No Tossup Map" now puts all three of these three states in the Romney camp.
- The Real Clear Politics Electoral Map shows Romney leading Obama (map does not include any tossup states).
- Except for one anomalous poll (same poll in both), Iowa and Wisconsin are within the margin of error.
- A new poll now has Romney winning Pennsylvania by 4%.
- So many voters remain undecided at this stage in the game, and historically, undecideds break hard for the challenger.
- One final note. Two weeks ago, the Real Clear Politics "No Tossup Map" looked like this:
Today it looks like this:
No amount of tiny poll fluctuations will change the fact that the President should be worried. VERY worried, because Mitt Romney is on the precipice of victory in 15 days.
Since tonight is the final Presidential debate, tomorrow's article will go up about 1 pm EST. Thanks for reading!
Friday, October 19, 2012
Romney Nearly Tied with Women in Swing States
Barack Obama's leads are evaporating with key demographics, at least if you believe the polls. (I for one believe that the polls are now beginning to reflect reality after months of cooked polls.) According to a USA Today/Gallup Poll published earlier this week, Mitt Romney leads the President 50 to 46% in the Swing States. (Nationally, Gallup's 7-Day Tracking Poll has Romney leading the President by 7%).
But there are some further key demographic details where Romney is really setting himself up for victory.
- Romney maintains his solid lead with male voters in the Swing States, ahead of the President 52% to 44% (that's a 8% lead for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL).
- Romney is now within 1 point of the President with female voters, trailing the President by merely 49% to 48%.
- Romney is leading Obama 46% to 36% with Independents according to the other most recent swing state poll, POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll (since the USA Today/Gallup poll did not give this particular breakdown). Just to give you a rough idea, the President would need to win 83% of the undecided Independents to win Independents (and that by 1%). That's simply not going to happen. (Remember, historically undecided voters this late break hard for the challenger).
Remember when women were Obama's victory firewall? Yeah, about that. The President is ostensibly tied with Governor Romney. He's also losing men by 8% and Independents by 10%. This is bad, bad news for the President.
I will go on record right now: If the President only wins women by 1%, loses men by 8% and loses Independents by 10%, do you know what we'll be calling Mitt Romney come November 7th? Mr. President-Elect.
But there are some further key demographic details where Romney is really setting himself up for victory.
- Romney maintains his solid lead with male voters in the Swing States, ahead of the President 52% to 44% (that's a 8% lead for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL).
- Romney is now within 1 point of the President with female voters, trailing the President by merely 49% to 48%.
- Romney is leading Obama 46% to 36% with Independents according to the other most recent swing state poll, POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll (since the USA Today/Gallup poll did not give this particular breakdown). Just to give you a rough idea, the President would need to win 83% of the undecided Independents to win Independents (and that by 1%). That's simply not going to happen. (Remember, historically undecided voters this late break hard for the challenger).
Remember when women were Obama's victory firewall? Yeah, about that. The President is ostensibly tied with Governor Romney. He's also losing men by 8% and Independents by 10%. This is bad, bad news for the President.
I will go on record right now: If the President only wins women by 1%, loses men by 8% and loses Independents by 10%, do you know what we'll be calling Mitt Romney come November 7th? Mr. President-Elect.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
ABC/WaPo Poll Should Be Ashamed of Themselves
On Monday, the Washington Post and ABC published a poll that claimed Barack Obama was up 3% over Mitt Romney in their latest poll. There's just one problem: They used a sample of +9% Democrat. (A full 2% above the +7% Democrat record turnout in 2008.)
Do you want to know what makes this publish so preposterous? Directly from the Washington Post's article reporting this story:
Partisan identification fluctuates from poll to poll as basic orientations shift and with the sampling variability that accompanies each randomly selected sample of voters. In the current poll, Democrats outnumber Republicans by nine percentage points among likely voters; the previous three Post-ABC polls had three-, six- and five-percentage-point edges for Democrats. The presidential contest would now be neck and neck nationally with any of these margins.
Friends, the Washington Post ADMITTED IT! They admitted this was a bad poll! So why, pray tell, did they publish it? Let's make pretend it was an accident. Lets pretend this was a sampling anomaly (just to be charitable). Why would they publish this poll? It was clearly misleading.
Now I can see you thinking "what would the numbers have been if they used a real believable sample? Let's give you some quick numbers, shall we?
With a +3% Democrat Sample, Romney is leading by 1%, 48% to 47%.
With a flat even sample, by the way (which I believe is very likely given the 2010 election turnout) it becomes a Romney lead of 49% to 46%. It's a complete switch.
Some might ask why this matters. Well, aside from the fact that the Washington Post stated that the poll had a misleading sample IN THEIR ARTICLE, let's look at our old friend the Real Clear Politics average. Since I have an established propensity to not publish posts until a few days later, lets show you what the RCP average was on Monday, October 15th (when I wrote this post):
Notice that the polls other than this anomalous ABC/Washington Post poll have Obama at best at +1% to Romney at +2%, giving an RCP average of Romney +0.1%. Now, let's remove the Washington Post poll entirely. Just throw it right out. That moves the average from Romney plus 0.1% to Romney +0.6%. Now when you unskew it to a +3% Democrat sample (and giving Romney a +2% lead) we get to an RCP average of Romney 47.9%, Obama 46.8% to give Romney a +1.1% lead.
So I say, as I said in the title, shame on ABC and the Washington Post. How dare they publish this admittedly biased poll. They could have weighted the poll to a more reasonable sample easily (as most polls do) if the problem was really just the sample. That's easy to do, gang. They could have done it with just a modicum of honesty.
Instead, the Washington Post chose to publish this poll, they published this link on Real Clear Politics.. If you went to the Washington Post politics page, you could find this article. In the third paragraph, it said "Obama 49%, Romney 46%." It's not until the 8th paragraph do we see "you really can't trust this poll because the sample is silly." Most people won't read to the 8th paragraph of a story. Some of us did.
The truth is the Washington Post should be ashamed of themselves for publishing this poll. That's the truth they won't tell you. This poll is at best a horrible mistake. At worst, it's a willful lie.
Do you want to know what makes this publish so preposterous? Directly from the Washington Post's article reporting this story:
Partisan identification fluctuates from poll to poll as basic orientations shift and with the sampling variability that accompanies each randomly selected sample of voters. In the current poll, Democrats outnumber Republicans by nine percentage points among likely voters; the previous three Post-ABC polls had three-, six- and five-percentage-point edges for Democrats. The presidential contest would now be neck and neck nationally with any of these margins.
Friends, the Washington Post ADMITTED IT! They admitted this was a bad poll! So why, pray tell, did they publish it? Let's make pretend it was an accident. Lets pretend this was a sampling anomaly (just to be charitable). Why would they publish this poll? It was clearly misleading.
Now I can see you thinking "what would the numbers have been if they used a real believable sample? Let's give you some quick numbers, shall we?
With a +3% Democrat Sample, Romney is leading by 1%, 48% to 47%.
With a flat even sample, by the way (which I believe is very likely given the 2010 election turnout) it becomes a Romney lead of 49% to 46%. It's a complete switch.
Some might ask why this matters. Well, aside from the fact that the Washington Post stated that the poll had a misleading sample IN THEIR ARTICLE, let's look at our old friend the Real Clear Politics average. Since I have an established propensity to not publish posts until a few days later, lets show you what the RCP average was on Monday, October 15th (when I wrote this post):
Notice that the polls other than this anomalous ABC/Washington Post poll have Obama at best at +1% to Romney at +2%, giving an RCP average of Romney +0.1%. Now, let's remove the Washington Post poll entirely. Just throw it right out. That moves the average from Romney plus 0.1% to Romney +0.6%. Now when you unskew it to a +3% Democrat sample (and giving Romney a +2% lead) we get to an RCP average of Romney 47.9%, Obama 46.8% to give Romney a +1.1% lead.
So I say, as I said in the title, shame on ABC and the Washington Post. How dare they publish this admittedly biased poll. They could have weighted the poll to a more reasonable sample easily (as most polls do) if the problem was really just the sample. That's easy to do, gang. They could have done it with just a modicum of honesty.
Instead, the Washington Post chose to publish this poll, they published this link on Real Clear Politics.. If you went to the Washington Post politics page, you could find this article. In the third paragraph, it said "Obama 49%, Romney 46%." It's not until the 8th paragraph do we see "you really can't trust this poll because the sample is silly." Most people won't read to the 8th paragraph of a story. Some of us did.
The truth is the Washington Post should be ashamed of themselves for publishing this poll. That's the truth they won't tell you. This poll is at best a horrible mistake. At worst, it's a willful lie.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Rumors of an Obama Debate Win Have been Greatly Exagerated
Rush Limbaugh said it on his show yesterday (October 16, 2012):
If Obama shows up tonight and successfully breathes, he's going to be declared the winner tomorrow.
Rush was correct. Obama showed up and didn't flounder. He at least managed his talking points. He even had a few good rhetorical decisions. (The one that made me say "SONOFA!" was waiting to bring up the 47% non-story until Romney couldn't respond, using his final statement in the debate.)
What Obama didn't do was he didn't successfully present Romney as a a bad candidate or, more importantly, himself as a good one. At all. He told more tales about "increasing oil production," but Governor Romney pointed out (and Obama ducked the question) that it was entirely on private lands, which the government has zero say over. He lied about the Libya crisis and refused to answer the direct question asked by a voter of what happened. He just blamed Romney for giving a statement.
The Drive-By Media is predictably hammering Romney's strength in the debate. Their spin is "Romney was a bully" or he was "disrespectful." These are the same people who glossed over Joe Biden being a legitimate bully a week ago, by the way. If you doubt media bias, pay attention to the difference between how Biden's legitimate bullying was presented vs. Romney refusing to let Obama lie. They are telling you what you saw, but let's stop and think about what we ACTUALLY saw, shall we?
What we actually saw was President Obama having to lie to cover his tracks or just ignore questions. For example, why is he telling a college student who has asked about his job prospects after college about increased manufacturing jobs. (Please tell me the President realizes that the goal of a college degree is not to be a knob turner at a factory.) He also refused to answer Governor Romney's point about his "increased drilling" coming not from public lands but private lands.
I also still heard stammering and stuttering from the President in a lot of the debate. He wasn't quite as bad as last time. But he still was searching for the truth throughout the debate. The only thing is he seemed LESS ridiculously incompetent, so he looked better by comparison. Like Rush said, it's all about exceeding expectations.
So what precisely happened, in terms of this debate? Well, I'll tell you. I watched a Frank Lunz focus group from Nevada after the debate. The lion's share of the people in the group were Obama voters in 2008. The lion's share of those same people said they had now decided to vote for Mitt Romney.
Friends, here's what really happened at the debate: Obama couldn't answer legitimate questions. He couldn't answer Governor Romney's legitimate questions. The Drive-By Media is telling us that Obama "won on points." Let's make pretend that it matters if someone "wins on points" in a debate. Debates are not reflected on points. This isn't high school Debate Team. This is a Presidential Election.
Obama did not move the meter. Even if the Drive-By Media brings out skewed polls that claim it did, trust me, it won't matter on Election Day. Mitt Romney is about to win the Presidency in three weeks. And that's what really matters.
If Obama shows up tonight and successfully breathes, he's going to be declared the winner tomorrow.
Rush was correct. Obama showed up and didn't flounder. He at least managed his talking points. He even had a few good rhetorical decisions. (The one that made me say "SONOFA!" was waiting to bring up the 47% non-story until Romney couldn't respond, using his final statement in the debate.)
What Obama didn't do was he didn't successfully present Romney as a a bad candidate or, more importantly, himself as a good one. At all. He told more tales about "increasing oil production," but Governor Romney pointed out (and Obama ducked the question) that it was entirely on private lands, which the government has zero say over. He lied about the Libya crisis and refused to answer the direct question asked by a voter of what happened. He just blamed Romney for giving a statement.
The Drive-By Media is predictably hammering Romney's strength in the debate. Their spin is "Romney was a bully" or he was "disrespectful." These are the same people who glossed over Joe Biden being a legitimate bully a week ago, by the way. If you doubt media bias, pay attention to the difference between how Biden's legitimate bullying was presented vs. Romney refusing to let Obama lie. They are telling you what you saw, but let's stop and think about what we ACTUALLY saw, shall we?
What we actually saw was President Obama having to lie to cover his tracks or just ignore questions. For example, why is he telling a college student who has asked about his job prospects after college about increased manufacturing jobs. (Please tell me the President realizes that the goal of a college degree is not to be a knob turner at a factory.) He also refused to answer Governor Romney's point about his "increased drilling" coming not from public lands but private lands.
I also still heard stammering and stuttering from the President in a lot of the debate. He wasn't quite as bad as last time. But he still was searching for the truth throughout the debate. The only thing is he seemed LESS ridiculously incompetent, so he looked better by comparison. Like Rush said, it's all about exceeding expectations.
So what precisely happened, in terms of this debate? Well, I'll tell you. I watched a Frank Lunz focus group from Nevada after the debate. The lion's share of the people in the group were Obama voters in 2008. The lion's share of those same people said they had now decided to vote for Mitt Romney.
Friends, here's what really happened at the debate: Obama couldn't answer legitimate questions. He couldn't answer Governor Romney's legitimate questions. The Drive-By Media is telling us that Obama "won on points." Let's make pretend that it matters if someone "wins on points" in a debate. Debates are not reflected on points. This isn't high school Debate Team. This is a Presidential Election.
Obama did not move the meter. Even if the Drive-By Media brings out skewed polls that claim it did, trust me, it won't matter on Election Day. Mitt Romney is about to win the Presidency in three weeks. And that's what really matters.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Scenarios for a Romney Electoral College Win
The above image is the Real Clear Politics "No Tossups" Map as of Monday, October 15th. (The only adjustment that has been made is a color change to Nevada, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and New Hampshire as they are officially "tossups.") What I did last week on the Biblical Conservatism Facebook Page is show a few scenarios to show Mitt Romney's path to victory.
Scenario One: Romney wins a few small states plus Virginia. While the RCP average has Obama still winning in Virginia but it includes a Quinnipiac poll that includes a +3% Democrat sample in a state with a +3% Republican registration advantage and a PPP Poll that uses a +6% Democrat sample. Throw those two polls out you get Romney winning by 2% in Virginia. Combine that with the fact that Suffolk University has decided VA is over and expects Romney to win, we'll call Virginia safe for Romney. Combine that with three small statesL Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada (all three of which the Obama lead is within the margin for error) and Romney wins.
In this scenario, Mitt wins Virgina (which we've established already is likely) and Ohio. That's all he would need to win the Electoral College. Anything else is gravy that helps build a mandate.
Now we look at a very likely scenario. Many voters remain undecided a mere three weeks from Election Day. History has shown that undecided voters break for the challenger and break hard. The above scenario involves a 3:1 break in Romney's favor. The result is a huge win for Governor Romney. It's not an unrealistic scenario, friends. In fact it's a highly realistic scenario. In these states the Real Clear Politics average has only one of these states with Obama at 50%, and that's Wisconsin (he's at exactly 50% by the way, and there's a margin for error.) In this case, Mitt gains Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia by winning 75% of undecided voters.
Even using the Real Clear Politics average (which we've discussed is not exactly the most reliable way to judge the race) it becomes clear Mitt Romney has a path to victory that is easy to see. President Obama has less options. Despite the narrative being attempted bythe Left recently, the Romney path to victory is clear.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Ambassador Stevens is Dead, Al Qaeda is Alive, and Obama Lied
I've generally stayed away from talking about the attack on September 11th of this year. It's an election year and my focus has always been politics. But this is something that needs to be said. You've heard Joe Biden's favorite "Bumper Sticker" for the campaign:
Well, given this story, I'd like to tell you the bumper sticker I would like to create:
So what did Obama tell us after this attack? It was a You Tube video. That's what caused the attack. Also it was SPONTANEOUS! It was a spontaneous attack...apparently using rocket propelled grenades, by the way...and just so happened to occur on 9/11.
Then we found out that it wasn't the video. It was simply 9/11. We also learned it wasn't a spontaneous attack. It was a planned attack. And it wasn't a protest. It was Al Qaeda. Whoops!
Now that this fact has been proven, the story is "we had bad intelligence!" Yes. That story was absolutely accepted by the Drive-By Media when it was the global intelligence community from our nation and others agreed basically universally that Saddam Hussein had WMD, right? Oh.
More news comes out and we learn that Ambassador Stevens had legitimate threats prior to the attack. We find out the embassy essentially begged the White House for more security. They were told no.
So why is it that the Obama Administration lied to us immediately after the attack? Simple. The President has spent months upon months spiking the football about killing Osama Bin Laden (see the above real Obama bumper sticker). The insinuation is "with Bin Laden's death, so died Al Qaeda." Except, that's not what happened.
So, and this is with all due respect to our late ambassador: Ambassador Stevens is dead. Al Qaeda is alive. Vote Romney-Ryan 2012.
 |
| Real Obama Bumper Sticker |
Well, given this story, I'd like to tell you the bumper sticker I would like to create:
 |
| Sketch created by Biblical Conservatism with MS Paint |
So what did Obama tell us after this attack? It was a You Tube video. That's what caused the attack. Also it was SPONTANEOUS! It was a spontaneous attack...apparently using rocket propelled grenades, by the way...and just so happened to occur on 9/11.
Then we found out that it wasn't the video. It was simply 9/11. We also learned it wasn't a spontaneous attack. It was a planned attack. And it wasn't a protest. It was Al Qaeda. Whoops!
Now that this fact has been proven, the story is "we had bad intelligence!" Yes. That story was absolutely accepted by the Drive-By Media when it was the global intelligence community from our nation and others agreed basically universally that Saddam Hussein had WMD, right? Oh.
More news comes out and we learn that Ambassador Stevens had legitimate threats prior to the attack. We find out the embassy essentially begged the White House for more security. They were told no.
So why is it that the Obama Administration lied to us immediately after the attack? Simple. The President has spent months upon months spiking the football about killing Osama Bin Laden (see the above real Obama bumper sticker). The insinuation is "with Bin Laden's death, so died Al Qaeda." Except, that's not what happened.
So, and this is with all due respect to our late ambassador: Ambassador Stevens is dead. Al Qaeda is alive. Vote Romney-Ryan 2012.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Biden Makes a Fool Out of Himself
Last night was the Vice Presidential Debate. We expected Joe Biden to be...well...Joe Biden. What I didn't expect was for Biff Tannen to show up and try to turn Paul Ryan (unsuccessfully) into George McFly.
To get into a little bit of Rhetoric Nerd-speak, what Vice President Biden used was Proof by Verbosity. Essentially this is a rhetorical fallacy where one shouts down his opponent instead of allowing his ideas to stand for themselves. Joe Jessup-Biden showed up. He sat there and railed at someone who deserved respect as if that would win him points. In the process, while being verbose, Biden also spread on the lies nice and thick.
- Biden repeated statements that their intelligence after the Benghazi attack said that it was a spontaneous response to a video, and then later their intelligence was updated. Not so. The State Department officials who testified to congress have said they knew within ONE DAY that it was a terrorist attack.
- Biden repeated the lie that "letting the Bush tax cuts expire" for "millionaires" would not hit small businesses. Actually, Biden's "millionaires" include couples that earn a total of $250,000 per year. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, $250,000 does not equal $1,000,000.)
- Biden repeated the lie that no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, would be forced under Obamacare to provide contraception.
- Biden claimed he voted against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Actually, he voted for them.
There were many more, and you can read about them on Breitbart.com.
All Biden did was make a fool out of himself. So let's talk about the other two participants in the debate. First, the moderator, Martha Raddatz. She was clearly in the tank for Biden. She allowed Biden to interrupt Paul Ryan 82 times in the debate, often allowing Biden to trample his opponent's attempts to respond. Raddatz herself interrupted Paul Ryan 34 times. She also clearly failed, and it is my contention did so intentionally, did not reign in Biden.
Liberals are claiming that this was the liberal response to Governor Romney's intellectual trouncing of President Obama in the first Presidential debate. However, Governor Romney did not shout down President Obama and did not interrupt him 82 times. Romney simply let Obama talk and then explained why he was wrong.
Then there was Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan was confident. He was packed with facts. (Liberals will of course argue this point, because they love to break out liberal fact-checkers who always call out conservatives but rarely do liberals. They will say "They are nonpartisan!" ignoring the fact that so is MoveOn.org calls themselves nonpartisan too.) Congressman Ryan's performance reminded me of watching the fight at the end of Rocky II. Joe Biden was Apollo Creed, punching and punching and punching (albeit with far less skill than Creed did) and Ryan managed to take the hits then hit back. At the end, it was Ryan who hit a knockout blow with his closing statement. He ultimately explained the difference between his that Biden failed to do.
Ultimately, the debate seems to have been received by a whole lot of people including Independents and women as the mean old geezer beating up the nice young man who lives next door and snow blows your driveway in the winter. One article worded it this way: "Angry Joe and Martha vs. that nice Ryan fellow from Accounting."
At the end of the day, this is not helpful for the Obama campaign. Governor Romney remains in the lead. President Obama isn't able to successfully go toe to toe with Mitt Romney and his calm, adult facts. Make no mistake about it: In terms of public perception, Paul Ryan won the day.
To get into a little bit of Rhetoric Nerd-speak, what Vice President Biden used was Proof by Verbosity. Essentially this is a rhetorical fallacy where one shouts down his opponent instead of allowing his ideas to stand for themselves. Joe Jessup-Biden showed up. He sat there and railed at someone who deserved respect as if that would win him points. In the process, while being verbose, Biden also spread on the lies nice and thick.
- Biden repeated statements that their intelligence after the Benghazi attack said that it was a spontaneous response to a video, and then later their intelligence was updated. Not so. The State Department officials who testified to congress have said they knew within ONE DAY that it was a terrorist attack.
- Biden repeated the lie that "letting the Bush tax cuts expire" for "millionaires" would not hit small businesses. Actually, Biden's "millionaires" include couples that earn a total of $250,000 per year. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, $250,000 does not equal $1,000,000.)
- Biden repeated the lie that no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, would be forced under Obamacare to provide contraception.
- Biden claimed he voted against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Actually, he voted for them.
There were many more, and you can read about them on Breitbart.com.
All Biden did was make a fool out of himself. So let's talk about the other two participants in the debate. First, the moderator, Martha Raddatz. She was clearly in the tank for Biden. She allowed Biden to interrupt Paul Ryan 82 times in the debate, often allowing Biden to trample his opponent's attempts to respond. Raddatz herself interrupted Paul Ryan 34 times. She also clearly failed, and it is my contention did so intentionally, did not reign in Biden.
Liberals are claiming that this was the liberal response to Governor Romney's intellectual trouncing of President Obama in the first Presidential debate. However, Governor Romney did not shout down President Obama and did not interrupt him 82 times. Romney simply let Obama talk and then explained why he was wrong.
Then there was Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan was confident. He was packed with facts. (Liberals will of course argue this point, because they love to break out liberal fact-checkers who always call out conservatives but rarely do liberals. They will say "They are nonpartisan!" ignoring the fact that so is MoveOn.org calls themselves nonpartisan too.) Congressman Ryan's performance reminded me of watching the fight at the end of Rocky II. Joe Biden was Apollo Creed, punching and punching and punching (albeit with far less skill than Creed did) and Ryan managed to take the hits then hit back. At the end, it was Ryan who hit a knockout blow with his closing statement. He ultimately explained the difference between his that Biden failed to do.
Ultimately, the debate seems to have been received by a whole lot of people including Independents and women as the mean old geezer beating up the nice young man who lives next door and snow blows your driveway in the winter. One article worded it this way: "Angry Joe and Martha vs. that nice Ryan fellow from Accounting."
At the end of the day, this is not helpful for the Obama campaign. Governor Romney remains in the lead. President Obama isn't able to successfully go toe to toe with Mitt Romney and his calm, adult facts. Make no mistake about it: In terms of public perception, Paul Ryan won the day.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Real Clear Politics Unrelable: Old Polls, Skewed Polls
Please note all polls quoted herein are from the morning of Wednesday, October 10th. The Internet has since trolled me yet again with RCP updating their polls to remove some old ones.
Something old, something new, something borrowed, something skewed. With the exception of the borrowed, that's the makeup of the Real Clear Politics average, aka the "poll of polls."
Before I continue, I'd like to say that I use Real Clear Politics (RCP) a lot. As a source for a blog, it's phenomenal. It compiles basically every poll published anywhere in America leading up to the election. Furthermore, I'd like to note that I am not directly accusing RCP of intentional deception. I'm not exonerating them, either. I will, however, give RCP the benefit of the doubt on this, and simply assume it for the sake of today's article that the problems with these averages is a case of "a chef is only as good as his ingredients."
But there remains a clear skew created by these polls by certain issues. The first is old polls. Let me give you a few examples. Let's start with the general election average:
Do you perchance see the issue with this CNN poll I've highlighted? It's nearly two weeks old, and dates to before the game-changing Presidential Debate on 10/4.The Politico poll isn't quite as old but all data was gathered ahead of the first Presidential Debate. So here we have two old polls, both with Obama winning (albeit marginally) that keep Mitt Romney's lead smaller. Take those two polls out of the average, you see Mitt Romney not with a 0.8% lead, but a 2.25% lead in the average of the four polls since the debate.
Here's an average from the swing state of Pennsylvania:
So let's compare. We've got two polls from 2-3 weeks ago showing Obama with an average lead of 9.5%. Then we have two polls from the last week with an average lead of 2.5% for Obama. Huge swing of 7%. Yet, due to RCP's average, they have Pennsylvania as "leaning Obama." In the last week, the two polls we have show Obama's lead as within the margin of error. It's a tossup, friends. Governor Romney can win Pennsylvania.
One more old before we go into skewed:
Here's another highly important swing-state. It's considered "Leaning Obama" based on the RCP average. However, except for last week's PPP Poll, the other four polls are 2-4 weeks old. Clearly, according to the Democrat Public Policy Polling, Obama's lead is down to 2% (within the poll's margin of error).
Now let's talk about what we've been discussing for months on Biblical Conservatism: Skewed polls.
Quick reminder: Ohio's voter identification is +1 Republican. We Ask America's sample was +4% Democrat (5% skew to Democrats). ARG oversampled Democrats by 9% (10% skew to Democrats). CNN/Opinion Research oversampled +2% (3% total skew to Democrats). Survey USA oversampled Democrats by 4% (5% total skew to Democrats).
These are simply snapshots, friends. But the point I am making is important. The RCP Average is packed often with outdated polls and skewed polls, treated as though they were up to date or as accurate as the other polls. It creates a false impression of the reality of the situation. While Real Clear Politics is a good site, please don't get me wrong, but the average is simply not an accurate reflection of the electorate.
To my regular readers: With the Vice Presidential Debate tonight, I will be writing my reaction to that event tomorrow and publishing tomorrow's blog by about 1 pm.
Something old, something new, something borrowed, something skewed. With the exception of the borrowed, that's the makeup of the Real Clear Politics average, aka the "poll of polls."
Before I continue, I'd like to say that I use Real Clear Politics (RCP) a lot. As a source for a blog, it's phenomenal. It compiles basically every poll published anywhere in America leading up to the election. Furthermore, I'd like to note that I am not directly accusing RCP of intentional deception. I'm not exonerating them, either. I will, however, give RCP the benefit of the doubt on this, and simply assume it for the sake of today's article that the problems with these averages is a case of "a chef is only as good as his ingredients."
But there remains a clear skew created by these polls by certain issues. The first is old polls. Let me give you a few examples. Let's start with the general election average:
Do you perchance see the issue with this CNN poll I've highlighted? It's nearly two weeks old, and dates to before the game-changing Presidential Debate on 10/4.The Politico poll isn't quite as old but all data was gathered ahead of the first Presidential Debate. So here we have two old polls, both with Obama winning (albeit marginally) that keep Mitt Romney's lead smaller. Take those two polls out of the average, you see Mitt Romney not with a 0.8% lead, but a 2.25% lead in the average of the four polls since the debate.
Here's an average from the swing state of Pennsylvania:
So let's compare. We've got two polls from 2-3 weeks ago showing Obama with an average lead of 9.5%. Then we have two polls from the last week with an average lead of 2.5% for Obama. Huge swing of 7%. Yet, due to RCP's average, they have Pennsylvania as "leaning Obama." In the last week, the two polls we have show Obama's lead as within the margin of error. It's a tossup, friends. Governor Romney can win Pennsylvania.
One more old before we go into skewed:
Here's another highly important swing-state. It's considered "Leaning Obama" based on the RCP average. However, except for last week's PPP Poll, the other four polls are 2-4 weeks old. Clearly, according to the Democrat Public Policy Polling, Obama's lead is down to 2% (within the poll's margin of error).
Now let's talk about what we've been discussing for months on Biblical Conservatism: Skewed polls.
Quick reminder: Ohio's voter identification is +1 Republican. We Ask America's sample was +4% Democrat (5% skew to Democrats). ARG oversampled Democrats by 9% (10% skew to Democrats). CNN/Opinion Research oversampled +2% (3% total skew to Democrats). Survey USA oversampled Democrats by 4% (5% total skew to Democrats).
These are simply snapshots, friends. But the point I am making is important. The RCP Average is packed often with outdated polls and skewed polls, treated as though they were up to date or as accurate as the other polls. It creates a false impression of the reality of the situation. While Real Clear Politics is a good site, please don't get me wrong, but the average is simply not an accurate reflection of the electorate.
To my regular readers: With the Vice Presidential Debate tonight, I will be writing my reaction to that event tomorrow and publishing tomorrow's blog by about 1 pm.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Liberals Panic After Pew Poll
In case you missed it, the liberal Pew Research Center published a poll showing Governor Mitt Romney taking a 4% lead over President Barack Obama. Combine that with ties in Rasmussen and Gallup's tracking polls on Monday, Obama's lead dropping to 1% in the Politico Battleground Poll, you've got a full on panic from the Left.
Do you remember when the Drive-By Media and liberal pundits were ridiculing those of us who questioned such polls as...oh, I don't know...Pew Research Center's September poll sample which had a +10% Democrat sample. Then, when the same Pew Research Center publishes a poll with a +5% Republican sample. Now, given the climate in this country, what's more likely, do you think? A +10% Democrat turnout or a +5% Republican turnout? (2004, for example, saw a +4% Republican turnout, and Republican engagement is at least as strong this election as 2004.)
(Dramatized Liberal) POLLS ARE COOKED! (All of a sudden!) HOW DARE THEY! No, don't remember how we trumpeted Pew's accuracy. That's not important! It's like Rasmussen now! (No, don't pay attention that Rasmussen and Pew were tied for most accurate polls in 2008.) It's not fair! Wah wah wah!
Friends, you who read Biblical Conservatism every day know I've been telling you for months upon months that Romney was going to win and these polls with oversampled Democrats were just hiding reality. Now, after Governor Romney went and hit a home run in the first debate, Pew can't hide the reality. So now, we're seeing the real electorate being predicted. And Obama's lead has disappeared. Now Romney is winning.
And now, the Left is in a pure panic. They don't know what to do with themselves! They're talking about Big Bird. That's what they're reduced to, friends. That and saying Governor Romney lied in the debate. That's what they are reduced to doing.
We are about to win, gang. Get ready for it. WE'RE GONNA WIN!
Do you remember when the Drive-By Media and liberal pundits were ridiculing those of us who questioned such polls as...oh, I don't know...Pew Research Center's September poll sample which had a +10% Democrat sample. Then, when the same Pew Research Center publishes a poll with a +5% Republican sample. Now, given the climate in this country, what's more likely, do you think? A +10% Democrat turnout or a +5% Republican turnout? (2004, for example, saw a +4% Republican turnout, and Republican engagement is at least as strong this election as 2004.)
(Dramatized Liberal) POLLS ARE COOKED! (All of a sudden!) HOW DARE THEY! No, don't remember how we trumpeted Pew's accuracy. That's not important! It's like Rasmussen now! (No, don't pay attention that Rasmussen and Pew were tied for most accurate polls in 2008.) It's not fair! Wah wah wah!
Friends, you who read Biblical Conservatism every day know I've been telling you for months upon months that Romney was going to win and these polls with oversampled Democrats were just hiding reality. Now, after Governor Romney went and hit a home run in the first debate, Pew can't hide the reality. So now, we're seeing the real electorate being predicted. And Obama's lead has disappeared. Now Romney is winning.
And now, the Left is in a pure panic. They don't know what to do with themselves! They're talking about Big Bird. That's what they're reduced to, friends. That and saying Governor Romney lied in the debate. That's what they are reduced to doing.
We are about to win, gang. Get ready for it. WE'RE GONNA WIN!
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Swing States Swing to Romney Post Debate
Mitt Romney's debate performance last week was one of the finest debate performances I've seen since I started watching debates twenty years ago. Many predicted he would perform well in the debates, but many also said that debates rarely change elections. Welcome to rarely.
Over the weekend, a lot of things started swinging to Mitt. In Gallup, for example, Governor Romney went from losing by 5% before the debate to tied with the President. This is huge, especially since Gallup polls Registered Voters not Likely Voters. In Rasmussen, Governor Romney went from 2% down on Friday to 2% ahead on Saturday.
But what about the swing states? What happened post debate there? Let's look at recent polls (regardless of organization) before and after the debate. (We'll use statewide party registration data as our baseline where appropriate.)
Colorado (Party Registration +2% Republican):
- Before the debate, We Ask America had Obama leading by +3%.
- After the debate, Gravis Marketing had Romney winning by 3%. (Using an accurate +2% Republican sample)
Florida (Party Registration +5% Democrat):
- Before the debate, Suffolk had Obama leading by 3% (Sample Democrat +6%) and Gravis had Obama +1%.
- After the debate, We Ask America had Romney leading by 3% and Rasmussen had Romney winning by 2%.
Nevada (Party Registration +5% Democrat)
- Before the debate, We Ask America had Obama leading by 11%.
- After the debate, Gravis Marketing had Obama's lead down to 1%.
Now I recognize we're using lots of polls here, but that's because we need to as these organizations are not being consistent in their polling during the campaign. However, one thing is clear. After the debate, Mitt Romney is making a huge comeback. Game on.
Ohio (Party Registration +1% Republican)
- Before the debate, Public Policy Polling had Obama leading by 4% (using a +5% Democrat sample) and NBC, using a tiny sample and a huge margin of error (using a +8% Democrat sample) had Obama leading by 8%.
- After the debate, We Ask America had Romney leading by 1% and Rasmussen had Obama leading by only 1%.
Virginia (Party Registration +3% Republican)
- Before the debate NBC, using a tiny sample and a huge margin of error (using a +2% Democrat sample) had Obama leading by 2%.
- After the Debate, We Ask America had Romney leading by +3% and Rasmussen had Romney leading by +1%.
Wisconsin (Party Registration +4% Democrat):
- Before the debate, the Marquette University claimed Obama had a lead of 11% over governor Romney. (Sample +7% Democrat).
- After the debate, Democrat Public Policy Polling
Over the weekend, a lot of things started swinging to Mitt. In Gallup, for example, Governor Romney went from losing by 5% before the debate to tied with the President. This is huge, especially since Gallup polls Registered Voters not Likely Voters. In Rasmussen, Governor Romney went from 2% down on Friday to 2% ahead on Saturday.
But what about the swing states? What happened post debate there? Let's look at recent polls (regardless of organization) before and after the debate. (We'll use statewide party registration data as our baseline where appropriate.)
Colorado (Party Registration +2% Republican):
- Before the debate, We Ask America had Obama leading by +3%.
- After the debate, Gravis Marketing had Romney winning by 3%. (Using an accurate +2% Republican sample)
Florida (Party Registration +5% Democrat):
- Before the debate, Suffolk had Obama leading by 3% (Sample Democrat +6%) and Gravis had Obama +1%.
- After the debate, We Ask America had Romney leading by 3% and Rasmussen had Romney winning by 2%.
Nevada (Party Registration +5% Democrat)
- Before the debate, We Ask America had Obama leading by 11%.
- After the debate, Gravis Marketing had Obama's lead down to 1%.
Now I recognize we're using lots of polls here, but that's because we need to as these organizations are not being consistent in their polling during the campaign. However, one thing is clear. After the debate, Mitt Romney is making a huge comeback. Game on.
Ohio (Party Registration +1% Republican)
- Before the debate, Public Policy Polling had Obama leading by 4% (using a +5% Democrat sample) and NBC, using a tiny sample and a huge margin of error (using a +8% Democrat sample) had Obama leading by 8%.
- After the debate, We Ask America had Romney leading by 1% and Rasmussen had Obama leading by only 1%.
Virginia (Party Registration +3% Republican)
- Before the debate NBC, using a tiny sample and a huge margin of error (using a +2% Democrat sample) had Obama leading by 2%.
- After the Debate, We Ask America had Romney leading by +3% and Rasmussen had Romney leading by +1%.
Wisconsin (Party Registration +4% Democrat):
- Before the debate, the Marquette University claimed Obama had a lead of 11% over governor Romney. (Sample +7% Democrat).
- After the debate, Democrat Public Policy Polling
Monday, October 8, 2012
Swing State Polls are as Cooked as the National Polls (Part 2)
The Drive-By Media spent last week telling us it was absolutely over. Obama has a commanding lead in the Swing States. He's going to win, they tell us. The current Real Clear Politics average shows Obama with 269 electoral votes either strongly, likely or leaning his way. So they say.
There was a day they would get away with this. We talked about a few of these cooked Swing State polls last week:
 |
Biblical Conservatism: CBS is Now Cooking Swing State Polls |
Wisconsin - RCP Avg: Obama + 6.7% - Avg Democrat Oversample D+6%
Wisconsin Voter Registration: +4% Democrat
- For Public Policy Polling to get Obama to +7% they had to oversample Democrats by +3%
- For NBC to get Obama to +5% they had to oversample Democrats by +5%
- For CBS to get Obama to +6%, they had to oversample Democrats by +8%.
(Other polls were included in this average, however they did not publish their samples.)
Virginia - RCP Avg Obama +3.7% - Avg Democrat Oversample +3% Democrat
Virginia Voter Registration: +3% Republican- For NBC to get Obama to +2%, they had to oversample Democrats by +4%.
- For Suffolk to get Obama to +2% they had to oversample Democrats by +3%
(Other polls were included in this average, however they did not publish their samples.)
In Wisconsin, to get Obama to a +6.7% average lead they had to oversample Democrats by an average of 6%. Again, assuming 90% of undersampled Republicans reweighted will give you a much smaller Obama lead of 1.1%, well within the margin of error.
In Virginia, when you take that 3.7% lead and the 3% oversample of Democrats to get to even (or 6% oversample of Democrats against
Friday, October 5, 2012
Swing State Polls are as Cooked as the National Polls (Part 1)
The Drive-By Media spent last week telling us it was absolutely over. Obama has a commanding lead in the Swing States. He's going to win, they tell us. The current Real Clear Politics average shows Obama with 269 electoral votes either strongly, likely or leaning his way. So they say.
There was a day they would get away with this. We talked about a few of these cooked Swing State polls last week:
So let's look at where other polls are being cooked, shall we?
Ohio - RCP Avg: Obama +5.5% - Avg Democrat Oversample D+ 6.6%Ohio Voter Registration: +1% Republican
- For Public Policy Polling to get Obama to +5%, they had to oversample Democrats by +4%.
- For the Columbus Dispatch to get Obama to +9%, they also had to oversample Democrats by +9%.
- For Gravis Marketing to get Obama to +1%, they had to oversample Democrats by 10%.
(Other polls were included in this average, however they did not publish their samples.)
Florida - RCP Avg: Obama +3%. - Avg Democrat Oversample: 8%
Florida Voter Registration: +5% Democrat
- For Gravis Marketing to get Obama to +1%, they had to oversample Democrats by 7%.
- For Public Policy Polling to get Obama to +3%, they had to oversample Democrats by +9%
- For the Washington Post to get Obama to +4%, they had to use a sample of only 161 Likely Voters and a margin of error of 11%.
(Other polls were included in this average, however they did not publish their samples.)
I hope I've painted a nice, clear picture for you. In Ohio, to get Obama to an average of +5.5% the polls had to oversample Democrats and average of 6.6%. Unskewed and assuming that 90% of the Republicans would vote for Romney, we're looking at Mitt having a lead just of about .5%.
In Florida, to get Obama to an average of +3% the polls had to oversample Democrats by an average of 8%. Adjust that to an even turnout (which is a very reasonable guess this election) and assume 90% of the Republicans properly weighted back in, you see Romney leading by 2.5% in Florida.
This post will be continued Monday with a look at Wisconsin and Virginia.
There was a day they would get away with this. We talked about a few of these cooked Swing State polls last week:
|
Biblical Conservatism: CBS is Now Cooking Swing State Polls |
Ohio - RCP Avg: Obama +5.5% - Avg Democrat Oversample D+ 6.6%Ohio Voter Registration: +1% Republican
- For Public Policy Polling to get Obama to +5%, they had to oversample Democrats by +4%.
- For the Columbus Dispatch to get Obama to +9%, they also had to oversample Democrats by +9%.
- For Gravis Marketing to get Obama to +1%, they had to oversample Democrats by 10%.
(Other polls were included in this average, however they did not publish their samples.)
Florida - RCP Avg: Obama +3%. - Avg Democrat Oversample: 8%
Florida Voter Registration: +5% Democrat
- For Gravis Marketing to get Obama to +1%, they had to oversample Democrats by 7%.
- For Public Policy Polling to get Obama to +3%, they had to oversample Democrats by +9%
- For the Washington Post to get Obama to +4%, they had to use a sample of only 161 Likely Voters and a margin of error of 11%.
(Other polls were included in this average, however they did not publish their samples.)
I hope I've painted a nice, clear picture for you. In Ohio, to get Obama to an average of +5.5% the polls had to oversample Democrats and average of 6.6%. Unskewed and assuming that 90% of the Republicans would vote for Romney, we're looking at Mitt having a lead just of about .5%.
In Florida, to get Obama to an average of +3% the polls had to oversample Democrats by an average of 8%. Adjust that to an even turnout (which is a very reasonable guess this election) and assume 90% of the Republicans properly weighted back in, you see Romney leading by 2.5% in Florida.
This post will be continued Monday with a look at Wisconsin and Virginia.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Mitt Romney Wins Debate By Several Touchdowns
Last night, Mitt Romney absolutely flattened President Obama in the debate like a cartoon character under a steamroller. It was like watching Abraham Lincoln debate Milton Waddams. OK, I exaggerate a little. But I was continually waiting for President Obama to go search for his stapler.
Mitt was on point. He was packed with facts. He was charismatic. He called Obama out on his blatant lies at one point, and did it so tactfully that President Obama could barely respond. He also took the wind right out of President Obama's sails by bringing up and disarming the President's best retorts on issues like Obamacare (and Romneycare) and what the President was about to say (falsely) about Governor Romney's tax plans. It reminded me of Harvey Dent taking the gun from the mobster in Dark Knight, except of Dent had seen the gun in the mobster's coat and taken it before he even pulled it out.
Mitt was, frankly, brilliant. You know how I know? Because the Drive-By Media is in pure, unadulterated spin mode now. They are saying Romney won by lying. They are saying "it doesn't matter because Obama's still leading in the polls" (in fantasy world with a +8% Democrat turnout, mind you). They are on full blown defense. Their candidate just showed up and was incompetent in a debate. So much for being such a great rhetorician, right? I guess Obama just missed his teleprompter.
So let's talk about President Obama, shall we? Remember how I said all through the primaries that Foghorn Leghorn could beat Obama in this election? (I still believe that, just like I still firmly believe we will win on November 6th). Well it sounded to me like Foghorn Leghorn showed up to debate in place of Barack Obama. A whole lot of rambling. A whole lot of stuff made up on the spot (which Foghorn Leghorn was fond of doing, as well, by the way).
Friends, the Drive-By Media is going to tell you a different story. They aren't claiming Obama won the debate, because frankly, that's like saying Picket's Charge went really well for the Confederacy. Fact is the Left does not know what hit them. President Obama made Jimmy Carter's 1980 debate performance look strong. They don't know what to do, friends!
They're going to double down on skewed polls, that I can guarantee. They are going to talk about how debates don't matter. But debates do matter. President Obama had to go toe to toe with Mitt Romney last night. As conservative columnist David Limbaugh said on Twitter during the debate: "So far it's a boxing analogy -- O is flailing away blindly without even seeing his target much less hitting it. Mitt's blocking & punching."
That's how the debate went. Obama flailed, Romney kept hitting him and hitting him and flat out won. In the end, do you want to know how Mitt won? He did precisely what I've told you he needed to do: He effectively communicated conservatism. Bottom line: If the same Mitt Romney keeps showing up for the next 33 days, Barack Obama does not have a chance. Game on.
Mitt was on point. He was packed with facts. He was charismatic. He called Obama out on his blatant lies at one point, and did it so tactfully that President Obama could barely respond. He also took the wind right out of President Obama's sails by bringing up and disarming the President's best retorts on issues like Obamacare (and Romneycare) and what the President was about to say (falsely) about Governor Romney's tax plans. It reminded me of Harvey Dent taking the gun from the mobster in Dark Knight, except of Dent had seen the gun in the mobster's coat and taken it before he even pulled it out.
Mitt was, frankly, brilliant. You know how I know? Because the Drive-By Media is in pure, unadulterated spin mode now. They are saying Romney won by lying. They are saying "it doesn't matter because Obama's still leading in the polls" (in fantasy world with a +8% Democrat turnout, mind you). They are on full blown defense. Their candidate just showed up and was incompetent in a debate. So much for being such a great rhetorician, right? I guess Obama just missed his teleprompter.
So let's talk about President Obama, shall we? Remember how I said all through the primaries that Foghorn Leghorn could beat Obama in this election? (I still believe that, just like I still firmly believe we will win on November 6th). Well it sounded to me like Foghorn Leghorn showed up to debate in place of Barack Obama. A whole lot of rambling. A whole lot of stuff made up on the spot (which Foghorn Leghorn was fond of doing, as well, by the way).
Friends, the Drive-By Media is going to tell you a different story. They aren't claiming Obama won the debate, because frankly, that's like saying Picket's Charge went really well for the Confederacy. Fact is the Left does not know what hit them. President Obama made Jimmy Carter's 1980 debate performance look strong. They don't know what to do, friends!
They're going to double down on skewed polls, that I can guarantee. They are going to talk about how debates don't matter. But debates do matter. President Obama had to go toe to toe with Mitt Romney last night. As conservative columnist David Limbaugh said on Twitter during the debate: "So far it's a boxing analogy -- O is flailing away blindly without even seeing his target much less hitting it. Mitt's blocking & punching."
That's how the debate went. Obama flailed, Romney kept hitting him and hitting him and flat out won. In the end, do you want to know how Mitt won? He did precisely what I've told you he needed to do: He effectively communicated conservatism. Bottom line: If the same Mitt Romney keeps showing up for the next 33 days, Barack Obama does not have a chance. Game on.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Some Pollsters Reduce Skews, Election Tightens?
Now there's a shocker, friends! This week, ABC/Washington Post published a poll. It showed President Obama leading Mitt Romney by +2%, within the 4% margin for error. Compare that to polls with demonstrably skewed samples from last week. Let's remind ourselves what we learned last week:
Now we have an ABC/Washington Post poll with an at least reasonable poll sample of Democrat +3%. Granted, I still believe quite firmly that the actual election turnout will be closer to 2010's Republican +2% turnout, but +3% Democrat is at least PLAUSIBLE. It's in line with Rasmussen's +2% Democrat turnout.
Yet if you close your eyes and point at a liberal blog, you will find a post talking about how people like yours truly are all wet for talking about the skews in Drive-By Media polls. They love to ridicule us, pointing out the straw man of party registration (which we've discussed so many times here how it does not matter).
Today, after we in the New Media have absolutely slammed these polls for being skewed, now we're seeing a more realistic sample from ABC/Washington Post. So let's ask the question: Why is it that, all of a sudden, if it was all over for Romney, are the polls tightening? They cooked up a polling sample in Florida and Ohio LAST WEEK to push Obama over the line in Fantasy World. What changed? What made them get realistic?
Well friends, the reality is this: The Drive-By Media, specificially ABC/Washington Post, is now admitting their own skew by using a more realistic sample (albeit still skewed Democrats +3 instead of looking at the 2010 turnout which was flat even.)
Friends, despite liberal trolls on the Internet telling conservatives how they're dreaming or whatever with their poll cooking accusations, reality is setting in, even to the Drive-By Pollsters. They've realized they are not believed and if they continue to lie to us about the polling samples and have egg on their face, their credibility will be shot.
 |
| Biblical Conservatism: The Drive-By Media Keeps Doubling Down on Skewed Polls |
Now we have an ABC/Washington Post poll with an at least reasonable poll sample of Democrat +3%. Granted, I still believe quite firmly that the actual election turnout will be closer to 2010's Republican +2% turnout, but +3% Democrat is at least PLAUSIBLE. It's in line with Rasmussen's +2% Democrat turnout.
Yet if you close your eyes and point at a liberal blog, you will find a post talking about how people like yours truly are all wet for talking about the skews in Drive-By Media polls. They love to ridicule us, pointing out the straw man of party registration (which we've discussed so many times here how it does not matter).
Today, after we in the New Media have absolutely slammed these polls for being skewed, now we're seeing a more realistic sample from ABC/Washington Post. So let's ask the question: Why is it that, all of a sudden, if it was all over for Romney, are the polls tightening? They cooked up a polling sample in Florida and Ohio LAST WEEK to push Obama over the line in Fantasy World. What changed? What made them get realistic?
Well friends, the reality is this: The Drive-By Media, specificially ABC/Washington Post, is now admitting their own skew by using a more realistic sample (albeit still skewed Democrats +3 instead of looking at the 2010 turnout which was flat even.)
Friends, despite liberal trolls on the Internet telling conservatives how they're dreaming or whatever with their poll cooking accusations, reality is setting in, even to the Drive-By Pollsters. They've realized they are not believed and if they continue to lie to us about the polling samples and have egg on their face, their credibility will be shot.
Note to my daily readers: Tomorrow's blog will post about 1 pm instead of the usual 11 am. This will allow me to give a thorough reaction to the debate tonight. Thanks for reading!
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Still Waiting for Barack Obama to do ANYTHING on Benghazi Attacks
Trust me friends, I'm holding my breath.
This is the same President who told us that there would be a retaliation and justice. Of course, this is also the same President who told us that this attack wasn't pre-planned and it was based on a You Tube video that almost nobody has seen. So that's the level of dishonesty with which we are dealing. While we're at it, let's remember this is the same President who told us how killing Osama Bin Laden was the end of the War on Terror.
Oh wait...I forgot. President Obama called the Libyan President and read them the riot act. I'm sure they cowered too, because the mighty Obama said so. They certainly have plenty of reason to be afraid...after all the Obama Administration certainly apologized to the world and to Muslims before the event even happened.
Do you know what the President told the Libyan President? That THEY should do a better job of ensuring our people's safety. I remember the days when Americans protect ourselves. We have the strongest military in the world (for now, anyway). Then again, our Marines on the ground in Libya weren't allowed to carry live ammunition, so there's that.
Friends, you might be inclined to think I'm happy about this (after all, I want us to have a new President in January). But I'm not. I'm sad that we would elect a coward. I'm sad that we would elect a President who would fiddle while our embassies burn. Moreover, I'm sad that we have a President who continues to claim it was a spontaneous protest due to a You Tube Video, even though we have so much evidence to prove how preposterous this claim is here in the Real World.
But the thing that makes me saddest is the ridiculousness of the Drive-By Media claiming that this makes President Obama seem STRONG on National Security. Or rather the fact that we have a media that would outright lie to us so stringently with a straight face.
What makes me happy is the fact that I frankly do not believe the polls (and their ridiculous sample skews toward Democrats) to show Obama winning. Rather, I believe America has woken up. The shine is off the Obama apple. And that means a new President in 2012.
This is the same President who told us that there would be a retaliation and justice. Of course, this is also the same President who told us that this attack wasn't pre-planned and it was based on a You Tube video that almost nobody has seen. So that's the level of dishonesty with which we are dealing. While we're at it, let's remember this is the same President who told us how killing Osama Bin Laden was the end of the War on Terror.
Oh wait...I forgot. President Obama called the Libyan President and read them the riot act. I'm sure they cowered too, because the mighty Obama said so. They certainly have plenty of reason to be afraid...after all the Obama Administration certainly apologized to the world and to Muslims before the event even happened.
Do you know what the President told the Libyan President? That THEY should do a better job of ensuring our people's safety. I remember the days when Americans protect ourselves. We have the strongest military in the world (for now, anyway). Then again, our Marines on the ground in Libya weren't allowed to carry live ammunition, so there's that.
Friends, you might be inclined to think I'm happy about this (after all, I want us to have a new President in January). But I'm not. I'm sad that we would elect a coward. I'm sad that we would elect a President who would fiddle while our embassies burn. Moreover, I'm sad that we have a President who continues to claim it was a spontaneous protest due to a You Tube Video, even though we have so much evidence to prove how preposterous this claim is here in the Real World.
But the thing that makes me saddest is the ridiculousness of the Drive-By Media claiming that this makes President Obama seem STRONG on National Security. Or rather the fact that we have a media that would outright lie to us so stringently with a straight face.
What makes me happy is the fact that I frankly do not believe the polls (and their ridiculous sample skews toward Democrats) to show Obama winning. Rather, I believe America has woken up. The shine is off the Obama apple. And that means a new President in 2012.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Drive-By Media Admits Romney is Winning Independents
It's a detail that has been ignored in the cooked polls that the Drive-By Media keeps posting: Romney is winning Independents in the Swing States. Remember how the "conventional wisdom" is that Independents are the kingmakers, right?
Well, according to some polling in both Florida and Ohio, Romney is winning Independents in each state. Today, we're going to do a little exercise. It's not meant to be scientific, mind you. Just a little illustration. First, the data:
Ohio – Romney Leads Among Independents:
Ohio Newspaper Organization – Romney +28
CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac – Romney +1
American Research Group – Romney +16
Fox News – Romney +4
We Ask America – Romney +3
Public Policy Polling – Romney +2
Average: Romney +9%
Florida - Romney Leads Among Independents:
CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac – Romney +3
Gravis Marketing – Romney +4
We Ask America – Romney +2
American Research Group – Romney +1
Florida Times Union – Romney +4
Average: Romney +2.8%
So now, let's do a quick exercise. Using the last three Presidential elections as our baseline we'll arrive at a baseline for the election, then arrive at a prediction including Independents.
Florida Turnout: 2008 - Democrat +3 - 2004 - Republican +4% - 2000 - Democrat +2% = D +1 average
Furthermore, Florida has 23% Registered Independents. So we're going to use as our hypothetical turnout model for Florida 39% Democrat, 38% Republican and 23% Independent.
Using that turnout model, and figuring in an average of Romney winning independents of 2.8% over Obama; assuming that Romney wins 90% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats; also assuming Obama wins 90% of Democrats at 10% of Republicans, the result would be Romney winning 52.4% and Obama winning 47.6% of the total vote. That means Romney would win Florida's 29 Electoral Votes.
Ohio Turnout: 2008 - Democrat +8% - 2004 Republican +5% - 2000 Democrat +1% = Democrat +4%
Using that turnout model, and figuring in an average of Romney winning independents of 2.8% over Obama; assuming that Romney wins 90% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats; also assuming Obama wins 90% of Democrats at 10% of Republicans, the result would be Romney winning 50.3% and Obama winning 48.7%% of the total vote. That means Romney would win Ohio's 18 Electoral Votes.
Source: Media Ignore Independents' Swing Toward Romney
Well, according to some polling in both Florida and Ohio, Romney is winning Independents in each state. Today, we're going to do a little exercise. It's not meant to be scientific, mind you. Just a little illustration. First, the data:
Ohio – Romney Leads Among Independents:
Ohio Newspaper Organization – Romney +28
CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac – Romney +1
American Research Group – Romney +16
Fox News – Romney +4
We Ask America – Romney +3
Public Policy Polling – Romney +2
Average: Romney +9%
Florida - Romney Leads Among Independents:
CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac – Romney +3
Gravis Marketing – Romney +4
We Ask America – Romney +2
American Research Group – Romney +1
Florida Times Union – Romney +4
Average: Romney +2.8%
So now, let's do a quick exercise. Using the last three Presidential elections as our baseline we'll arrive at a baseline for the election, then arrive at a prediction including Independents.
Florida Turnout: 2008 - Democrat +3 - 2004 - Republican +4% - 2000 - Democrat +2% = D +1 average
Furthermore, Florida has 23% Registered Independents. So we're going to use as our hypothetical turnout model for Florida 39% Democrat, 38% Republican and 23% Independent.
Using that turnout model, and figuring in an average of Romney winning independents of 2.8% over Obama; assuming that Romney wins 90% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats; also assuming Obama wins 90% of Democrats at 10% of Republicans, the result would be Romney winning 52.4% and Obama winning 47.6% of the total vote. That means Romney would win Florida's 29 Electoral Votes.
Ohio Turnout: 2008 - Democrat +8% - 2004 Republican +5% - 2000 Democrat +1% = Democrat +4%
Using that turnout model, and figuring in an average of Romney winning independents of 2.8% over Obama; assuming that Romney wins 90% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats; also assuming Obama wins 90% of Democrats at 10% of Republicans, the result would be Romney winning 50.3% and Obama winning 48.7%% of the total vote. That means Romney would win Ohio's 18 Electoral Votes.
Source: Media Ignore Independents' Swing Toward Romney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)