When “leaners” are included, the candidates are tied at 48%. Leaners are those who are initially uncommitted to the two leading candidates but lean towards one of them when asked a follow-up question.Isn't it strange how the candidates are so precisely locked in an even standoff, when the newspapers are pounding it into our heads that the pathetic, miserable Romney hasn't got a chance? Where would Romney be now if the media gave him something close to equal treatment? Is it possible that the media's desperate boosting of their candidate is causing the electorate to tune out or even skew in the other direction? I think so. I find myself repelled by media bias. I've built up my defenses, which means I've now internalized the elaboration of the conservative position. I'm not even that conservative — I just know where the bias is, and I need to perform the correction for my own sense of balance.
Am I the only one who does this?
Posts
208 comments:
1 – 200 of 208 Newer› Newest»You may be the smartest person I know [in an internets sense] who hasn't admitted to herself that Obama is not competent and lacks the knowledge to be president.
Althouse: Among a lot of conservative sites, there's a game called: "Guess the party." Whenever the media reports on politicians behaving badly, the game is to guess the party. Pretty much every time the party is not mentioned, it is Team Blue; whenever it is mentioned, it is almost universally Team Red (even John Edwards and Weiner were able to go through stories without being noted as Democrats!)
So, yes. For a lot of middle and right leaning folks, the media is basically just white noise you have to filter through. I think distrust in media is now somewhere between 60 and 70 percent. That's huge.
If your perspective demands that you view even Fox’s polls as liberal media bias intended to help President Obama...you might need to reconsider your perspective.
I'm sure you are not alone, but I don't do this myself. Today I tend to dismiss rather than correct. To correct, you have to know something of the real or likely truth toward which you can correct. It's not as simple as pushing the news X degrees to the right.
As you and I know, the true situation continues to elude us regarding Lamb. Stevens.
Yes, it is brutal. And, I agree. I regard you as a liberal. Not a far left liberal, but a center-left person.
Your political description, which is "social liberal, fiscal conservative" is a pretty common one among old farts. I'm sort of in the same category as you.
The exceptions are the feminism and gay activism stuff. I'm not in favor of either, but I'm not motivated enough to do anything about it either. I'll just sit back and accept whatever happens in regards to those two issues. I'm not going on a crusade.
Like me, I suspect that you were much more liberal when you were younger, but that experience has beaten some sense into you (and me).
The media beating on Romney is brutal. And, the willingness to give a complete pass to Obama is equally brutal.
Aren't most of the other polls showing something quite different, and it is mostly Rasmussen who is giving Romney more of a chance?
Just google news presidential polls. (Not sure if google news also qualifies as being in the bag for Obama or not.)
OR......people are lying to the pollsters.
OR......the pollsters are using skewed samples.
I would LOVE to see the Democrats internal polling. Their actions indicate a high level of desperation, and you can see it in how the MSM is defending the SCOAMF.
SB: For example, you and I know .....
"Aren't most of the other polls showing something quite different, and it is mostly Rasmussen who is giving Romney more of a chance?"
-- Yes, but there is a reason most polls start using the Rasmussen sample sizes and stylings closer to the election.
No, you are not the only one.
What is shocking in this election is that the media is not even concerned about appearing biased. They are blatant about it. They were that way in 2008 too but one could chalk it up to excitement over Obama's skin color.
The continued meme of closeness of it all is a red flag (I know you put up Rasmussen but..). My cynical self is afraid that that gives more opportunity for Obama minions to manipulate the votes just so lightly in the real election and come out ahead and say, 'see we told you it was going to be close.'
They've become blatent about it.
Listening the 'top of the hour' news updates on the radio, I notice the news readers are even starting to editorialize their little news clips.
Ann it simply comes down to this; Who are you going to believe? Your lying eyes or democrats with a byline?
They've become blatent about it.
Listening the 'top of the hour' news updates on the radio, I notice the news readers are even starting to editorialize their little news clips.
I'm not even that conservative — I just know where the bias is, and I need to perform the correction for my own sense of balance.
You're not? You could have fooled me. You need to examine your positions on a wide variety of issues and realize that you are very conservative (even your stances on gay rights and abortion are conservative--although not as far to the right as most of your commentariat.)
You're not the only one, Althouse. I quit listening to them years ago.
I cringe the first second i hear NPR voices because one must actively decipher every sentence that follows. (They should send out an Ovaltine decoder ring in their membership drives.)
What a fearsome beast the Democrats command, still worth several points in every election, state or federal. The populace is withdrawing from them, however, in great numbers. Soon, most of them will be broke.
But not soon enough, I fear.
"You're not? You could have fooled me"
-- People keep saying things like this like they forget that Althouse voted Obama in 2008. She's, at the most, center left, a Blue Dog at -most-, if you want to use Congress as a measuring stick (and because I want to subliminally prime Althouse to give us more dog pictures.)
Freder is repeating the old leftist refrain that deviation from the party line on even one issue makes one a right wing crazy.
To Freder anyone slightly to the right of Uncle Joe Stalin is a rabid right-winger.
Am I the only one who does this?
No. The same thing happened with McCain last time. A lifelong moderate with a long history of crossing the aisle was portrayed as a foaming-at-the-mouth right-winger while the guy with the most liberal voting record in the Senate was portrayed as the consummate aisle-crossing moderate in spite of having no history of doing anything of the sort.
Romney's a moderate who's being portrayed as a radical right winger, and apparently people are buying it. I don't get it.
(even your stances on gay rights and abortion are conservative--although not as far to the right as most of your commentariat.)
Elaborate, please!
Romney's a moderate who's being portrayed as a radical right winger, and apparently people are buying it. I don't get it.
They have him connected to the banking scam of 2008. I don't think they are correct in that.
But, Democrats insist he's Bush II.
Excuse me, that would be Bush III.
"in spite of having no history of doing anything of the sort."
-- Not true. We endlessly heard about the one bill that had both Luger and Obama's names on them. Oddly enough, McCain-Feingold practically never came up. Especially odd given that Obama decided not to accept (eh, let's be blunt: broke his promise to accept) public money to limit the amount of money spent on the election, you know, a thing he felt was important. Quaint, that.
It's like the news is about NARRATIVES not JOURNALISM now.
Once again, I will say that it's going to boil down to the debates.
If people can see Romney for what he really is, which is a big government, entitlement state RINO, with the leavening of executive experience in business, they will vote for him.
He's got to make that case.
Am I the only one who does this?
Look at the ratings.
I've been wondering why the media is so biased. How could it have gotten to the point where this is so blatantly obvious?
In business, whenever an industry is behaving in a seemingly strange way, the reason is always the same: it is maximizing profit by giving the customer what it wants.
Suppose the "problem" is not that the media is unbalanced, per se, but that the people who follow the media are unbalanced relative to the general population.
To make is simple, assume that the population is on average a 5 on a scale from 0 to 10, but assume that the people who follow the media are a 6 on a scale of 0 to 10. How will the media present the news.
To put clearly, if the NYT writes something bad about Obama at this point, how will their readers react?
The media is responding as you would expect.
Their monopoly has been shattered by cable and internet, and they are fighting back in the only way they know how.
If he were sinking as a certain little weasel tries to tell us, he wouldn't have gotten to a point where it's neck and neck and maintained it.
Gallup is saying the same thing.
Allow me to quote this paragraph again
What Obama and his allies are doing now: “The Democrats want to convince [these anti-Obama voters] falsely that Romney will lose to discourage them from voting. So they lobby the pollsters to weight their surveys to emulate the 2008 Democrat-heavy models. They are lobbying them now to affect early voting. IVR [Interactive Voice Response] polls are heavily weighted. You can weight to whatever result you want. Some polls have included sizable segments of voters who say they are ‘not enthusiastic’ to vote or non-voters to dilute Republicans. Major pollsters have samples with Republican affiliation in the 20 to 30 percent range, at such low levels not seen since the 1960s in states like Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and which then place Obama ahead. The intended effect is to suppress Republican turnout through media polling bias. We’ll see a lot more of this.
"Am I the only one who does this?"
No, but it's more rare than you would like to think.
As you have pointed out repeatedly, people tend to make decisions with the emotions more than the intellect. The emotional message of the Obama campaign, abetted by the media, is an effective one. It's so effective that one rarely hears discussion of anything complex or meaningful.
Remember, Althouse Blog is a bubble too.
Hari: Part of it is access. Republicans very rarely, if ever, punish reporters by denying access. When McCain chose to forever ban NYT reporters from his events and press releases after they printed smear after smear about him (starting with the affair and getting more desperate after that), it was novel and frightening for the media. The Obama campaign threatened to toss reporters off their plane for printing neutral stories and has had a heavy hand in approving quotes and threatening to deny access to the White House. When one person will let you beat them up and the other won't, who do you think you'll beat up time and again?
Even Fox News, for all its bias, is relatively polite toward Democrats, compared to the two-minute hate fest that MSNBC has become.
In addition: On the left, though, look at how their bloggers are treated. Democrats use them to push friendly stories to the media and any deviation from the party line is strictly punished by denying page views.
On the right, bloggers are critical of Republicans and have ousted multiple incumbents. Republican activists are much more effective within their party in getting change made, which makes activists on the left sad.
No, you're not the only one who does this. [I say that to be on-topic for at least part of this comment...don't delete me!]
I just saw Governor Walker on Fox News Sunday. That guy is a star. He's boring, direct, and Clinton-like in his master of details, especially when he talks about Wisconsin.
Walker 2020!
Uh, *mastery.
Yep, Romney has Obama right where he wants him. All the pollsters and the media are in on a conspiracy to hide what's really going on.
Trends are everything in polling leading up to an election. Who has trended down to 46% over the last week and who has trended up to 46% ? Romney has trended up in spite of the last ten days of media hammering. This election is wide open regardless of what the MSM meme is.
Is it possible that the media's desperate boosting of their candidate is causing the electorate to tune out or even skew in the other direction? I think so.
Some people are tuuning out or skewing the other direction, yes, but I think that the media's support for Obama is paying big dividends for him overall. The people who still watch MSM news tend take it at face value and don't think a whole lot about media bias.
You have to remember that the facts on the ground are not favorable towards the incumbent. If a Republican was presiding over this economy and this foreign policy situation, the Democratic challenger would be ahead by 10 points. If anything, the fact that Obama's still tied at this point highlights the continuing effectiveness of the MSM at shaping public opinion.
Heck, Althouse just posted a post that proves my point. Look at the backlash CNN is getting ready to weather for doing journalism. Remember how heavily Obama has punished whistle blowers compared to Bush? Those are all parts of the reasons journalists break the way they do.
"Isn't it strange how the candidates are so precisely locked in an even standoff, "...
That is such a poorly written sentence--you've picked one poll and declared it a precise tie? Isn't it strange how the tracking polls (well, 2 of them, not 2 others) have it tied while all the other polls don't? I don't know what that means, but it certainly doesn't scream "precision". We'll know who was right in November. We know in previous elections that Rasmussen "closed" its gap in the last week of polling to suddenly look like the average of the other polls. Will everyone accept that their favorite pollster was biased and use that information going forward, or are we all going to make lame excuses again 4 years from now?
Yep, Romney has Obama right where he wants him. All the pollsters and the media are in on a conspiracy to hide what's really going on.
You might not want to stick your neck out there like this, garage.
Remember what happened with your certainty over Gov. Scott?
The thing that has to be understood about the MSM is that its bias, in its own view, isn't bias at all, it's the sane position. And who could possibly object to the sane position? Only a nut.
Recently I was watching a film about Bill Cunningham, a legendary fashion photographer. The world he inhabits is, to the extent such things are even thought about, pure left wing, but more vitally pure anti-traditionalist. It turns out that Cunningham is a devout Catholic who never misses a Sunday service. This was a scandal to the filmmaker, who asks him incredulously more than once what he could possibly get out of it. Incomprehensible that Cunningham - one of us - could, oh gawd, believe in God. That's exactly the position and tone of the MSM on any deviation from the way all bien pensants must think and live.
Gallop also shows the race tied, and Rasmussen has been uncannily accurate in presidential races. The knock on them is that they got a couple of Senate races wrong last time around, but the Senate polling is not the same methodology as the presidential poll. If Rasmussen ends up the outlier and wrong, it will go against history.
Here is another comment on bias, this time on pro female biases of letters of recommendation and how they work against women in interpreting those same letters. Lubos Motl
O'Reilly had Ted Koppel on the other night.
Koppel mostly lamented the good old days when there were only three networks, and the liberal anchor man dispensed the approved wisdom.
I don't dislike Koppel, but he's really just pissed at the wild proliferation of media that is cable and the internet.
And, you can't really blame him. The old system is the one he knows. He's just an older worker who's job skills have atrophied in the face of competition.
Everybody gets pissed of about that.
Spell check... grr.
Here is a link I may post In a couple of these media threads.
Only five minutes long. It is Walter Cronkite and the CBS pundit panel of Rather, Schieffer, Reasoner, etc on election night in 1980 after Uncle Walter reluctantly called the election for Reagan. The panel is stunned that the polls showing it a horse race were wrong.
url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OohreUeVoHw&feature=youtube_gdata_player [\url]
Hope my link works.
It is far beyond bias; they are leading the party, not just supporting it.
And Obama is their candidate, not perfect, but he will have to do; the important thing is to get "our" people appointed to Federal departments and agencies, and for that it is neecessary to hold the White House, so, whatever it takes ....
I can't wait for the real babelfish to come out, translating the MSM from bullshit into news.
McTriumph nailed.
It's why Zero and the media are in such a panic.
Romney has taken their best shots and is still on his feet and trending up.
Paulio said...
Isn't it strange how the candidates are so precisely locked in an even standoff,
That is such a poorly written sentence--you've picked one poll and declared it a precise tie? Isn't it strange how the tracking polls (well, 2 of them, not 2 others) have it tied while all the other polls don't?
Because the rest are skewed D +13, D +10, D +6, and, best of all, D +19.
Sorry about the typo in the link. Perhaps Ann or someone can assist in getting this in URL click format. Again, very worth watching as it shows we had this media bias problem back in 1980 as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OohreUeVoHw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
" We know in previous elections that Rasmussen "closed" its gap in the last week of polling to suddenly look like the average of the other polls."
I am honestly interested in your source for this claim. Can you give me a link? Was it the other way around. As I recall, I knew Obama was going to win a couple weeks in advance by the fact that Ras had him winning, and the number had been steady for some time.
I am not saying you have been misled by some lefty blog, but it sure looks that way to me.
edutcher said:
"ecause the rest are skewed D +13, D +10, D +6, and, best of all, D +19."
Okay, great! So you must have placed large bets on intrade, you are GUARANTEED to make a killing. Have you? If not, why not?
Pogo,
I cringe the first second i hear NPR voices because one must actively decipher every sentence that follows. (They should send out an Ovaltine decoder ring in their membership drives.)
The first thing I do when I hear NPR voices is change the channel. You still listen to them?
Paulio,
I think Hemingway said in A Farewell to Arms that you never have to bet on war to make it interesting. November will come soon enough.
The world he inhabits is, to the extent such things are even thought about, pure left wing, but more vitally pure anti-traditionalist. It turns out that Cunningham is a devout Catholic who never misses a Sunday service.
Andy Warhol was the same, although you never heard about it until his diary was published.
Our secret polls show Obama 58%. Why? We have a super-computer from DOE working on us. Sec. Chu is doing what he can to make sure our campaign has top computers. We will destroy Romney. Our models show that. We are ahead. Trust me.
@Mariner
When traveling from state to state, surfing the airwaves for radio stations, there is that brief pause before a voice appears, one filled with hope that some serviceable music will follow.
When instead I hear that smug NPR tone, I reflexively hit the "scan" button, as if having touched a hot stove.
tim in vermont:
try this--I know it's from the evil NYT and the disreputable Nate Silver, but just read it for the numbers if not the analysis (it's hard to find just a collection of the old polls without some analysis):
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
Here's a very hard to read chart from the WSJ, but it just averages the pollsters across 7 states in 2008.
Look Rasmussen is clearly a +R partisan. He wrote a book promoting conservatism. He's been on National Review cruises. Many of the other pollsters might be +D partisans, but all of that should be taken into consideration.
oops left off the wsj link:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IKhPZc5iEus/SfCoMmJLh7I/AAAAAAAAAEk/Ea5AlJ78Hho/S220/Wall+Street+Chart.jpg
(though in the interests of full disclosure, the link is through silver's old website)
Nate Silver got lucky and, since his luck happened to include promoting someone the media wants to promote, he became a sensation. I don't think he's someone we should take too seriously.
Which is to say, Rasmussen has a history of verifiable successes, time and again, with very few off years. Nate Silver does not have a history yet, so it is comparing apples and oranges. Once Silver has been doing this as long, then we can get a better feel for which is actually better.
Speaking of polls, I have noticed that this year unlike 2008, I haven't seen very many Obama bumper stickers. And of the few that I have seen, many of them were on older cars with the 08 bumper stickers on them. Is this an anomaly in the area I live or is this more widespread?
Not many Romney bumper stickers either, but republicans are usually less likely to plaster their cars with bumper stickers but even with that said, I have seen very few of those as well. Indeed compared to previous elections one would hardly even know there is an upcoming election based on the dearth of bumper stickers. I wonder if this lack of bumper stickers has any implications for the election.
A lot of it has to do with continued access interests.
If Obama is perceived as ahead, no one will want to get on his bad side by running negative stories. It's cowardice, yes, but job safety is that way.
If Romney is seen as having momentum, I wonder if we'll see a shift as media start trying to get on Romney's good side.
I recall a very recent Gallup poll stating that distrust in the media is at a new high, 60%. Perhaps more interesting is that only 26% of R and 31% of I, trust media. However, 58% of D express trust in the media. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx
Reminds me of Pauline Kael: “I can't believe Nixon won. I don't know anyone who voted for him.”
Althouse said:
Where would Romney be now if the media gave him something close to equal treatment?
"Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, want Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards - I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but - they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”
Evan Thomas
Managing Editor, Newsweek
July 18, 2004 on "Inside Washington"
Pogo,
Gotcha.
If I hear music (well, most music) I'll leave the channel there.
If I hear voices I can't get to the scan button quickly enough.
(And of course this time of year the odds of voices are way, way up.)
Paulio said...
Because the rest are skewed D +13, D +10, D +6, and, best of all, D +19.
Okay, great! So you must have placed large bets on intrade, you are GUARANTEED to make a killing. Have you? If not, why not?
Hell, my retirement income is tied to the markets. That's where my bet is.
Look Rasmussen is clearly a +R partisan. He wrote a book promoting conservatism. He's been on National Review cruises. Many of the other pollsters might be +D partisans, but all of that should be taken into consideration.
He also polled this year's electorate to find out the skew. The rest are extrapolating off the '08 exit polls.
Do
The
Math
cubanbob said...
Speaking of polls, I have noticed that this year unlike 2008, I haven't seen very many Obama bumper stickers. And of the few that I have seen, many of them were on older cars with the 08 bumper stickers on them. Is this an anomaly in the area I live or is this more widespread?
Where are you, generally speaking?
Here in NE OH, we've seen the same thing.
Paulio,
Look Rasmussen is clearly a +R partisan. He wrote a book promoting conservatism. He's been on National Review cruises. Many of the other pollsters might be +D partisans, but all of that should be taken into consideration.
Oh, the HORROR!
You're offering us a red herring. It doesn't really matter what Rasmussen's personal politics are. What matters is whether his personal politics skews his polls. If you can show us a good reason to believe it does, have at it.
In the mean time, we KNOW that other pollsters are partisan Democrats AND that their partisan position affects their polling.
I worked with a Soviet emigre in the early 80's. I remember her telling me that the thing that made the Soviet Union a hellhole is that everyone was lying all the time so you never knew what was true.
Isn't it strange how the candidates are so precisely locked in an even standoff, when the newspapers are pounding it into our heads that the pathetic, miserable Romney hasn't got a chance?
Where do you see that? I don't see that and I'm watching everything as well. Here's DRUDGE hyperventilating:
STATE OF THE UNION: MORE AMERICANS NOW COMMIT SUICIDE THAN DIE IN CAR CRASHES
And this:
Slipping away? Obama campaign manager now says DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO 'NATIONAL' POLLS...
And this:
Pushing 'change' is tougher this time around...
I think elections make you delusional,...
garage mahal says: Yep, Romney has Obama right where he wants him. All the pollsters and the media are in on a conspiracy to hide what's really going on.
Yeah, the liberal media conspiracy raises its head once again. The perception that Romney is behind has nothing to do with the fact that he's behind in most polls, including the Pew poll (which some pro-Romney people were citing as one to watch until it came out recently) and the poll of polls that is published by that notable leftist media organ, Real Clear Politics. Also, the rather noticeable criticism Romney's campaign is receiving from other Republicans is also part of the vast conspiracy and does nothing to affect perceptions, I'm sure. And we of course must consider the very leftist bias of people investing at Intrade (Obama at 70.9% as of a few minutes ago).
Yes, it's all a big conspiracy against Romney that has nothing to do with what people can notice for themselves. So many conspirators, so little time!
edutcher said:
"DO THE MATH".
Then he cited a highly scientific study of bumper sticker usage in the NE.
Edutcher, if you're retirement is in the market, then you must love Obama as the market has done tremendously well after the catastrophe of the Bush years. We'll probably hit a record high on the Dow before the election!
As far as the "math", all the pollsters poll the electorate to find partisan split. They don't just copy/paste from the past election. Their methods in the meat of it all differ. Rasmussen doesn't actually publish his so it makes it very hard to evaluate. He just publishes his bottom line split and that's what all the conservatives have seized on. It also happens to be one of the areas he has consistently been the most wrong about (if you would read the links I provided and respond with an argument I'd be thrilled).
Meanwhile, Mariner said:
"You're offering us a red herring. It doesn't really matter what Rasmussen's personal politics are. What matters is whether his personal politics skews his polls. If you can show us a good reason to believe it does, have at it.
In the mean time, we KNOW that other pollsters are partisan Democrats AND that their partisan position affects their polling."
We KNOW this?!? really! I'm hoping knowledge here is based upon verifiable evidence--if so, please provide a link to some statistical analysis proving this bias. I woudl love to read it.
I have a feeling though that Marine is more of a Kierkegaard fan when it comes to knowledge..."FAITH is knowledge."
"Matthew Sablan said...
Which is to say, Rasmussen has a history of verifiable successes, time and again, with very few off years. Nate Silver does not have a history yet, so it is comparing apples and oranges. Once Silver has been doing this as long, then we can get a better feel for which is actually better."
Rasumssuen has been polling in its current form since 2000, and rather lightly that year. Silver started his personal website in 2007 or so. Yes he was initially "found" because he called it for Obama early, but he also called the 2010 house races for the Rs well ahead of the mainstream media.
Rasmussen's off years include 2006, 2008 and 2010. Read the links. He's getting more "off" in each cycle. He was actually even more off in 2010 than virtually any other pollster.
garage mahal said...
Yep, Romney has Obama right where he wants him. All the pollsters and the media are in on a conspiracy to hide what's really going on.
Of course you intend this as sarcasm, garage-- liberals always lead with snark, having very few logical tools to work with-- but in this case you have hit the nail on the head. Everything you said is demonstrable in fact. The behavior of reporters interviewing Romney after Stevens's murder is just one tiny, if eminently representative, example. The absurdly unrealistic sampling used by most polls is another. These conditions are typical, and they absolutely do represent a conspiracy between the Obama campaign, the media, and the polls. You are just willfully blind, garage.
Look Rasmussen is clearly a +R partisan.
Is Pauliio a new troll-squid, squirting out cheap talking points to muddy the waters? Then he links to Nate Silver?
Nate Silver isn't just +D partisan, he has a working relationship with the Obama campaign going back to 2008.
Obama's polling analysts, Issenberg writes, wanted to test their internal polls against Silver's model. And so — in an unusual step for the closely-held campaign, and for the analyst, who was then running his own website, FiveThirtyEight.com — the Obama campaign offered Silver access to thousands of its own internal polls, on the condition Silver sign a confidentiality agreement, which he did. (Silver, who now writes a widely-read blog for the New York Times declined to comment on the arrangement.)
Rasmussen has credibility with many of us here because he has a consistent polling technique and because Ras tied for first in accuracy in 2008.
creeley23, I also look forward to hearing about your massive windfall on election day from bucking the Intrade markets. I assume you are heavily invested. Congratulations!
Remember: Carter polled well.
Paulio said...
"DO THE MATH".
Then he cited a highly scientific study of bumper sticker usage in the NE.
try again, sweetie. That was in answer to someone else's anecdotal observation although, given NE OH is run the the Demos, who are, in turn, run by the unions, it's an interesting indicator, as I said earlier, of how desperate - and scared - the Demos are, if they're feeling obliged to campaign in the Demo union stronghold of Akron.
Edutcher, if you're retirement is in the market, then you must love Obama as the market has done tremendously well after the catastrophe of the Bush years. We'll probably hit a record high on the Dow before the election!
No, the markets have been chasing one encouraging headline after another for 2 1/2 years. It's all built on the hope good times is a-comin'.
Last time we got this high, we crashed rather badly, so using the market's own speculative proclivities as an indicator of economic well-being is asking for it.
I'm looking for solid, sustained <dare I say Reaganesque?) growth.
There is an iron law that you cannot "precisely" know something using statistics. "Lies, damned Lies and..." What the "numbers" do show in this Race is that it is indeed a race, and not a blow-out because the "numbers" are remarkably similar. But one must apply the iron law, and then apply the under-reported "margin of error" to really get something, if anything, from the various numbers.
Then there is the actual data collecting and delivery chain "anomalies" that further affect the "final product."
I have not been "polled" and likely will refuse to be should I get a call. It may be that I have already been called, since I get several "unknown, anonymous or unrecognized" phone calls a week in this silly-season leading up to the actual election. Further, I am not comfortable sharing my ballot details with an unknown caller, let alone people I DO know, trust and love. Feeding the beast and all that.
Polls, polling, pollsters et. al., make me think of the "Call" in "The Sting" in metaphor.
Remember: Carter polled well.
Actually, that's something of a myth. But I wouldn't place too much emphasis on how accurate polling was 32 years ago and what it might say about the 2012 election one way or another.
creeley23, I also look forward to hearing about your massive windfall on election day from bucking the Intrade markets. I assume you are heavily invested. Congratulations!
As usual with our liberal troll-squids, substantive rebuttal is not an option.
That still shows that Carter polled well compared to his actual results. But, feel free to confuse my statement with one you'd rather debunk.
THE ELECTION IS OVER. THE PRESS IS THE DECIDER. ONLY THE NYT, NPR, PBS, WASHPOST, HUFFPOST, DAILY BEAST, MSNBC, ETC. HAVE THIR RESPONSIBILITY.
We decide, the voters act.
GOP will never win, so long as we the PRESS have say.
GOP: You can do nothing. NOTHING.
Ann is probably one of a few people who internalize the conservative position to deflect media bias. The effectiveness of the media bias is the selection of what stories they present, and it almost certainly is effective in protecting the president.
Romney should realize the media is out to get him. He should be prepared to cite in the upcoming first debate that Gallup found only 31% of independents find the media trusworthy. It is perhaps the best single argument he can use to convey media bias.
On a related issue, the administration made a mistake in attacking CNN for its use of the Stevens' diary. CNN will retaliate and not protect Obama as much as normal.
@cubanbob
Indeed!
Driving from Florida to Tennessee on the back roads & back on the Interstate last week we noticed the same thing. A few Romney bumper stickers - no Obama bumper stickers. A lot of local race (Sheriff or School Board) yard signs but only one presidential one (a Romney one in St Augustine). One big hand painted wooden sign near McRae, Ga with a rant about "Obummer".
I realize the drive was mainly through red areas of red or swing states - but you'd think on I-75 going to FL there'd be some Obama stickers.
The grass roots enthusiasm is gone on the Dem side. We'll see how that translates in November.
For once, I have to agree with some phony folksy.
This is more 1932 than '80.
That still shows that Carter polled well compared to his actual results. But, feel free to confuse my statement with one you'd rather debunk.
Fair point, but generally when people raise the Carter 1980 polling issue, they raise it to talk about Carter's supposed lead. If that wasn't what you were talking about and you were just talking about Carter overperforming in polls, that's fine and point taken. In any case, the world of polling has changed a lot since 1980 so as I said, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from it one way or another.
If you guys take the time to watch that link I posted above, one of the CBS talking heads in 1980 makes a comment along the lines of..."it seems like tonight Jimmy Carter's poor approval ratings finally caught up to him even though the polls didn't show it."
I don't see this as 1980 because we do have a large social welfare crew content to play video games and listen to mp3's on their iPhone versus in 1980 you had a lot of proud WWII era folks who wanted and needed jobs.
Nonetheless, Obama still doesn't poll over 50 percent. And I've been told by Chris Matthews many times in the past that is a very dangerous place for an incumbent to be.
"Am I the only one who does this?"
No! The slavering hatred of Bush and then of Palin and of traditional values in the media has turned me in the other direction.
Liberalism doesn't work very well or for very long, but the media denies this and attacks anyone who can see it.
cubanbob said...
Speaking of polls, I have noticed that this year unlike 2008, I haven't seen very many Obama bumper stickers. And of the few that I have seen, many of them were on older cars with the 08 bumper stickers on them. Is this an anomaly in the area I live or is this more widespread?
Where are you, generally speaking?
Here in NE OH, we've seen the same thing.
Ed I live in South Florida, specifically in the Dade and Broward counties area which is the the Miami-Ft.Lauderdale area. Very few bumper stickers and this area, especially Broward County is very heavily democrat. In previous elections there were bumper stickers everywhere. Not this year. More curious is the lack of bumper stickers in the black neighborhoods. I drive through Liberty City (black) daily to work and there definitely a lot less bumper stickers there as well. I'm not saying Obama won't get the same turnout percentage but it appears the people down here are not at all jazzed up about voting like in the past elections that I recall. Perhaps the total turnout will be a lot lower than 2008 in general so I suppose it really comes down to who shows up to vote this time. I wonder if this is just coincidental to your neck-of-the-woods and mine or do other commenters here also noticed the dearth of bumper stickers?
This post, another one of Althouse's unabashedly tone-deaf cris de coeur, couldn't fall on ears any deafer than if I were to complain that religious fundamentalism and corporate cronyism are insufficiently liberal institutions.
Suck it up, Althousians. Fault the press for pointing out Romney's inability to be specific, his unwillingness to answer questions, his inability to relate to most Americans, and how he reaches for his ballsack while crouching in cowered fear of the extreme, radical right-wing of his and your party. These gargantuan flaws make him unfit for governing a banana republic, let alone the presidency.
And the only place in the world in which any self-respecting press will ever give him a pass on it is in the boot-licking, paranoid echo chambers of Fox, Inc. Empire LTD.
Steve Austin--
Go to this page. It will show you how to include links in your comments. Just cut and paste the html, fill in "url" and "Link text", and voila. It's easy
I think Crack is right.
Everyone should have been watching the ABC Sunday morning show.
timkb4cq said...
Interesting. Same here, lots of signs for local elections and some bumper stickers for them but really not much in terms of the presidential election. Very curious.
Even people that I know who are democrats, yes they recite all of the talking points when pressed but they just don't seem very jazzed up about voting, it's like they are intending to go through the exercise if they vote at all (or at least for the presidential race). It's as if everyone is just depressed (including republicans) and is going through the motions. Very odd. I suppose this time more than ever whoever manages to get the turnout will be the winner.
The real question here is whether Rasmussen's poll of ostensibly "likely" voters should get away with showing more Republican bias or less in the wake of the partisan Jim Crow-esque voter suppression laws that were ramrodded through the state legislatures.
Republicans have priorities, dammit!
cubanbob said...
Ed I live in South Florida, specifically in the Dade and Broward counties area which is the the Miami-Ft.Lauderdale area. Very few bumper stickers and this area, especially Broward County is very heavily democrat. In previous elections there were bumper stickers everywhere. Not this year. More curious is the lack of bumper stickers in the black neighborhoods. I drive through Liberty City (black) daily to work and there definitely a lot less bumper stickers there as well. I'm not saying Obama won't get the same turnout percentage but it appears the people down here are not at all jazzed up about voting like in the past elections that I recall.
We've seen the items about black clergy telling their parishioners to stay home, so what you're seeing has some relevance, I think (how much will remain to be seen).
And the point about "people down here ... not ... jazzed up about voting" is that enthusiasm gap again.
Be interesting to see what anyone else says.
cubanbob said...
...I haven't seen very many Obama bumper stickers.
I live in a strong Republican area of Southern California (Darrel Issa's district) which nonetheless went for Obama by a slim margin in '08. It's at least 1/3 Hispanic. I don't think I've seen a single Obama sticker.
How much of the vote should be suppressed in order for Rasmussen's poll of "likely" voters to be meaningful this November? Should he swing toward even more of a Republican bias than usual?
Guys like Matt Sablan tell me that The New Jim Crow will only increase successful voter registration efforts, but Mike Turzai, who leads the Republicans in swing-state Pennsylvania's legislature, tells me differently. Hmmmm.... Whom to believe? Which one is right?
So basically, I wonder how The New Jim Crow Part II will affect Rasmussen's pro-Republican ("likely") voter bias.
creeley23 said:
"As usual with our liberal troll-squids, substantive rebuttal is not an option.
9/23/12 10:38 AM"
Sorry, I guess I thought that since you had clearly ignored all the links I had posted above that you weren't interested substance. As I said in my first comment, Rasmussen generally gets their last poll right because they abruptly revert to the mean. They are like the people that quickly repeat back what you just said when they don't know the answer. From your link:
"The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection polls (as reported on pollster.com)."
Silver was closer in 2008 and much, much earlier than Ras. If you look at the WSJ I posted, you see that Ras was the least accurate pollster (but for one) in the state level races.
Substantive enough?
LOL! Ritmo's laying the excuse groundwork for an Obama defeat!
Evil Rethuglican voter suppression! Jim Crow laws! [caw! caw!] RACISSSSSM!
You go, Ritmo!
Give us what you got!
I've got what Mike Turzai said... But you're too much of a desperate asshole to allow his truth speak to what you cannot defend.
The point of Jim Crow was voter suppression. As Sarah Silverman explains, there are actually four groups whose Democratic-leaning votes you'd like to (or wouldn't mind) suppressing: Elderly, blacks, students and poor.
Of course, you already knew this. These are the groups that most of your friends here already hate. (Or were suppressed from showing open-contempt for... until Romney opened his big fat mouth to a waiter and spilled the beans). D'oh!
The is the basis of Fox's overpowering popularity. If you lie to people enough they just ask someone else what's happening. The way to beat Fox is with balance - not more bias.
The corrupt liberal media are gaming the polls by over polling Dems and under polling Republicans and independents and they're doing it to advance the belief that Obama is going to win so the undecided voter, the dumb or just young low information voter will jump on the Obama bandwagon and vote for him too. I've said it before and I'm going to say it again the crooked lying liberal media are doing everything they can to pull and drag Obama's sorry red communist ass across the finish line.
Ritmo can you post something that is somewhat connected to reality once in a while? Seriously.
Ras isn't a hack. He is a pro pollster who makes a living on being right. He takes registered voters by party and weighs them proportionally to the current registration percentages and from there tries to poll likely voters.
Obviously with the number of people who refuse to be polled and the number of people who can't be reached when weighing by groups no pollster is going to be dead on right at this point but he isn't trying to skew the results. His thing is to be as accurate as possible, that is how he makes a living. If things really were going that well for Obama his polls would be reflecting that. Gallup polls registered voters (not likely voters) and now both pollsters are converging. It's not a cake walk for either side but if Obama's record was good enough he should be at 50% by now and as of today he isn't. The election breaks down in to two parts: first a referendum on Obama. has he done a good job? Yes or no. Next if no, is Romney worse than Obama, yes or no. That is all the election comes down to. Voter suppression is such bullshit. But go ahead and delude yourself with that if that is what you need to square the real world with what you wish to see.
That's the best you got today, Ritmo?
C'mon! You're off your game! Kick it up a notch, man. Give us a little of that brasileiro magic!
When I watch TV news, I flip around to get my balance. You don't get directly to the truth that way, but you get both sides and then can decide what to believe, which often is something none of them is saying. That's unfortunate, but it's a lot better than if Fox was not there.
Will Althouse share her secret bias-filtering ratios poll adjustments?
Ras = add 3 % R
NBC/WSJ = add 8% R
Gallup = add 4% R
All other polls = add 12% R
Or, will Althouse keep her adjustments secret--almost as if they don't really exist.
BTW, are cons who suggest Romney needs a retune, such as Rience, Peggy, Brit, and the Romney campaign, also part of the evil biased MSM.
Ha ha.
Well, seeing as how the "best" I'm "up against" is someone who needs to prevent voting in order to have a chance at winning an election, there's not much of a case I need to make. It kind of says it all right there.
Thanks Mike Turzai! You make Mojo's reality denial even easier than usual!
Ritmo just cited Sarah fuckin' Silverman?
ROFMAO!!!
Damn, Ritmo! Just when I thought you were gonna disapoint!
"Ritmo fakes left with faux intellectualism, and plows forward to irrelevant comediennes!"
Mojo is apparently rolling on the floor and doing something with his ass. "Laughing" is the usual verb, but he's apparently not sure what to do with his ass this time.
Nice condescension. Between you and your buddy Cedarford, I'm sure you both can find great reasons to dismiss Silverman.
Comedians are soooo socially irrelevant. I know. I get it. You're a con who lacks humor, let alone the ability to discern the truth it reveals.
But what of what she said was factually incorrect?
Oh yeah. Nothing.
I'm in Broward as well (Fort Lauderdale area for all you non-Florida types.) And in Miami regularly.
In 2008 the Liberty City area - a heavily black area of Miami - was festooned with Obama posters, art, you name it, like Kim Il Sung portraits in Pyongyang. The AA community in here in 08 was MOBILIZED with a Capital M.
I live in a largely black area, too, though more middle class than Liberty City. There aren't even a quarter of the bumper stickers/paraphernalia.
I gig in North Palm Beach regularly, and though I don't talk politics with the patrons, I listen to what they're talking about during breaks. Affluent, educated people, mostly of Irish decent. They are furious at what the Obama administration has done to this country. That's in Palm Beach County.
I'm a freelance writer by trade, so I am out writing in some cafe every day, somewhere different every day. When I'm in one where there are a lot of college kids, there's almost no Obama love. A lot of the hip college age types that were enthusiastic Obama supporters in 2008 became Ron Paul supporters in this cycle. Fiscal conservatism is resonating with those young people, though they don't yet have the perspective to realize that Paul is a bit of a loon, and are too young to remember the newsletters.
Support for Obama is way down from what it was in 2008, even here in normally Democrat strongholds.
Further, while lots of people can't stand our current governor, Rick Scott, both Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush are very well respected, even among Democrats. Rubio will be able to whip up a lot of fence sitters, both in the I-4 corridor and among the Cuban population.
I'm sure Obama will take precincts here in Dade/Broward/Palm Beach and carry the counties, but not by the margins he needs to overcome a motivated bunch of Jesus freaks in North Florida.
Lacks humor? Dude, I'm the one laughing here! At you, mostly, but still!
Nothing sadder than a comedian that gets serious!
And to think Margaret Cho used to actually be funny!
Hey, Ritmo? When I want comedy, I got to see comedians, not preachers.
I use the same formula with U2 concerts! Works like a charm.
You're laughing at me (or pretending to) because you'd like to distract from:
1. You're too arrogant to admit how much help legislative Romney needs to be competitive,
2. You're too arrogant to think that all votes matter,
3. I am only a bigger issue than the election or a famous comic in the mind of someone whose priorities are warped.
Your pick, funny guy.
Tyrone...
My father, Robert Hamilton, ran against Issa in 2008 as a Democrat.
Didn't win.
Funny story from that campaign...
My dad's a proud Navy veteran... USS Brinkley Bass, a tin can sailor. Served as an ASW officer in the late 60s. And was president of the local Democratic club. A passionate Dem all his life, but overall a moderate one issue by issue.
But the other Dems in the club were mostly mouth-breathing Dem whackjobs who were more interested in 06-08 in impeaching Bush than in building an effort to put Dems in offices up and down the local and state elections.
They kept trying to recommend this one guy who they said "oh, yeah, he's big in the veteran community. He can get you a ton of support. Let him be your front man."
And the guy was eager to get out there and pound the pavement for my dad.
The problem:
He was a deserter.
It turned out he fled to Canada or Mexico to avoid shipping to Viet Nam.
My dad said "thanks, but no thanks." Spent much of the campaign trying to avoid getting photographed with him.
Yes, because musicians, too, are another group whose message objects to your asshole-ish-ness.
So, how many other things do you have to ignore or act tone-deaf to in order to partake of?
You are the intellectual equivalent of someone with a hearing aid.
I'll take number 4, Ritmo!
4. Mojo, you're increasingly amused by my faux intellectualism bringing the funny on this comments thread, while citing irrelevant, unfunny comedians to prop up my charges of RACISSSM, voter suppression and just general Rethuglican evil!
Yes, some media tilts left. But Fox doesn't give Obama a pass. National Review? Washington Times? Limbaugh? WSJ? Don't these count for something?
Plus I think there's an argument that some of the media are making it closer than it is. The national tracking poll isn't as relevant. The reality of the electoral map means the election could be viewed as not close at all; yet some MSM have an interest in keeping alive the narrative of a close election so that we'll keep reading and tuning in. (Just google, "race still tight" and see.)
Annnnd Ritmo misses the point!
I love that musicians get all preachy. I just prefer they don't do it in concert when I'm paying over a hundred bucks a pop to hear their fucking music!
I suppose you like to experience comedians and musicians preaching instead of plying their trade?
And you deride me for being tone deaf? Love it!
And yes, I wear hearing aids. I was born with a 50% + hearing loss in both ears.
Those aids can sure come in handy when those guys get preachy. I can take them out. Or go for a piss and a beer. It's all good!
The Democrat media as dropped nearly all pretense that they are not partisan cheerleaders.
The media polls have been gaming their surveys of "likely voters" by re-weighting the respondents by race and ethnicity according to the census, which includes millions of immigrants unable to legally vote and millions more Democrat-leaning minorities who are disproportionately not registered to vote.
This race and ethnicity re-weighting results in gross overcounts of Democrats over Republicans by between 5% and 11% among what are supposed to be "likely voters." Think 2008 on steroids. If you assume the far more likely tied partisan election participation of 2004 and 2010, Romney leads every media poll comfortably.
ann wrote "am i the only one doing this"?
No Ann. You are the only one who buys into Rasmussen and the only one I know who is naive enough to follow one poll.
Other than that you are out in front as usual.
Bart DePalma said...
"The media polls have been gaming their surveys.........."
Tin foil hats. Get your tin foil hats right over yonder.
Are you nuts with observations like that? You will note that most polls "pair up" to avoid that issue. Rasmussen doesn't. It stands outside the Fox News world headquarters and asks the soiled horde what they think about flying saucers, crop circles and Romney.
Steve Austin, that clip was great.
If Romney wins the story pushed by the press the friday after that will be "troubled Romney campaign has bad week."
@Matthew Sablan
"-- Yes, but there is a reason most polls start using the Rasmussen sample sizes and stylings closer to the election."
Would you mind expanding on that? What do you think of that Silver guy at 536(?)?
(People are quick to jump on Althouse for her Obama vote, but seldom mention she voted for Bush II in 2000.)
To which the Wisconsin State Journal replies: "but what about the coupons!"
If he gets a 2md term, Obama will enact a one-time wealth tax. It is the only way he can keep us barely solvent and still spend as much as he wants. It will be interesting to see the retired govt workers squealing when Obama taxes their 2nd homes and bank accts and to hear the rich Hollywood libs squawking when he taxes their expensive cars and toys and investment accts.
Oh and Obama will say it is only a one-time tax but we all know how that works.
In business, whenever an industry is behaving in a seemingly strange way, the reason is always the same: it is maximizing profit by giving the customer what it wants.
I don't think that's happening here. The most successful media operation of the last decade? Fox. The legacy news media decided that they had to counter that by becoming even farther left.
The movie industry was pumping out anti-Iraq War flops one after the other. They weren't driven by the bottom line.
Jason, your dad sounds like a good guy. I apologize for not remembering his campaign. My dad was also a Navy veteran and a life-long Democrat. Truly, he never left the party, but the party left him.
Lindsey Meadows said...
Bart DePalma said...
"The media polls have been gaming their surveys.........."
Tin foil hats. Get your tin foil hats right over yonder.
Are you nuts with observations like that? You will note that most polls "pair up" to avoid that issue. Rasmussen doesn't. It stands outside the Fox News world headquarters and asks the soiled horde what they think about flying saucers, crop circles and Romney.
I guess that's why Rasmussen is consistently proven most accurate.
I attended the Romney rally in Sarasota on Thursday, and it was a barnburner. While thousands of supporters waited in line for security checks, a couple dozen "activists" were doing their best to attract cameras with their giant Romney puppet (seriously) and generally being annoying. The expected Moveon.org and Occupy.com posters were seen, carried by the predictable mix of old hippies and dirty college students. At one point the protesters were provocative enough to get one of their member's neck pinched (see attached link), and this was dutifully reported on all local (and some national) media as "violence". So the story was not reported as "Huge, Wildy Enthusiastic Crowd Greets Romney", but as "Violence Against Protesters Mars Romney Rally". Everybody in attendance knew that was exactly what would happen.
I personally was astonished at the size of the crowd, given the event was announced less than 36 hours prior.
As a sidenote, I suspect I am not alone in waiting eagerly for election night, if only to read what comedy gold America's Politico comes up with.
Link to article about "violent" rally (which was actually posted before I even made it home!):
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-supporters-clash-with-protesters-in-florida
So Distrust In Media Hits New High. Not a surprise. It's not like they are actually practicing their trade craft.
They are now essentially Democratic Operatives With A Byline pushing false narratives.
In a time where embassies are under siege, Americans killed or in harms way, the economy in the gutter the top stories focus on Romney. His taxes. A video. Anything and everything but anything negative about Obama.
It's not like there is a dearth of bad Obama stories. Why you have The Democrats False Narrative On The Auto Industry. How about The President Falsely Claiming Fast And Furious Program 'Began Under Bush'? Or what about Obama's Embassy Cover Story Dissolves? But somehow WaPo Declares Romney 'Had The Worst Week'.
Why, pray tell, did Romney have a worse week than President Obama, whose Department of Justice was implicated in the Fast and Furious scandal and coverup, and was linked to far-left Media Matters in targeting conservative commentators;
whose Secretary of Health and Human Services was ensnared in a Hatch Act violation; whose Secretary of State was embroiled in controversy about a cover-up over the murder of our ambassador to Libya; who was himself enmeshed in controversy about snubbing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to tweet pictures with pirates and hang with David Letterman; who spent the week bashing a YouTube filmmaker and cutting ads apologizing for the First Amendment to Pakistani Islamists; whose economic news was borderline disastrous?
I could go on and on but it is literally amazing that with all the so-called journalists out there, they all seem to miss out on stories that are essentially what they dream about coming across when they first thought of being a journalist.
If a story hurts Democrats, they bury it or deflect attention from it. I bet we wouldn't know who Bob Woodward is today if Nixon had been a Democrat.
You know, for the media types and liberals that went bat-shit crazy over the Bush lied theme, where's the outrage here?
It's sad that Univision, not a major network in the traditional sense, is the one that asks questions that got Obama to drift out of his comfort zone.
The funny thing is, the questions asked SHOULD have been in his comfort zone. They weren't hard hitting questions. His gaffes in his answers let you know why Obama has been avoiding the press and only showing up for Letterman and Jay-Z and The View.
They don't ask hard questions. Pretty sad that the President of the United States fears his own media Democratic Operatives With A Byline.
It's a sad day when the only tough questions asked of Obama were done by Mexican reporters on Univision.
Ritmo, Jesus man, Sarah Silverman? And what is on her web site? A senile old woman. Is that the vote you are afraid of getting suppressed? The medicated Alzheimer's vote? The ones who can't get to a polling station or fill out an absentee ballot without 'help'? And students? Who knew college kids aren't capable of getting a photo ID like a drivers license? Is that you have? My elder daughter is in a uber liberal college and the interesting thing those kids aren't jazzed up either. More interesting is how scared they are about job prospects after graduation. To the extent they are political those kids are more fiscally conservative and socially libertarian. If the republican party gets a clue, that is where their future lies. Being up to your eyeballs in student loan debt is rather sobering for the kids, especially if they can't land a decent paying job.
Jason it's interesting you noticed the same thing I do.
On 62nd street (MLK Blvd.) in Liberty City I see a lot of local posters and bumper stickers but nothing for Obama like four years ago. I live in a precinct so blue that republicans are more in the closet than gays were forty years ago and not one yard sign or bumper sticker for Obama. Strange indeed.
When every article on economic news for the last 3 years starts with "in a sign that the economy is on the mend ...", I think even dipshits start getting the idea that the MSM is bullshitting them
If I wagered an interesting bet would be does Willard get 47% of the vote? If someone gave me 10 to 1 odds I might consider the bet.
As always, thank god cons have Scotty Ras to hang their hat on ...
btw, do you know why Ras doesn't ever poll congressional races and hardly ever polls special elections. It's too difficult a proposition for Scotty boy. Rasmussen, not coming close to the final result in the 2010 NV/CO senate races notwithstanding.
blessings
Bart DePalma, ole buddy, are you ((( wishin'/hopin'/prayin' ))) the (29) million 2008 Obama voters who stayed home in 2010 also stay home in 2012? Rhetorical.
Just like you were hopin' the Bradley Effect would save the day for Reps in 2008.
Keep hope alive Bartles as "our" old friend Nate Silver agrees w/the pollsters and has scientific data why Gallup/Ras are not accurate. Bart, I would strongly advise you not to bet against Nate. But do as you will ...
btw, Bartles said Harry Reid was toast over a year out in the NV senate race hopin' a wave election would defeat him. Well Bart got the 2010 Rep wave election he wanted, but Harry is still Senate majority leader.
Oops!
Bart, keep hope alive ...
When shiloh says "blessings" that reminds me of a joke,
It seems two southern belles were reunited at the sorority house after summer vacation.
The first asked the second, "What did you do on your vacation, dear?"
"I met a millionaire," she responded.
"Fantastic," said the first.
"And he took me to the French Riviera for the summer."
"Fantastic," said the first.
"And he bought me a Jaguar."
"Fantastic," said the first.
"And what did you do on your summer vacation, dear?
"Well, I went to a finishing school where I learned to say 'fantastic' instead of 'bullshit'."
Shiloh give us a heads up on what you are going to say if things don't work out as you fervently expect.
In the meantime why not inform us on how jazzed up the public appears to be in your neck-of-the woods.
"Why is the media willing to lose all credibility to get this jackass re-elected? Why?"
Think of them as customer service for Obama. They're never going to admit they sold you a turd or engaged in false advertising. They have to assure you that the problem isn't what they sold you, it's that you don't know how to properly use it
The media collusion with Hollywood, and academia , they have all intermingled, they've been convicted the last decade that their job isn't the truth anymore , it's pushing progressive liberalism .
It Mitt Romney wins, I guarantee that the econmy and unemoyment rate will be improved by the end of his first year, and a booming rebound by his first term.
Then what will the Paul Krugman's of the left value be to their sheeple who believe his 70's era economics, when he's proven to be nothing more hack even to them.
Tyrone's distraction reminds me of a 2008 Rep battle cry:
((( This is great news for John McCain! )))
btw, it's being reported "everywhere" Willard is low on $$$. Oh the irony ...
blessings
I suppose you like to experience comedians and musicians preaching instead of plying their trade?
I don't deride an author for having a plot to go along with their prose, no. But I suppose some people just live for the experience of moving their lips while they read or playing air guitar.
And you deride me for being tone deaf? Love it!
For someone like you, a literal interpretation might be just the right crutch to help you get the point.
But there is a pattern at work, here. Weren't you the one taking seriously the ideas espoused by Donald Trump's candidacy and his "birtherism" tour?
Keep it up, Mojo. Apparently your only point is to miss every point.
Battlegrounds
Ohio Obama +4.1
Virgina Obama +4.5
Florida Obama +1.5
New Hampshire Obama +1.0
Iowa Obama +2.3
Colorado Obama +2.1
That's all that matters folks. Obama is leading in all battleground states.
So the real question for conservatives is - can Obama destroy the republic in 4 more years if he doesn't get the House?
Willard ~ 'LEAST POPULAR CANDIDATE IN HISTORY'
blessings
David Brooks is full of shit. He didn't cite any actual data. I'm pretty sure Walter Mondale was far more unpopular.
Can Romney do better then Fritz Mondale? Yes he can.
"Can Romney do better then Fritz Mondale? Yes he can."
Damned w/faint praise lol. btw, Dutch is still dead!
The left is petrified that it would be a replay of Reagan and the 80' s, democrats were selling America on decline and governemnt dependance and along comes "Morning in America" destroying the liberal narrative of the 60's and 70's.
They hadn't recovered for 35 years until Obama ... Even Clinton, the President they crow about, his legacy is a balanced budget, and welfare reform, the opposite of their agenda, Obama' s on record against it as a state legislator and his gutting it now as President,.
130 dems, voted in the house last week to up hold keeping the work requirements OUT of receiving welfare.
To the those who control the democrat party today, they've always belived the 80's, 90's and 00's was just a blimp in the road, and their version of America will be dominate in the end, and no balanced journalism will stand in their way.
shiloh - but all objective projections show the GOP retaining 234 seats in the House and gaining +1 in the Senate. So I don't know what you will be celebrating exactly except more gridlock.
Sammy - the damage Obama will have wrought to the Democrat brand will last another 30+ years.
shiloh said...
Willard ~ 'LEAST POPULAR CANDIDATE IN HISTORY'
David Brooks in the Huffington Post. That's like quoting "Jews Unpopular" by Hitler in the Hitler News. OK, I call Godwin on myself.
The left is petrified that it would be a replay of Reagan and the 80' s, democrats were selling America on decline and governemnt dependance and along comes "Morning in America" destroying the liberal narrative of the 60's and 70's.
They hadn't recovered for 35 years until Obama ... Even Clinton, the President they crow about, his legacy is a balanced budget, and welfare reform, the opposite of their agenda, why Obama' s on record against it as a state legislator and his gutting it now as President,.
130 dems, voted in the house last week to up hold keeping the work requirements OUT of receives welfare.
To the those whole control the democrat party today, ithey've all belived the 80's, 90's and 00,s just a blimp in the road, and their version of America will be dominate in the end, and no blanced journalism will stand in their way.
'Well, seeing as how the "best" I'm "up against" is someone who needs to prevent voting in order to have a chance at winning an election, there's not much of a case I need to make. It kind of says it all right there.'
Here's Ritmo Sock Puppet taking time away from food fights at the dorm to argue the moral superiority of allowing dead people, convicted felons, cartoon characters and non-residents to cancel legitimate votes, provided, of course, that it puts Obama back in office.
"Ohio Obama +4.1
Virgina Obama +4.5
Florida Obama +1.5
New Hampshire Obama +1.0
Iowa Obama +2.3
Colorado Obama +2.1
That's all that matters folks. Obama is leading in all battleground states."
For comparison's sake, I would like to see Althouse post Rasmussen and the battleground states each day.
That Romney is trailing in Virginia & Florida at this point shows what a weak candidate the GOP nominated this time. That's 3x in a row horrible candidates. 2004 Bush, 2008 McCain, 2012 Romney. GOP has run out of ideas. Time to blow up the party, go Galt whatever.
Just in case anyone takes "Elle" Home-Bray seriously, behold video footage of some of the "dead people, convicted felons, cartoon characters and non-residents" that His Highness warns us of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6oetIv0tec
Funny that none of these "types" were cited as actual evidence of "vote thieves" in the suit considered in PA. No proof of "fraud" was even found by the court.
But of course, all Elle Home-Bray (aka Dingleberry Tumbleweed) cares to do is to condescend to actual 93-year old voters and tell them that they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
His comment is about as self-serving as an incident of auto-fellatio.
Oh, they have IDEAS, all right - Alex. Like the notion that "dead people, convicted felons, cartoon characters and non-residents" are impersonating 93-year old civil rights veterans in order to steal their votes.
Great ideas. Tried and failed about 150 years ago.
Ritmo - you're mistaken if you think that's why people are turning away from the GOP. It's mainly because the endless repetition of "free markets and lower taxes" doesn't appeal anymore. People see free markets moving jobs overseas and why lower taxes when corporations are rolling in record levels of cash? So what we need are fresh ideas about government and economics.
Sammy, I can't defend how you said it, but I will defend to the death what you said.
shiloh said...
btw, it's being reported "everywhere" Willard is low on $$$. Oh the irony ...
Link? Or is "everywhere" your idea of proof?
Shiloh. "btw, it's being reported "everywhere" Willard is low on $$$. Oh the irony"
Perhaps we can play poker sometime, Shiloh.
You zany anarcho-capitalist, you.
The good news about the landslide awaiting Obama is that there is no need to hustle out and vote. That is what my Dem friends think since this thing is locked up. People are thrilled that every man woman and child has a 50 k piece of debt, one out of twelve are unemployed, four dollar gas versus the sub two when O took office. They are cool with all that because they only want the war on women to end.
Michael - the average American isn't feeling enough economic pain to justify voting against Obama. The incumbent always has that advantage.
But of course, all Elle Home-Bray (aka Dingleberry Tumbleweed) cares to do is to condescend to actual 93-year old voters and tell them that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Ritmo,2:29 PM
Somewhere, beneath Ritmo's childish invective, is the notion that because a 93-year old lady claims she can't get a photo ID, we should forget the recent discoveries of voter rolls swollen with ineligibles, "discovered" ballots in Minn., numerous Democrat operatives convicted of voter registration fraud and Democrats attempts to register incarcerated felons.
For those with longer memories, we remember the boasts and jokes by the original Daley administration about "stuffed ballot boxes" giving JFK victory. Of course that wasn't enough, there also had to be victory in Texas facilitated by, e.g., Fannin and Angelina counties where more people voted than were registered.
Most importantly, race-baiting Democrat operatives like Ritmo would have us ignore our common sense, which tells us photo IDs will reduce voter fraud and that someone will come up with a method for legitimate voters to acquire IDs at little or no cost.
Problem is, the Ritmos are more comfortable with fraud than with the idea of losing.
Back to the dorm and the food fight, Ritmo, don't get graped.
I think a lot of people are worried about this country. They are worried their children are not going to do as well as they did. They are worried they are going to lose their job. If they are college graduates, they are worried they aren't going to have a job, and they are worried they are going to have to pay back their student loans.
When worried, people will run to the thing that comforts them most.
Retired women deciding based on the politics of their vagina? They are going to vote one way only, and maybe they have to. All that money spent by the government, all that money owed by our children, and it better have been for some vital cause.
"The people who still watch MSM news tend take it at face value and don't think a whole lot about media bias."
That is so true. The people I know who support Obama blindly read the MSM - they verify the Wapo news by listening to NPR. I permanently damaged myself among them by saying: "Friends don't let friends read the New York Times" (as a joke, I read it myself to know the hostile memes.) But they wouldn't even know why someone would say "you need an Ovaltine decoder ring" for the mainstream media or why someone would instantly hit "scan" when those smug, smarmy dulcet, preening voices announce the presence of NPR to the traveler.
And that's a problem for Romney but not, I hope, an overwhelming problem. I think that the numbers of MSM believers are decreasing every day as the election approaches but that they don't want to say that they don't believe. Conversion is a process and often a secret. Nicodemus came by night.
Deb,
Rasmussen has the track record. He has 105 electoral college votes as toss ups, with the big ones mainly tilting towards BO.
It's a close race, and small things can swing it. That's why the press gets so insane when bad things happen to their boy friend.
Rasmussen Swing States.
"The people who still watch MSM news tend take it at face value and don't think a whole lot about media bias."
That is so true. The people I know who support Obama blindly read the MSM - they verify the Wapo news by listening to NPR.
Exactly. My brother and sister-in-law settle down in SoCal each night with their white wine to watch CNN. They voted for Brown and they will vote for Obama. They will never give a thought to the crumbling of their state or the nation unless they see it on CNN or read it on the LA Times.
Alex said...
So the real question for conservatives is - can Obama destroy the republic in 4 more years if he doesn't get the House?
9/23/12 2:05 PM
Yes. He doesn't have to do anything since the auto-destruct mechanism has been armed and the country will be on autopilot. And that doesn't include whatever regulatory schemes the Obama administration can come up with in a second term. Romney may not be the A Team of your liking but right now his is the only bomb squad available.
Alex don't knock free trade. The US is the second largest exporter in the world. It would help if the government's tax, fiscal and regulatory schemes were as liberal as Canada's which is now ranked much higher as a business friendly country than the US.
I find myself repelled by media bias. I've built up my defenses, which means I've now internalized the elaboration of the conservative position. I'm not even that conservative — I just know where the bias is, and I need to perform the correction for my own sense of balance.
Delusional.
Thanks, Dante.
Speaking of CO/NV and Rasmussen total failure in 2010, interesting 2010 was a low turn out mid-term, wave election nationwide for Reps and yet they couldn't defeat Harry Reid or appointed to the senate Michael Bennett.
So that does not bode well for Willard in both Nevada and Colorado in a high turn out general.
btw:
Ras Oct. 25, 2010 Buck 48/44 ~ Bennet won 48/46 ~ Rasmussen = 6 pt. error.
Ras Oct. 25, 2010 Angle 49/45 ~ Reid won 50/44 ~ Rasmussen = 9 pt. error.
Interesting Scotty currently has Willard up 2 in NV. The only pollster which has Romney winning.
So looking at Ras 2010 track record, Obama is probably up 6 in NV.
btw, even as I type Obama's 2008 GOTV team is up and running on all cylinders in all the swing states.
I yield back the balance of my time to wannabe Althouse political analysts.
shiloh said...
Reid is and was the senate majority leader, something voters appreciate. It also helped Reid that he had a singular green opponent. He was lucky, not smart. But you might be right about one thing, the turnout this year may not be as large as 2008 and if so, that doesn't benefit the democrats.
Delusional. (4:12)
Here's Jake Diamond engaging in some good old lefty projection thereby facilitating his cognitive dissonance.
"He was lucky, not smart."
Coincidentally re: the 2010 NV senate race, Rasmussen was neither lucky or smart!
blessings
"re: the 2010 NV senate race, Rasmussen was neither lucky or smart!"
Rasmussen does have a weakness in correctly predicting the effect of Mafia/Mormon corruption and the dessicated gangster mummy vote. Getting that right is more about who you know rather than what you know.
It impossible to take anyone crying voter suppression seriously since there is absolutely no impediment to voting by requiring I.D., and everyone knows it. Both sides know the Democratic argument is bullshit. This is just spitball politics, so when someone comes on a blog like this and plays the part, I just wanna know: How do you get your money for that, and do you claim the payments on your income tax?
I'm serious. I have no principles either, and so I think I would like to get in on this. It looks really easy, and I see even the big names on TV are in on it too, so it has to pay well.
"Why is the media willing to lose all credibility to get this jackass re-elected? Why?"
They think they'll be able to argue that a free press is so critical to our healthy functioning as a democracy that the President will give them an on-going subsidy to continue humping his ankle.
I need to get me some Obama stash before it dries up. C'mon guys, don't leave a brother hangin.
Ritmo wrote: Fault the press for pointing out Romney's inability to be specific, his unwillingness to answer questions, his inability to relate to most Americans, and how he reaches for his ballsack while crouching in cowered fear of the extreme, radical right-wing of his and your party.
HaHa! That reminds me of those actual photos from 2008 or so of Obama cupping his nutsack during the pledge or anthem while Hillary and others had their hands over their hearts like anyone else with fealty to the US would do. It didn't take much rubbing and ribbing from what was "left of the press" (pun intended) to get him to stop that obscene type of gesture. Now-a-days Obama even has sycophants pledging allegiance to him.
Just wondering what a man of reason thinks about that sort of cult of personality.
bagoh20's Nevada Mafia/Mormon corruption effect and the dessicated gangster mummy vote, notwithstanding:
Gallup Obama job approval ~ 9/20 - 9/22 ~ ((( 51/43 +8 )))
I yield back the balance of my time to to Mafia Mormons and gangster mummies ...
Some of this has been said above, but I have two responses. First, most people who follow this stuff (including the conservative-leaning realclearpolitics) take an average of the polls, and the averages favor Obama. Swing state polls also favor Obama. So taking a single poll is only persuasive if that poll is uniquely accurate. Second, if the media was simply willing to slant its coverage to favor its desired choice why wasn't the reporting more favorable to Kerry in 2004, or (in an even better example) Gore in 2000. I think the media is critical of whomever appears to be losing.
Some of this has been said above, but I have two responses. First, most people who follow this stuff (including the conservative-leaning realclearpolitics) take an average of the polls, and the averages favor Obama. Swing state polls also favor Obama. So taking a single poll is only persuasive if that poll is uniquely accurate. Second, if the media was simply willing to slant its coverage to favor its desired choice why wasn't the reporting more favorable to Kerry in 2004, or (in an even better example) Gore in 2000. I think the media is critical of whomever appears to be losing.
Problem is, the Ritmos are more comfortable with fraud than with the idea of losing.
Oh, really?
Dingleberry Tumbleweed can't cite a single instance of fraud committed in the swing state of PA, as the plaintiffs and court to that famous case admitted. So luckily, in the state of independence, the burden of proof may now be on the disenfranchisers. They can suck their thumbs and talk about JFK and fictional scare-scenarios all they want; the lazy-asses who wrote the law will now have to make sure that they really didn't intend it to just disenfranchise, as their Chief Disenfranchiser -- Oops! -- admitted.
Next time write make sure to laws that achieve the stated, constitutional aim, you lying sacks of shit.
Just wondering what a man of reason thinks about that sort of cult of personality.
Far be it from me to explain this to someone who might have trouble relating to people, but a cult of money can be as insidious than a cult of personality -- not that I think that such a thing really exists. For one thing, money, and -- for that matter -- silly rituals having to do with proper stances and the like, don't exist without people. Hand placement, body language, money, these artificial things are secondary to the people that create them. They serve the purposes designed by those people.
But why bother explaining this? For all I know you might conceptualize the American Nation as a concept so abstract and rigid that the people who comprise it might as very well not exist. As long as the money they made still does, and the statues they erected are posed in the proper stances.
Chicken imagines America as a lifeless LegoLand.
"Isn't it strange how the candidates are so precisely locked in an even standoff, when the newspapers are pounding it into our heads that the pathetic, miserable Romney hasn't got a chance?"
That would be strange, if the candidates were in fact locked in an even standoff. But they're not. See the RealClearPolitics averages for national and swing-state polls.
Romney may yet win, and I think it is closer than the polls show. But the media views you find "biased" actually reflect one basic irrefutable fact: Romney is a really, really shitty candidate.
Ritmo teachesFor one thing, money, and -- for that matter -- silly rituals having to do with proper stances and the like, don't exist without people.
Bravo! So wouldn't it be instructive if someone posed a #forall photo aping Obama zombies but with their hands cupping their nut sack? Or maybe pretend giving HRC the finger with their hand over their heart?
Closer than the polls show?
the polls show it's a tie, how much closer can you get?
I don't think there is any effective way to tune out media bias. It is relentless and omnipresent. It's not just the journalists. It's the comedians, the rock stars, the sit coms, the cartoons, the big budget special effects movies. Even the porn movies have a pronounced liberal bias. There are many porn movies featuring Sarah Palin look alikes, and these movies seldom give a sympathetic hearing to her energy policies.....You just can't tune all of this out by turning on Fox News. The liberal opinion is presented not as the right opinion, but as the respectable one. If you have misgivings about illegal immigration, Obama, or late term abortions, you have an affirmative duty to prove that you're not a bigot, a racist, or a misogynist.
And another thing,
I'm just a little bit tired of every time I turn on the radio, all I can hear about is "Romney's week of damage control" It's as though if we say the words "damage control" enough times we can get people to think he said something wrong..... He didn't ..... He spoke the truth. When Obama made the "you didn't build that" comment, every newscaster, and his brother spent the next week explaining "what he really meant". He didn't have to do any damage control, the mainstream media did it for him.
Chicken imagines America as a lifeless LegoLand.
Tell you what Ritmo: next time you're tête-à-têting with your personal hero, Andrew Sullivan, ask him to start a series called "Creepy Cult Watch," focused on POTUS.
His credibility will soar.
His credibility will soar.
Do you really think that marrying your obsessive "Obama-Cult" meme with your, well, general obsession with Andrew Sullivan will do anything for you?
I only ask because, well, your credibility on political matters is far and above that of any pundit's or writer's (including, obviously, Sullivan's), and I wouldn't want you to risk your immense reputation when it comes to those things.
Can we forget about Obama for a second? I bet your local alderman/councilman has way more influence over your everyday life then O-Bambi. That's who you have to throw out.
I am not a number! I am a free man!
There was a recent NYT '538' column that compared polling methods by the major organizations and noted that Rasmussen uses a method that does not poll people who primarily use cell phones-- i.e., younger voters. This might help explain why Rasmussen consistently produces poll numbers that are lower for Obama than other major polls-- and likely inaccurately.
This is a better basis for assessing poll numbers than liberal or conservative bias.
Post a Comment