► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Polls’ Category

58% of Americans support Marijuana Legalization

by Rodan ( 1 Comment › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Headlines, Libertarianism, Polls, Republican Party at October 22nd, 2013 - 11:41 pm

A new survey by Gallup shows that 58% of Americans support legalizing Marijuana.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — For marijuana advocates, the last 12 months have been a period of unprecedented success as Washington and Colorado became the first states to legalize recreational use of marijuana. And now for the first time, a clear majority of Americans (58%) say the drug should be legalized. This is in sharp contrast to the time Gallup first asked the question in 1969, when only 12% favored legalization

The ban on Marijuana is a relic of segregation. The Democrats banned it in the 1930′s because of the racial mixing that was going on in the Jazz scene, where weed smoking was a big element.

The Republican Party should be in the forefront of marijuana legalization. Sadly, the Utopian Nanny State wing will silence any Republican who supports Marijuana legalization with cries of RINO! This will intimidate many Republican politicians who normally would support legalization.

The Democrats being politically more astute, will support legalization of weed. The real reason they will get behind this is for another revenue stream into the government. But with help of the media, they will be portray as fighting for individual liberty. They will use this issue to beat Republicans over the head as scolds.

Republicans have a golden opportunity to be on the popular side on an issue for once.

(Hat Tip :Coldwarrior)

A Respectful Rebuttal

by Mars ( 125 Comments › )
Filed under Blogmocracy, Conservatism, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Election 2014, Free Speech, government, Guest Post, Health Care, Healthcare, Media, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Republican Party at October 4th, 2013 - 7:58 pm

Friday we were presented with this article.  I had already been involved with some research related to this so I decided it was necessary to point out the areas that this belief is wrong and that we are actually involved in the battle we should be.

http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2013/10/04/friday-with-the-hammer-republicans-should-have-fought-over-the-debt-ceiling-not-obamacare-funding/

Goldwaterite is a good friend and I have nothing but respect for him.  However, in this case he is severely wrong.  The evidence out there does not back up his claims.  The idea that we should have fought the debt ceiling and allowed Obamacare to go on unfought is not only wrong but dangerously so.  It also highly overestimates the interest the public has in the debt ceiling.   He put out numbers that 60 – 80 some percent of the public opposed the debt ceiling hike.  Well, in order to make the article fair I searched for these numbers in order to put them here and compare to the other information I have found.  I was not able to find that information.  Here are the numbers I was able to find on the debt ceiling.  These numbers are recent and represent the true level of apathy the American public has toward this issue.  In fact in past debt ceiling arguments the Republicans have been viewed as the bad guys and have failed to let the public know what the entire argument is about.

Another Terrifying Debt Ceiling Poll Shows How Republicans Are Willing To Go Nuclear
Brett LoGiurato Oct. 2, 2013, 9:42 AM 2,982 29

Another poll — this time from CNN/ORC — shows that Republicans are pretty OK with the possibility of breaching the debt ceiling.

According to the poll, 52% of Republicans would consider it a “good thing” if the debt ceiling is not raised, compared with 40% who said it would be a “bad thing.”

Overall, 56% of Americans said this would be a bad thing, and 38% said it would be a good thing. On Tuesday night, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew sent a letter to Congressional leaders notifying them that the Treasury was using its “final extraordinary measures” before an Oct. 17 deadline.

In the CNN/ORC poll, the possibility of breaching the debt ceiling is described as one in which the “government will not have enough money to pay all of its debts and keep all existing government programs running.”

This aligns with a recent Washington Post/ABC poll, which found that Republicans split 25-61 against raising the debt ceiling.

The poll showed that overall, voters believe that by a 46-43 margin, Congress should raise the nation’s debt limit before a mid-October deadline — perhaps underestimating the consequences of the last near-crisis.

In that poll, however, a vast majority of Republicans — and the vast majority of Americans overall — said that not raising the debt ceiling would “cause serious harm” to the U.S. economy. By a 66-27 split, Republicans are aware that failure to lift the nation’s borrowing limit could inflict serious consequences. Overall, 73% of Americans believe it will cause serious harm.

According to the CNN/ORC poll, Republicans would take the brunt of the blame from a public that, overall, thinks it would be a bad thing if the debt limit is not raised. 53% of respondents said they would blame Congressional Republicans, while 31% would blame President Barack Obama.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/debt-ceiling-poll-republicans-gop-government-shutdown-2013-10#ixzz2gnQycpHO

This was two days ago. The closest I could find to support Goldwaterites argument is this article from September 13th.

NBC/WSJ poll shows 2:1 opposition to raising the debt ceiling
posted at 8:41 am on September 13, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The polling news hasn’t improved much for Barack Obama, even without a military attack on Syria in the offing. A new poll from NBC and the Wall Street Journal shows Americans lining up 2:1 against the debt-ceiling increase Obama needs, and his credibility dropping on a wide range of issues:

Americans overwhelmingly do not think Congress should raise the nation’s debt limit as President Barack Obama and Congress prepare once again to wage battle over the issue, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

By a 44-22 percent margin, Americans oppose raising the debt ceiling, which again puts the president in the difficult position of needing to make the case for an unpopular policy with a deadline quickly approaching.

The poll results come as the U.S. Treasury Department says the country will reach its debt limit by mid-October. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates the limit will be reached by Oct. 18, and the U.S. could default by Nov. 5.

“People’s first instinct is how fed up they are with Washington and spending,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the poll with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart. “This is a very difficult issue in terms of public opinion.”

The NBC report also notes that the last time we had a showdown over the debt ceiling, the debate started with similar numbers — 39/28 against raising the debt limit. After a month had passed, that flipped to 31/38, after a few weeks of being a front-burner issue. This still leaves Democrats with a big problem, though, because they planned to use Republican opposition to a debt-ceiling increase as an argument for GOP irresponsibility. Harry Reid has already taken a break from his “OMG Assad is HITLER!” screechifying to call Republicans “anarchists” for that opposition, but that’s a big word to toss around when only 22% of the voters are in your corner. Republicans won’t refuse to raise the debt ceiling — they’d need a balanced budget for that, and we’re years away from one in anyone’s best plan — but the public sentiment gives them a lot more leverage to gain painful concessions from Obama before approving it.

Now keep in mind that the best they could state was a 2:1 belief. Now here is the numbers of people opposing Obamacare.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2013/oct/4/why-obamacare-remains-hated/
Why America still hates Obamacare

Three years after becoming law, Obamacare remains unpopular by a majority of voters. Theories abound as to why. The answer is simple. Photo: The People’s Cube
Friday, October 4, 2013 – The Tygrrrr Express by Eric Golub
Eric Golub

LOS ANGELES, October 4, 2013—The government shutdown is a direct conflict over the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Republicans want to fund the entire government except for this program. Democrats are willing to keep the entire government shut down rather than see Obamacare defunded.

Three years after passage, Obamacare remains a program reviled on the right.

Why? Why does this particular program enrage conservatives?

Some have advanced the racial motive. This theory is poisonous, and nobody advancing it deserves to have their views heard in any serious forum. Obamacare objections are policy based. President Obama is being treated exactly as John Kerry, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton would be advancing the same policy.

Others insist the breadth of hatred is overstated. Polls consistently show a majority of Americans against Obamacare. Not one poll ever gave Obamacare majority support. Yet many liberals insist the polls are misleading. Liberals claim that many people oppose Obamacare for not going far enough to a direct Canadian-style single-payer system. No evidence corroborates this assertion. Hardened opposition remains on the right.

Some claim the problem is one of marketing. Powerful right-wing forces funded by subversives from the Koch Brothers to Ronald Reagan’s ghost are spending money to defeat Obamacare.

Participation in the political process remains legal, and Obama has the world’s most powerful advertising agency. The White House bully pulpit is unmatched in its powerful ability to sell, market and advertise programs. Obama spent months speaking about his program before it was enacted. To this day he touts it as successful. The left claims (incorrectly) that Obama won reelection because of this program. It would be contradictory to say he successfully sold himself to voters based on this program and then turn around and criticize his salesmanship of Obamacare as insufficient.

Obama won reelection in spite of Obamacare. He ran from it, not on it. Trailing by four points after a disastrous first debate, he rebounded through a combination of hardball politics (demonizing Mitt Romney as a felon and murderer), a lapdog media (Candy Crowley rescuing him in the second debate) and incredibly good luck (a hurricane the week before the election). Obamacare was an albatross that cost him plenty of votes, just not enough to lose.

Obamacare is hated not because of racism, bad marketing, or poor salesmanship. It is hated because the product is defective. Critics hated it because of what they thought it would be. They still hate it because they are convinced their concerns have been proven right.

The Tea Party formed specifically to oppose Obamacare. Republican Scott Brown was elected in ultra-liberal Massachusetts specifically due to his opposing Obamacare. The Republicans now had 41 votes to filibuster and block the bill from becoming law. Rather than accept defeat, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi resorted to barely legal and ethically questionable parliamentary maneuvers to pass it under “reconciliation,” which required only 51 Senate votes instead of 60. The House then “deemed” the Senate bill passed without having to go to a conference committee. If President George W. Bush had tried this with a Republican Congress, liberals would have gone ballistic. A liberal Congress did, and the right went ballistic. It was dirty pool, an ends justify the means approach.

The 2010 elections were a referendum on Obamacare, and Obama took a “shellacking.” Yet he persisted. Democrats could have passed popular piecemeal programs such as portability and preexisting conditions legislation. They could have done a truly bipartisan bill with Republican ideas such as legal reform and selling across state lines. Obama’s hyper-partisan approach was to say “I won.”

Once the bill became law, promises Obama made were proven false. “If you like your doctor or your plan, you can keep it.” This is not true. People are currently receiving cancellation letters. Obama promised reduced costs, but it is impossible to give more of something to more people and have it cost less.

The individual mandate has the right in a frenzy. If the government can make people buy a product, where does the line stop?

Then there is the alleged corruption from inception to completion. Passing it required the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback. Now there are the waivers for Obama’s union allies. Members of Congress and their staff have waivers. Business was given a one year delay. This violates the basic notion of fairness Obama keeps talking about.

The idea of the IRS administering the law scares the daylights out of conservatives, especially in light of IRS abuses targeting conservatives for working within the political process to oppose it. Obama’s use of the full weight of his government to attack large swaths of citizens only deepened their mistrust and hardened their opposition. His attacking these people personally made it impossible for him to gain support when he needed it.

The program has been besieged by what the administration called “glitches.” Yet the administration had three years to prepare for implementation. This only validates those who believe government is a lumbering bureaucracy incapable of doing critical functions properly.

Obama promised to reduce costs, cover more people, and provide better care to a country where 85% of people had healthcare and were satisfied with it. He still does not cover the remaining 15%. Costs are rising for more people than are seeing reductions. Many businesses are reducing employees from 40 hours per week to 28 to avoid the mandate of covering any employee working 30 hours weekly. Other companies are just canceling insurance for all of their employees. Obamacare supporters have no answer to this problem.

Obamacare is a bad law. It was described deceitfully, enacted into law dishonestly, implemented inefficiently, and affecting far too many people adversely.

The bad outweighs the good, which is why a majority of people detest it.

Obamacare’s problem is Obamacare.

Poll: Obamacare remains highly unpopular as implementation looms
By Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, NBC News

A large number of Americans continue to adamantly oppose the nation’s new health-care law and believe it will produce damaging results, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Forty-four percent of respondents call the health-care law a bad idea, while 31 percent believe it’s a good idea — virtually unchanged from July’s NBC/WSJ survey.

By a 45 percent to 23 percent margin, Americans say it will have a negative impact on the country’s health-care system rather than a positive one.

REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Attendees cheer at the Tea Party Patriots ‘Exempt America from Obamacare’ rally on the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, September 10, 2013.

And 30 percent of respondents think it will have a negative impact on their families. Just 12 percent think it will be positive and a majority — 53 percent — don’t believe it will have an impact one way or another.

Responses to an open-ended question in the poll about the law are especially revealing, showing little has changed in the public’s perception as the Obama administration races to meet implementation deadlines next month.

“We’re going to get worse health care, and it’s going to increase the debt,” said one Republican-leaning female from North Carolina. “There are death panels in there, and they’re going to decide whether people get treatment or not.”

Others remain confused about what’s in it. “I don’t know personally how it’s going to affect me,” said another GOP-leaning opponent of the law from Ohio.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/15/20506193-poll-obamacare-remains-highly-unpopular-as-implementation-looms?lite

Keep in mind this article is from the same period as the debt ceiling numbers that Goldwaterite promotes. The numbers on Obamacare are far more devastating than those on the debt ceiling.

Other reasons that this is the battle that needed to be fought right now are because the battle started just before Obamacare went into full implementation on October 1st this put it fresh in the minds of the public and kept their attention. Next, people were already beginning to feel the pain from Obamacare and its mandates. Next, while the government has been “shutdown” it has little to no effect on peoples everyday lives and most people are beginning to see that. The same can be said for the debt ceiling but that is in a more negative way, people see that whether the debt ceiling is increased or not has not effect, so it doesn’t make any sense to them on why it matters. Also, the longer this is going on the more obstructionist Obama and the Dems look. It’s getting harder for the media to run interference for them when there is more and more video of them stating that they won’t work with the Republicans on even simple common sense partial funding bills. Harry Reid saying that kids with cancer don’t really matter to him is a killer. The longer this goes on the worse they are going to look. People are getting tired of hearing the Republicans called “terrorists”, “arsonists”, and “anarchists”. As long as the Republicans continue to act with civility and appear to be the party offering options they can win this in the long run. Holding back the fight until after the October 1st implementation would have insured the fight would never be fought. Just like Obama demanding a clean bill be put forward, when, exactly, would the battle be taken back up if that was done? The answer is never as long as Obama is President.

And for any people still doubting that this is having an effect in the PR war I have an interesting little local news article that won’t be carried on any national media outlets. The Park Service just informed the MT Honor Flight vets that contrary to what they said on the 1st, the vets will be allowed access to the WW2 Memorial. This just came over my local radio an hour ago.

Oh and things like this don’t look good for Reid and cronies.

The Park Service appears to be closing streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist destination. That was after they barred the new World War II Memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association. The ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national memorial. The feds closed access to the parking lots this week, even though the lots are jointly owned with the Mount Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and they’re only here to help.

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/pruden-the-cheap-tricks-of-the-game/#ixzz2gnWys0Xc
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

The public is beginning to understand the games the dems play. Now if the Republicans can get out there and get the message to the LIV, this game is over. The public has a short memory but most are realizing that the sequester, that Obama wanted but claimed was the end of the world, has had no effect on their lives, the same thing is coming out over the shutdown. The rhetoric from the left is getting harsher and more difficult for people to believe. I even had a democrat tell me yesterday that the meeting Obama wanted with the leaders of both parties would never be a negotiation, just a lecture. And she was angry about it. Even a democrat wanted Obama to negotiate so they could “get those poor federal workers back on the job.”

If this isn’t the right battle at the right time, then nothing is. The only question is do the Republicans have the spine to keep it going or are they going to grab at a desperate way out?

Interesting Reuters Poll on race relations

by Rodan Comments Off
Filed under Headlines, Polls at August 9th, 2013 - 12:11 pm

This poll by Reuters has a very interesting results on race relations in this country.

(Reuters) – About 40 percent of white Americans and about 25 percent of non-white Americans are surrounded exclusively by friends of their own race, according to an ongoing Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The figures highlight how segregated the United States remains in the wake of a debate on race sparked by last month’s acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting of unarmed black Florida teenager Trayvon Martin. President Barack Obama weighed in after the verdict, calling for Americans to do some “soul searching” on whether they harbor racial prejudice.

There are regions and groups where mixing with people of other races is more common, especially in the Hispanic community where only a tenth do not have friends of a different race. About half of Hispanics who have a spouse or partner are in a relationship with non-Hispanics, compared to one tenth of whites and blacks in relationships.

Looking at a broader circle of acquaintances to include coworkers as well as friends and relatives, 30 percent of Americans are not mixing with others of a different race, the poll showed.

The finding that 1/2 of Hispanics are married or in relationships with with non Hispanics does not shock me at all. All of my Hispanic freinds (male and female) are married to or dating Non Hispanics. Italians (cultural/ethnic cousins), Greeks, East Europeans, Irish, Jews and Arab Christians tend to be the groups Hispanics intermarry with the most. Contrary to what Progressives, La Raza and some Conservatives claim, Hispanic is NOT a race, so there is not stigma to marrying non Hispanics.

As to the other findings about many Americans not having friends of other races, I believe that is due to where you live and not racism. Sadly the spin on this poll will be that a huge amount of Americans are racists. That is not what this poll’s results are showing.

There will always be racism and bigoty becasue that is human nature. What is important is that there are no laws discriminating due to a persons race.

Majority of rich support Obama

by Rodan ( 7 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Headlines, Polls, Progressives, Republican Party at May 2nd, 2013 - 11:16 am

I will never understand why there are some on the Right who will fall on their sword to defend the rich. A new poll released shows Obama’s biggest supporters are the rich!

According to a new Economist/YouGov poll, it’s the rich — not the poor or middle class — who back Obama more despite his 2012 campaign attacking the rich.

The poll found that fewer than half of those with incomes less than $100,000 per year approve of Obama’s performance, while he enjoys a 54 percent approval rating among those with incomes higher than that.

Those earning less than $40,000 a year disapprove of the president’s performance, 51 percent to 45 percent. Those earning $40,000 to $100,000 disapprove by a rate of 50 percent to 48 percent.

If the Republican Party had any brains (which they do not), they would engage in class warfare against Obama. But this will not happen and they will continue to be tagged as protecting the rich, despite the reality to the contrary.

Newt Gingrich: We were kidding ourselves

by Speranza ( 272 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Elections 2012, Mitt Romney, Polls, Republican Party at March 6th, 2013 - 3:00 pm

As Gingrich points out – the Karl Rove meltdown on Fox News that night was emblematic as to how delusional the GOP and its loathsome “consulting class” are. Gingrich also laments that Romney was forced to run as something he clearly was not – a hard core social conservative.

Meanwhile chew on this comment “By the way, Reagan’s approval when he left office, among African Americans, was something like 42 percent. I would argue that there was a brief moment between Reagan and Jack Kemp when we were almost breaking through – and then we relapsed into being normal Republicans.”

by Steve Kornacki

There was a popular theory for much of the 2012 Republican presidential campaign that Newt Gingrich wasn’t actually running for the GOP nomination – that he was instead leveraging the stature and visibility that comes with being a candidate to market his personal brand. Whether by brilliant design or complete accident, though, the former House Speaker managed to catch fire – twice – delivering a memorable blow to Mitt Romney in the South Carolina primary before falling apart in Florida and fading from contention.

That rise-fall-rise-fall cycle neatly reflects the role Gingrich plays in national politics. He has an enduring knack for attracting attention and making himself relevant to the political conversation of the moment, even if most opinion-shapers in his party ultimately aren’t comfortable with him being their public face. So it’s no surprise that even as he nears 70, Gingrich is a vocal participant in the debate over the Republican Party’s direction, one who’s made news recently by taking shots at Stuart Stevens, the architect of Mitt Romney’s ’12 campaign, and Karl Rove.

He entered the fray shortly after the election with a memo to GOP Chairman Reince Priebus, describing himself as blindsided by the November result and “shaken” that he and so many other Republicans had misread the state of play so badly. He outlined 25 principles for a “deep, bold, thorough and lengthy” reform process within the party. Among the points of emphasis: the need to compete for non-white voters and to stop writing off urban areas. More recently, he pointed the finger at Romney and his strategists for worsening the party’s plight with Latinos by running far to the right on immigration during last year’s primary (a tactic that helped Romney derail Gingrich, who had struck a more inclusive tone on the issue).

Salon spoke with Gingrich about where the Republican Party is and where it’s going. The transcript of the conversation, slightly edited and condensed for clarity, is below.

The pre-election polls were pretty clear in showing Obama had a decent advantage. Why do you think you and so many Republicans were so confident? What did you get wrong about the campaign?

First, there was a belief in economic determinism, that you couldn’t have that level of unemployment and have a president get re-elected. So people just sort of had a bias that as long as the economy stayed bad, he would lose. And of course they proved that in many ways identity politics beat economic politics, which I think is a considerable achievement.

Second, I think we underestimated the degree to which  they were winning the argument. There’s an old Margaret Thatcher phrase I use over and over: “First you win the argument, then you win the vote.” If you look at the attitudes of the country, they ended up blaming George W. Bush, not Obama. They ended up thinking that ObamaCare actually was a net plus by the election. None of that seemed at all obvious to us.

And third, I think conservatives in general got in the habit of talking to themselves. I think that they in a sense got isolated into their own little world.  [.......]

You talked about the information bubble that existed through Fox News, talk radio, that sort of thing. Has that changed at all since the election?

I think that there are a lot of Republicans who are a lot more skeptical today than they were on the morning of the election. In some ways, the final symbol was Rove arguing over Ohio on Fox News after the Fox decision desk had called the state. I’m not picking on Karl, but I’m saying Karl in that sense personified a mindset that I was part of and that an amazing number of people were part of.

To give him some credit, Frank Luntz did a conference call that Callista and I listened to about 5:30 that day, and he went through exit polls and we just stared at each other because it was clear that the exit polls were so different from our expectation — that it was going to be a very long night.

One of the stories of 2012 is that the electorate is less white than ever, and it’s trending in an even less white direction. I don’t think there’s been an election after ’64 when Republicans broke 20 percent with the black vote, the Hispanic vote now, two straight elections…

By the way, Reagan’s approval when he left office, among African Americans, was something like 42 percent. I would argue that there was a brief moment between Reagan and Jack Kemp when we were almost breaking through – and then we relapsed into being normal Republicans.

When you look at the Republican Party’s relationship with African Americans and Hispanics, what is the message you want to deliver to those voters?

I’m for a big rethinking. I don’t think a modestly reformed Republican Party has any real chance of competing in the absence of a dramatic disaster. If there was a big disaster, people would be driven away from the Democrats, but in the absence of a really big disaster, if you want to compete in a difficult but not impossible world, we’re going to have to have very large fundamental rethinking.

The first thing you have to do with African Americans, Latinos, and Asian-Americans and Native Americans is go there. They don’t need to come to you; you need to go to them. And when you go there, listen. Phase one is not going there to tell about you. Why is it we can have entire cities that are disasters, that we can have 500 people getting killed in Chicago, we can have Detroit collapsing, we can have the highest black unemployment teenage in modern history, and no Republican politician can figure out that going there to say, “Gee, shouldn’t we do something to make this better”? And then talk about it jointly, so it becomes a joint product — that it’s not “Let me re-explain conservatism.” I don’t mean to walk away from conservatism, but we need to understand conservatism in the context of people who are talking with us.

Does there need to be a rethinking of conservatism then, as it relates to voters the party’s kind of written off in recent elections?

Sure, sure. And Kemp is significant part of that. If you go back and look, again, one of the reasons that the Reagan-Kemp period was so exciting was that you had a NFL quarterback and Hollywood movie star, and they were breaking out of the Republican norm. People have to know that you care before they care that you know, and I think that really captures a large part of this. One of my messages to Republicans is very simple: One-third of your schedule should be listening to people in minority communities. And today, if you’re not putting one-third of your schedule – and of course, no consultant will suggest this, because you’re not going to get a huge vote in the first trial run – but what you’re going to do, is start to change the whole pattern of dialogue and you learn a whole new language, you’re going to learn a whole new reality. [.......]

When I hear that, my skeptical response in terms of the politics of it from the Republican standpoint would be that the Democratic vote, in 2012 is more tightly condensed geographically than the Democratic vote really has ever been. Obama won like 690 counties – less than Dukakis even did. So you’ve got a situation now where the Republicans at the House level can sustain a majority while writing off these urban Democratic districts.

Look, they just can’t become a governing majority. If they want to be like the old Democratic Party which was doing just fine in Congress, but had no message for the country and no understanding of presidential campaigns, that’s certainly a track they can take. I think it’s bad for America and I think it’s bad for the Republican Party. This requires looking at guys who are in totally safe seats, who could coast the rest of their lives, “You owe it to the country and you owe it to the party to go and do some things you don’t have to do for reelection, but you do have to do for America.” We’ll see what happens. [........]

So how does that advice square with – and I think you kind of experienced this when you ran last year – the threat to the average Republican congressman of a primary challenge if he or she strays at all from conservative orthodoxy, like you did on immigration?

Accept it and go win the challenge. I think the position I took on immigration, for example, was the right position and actually it didn’t hurt me at all. I think some of these people run in a frightened way that they don’t need to, so all you have to do is stand up and explain yourself.  [........]

But when you see some of these primary results – like a Christine O’Donnell winning in Delaware, a Ken Buck in Colorado, a Joe Miller in Alaska – don’t you think that sends a frightening message to incumbents? The risk here…

That should send a message to incumbents that you clearly weren’t getting the message that people were extraordinarily angry. Part of the job of an incumbent is to listen to and represent a community. That doesn’t mean you need to be dictated to. That’s literally what actually happened to Bob Bennett (the former Utah senator defeated for re-nomination in 2010) and Orrin Hatch (who was re-elected in Utah in 2012). Orrin understood it early, went home early, listened to people, introduced them to legislation that made them feel pretty good, and he did fine.

But Hatch ran far to the right, and basically ran on the same platform that Romney was sort of forced to run on in the fall, and it worked in Utah, but it didn’t work in swing states…

That’s what I was going to say, that works in Utah.

Right. But you were describing a problem of getting out of safe red states and safe red districts.

I don’t think you’re automatically trapped in this. If you are saying, “Is it harder to build a successful national movement from where we are right now than it would be to coast?” the answer is yes. I’ve done this twice before. It was harder in the late ‘70s with Reagan, and I was a very junior member of the House in ’79 and ‘80. And I had lost twice. I lost in the Watergate year (1974) and I lost in the Jimmy Carter ear (1976) to the Democratic Party ticket. We had to rebuild after the first Bush. And then the ’94 campaign was the culmination of 16 years of work.

Yes, creating a modern, dynamic Republican Party capable of listening to 100 percent of the country is going to be a ton of work.  [........]

Do you believe long-term that the demographics are the biggest threat to the Republican Party?

No, I think the lack of ideas is the biggest threat. Look at what’s gone on with the sequester, OK? The fact that they haven’t held hearing after hearing for better ideas, that they haven’t told everybody in risk of being furloughed, “Show us the ways to save money,” that were just sort of – cut, to me, is not exactly a battle cry around which you build a majority. Saving, to some extent, is, but breaking out with better ideas, a better future, better solutions – that to me is where we’re going to have to go. And if you do it right, you can then appeal to virtually everybody in the country.

Does John Boehner have the power, though, given all the skepticism towards him from conservative members and the conservative movement, to lead that kind of effort?

He has the position to encourage it. [........] One of my core arguments is going to be, we need to be the party of a better future, not the anti-Obama party. And we better think through what that’s going to require and how do we achieve that.

When you look at the dynamic that’s now emerging in the House – we saw it in the Violence Against Women act last week, we saw it with Sandy aid and we saw it with fiscal cliff, with Boehner bringing to the floor bills that an overwhelming majority of the conference oppose, then pass on the strength of Democratic votes. What do you make of that? What does that say about what’s going on in the Republican Party right now?

I think it’s tactically where we are at the moment. I don’t draw a great deal out of it for the long-term. We occasionally did that when I was speaker. So it’s not necessarily today or tomorrow – it’s over a period of time. Somebody just pointed out that Reagan and I are two people who have their tapes at the national archives. In my case, it’s the GOPAC training tapes that we did (in the 1980s). It’s easy to forget, but in that long stretch, we were creating the party that won in ’94.  [........]

But the long term challenge to the Republican Party is to decide if it is prepared to fundamentally rethink what it’s doing? Is it prepared to make that real on a personal and practical level? Does it involve the whole country, and does it involve focusing on a better future rather than just fighting Obama? The party that makes the right choice in those cases, I think, is going have a very good future.

Read the rest - “In the real world we were kidding ourselves”

NBC News/WSJ Poll shows Opinion of Republican Party at an all time low

by Rodan ( 9 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Polls, Republican Party, Special Report at January 17th, 2013 - 8:30 pm

Obama is now a political colossus. The American public love him, despite a stagnant economy and believe anything he says. In every confrontation with the Republican Party, the god-king wins with public support. The Republican Party on the other hand is despised and viewed as a joke. Rather than try to adapt to the electorate and come up with winning strategy, many Republicans have lashed out at groups that did not vote for them. This has turned off the American public and many Republicans like myself. The result is a new NBC News/WSJ poll shows the GOP is very unpopular.

The Republican Party better get its act together very soon. Instead of lying to its self that the only reason people vote against them is because they want free stuff, they need to articulate a positive message that appeals to Americans.

Before Progressives crow about this is poll, hey need to realize that many Republicans dislike the current state of the GOP. This situation will not last forever. Either the Republican Party will reform and adapt or it will be a marginalized minor Party and a new Optimistic Center-Right Party will emerge. For the time being, Democrats are looking at a political lock at the national level. But this will not last forever.

Programmer Testifies About Rigging Elections With Vote Counting Machines

by 1389AD ( 150 Comments › )
Filed under Corruption, Elections 2012, Polls at November 13th, 2012 - 8:00 pm

On YouTube:

(h/t: Urban Infidel)

From the YouTube description:

Published on Jul 6, 2012 by johnperna2

Clinton Eugene Curtis testified under oath, before the Ohio State legislature, that he wrote a program to rig elections. This program would flip the total vote from the real winner to the candidate who had been pre-selected to win by the electronic vote counting machines. For more information, visit: Vote Fraud: How it is done.

THE SURVIVAL OF LIBERTY DEPENDS ON MAKING THIS INFORMATION KNOWN.

Regardless of the vote fraud, and the dirty tricks at conventions, the cause of liberty will persist until victory. After victory the defense of liberty will continue.

They have been doing this ever since electronic vote counting machines were put in place. That makes it MORE outrageous. For more info watch the full ELECTION FRAUD PLAYLIST on channel johnperna2′s channel & read the full ELECTION FRAUD PLAYLIST article on TARGETFREEDOM. Also read article on TARGETFREEDOM titled Vote Fraud: How it is done. Vote fraud is not just in 1 party. It is a function of the New World Order elites in BOTH PARTIES. Goal is to protect the puppets of the bankers in both parties.

Thomas Jefferson said:
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

I add to this:
“The battle for freedom is never won, and is never lost.
The battle for freedom always continues.
It is never too late, and it is never soon enough, to defend freedom.
No matter how enslaved we are, we always have hope.
No matter how free we are we are never safe.
NOTHING EVER LIMITS THE GOVERNMENT, EXCEPT THE PEOPLE.
Any generation that fails to defend freedom will lose it.
The next generation will have to shed blood to gain it back” John Perna

When the defense of liberty becomes a crime, tyranny is already in force. At that point failure to defend liberty makes slavery at certainty. John Perna

What to do?

We need purple fingers, paper ballots, and picture IDs at every US election. Demand them!


A Little Lesson On Polling, Before Half The Country Screams.

by Flyovercountry ( 295 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012, Politics, Polls at November 6th, 2012 - 8:00 am

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Tomorrow night, somewhere near half of the country will undoubtedly be crying foul, because their predictions for who would be the winner and who they voted for fell somewhat short of reality. Before you Democrats scream bloody murder about how Barack Obama could not possibly have lost the election when everyone you knew voted for him, and all of those polls said otherwise, maybe a small lesson as to how those models are put together, and why some are more predictive than others is in order.

This year has been one of the most egregious in my memory as far as pollsters using their publications to sway public opinion rather than recording it. It became so blatant this year, that the Obama Administration actually filed suit against Gallop, for using an unapproved demographic model in one of the polls that they published.

When you read the top line on a poll, you will see something like this:

Based on a survey of 750 likely voters, x percent support Barack Obama, y percent support Mitt Romney, z percent support another candidate, and t percent are undecided.

What you may not know is how that top line is constructed. First things first, it was not put together with a mere 750 interviews. For that model populace of 750 likely voters, our polling company probably conducted between 1500 and 2250 interviews. In order to collect those interviews, our polling company probably logged around 12500 phone calls. Out of those results, a sample population was literally constructed, based on the polling company’s educated guess as to what the demographic make up of the electorate would eventually be.

What is uncanny, is that within the 20 or so subgroups that make up the eventual demographic model, the polling companies will be in very close agreement. That is to say, in a much simpler version of one of their subgroups, they all pretty much agree that 86% of people who self identify as Republicans will be voting for Mitt Romney, and that 85% of those who self identify as Democrats will be voting for Barack Obama. To be certain, those groups are further splintered into categories delineated by age, gender, education, income, profession, and anything else the pollster feels is pertinent.

Where the pollsters disagree is in what that population that finally makes it to the polling booth will ultimately look like. Something that you may have noticed in some of the criticisms are the D/R/I splits. This is the easiest piece of information that will, within seconds give you some idea as to which way a polling company may be skewing its results. During the 2008 elections, the final model had a partisan split that favored Democrats by 8%. The D/R/I split was 39/31/30. For the midterm elections of 2010, that model had changed to reflect this split, 36/35/29.

So, we can see that relatively small changes in the demographics can lead to vastly differing results. A Democrat wave election of 2008 was changed to an historic Republican wave election in 2010 with our model’s makeup shifting in the following manner, 3% smaller representation of Democrats, a 4% increase in the representation of Republicans, and a 1% decrease in the percentage of Independents.

When the pollster contacts a respondent and asks those important questions about support and intentions, he will also ask for some demographic information. At the end of the day, he will know already that he wants his model to be x number of people who are 18 to 29 year old Republican men, and y number of 29 to 40 year old Democrat women, and so forth. That definitely will not be represented exactly in the number of respondents. What he will have is some representation from each of those groups that is included in his sample demographic.

This is how that sample is constructed. The model’s makeup is, within most polls, predetermined, before the first interview is conducted. So, we’ll give our example model a breakdown of 40/40/20, just as an example. The pollsters may have contacted, quite by accident more females then males, more Republicans than Democrats, more younger people than older, or any other possibility. For the ease of use, our example is only worried about total Democrats, total Republicans, and total independents. Out of 750 likely voters, we have determined that there will be 300 Democrats, 300 Republicans, and 150 Independents, regardless of who was actually contacted. If 86% of Republicans responded that they plan of voting for Mitt Romney, then the total added to his top line from that group will be 258. We’ll give Barack Obama the remaining 42. From the Democrats who responded, 255 will be added to Obama’s top line number with 45 being credited to Mitt Romney. Amongst the independents, let’s assume that they’ll split straight down the middle, for 75 each. This gives us a made up poll of a statistical tie, almost exactly 50/50. What happens to our example if we change the model?

Applying the interview results to the 2008 demographic split, we get a result that gives Barack Obama a decisive victory of 52.5% to 47.5%. If however, the demographics for the voting populace looks like the 2010 model, the same exact poll finishes with a top line that reads Obama 50.40% to Romney 49.60%, a much different result.

Bear in mind that in every poll which exists in the real world, Romney is winning the independents by huge double digit margins. In the last 7 Presidential Elections, the demographic split in the voting model reflected the previous midterm election almost exactly, and not the previous Presidential election. The polling companies today are trying their level best to pretend that 2010 plainly did not happen, and so by the way is our President. It is therefor hard to understand on what basis anyone with any sense of history is able to look at this year’s election and determine that not only will this old and tested rule be thrown out completely, but that the percentage make up of Democrats will exceed the record breaking make up of the 2008 elections by a ridiculous margin.

The bottom line is therefore easy to manipulate, base on the ultimate make up of the partisan split. For instance, if the sample chosen reflects something that looks like the latest piece of fiction as published by ABC, with a partisan split that predicts the D/R/I split will be 40/29/31, their numbers within the subgroups may be dead on accurate, but the question any sane person would ask, is where on Earth did you come up with that sample?

During the election of 2004, all of the major networks put together exit polling data based on unbelievably optimistic partisan models and announced around noon on election day that John Kerry would be inaugurated as our 44th President. So believing in the less than perfect science of polling were the Democrats at the time, that cries of shenanigans were shouted through out the land. Court challenges were filed, and subsequently thrown out by judges who are still laughing. (By the way, will somebody please tell the good people at NBC that they can call Ohio for George W. Bush already, it is now 8 full years past the election.) It is necessary to read usually until page 29 or 30 of published polls to see how they derived their top line numbers, and usually those methods of construction are more important than the headline the polling company gives its product.

Normally, I wouldn’t bother with an essay that was designed to prove to an unsuspecting public just exactly how wonkish I am, but when I see people on my side react with the same Eeyoreish hysteria each and every time one of these polls gets released, it makes me want to scream, wake up, we’ve all seen this movie before.

On Wednesday, the rest of us will know what the internal pollsters of each of the campaigns have told the respective candidates, that Mitt Romney will be our 45th President, and Barack Obama will have two years on the lecture circuit campaigning to win his party’s nomination for 2016. Every Democrat and his brother will be screaming bloody murder that the polls could not possibly have been that wrong, even though they’ve never actually gotten it right.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Wave Goodbye to the Obama Media

by huckfunn ( 395 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Censorship, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Free Speech, government, Health Care, Joe Biden, Marxism, Media, Misery Index, Politics, Polls, Regulation, Socialism, taxation, unemployment at November 5th, 2012 - 3:00 pm

Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel of The Daily Caller have an excellent article today entitled “Wave Goodbye to the Obama Media”. Carlson and Patel opine that by the next election cycle what we now know as the “mainstream” media will be largely gone, replaced by the new internet media. MSM have selected themselves for extinction by their own dishonesty and slavish devotion to the false prophet of a false ideology. The thugacracy currently occupying the White House is exactly the sort of regime that a free and independent press was supposed to guard against and protect us from. In modern history we have seen instances in which the press has been subverted and co-opted by totalitarian regimes, but in those cases the press was beaten into submission under threat of the noose or gulag. That obviously is not what happened to the American press. They willfully and lovingly became Obama’s concubines without any coercion whatsoever. The fact that we now have a President Obama is Exhibit “A” to MSM’s duplicity in electing a man with no experience, no accomplishments and seemingly no past. In doing so they have truly betrayed the trust of the American public.  As Pat Caddell said, “Media have become the enemy of the American People”.

By tomorrow night we’ll likely know the name of the next president. But we already know the loser in this election cycle: political reporters. They’ve disgraced themselves. Conservatives have long complained about liberal bias in the media, and with some justification. But it has finally reached the tipping point. Not in our lifetimes have so many in the press dropped the pretense of objectivity in order to help a political candidate. The media are rooting for Barack Obama. They’re not hiding it.

Consider Benghazi. An American consulate is destroyed and a US ambassador murdered at a time when the president is boasting at every campaign stop that he has crushed al-Qaida. In an effort not to disrupt this narrative, the White House and the Obama campaign spend weeks claiming the incident was merely a protest over a video, rather than a real terror attack. Then intelligence surfaces showing just the opposite: The killers in Benghazi were no street mob, and Obama knew as much from the beginning.

Imagine if George W. Bush, or even Bill Clinton, had tried something like this during a re-election campaign. The howls from journalists would have been deafening, and unceasing. Instead, Obama has enjoyed every benefit of every doubt from the press every step of the way. Candy Crowley even broke character in the middle of a presidential debate to defend him. From their retirement, former presidents must be looking on in envious bewilderment.

[…]

Last month we found previously unseen video of then-Senator Barack Obama accusing the U.S. government of racism in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Even before our story appeared, liberal reporters tried to minimize and discredit it. Sam Feist, the Washington bureau chief at CNN, even boasted that his network had had possession of the tape for years, apparently unaware that some might wonder why they had never aired it.

We could go on. The point is that many in the press are every bit as corrupt as conservatives have accused them of being. The good news is, it’s almost over. The broadcast networks, the big daily newspapers, the newsweeklies — they’re done. It’s only a matter of time, and everyone who works there knows it. That may be why so many of them seem tapped out, lazy and enervated, unwilling to stray from the same tired story lines. Some days they seem engaged only on Twitter, where they spend hours preening for one another and sneering at outsiders.

By the next presidential cycle most of these people will be gone. They’ll have moved on to academia or think tanks or Democratic senate campaigns, or wherever aging hacks go when their union contracts finally, inevitably get voided. They’ll be replaced by a vibrant digital marketplace filled with hungry young reporters who care more about breaking stories than maintaining access to some politician or regulator.

All of this was probably inevitable, but it came faster than expected. Through their dishonesty the legacy media hastened their own end. Their moral authority has evaporated. So has their business model. Wave them goodbye on the way out.

Hat tip to Urban Infidel for the bumper snicker.

 

 

New Susquehanna Pennsylvania Poll has Romney 49% to Obama 45%

by Rodan ( 7 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Elections 2012, Headlines, Mitt Romney, Polls at October 18th, 2012 - 7:03 pm

Mitt Romney’s campaign should go all in for Pennsylvania. A new poll shows the state is up for grabs.Romney leads against Oama 49% to 45%. This is due to Romney’s running strong in the Philly suburbs.

A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.

Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.

It’s the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.

“The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it,” Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner.

Pennsylvania is in play.