Be Prepared for Legal Challenges In Close States

Especially the ones where the swing state polls are using preposterous samples that won't happen on Tuesday.

Quick history lesson: Who remembers 2000? I do. Al Gore held up a decision from the 2000 Election for a full month. While it was required by law for Florida to do a machine recount of votes when the margin for victory for Bush was only 2000 votes. Gore then demanded hand recounts of votes, not only focusing ONLY on three of the most heavily Democratic counties in Florida but also demanding that votes be counted for him where votes that were not clearly cast, as defined by law, for a particular candidate.

Liberals spent years using such methods as exit polls and polls done after the election asking people who they had intended to vote to say that the actual votes were wrong. That's the world of the Left, gang...the actual votes don't matter. Just the polls matter.

How about 2004? In that election, the Exit Polls showed John Kerry winning the Presidency. It wasn't close, in some polls. Then the votes started to be counted. It wasn't close. Bush won. He won by a comfortable enough 3% margin.

The stories came out again: There must have been fraud! The polls said Kerry was going to win! Even John Kerry pondered a challenge like Gore four years before...but ultimately thought better of it. That didn't stop the Left from claiming it was illegitimate. It's not the votes that matter...the polls are the TRUTH...according to the Left.

So now we have these poll that are continuing to use 2008 Turnout as their models...if not far greater Democrat turnout that 2008. I made this point Friday on Biblical Conservatism:

When the turnout in, for example, Ohio, ISN'T +9% Democrat but lets say it's +2% Democrat and Romney wins by 1-2%...don't you think the New York Times might just say "How can this be?! Our polls showed Obama winning by 5%!"

My friends, I want you to be ready. I believe we are going to win. And as history has shown, these attempts to claim fraud doesn't stick. What the ultimate result will be if this happens, however, will be a claim that future President-Elect Romney would be told he has no grounds for a mandate and therefore he has no right to institute his policies. That's what they said about George W. Bush.

Bottom line: BE READY. I believe we are going to win on Tuesday. If it's not a sweep victory for Romney (which it could indeed be...see polls before the Election of 1980), there will be these claims from some if not all circles in the Drive-By Media.

Good News, Mr. President: In Fantasy Land, You're Still Winning!

Of course, here in the real world, Mitt Romney's winning.

Scratching your head? Apparently you haven't read this blog.  We've got some new polls that have come out, and they claim Obama's winning. Only one problem: They are using 2008 Election Turnout. Nobody who is honest and worth their salt is claiming that the 2008 Electoral Turnout will happen.

So let's show you what's happening in Fantasy land, shall we?

• A National Journal Poll on Halloween, the report gave President Obama a +5% advantage nationally. Only one problem, straight from their article:

"In its likely-voter model, the Congressional Connection Poll projected that the 2012 electorate will be virtually unchanged from 2008, with Democrats holding an 8 percentage-point advantage among voters (compared with 7 points last time."

Allow me to respond in writing how I responded vocally when I read this:

BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

Election turnout will mirror 2008? Are you kidding me, National Journal? According to Gallup last week, Election 2012 turnout is going to look not like 2008, but like 2004 and 2010: +2% Republican. Rasmussen's most recent Party ID Poll shows a +3% Republican advantage.

So based on these two samples, predicting a +8% Democrat turnout is pure, unadulterated sophistry. It's a fantasy. Actually, it is, on average, a +10.5% Democrat oversample. If only someone had predicted this before he had seen that sample happening, say on the Biblical Conservatism Facebook Page:

Oh, I guess I did predict that.

A couple other fun state polls (our example comes from the New York Times, but they are hardly alone in this game) with similar baloney being sold:

In Florida, the New York Times says Obama is leading Romney by 1%. Using a +9% Democrat Sample. Over the last four elections, the average turnout in Florida was +1% Republican. That's a 10% Democrat oversample! Unskew that to the historical average turnout, you see Romney winning by 7%!

In Ohio, the New York Times has Obama leading Romney by 5%. Except they used a +8% Democrat sample. Over the past four elections the real turnout was +2% Democrat. They oversampled Democrats by 6%! Unskewed that puts Romney at +1%.

In Virginia, the Times says Obama is leading by 2%. Except they used a +8% Democrat sample. Over the past four elections the real turnout was an average of +1% Republican. Unskew that poll and Romney leads by 7%.

There are examples of this in other states like Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, the list goes on and on. The bottom line is the only place Obama is winning is in Fantasy Land. Here in the real world he's losing.

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.

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.

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:

Biblical Conservatism: CBS is Now Cooking Swing State Polls

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.

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:

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!

The Drive-By Media Keeps Doubling Down on Skewed Polls

We've talked about this so many times here at Biblical Conservatism: the Drive-By Media is cooking polls to show Obama winning (and keep the Real Clear Politics average showing Obama leading).

Here's a few examples:

The Pew Research Center had to oversample Democrats by 9% to get Obama to +8%.

The University of Connecticut had to oversample Democrats by 8% to get Obama to +3%.

Monmouth University had to oversample Democrats by 4% to get Obama to +3%.

The National Journal had to oversample Democrats by 6% to get Obama to +7%. They also undersampled Independents (who are consistently leaning comfortably to Romney) by 5%.

Every bit of this is based on using an even polling sample. Even that is generous to Democrats, by the way. Rasmussen's poll of voter identification (which is run monthly and talks to hundreds of thousands of voters) shows voter ID at Republican 37%, Democrat 33% and Independent at 29%.

When unskewing the data using Rasmussen's Voter ID data, Examiner.com found Romney leading 49%-46% in the Pew Poll, Romney leading 51% to 45% in the University of Connecticut Poll, Romney leading 50% to 45% in the Monmouth University Poll,
and Romney leading 48% to 46% in the National Journal Poll.

Gallup and Rasmussen, our two already unskewed polls have the race ostensibly tied, for the record. Whether or not the unskewed polls show that the Drive-By Media is hiding the problem or if their polls are purely cooked to help Obama I do not know. At any rate, if you believe the Drive-By Media polls, you are officially nuts. We are going to win in November, friends. Let not your heart be troubled. Game on!

Numbers to Back Poll Cooking Accusations

It's a common topic here at Biblical Conservatism: Showing where Drive-By Media organizations have used polling samples that are skewed to favor Democrats in an effort not to name public opinion but to shape it, specifically by making discouraging conservative and Republican voters.

For as long as I've made this posts, I've been told I was wrong, that Democrats outnumber Republicans in voter registration, and that therefore these polls do in fact reflect the electorate. Well, it turns out there is data to point out how ridiculous the claim of Democrat superiority is in reality.

It is true that, in terms of party REGISTRATION, the Democrats maintain a slight lead of 4%. According to Gallup's poll, 31% of Americans consider themselves Democrat while 27% consider themselves Republican. A whopping 40% consider themselves independents.  HOWEVER, when you add in Independent leaners, it becomes a dead tie: 45% Democrat, 45% Republican.

In addition, this takes into account the fact that a) many states have open primaries so party registration does not matter at all or allow Independents to vote in their choice of primary each time and b) states like Kentucky (19% Democrat registration advantage) Arkansas (10% Democrat registration advantage) and Louisiana (26% Democrat registration advantage) are not only Red States but they are DARK Red States. Each of the three have not gone Democrat in sixteen years (the last time these were blue states was 1996).

You may find yourself asking yourself "Self, I wonder if there is corroborating evidence for this poll?" Well, it turns out there is indeed corroborating evidence!

According to Rasmussen Reports most recent poll asking individuals not "with what party are you registered?" but rather "with what party do you most closely identify?" the party indentification breakdown is basically tied. So once again, precisely as I have told you, it is ridiculous to claim that "Democrats have an inherent advantage." It's simply not true. Their 4% advantage in party registration is made up by the fact that more Independents lean Republican than Democrat (which explains how adding Independent leaners evens out the party lines). The most plausible explanation to this phenomenon is states where registered Independents can vote in primaries (at which point, as I said above, I would consider it a good decision to register as an Independent).

So friends, the next time you see a poll that gives a polling sample that is not even split of Republicans and Democrats, or perhaps +4 in Democrats if you're being generous, you might want to throw away that poll's results. You can rest assured your intelligence is going to be insulted by the outcome of the poll.

----------------------

 Primary Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states#References