B-Man
-
Posts
68,845 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by B-Man
-
-
-
If the media is so obviously in the President's corner (and I'm not disagreeing entirely), and if they are cooking the books so to speak, why would they propagate an illusion of Obama gaining? Wouldn't it be more effective to make it look as if it's a dead heat to assure that every supporter votes?
this is the part I don't get. If all the pollsters (except Rasmussen) and media are in the tank for Obama, wouldn't that suppress voter turnout for the President, since he's already winning by such a large margin in the polls?
For the rather obvious reason that the function is to suppress the GOP turnout
the dems might lose some also (as you suggest) but a lower turnout certainly favors the incumbent
You are looking at it one sided, you have to see this.....................your posts show that you are both too intelligent not to
.
-
I still don't see where everyone has a problem with the polls. It's not like polling agencies purposely pick more Democrats or Republicans. They simply ask voters the question of who they identify more with. And as I've shown before, polling over many years has shown Democrats outnumber Republicans. The samples in these polls are usually within their margin of error of number of registered Dems/Reps.
As shown countless times fjl, these statements are incorrect.
.
-
On November 7, I will gladly acknowledge how right you were in all your [ludicrous] forecasts and how wrong I was.
Would you do the same?
Absolutely sir.
As a conservative, I can't do anything else.
(the only qualifier I will put on that, and I would certainly accept the same from you, is..........there are still 6 weeks in which something dramatic could make an actual change either way) in which case both our September declarations would certainly look premature.
How well did the pollsters do predicting party turnout in 2010?
Hope that this is from the approved list of sources..........................lol
-
Wow. A right wing publication debunks a poll that says Obama is winning. I have to sit down, the room is spinning.
A quick note to all the younger posters;
This is what people say when they have no real response to the numbers staring them in the face.
Just like his "clever" smiley face response on the previous page.
Let's all thank Big Cat for his sterling example.
.
-
I was so hoping that one of the "Obama's surging" believers was going to post this morning NYT/Quinnapac poll showing the president increasing his lead in Ohio and Florida by a laughable amount.
but there are several articles out already that demonstrate how bogus (and obviously so) that they are.
Media Malpractice: NYT Poll Pushes Absurd Democratic Turnout Model
In what could be considered nothing short of media malpractice, the New York Times and CBS News published three state polls by Quinnipiac University that shows Democratic advantages in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania at levels never before seen.
The allegedly scientific poll is said to give a clear idea of how the election might turnout if it were held today. But the published turnout assumes Democrats will outnumber Republicans by 33% in Florida and Ohio, while the advantage jumps by 40% in Pennsylvania.
Not surprisingly - despite their own data showing he is losing Independents in both FL and OH (PA data not released) - Obama is "clearly ahead" of Romney in all three states. And they say it isn't even close. Yep, even though he is losing the Independents he won handily in 2008, Obama is actually winning these swing states by more than double the margin he did then. Make sense?
In 2010, Republican's had a 1 point edge in turnout in Ohio, an even advantage in Florida, and just a 3 point deficit in Pennsylvania. Over the last 8 years, Democratic turnout has averaged just 1 point higher in Ohio and 4 points higher in Pennsylvania, while Republican turnout has averaged 1 point higher than Democratic turnout.
Instead, the NYT/CBS poll has expected turnout in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania at D +9, D +9, and D +11 points, respectively. All of these results are well outside the 8 year averages of R +1 (FL), D +1 (OH), and D +4 (PA), and even show marked improvements in Democratic turnout over 2008, a historically Democratic year. The poll data show ties, but the media reports Obama blowouts in all three states.
Yesterday, Mike Flynn had this to say about about outrageous media polls acting as the newest form of campaign ad:
Every election features something new, an evolution from past campaigns. This year's development is troubling. Polls are now being used, not simply to gauge the state of the race, but to impact the race. We're not far off from the day that the New York Times or CBS will have to file their polls as in-kind contributions to the Democrats.The New York Times and CBS have a contribution filing to report this morning.
There's also this one;
This Morning’s Polls Project More Heavily Democratic Electorates Than 2008
Just forget everything else and ask yourself if this adds up
In 2008 Obama won indies by 8 and won state by 5.
In 2012 Obama is losing indies by 1 (-9 from 2008) yet winning state by 10 (+5 from 2008).
LOL!
-
http://elections.nyt...2/electoral-map
Find me a scenario using the interactive map, and demonstrate how Mitt Romney has even the slightest chance of winning, please.
Rather silly request by you BC.
There are, of course multiple ways that Mitt Romney can win in the electoral college.
Winning in the tossup states like OH, CO, NH, WI, NV, etc; and picking up a few that are within range like NM and MI and Mitt would win,
but your undoubtable response is...."well thats not going to happen" ....so there, I saved us all some time on tthe "show me" nonsense.
but to sit there and say there's not the slightest chance, well that silly, as I said.
.
-
Roger Simon Recent Stories
-
Paul Ryan vs. The Stench
9/25/12
-
Mitt to be Mr. Excitement!
9/20/12
-
Mitt is down; out looms next
9/19/12
-
Mitt won't stop attacking
9/13/12
-
Obama tops Romney
9/7/12
-
Has Obama swept Romney away?
9/5/12
-
Pity party: Suck it up, media
9/4/12
-
Michelle Obama in love
9/3/12
-
Obama comes to bat
9/2/12
Roger Simon is the Chief Political Columnist of Politico. He grew up on the South Side of Chicago, He writes 2-3 Pro Obama articles a week and if Ducky thinks his latest "Stench" has any type of real significance thats......
TOO FUNNY.
.
-
-
It basically said "she won't release every detail of everything she did so we don't know"...
Hhhmmmmm.
That sounds familiar.
Tax releases anyone.
.
-
Media Polls: The Newest Negative Campaign Ad
Over the years, I've generally had little patience when partisans make the "polls are wrong" argument. I've usually found it to be the last refuge of campaigns which were clearly struggling. Sure, individual polls can be wrong, and some can occasionally produce a crazy outlier, but a collective average of polling produces a roughly accurate snapshot of the state of a race. This year, however, is different. The overwhelming majority of media polling this election employ such absurd assumptions about turnout this November that they not only misrepresent the presidential race, they are actively distorting it. I also believe it is intentional.
In 2008, the electorate that elected Barack Obama was 39% Democrat, 32% GOP and 29% Independent. This is what we call a D+7 electorate. Obama defeated McCain by 7 points, the same margin. In 2004, the electorate was 37% Democrat, 37% Republican, and 26% Independent, in other words D/R +0. Bush defeated John Kerry by 3 points nationally.
Yet, virtually every big media poll is based on a model in which Democrats equal or increase their share of the electorate over 2008. Beyond simple common sense, there are many reasons this won't happen. The Dem vote in '08 was the largest in decades. It came after fatigue of eight years of GOP control, two unpopular wars, a charming Democrat candidate who was the Chauncy Gardner of politics, a vessel who could hold everyone's personal dreams and hopes for a politician. It was a perfect storm for Democrats.
None of the factors driving Democrat turnout in '08 exist today. Recent polls from AP, Politico and the daily tracking polls from Rasmussen and Gallup, all of which assume relatively lower Democrat turnout in November, show the race essentially tied. Only those polls showing an electorate with equal or greater numbers of Democrats show Obama with any sizable lead.
Yet, it's these polls that are driving the political narrative. Every day the media launches a number of stories about Romney's "struggling" campaign. They cite anonymous GOP sources who wring their hands that the campaign is losing ground. The only real evidence of this, however, are the polls which heavily over-sample Democrat voters. Without these skewed polls, the media's narrative would be untenable.
Quite simply, and apart from past years, the media have decided to weaponize the polls. The heavy D polls aren't just meant to reassure them that everything is okay in ObamaLand, but to actually hit the Romney campaign. The constant drumbeat echoed by unrealistic polls is designed to dampen fundraising, tap down on GOP enthusiasm and create a false narrative that Obama is pulling away with the race.
In recent days, a number of pollsters have pushed back against criticism about the sampling in their polls. They argue that they are just picking up a big swing in the electorate towards the Democrats. If that were true, though, wouldn't we see signs of it outside the polls. Obama's speaking to much smaller venues than he did in 2008. There are far fewer signs and bumper stickers supporting Obama. Obama's main support bases, young voters and minorities, all show less enthusiasm for voting this year. None of this is dispositive, but if we were really seeing a return to the '08 Democrat wave wouldn't we, well, see it?
Every election features something new, an evolution from past campaigns. This year's development is troubling. Polls are now being used, not simply to gauge the state of the race, but to impact the race.
We're not far off from the day that the New York Times or CBS will have to file their polls as in-kind contributions to the Democrats.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/25/media-polls-are-the-latest-negative-campaign-ad
-
WHITE HOUSE: BAD CALL IN FOOTBALL GAME A ‘PRESSING MATTER’ AND ‘VERY DISTRESSING:’
Clearly, given the angry mood of a mob shouting death threats over a distressing YouTube video that insults the very nature of their religion,
the White House is working overtime to assuage a seething Midwest on the brink of exploding yet again.
Don't forget, while he had time for the View, and to comment of the NFL, he did NOT have time to meet with any other World Leaders while at the U.N.
Because,
Obama Adviser: 'If He Met With One Leader, He Would Have to Meet With 10'
oh......okay then.....we couldn't possibly expect him to do that.
-
School-Lunch Fiasco: Only the Beginning
Drudge today links a student protest
objecting to Michelle Obama’s school lunch regulations, and stories about school-lunch complaints are cropping up everywhere. This one from the Christian Science Monitor is a case study in the perils of over-regulation: one-size-fits-all, conflicting goals, rising prices, and failure to see the big picture.The school lunch issue offers a tiny taste of what’s in store for America once Obama’s massive regulatory agenda begins to hit in a second term. Lunches are the least of the problem. Still, famished students and funny videos do remind us that once the reality of Obama’s carefully back-loaded regulatory agenda hits, we’re going to see a grassroots rebellion in this country.
I just came back from a conference where I heard a mom from Indiana named Heather Crossin describe her battle against Obama’s Common Core. Her child happened to attend one of the first schools in the country to use textbooks created to teach Obama’s new national curriculum. Most Americans have no idea that the president has circumvented the legal and constitutional prohibitions and imposed a national school curriculum on the states. Nor will they wake up to this disturbing fact until a second Obama term. The timing, of course, is intentional.
Crossin’s son came home from school one day with a “fuzzy math” problem. The question was, if one bridge is 790 feet, and the other is 730 feet, which bridge is longer? Crossin’s son replied that the 790 foot bridge is longer because 790 is great than 730. This was incorrect, because the child hadn’t arrived at the answer through the tortuous path required by the text. Crossin was furious and quickly educated herself about Obama’s Common Core.
The Common Core dumbs down standards, and in a misguided effort to “level the playing field” makes it tougher for parents to help their kids with their homework. Here’s an example of how this ridiculous process works when teaching the Gettysburg Address.
Crossin has successfully galvanized Indiana’s tea-party groups into fighting the Common Core. It’s a taste of what’s going to happen across the country once Obama’s new national school curriculum hits the ground. Angry parents like Crossin will be multiplied many times over, and they won’t just be making funny protest videos. They’ll be marching on state legislatures and giving the federal government an earful as well.
Obama’s outrageous changes to America’s school curriculum could easily spark a new tea-party uprising in a second term. And that’s not to mention Obamacare itself, which will only set off more protests once the provisions the president’s been saving for his second term become reality. Then there are Obama’s regulatory interventions on housing, driving, and land use that virtually no one has a clue are coming. I cover it all here. Unfortunately, we tend to get up in arms only when regulations actually bite.
The school-lunch fiasco is just an appetizer. Yet by withholding the impact of his ambitious regulatory agenda until after the election, Obama may just get away with it.
.
-
I have no basis to evaluate the effectiveness of the ongoing effort here, but I recognize that it is a good goal and one that is overdue for attention and I don't see any reason to pooh-pooh the effort just because some douchebag wrote a stupid, pointless article.
Well here's an article that is about what's going on.
I'll post part, the whole article should be read.
Wasted Food, Hungry Kids: Michelle Obama’s Bill in Action
In 2010, Michelle Obama went to a lame-duck session of Congress with a request: pass a nutrition bill giving the United States Department of Agriculture broad new powers to regulate school lunches. That bill was passed in late December of that year, and the new regulations have started to go into effect, with the predictable results of wasted food and angry, hungry children.
The cinnamon rolls and chili everyone loved from their childhood are now gone. Bands and other school groups can no longer sell candy bars as a fundraiser. The government is mandating everything from portion size to how many tomatoes have to be on a salad.
P.J. Moran, a food service director for a small district in rural Kansas, said wastage has gone up “at least 20 percent” over last year, as students, particularly at the grade school level, cannot refuse anything on their trays — but, of course, cannot be forced to eat it.
At the high school and junior high levels, things are more flexible, but not much. Moran said those students can refuse up to three items on the tray, but must take the fruit and vegetable servings whether they plan to eat them or not.
The district’s principal, Jim Bolden, said that at the beginning of the year, food service put fresh peaches on the students’ trays, only to helplessly watch them be thrown away by students who didn’t want them:
{snip}
According to Livestrong.com, teenagers need between 2,000 and 3,000 calories per day to be healthy, and athletes can need as many as 5,000 calories. But the new regulations limit the intake to just 750-850 calories on the tray. Which, if the food is unpalatable, means the students may not be getting even that much.
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA) have cosponsored the “No Hungry Kids Act,” which aims to repeal the legislation they say is sending kids home hungry. PJ Media spoke to Huelskamp on September 20, when he called the regulations “the epitome of good intentions gone awry.”
Huelskamp said he got involved in August — in Kansas, school starts in August, much earlier than many other states — when a relative sent him pictures of what was in a school lunch:
One size doesn’t fit all, particularly in the lunchroom. The goal of the school lunch program is supposed to be feeding children, not filling the trash cans with uneaten food. The USDA’s new school lunch guidelines are a perfect example of what is wrong with government: misguided inputs, tremendous waste, and unaccomplished goals. Thanks to the Nutrition Nannies at the USDA, America’s children are going hungry at school.{snip}
The amount of protein a child is allowed on their trays is seriously limited as well, according to Huelskamp. He said the current regulations limit servings of protein, which could be anything from a hamburger to a side of beans, to 1.5 ounces two days a week and 2 ounces the other three days.
Huelskamp suggested the administration’s focus is perhaps misplaced:
Obesity is not the number onelike [Michelle Obama] says it is.It was a sentiment with which Moran agreed:
I don’t really think childhood obesity is because of school lunches. Their aim shouldn’t be at the schools.. -
So teachers, police and fire fighters bad. Football referees good. #OnlyInAmerica
LOL.....................same old mischaracterizations
repackaged as clever observations.
LA correctly points out your hypocrisy (or ignorance) on public vs private unions.
and your response?
why ......name calling of course..............thats all you have when your wrong (again)
.
-
Here's some more truth: There's no way that this is a +8 Democrat turnout election. No way. If anything, it's either 0...+1 D...or +2 R. That's what the turnout polls suggest.
But, these clowns keep insisting that Obama will get the turnout he did last time....even when their own polls show that enthusiasm for Obama in his key demographics...hell...in every demo...is down, in some cases by double digits(young voters, etc).
It's just not there. It's not. +8 weighting is the purest example of the wishful thinking that is dominating media/democratic pollsters. They aren't thinking at all in fact. This is pure emotion.
It's up to you whether you want to get wrapped up in the storybook...or deal with the reality.
Exactly right.
Now, someone usually responds, well, thats national turnout, in some states dems are up by 8 or more.
Not in the swing states they aren't (thats why they have been swing states for the past 3 elections.....lol)
Those polls that are weighted significantly to dems are simply wrong.
I'll say it again....................Media polling today is done TO INFLUENCE VOTERS, not show actual snapshot projections.
.
-
-
I do not care about the "size" of Michelle,
I care about the size of government.
and, of course KD, everyone knows that obesity is a problem. But its not an all or nothing proposition
Forcing kids with food that they will not eat, is a transparently poor way to solve the problem. If they don't eat, how does that make them healthier? or more ready for school ?
This is another, Well , "even if its failing the intentions are good" project.
Famous New Yorker cartoon from the 30's
-
Now, now, they know whats best for us,
and if they have to modify the "little people's" behavior to get their way, then who are we to complain..................................
-
Barack Obama is the "replacement referee" of U.S. Presidents.
.
-
Obama In Trouble: "To Some Degree"
FTA:
First, there are the two big tracking polls, with Rasmussen on Monday showing Obama 1 and Gallup's Sunday figure at Obama 2. Two weeks ago, after the Democratic convention and before Romney's allegedly disasetrous press conference on the Cairo appeasement announcement and the campaign-killing "47%" video, the Obama lead was 5% in Rasmussen and 7% in Gallup.................... Extrapolate that trend and see where it takes you.
What matters more than the polling breaking towards Romney, however, is the sign of President Obama breaking period.
The president has made three appearances in the past few days --Letterman, Univision and last night on 60 Minutes. Each included pratfalls, and each was worse than the one before. Last night's CBS turn by the president not only deepened his problem with supporters of Israel --he referred to Israel as just one of our allies in the region and to the concerns over Iran's nuclear program voiced by Prime Minister Netanyahu as "noise"-- but it also included the second "biggest disappointment" in three days and an astonishing quote about responsibility: "[A]s President I bear responsibility for everything, to some degree..."
.
-
-
Romney was speaking to the Times about his chevalier Ann's brush with danger last week, when a plane on which she was a passenger was forced to make an emergency landing after an electrical fire caused the cabin to fill with smoke.
"When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no - and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open.I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem"Yep, you got em.
Speaking off the cuff about his wife's plane making an emergency landing, he definitely made a silly mistatement.
That certainly proves he shouldn't be President ..........I mean its obviously worse than,
“If you’re more offended by Romney saying ’47%’ than Obama saying our murdered ambassador is a ‘bump in the road,” #YouMightBeALiberal,” Jim Treacher writes at the Daily Caller:
Take heart, though, America. Obama admits that he’s responsible for his actions as president… “to some degree.” Just don’t think that you get to decide the degree. He does. The buck stops here, “here” being a relative concept.
And if you have a problem with that, as Obama told Steve Kroft, he’s just going to “block out any noise that’s out there.”
and those three are just in the past 48 hours................
-
As I dimly recall, that particular site is a politically unbiased legal blog, and I'm willing to defer to it with a LARGE grain of salt until someone points me to the applicable laws and regulations...and I start caring enough to read them.
Bad news, Prof. Jacobson's site is one that I eagerly check 2 - 3 times a day (for the past two years)
He is a conservative, but to those skeptics, he does always document his posts with varying links from other law professor sites and offers a clear, concise facts to all of his opinions.
Disclaimer: he does seem to have some type of Moby Dick obsession with the Brown/Warren race......................lol.
-
can someone show me where the records are of the Afghanistan and Iraq and were they were listed in the budget 5 years ago?
Shhh don't tell anyone - Obama did it
I have a minute before my meeting, so I'll break my "don't try and correct the feces-flinging monkey" rule.
The thread is about media polling and the Romney/Obama standings, not the war budgets.
and if someone here does answer your question, you have not exhibited any ability to understand that answer.
.
Four More Years!!!
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Four More Years ! !
2Q GDP revised down to 1.25% from 1.7%...
Durable orders drop 13.2% -- 'worst since Depression'...