Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nigel bates who wrote (51218)	10/12/2008 8:40:50 AM
From: Geoff Altman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224699

It's run by self-identified democrats, There's your first indication of trouble. I trust nothing that's put out by a group of self-identified democrats (code for Obamatons)......... Polls: Obama or McCain Is Winning By Steven M. Warshawsky Two months ago I argued in these pages that Barack Obama will not win this year's presidential election. My prediction was based on essential factors about Obama himself -- his inexperience, his tax-and-spend liberalism, his history of race consciousness -- that make him an unacceptable choice to lead the nation in this time of difficult foreign and domestic challenges. I remain convinced that, on Election Day, most American voters will refuse to pull the lever for a candidate who falls so far outside the political and cultural mainstream of the country. While hardly a compelling candidate himself, John McCain offers the American people more experience, a proven track record of legislative and diplomatic leadership (albeit one that does not lack controversy), and an unquestioned history of patriotism and service to the country. These qualities matter greatly to voters. McCain said it well at the end of this week's town hall debate: "When times are tough, we need a steady hand at the tiller, and the great honor of my life was to always put my country first." This is a winning message. Despite running a mostly lackluster campaign, McCain remains the better candidate to serve as the next President of the United States. Ever since I wrote my anti-Obama piece, I have received numerous emails from Republicans and Democrats alike, asking whether I still think Obama will lose the election. Yes, I do. But what about the POLLS, they ask? The POLLS show that Obama is winning. No, they don't, as I will explain. But let me note, first, that the widespread, and indeed intentional, misreporting about what the POLLS allegedly show is one of the most frustrating -- and ultimately harmful -- aspects of the presidential campaign season. Why harmful? Because if the supporters of Barack Obama, which include the mainstream media, most of the intelligentsia, and almost all black Americans, believe that their candidate is "winning" the race, but then he loses on Election Day, they are very likely to conclude that the election was "stolen." It will be what we saw in 2000, only worse, because of the intense emotional investment that so many people have in Obama's candidacy. Whether or not, as some irresponsible commentators have suggested, there will be violence in the streets if Obama loses, it will be deeply damaging to the nation's social fabric for John McCain's election to be challenged from the start as illegitimate. Now to the POLLS. There are three basic reasons to be skeptical about the validity and accuracy of polls: First, there is the well-known problem of bias that results from how POLLS are worded. Second, the raw data for the POLLS almost always is "adjusted" by the pollsters to give more WEIGHT to the Democratic responses. And third, the results of the POLLS almost always are within the reported "margin of error." The first two issues would require a detailed analysis that is beyond the scope of this article. But the third issue clearly proves my point that Obama is not "winning" the race. As illustrations, let's look at three national POLLS, taken from the Real Clear Politics website: the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from October 4-5; the Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll from October 7; and the Rasmussen poll from October 8. According to the NBC/WSJ poll, Obama is leading McCain among registered voters nationwide by a margin of 49% to 43% (these figures combine those who said they supported and were leaning towards the respective candidates). So Obama is winning, right? Not so fast. The reported margin of error for the poll is +/- 3.8 points. The "margin of error" is simply the amount of potential error in a poll's results. This means that the results of the poll actually could be McCain 46.8% and Obama 45.2%. Very close, but with McCain ahead. The poll also includes 8% of respondents who said they were undecided. These undecided voters might decide to vote for McCain. Certainly there is no reason to assume they will vote for Obama. In short, this poll does not show that Obama is winning. At most it shows that Obama might be winning. On the other hand, it also shows that McCain might be winning. Similarly, the Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll shows Obama leading McCain among likely voters nationwide by a margin on 47.7% to 45.3%, with 7% undecided. The margin of error for this poll is +/- 2.8 points. Based on the data from this poll, therefore, McCain could be leading Obama by a margin of 48.1% to 44.9%. If the undecided voters decide to support McCain, the eventual margin of victory could be even larger. Again, this poll does not necessarily show that Obama is winning. Indeed, the pollsters correctly noted that "[t]he race for President of the United States remains far too close to call." Lastly, the Rasmussen poll shows that Obama is leading McCain among likely voters nationwide by a margin of 51% to 45%, with 4% undecided. The margin of error for this poll is +/- 2 points. A-ha! Obama definitely is winning according to this poll (that is, assuming the undecided voters do not "break" for McCain). But there is something curious about this poll, which relates to the second issue I raised above about POLLS. This poll "weighted" its responses to reflect a predicted voting population of 39.3% Democrats, 33.3% Republicans, and 27.4% unaffiliated. However, in the last presidential election, just four years ago, the party affiliation of actual voters (according to the CNN exit poll) was 37% DEMOCRAT and 37% Republican. Perhaps Democrats are going to "out vote" Republicans by 6 points this year, but I think this is a very dubious assumption. In any event, there is no reason to accept the results of the Rasmussen poll over those of the other two POLLS (or over the results of many other POLLS I could have examined). [ The appeal of Obama to black and liberal voters is big so one might assume turnout among these groups will be way above normal. OTOH, the appeal of Obama to white blue-collar, elderly, and women voters will be weaker than in the past so the turnout here will below average. Hillary did get more votes in the primaries than Obama, won primary elections in most of the bigger states, and kept beating Obama in states like PA and OH even after the party leadership and political pundits were declaring for Obama and demanding that Hillary quit the race. Finally, Palin's being on the ticket will increase turnout among Republicans. So considering all this there seems little reason to think the poll above ought to be weighted 39.3% DEMOCRAT to 33.3% Republican, The 2004 race was 37% D and 37% R and the weighting is a six point swing from that real datapoint. Six points happens to be exactly Obama's lead over McCain in the poll. I suspect that's the real reason for the over-weighting of Democrats. ] Before concluding, let's look at a typical poll of the races in two important "battleground" states. This poll was done by CNN/Time on October 7 (also taken from RCP). According to this poll, Obama is leading McCain in Ohio, 50% to 47%, and in Wisconsin, 51% to 46%. The headline for the poll: "New Obama gains in battleground states." Yet the margin of error for the poll was +/- 3.5 points. This means that, based on the results of the CNN/Time poll itself, McCain could be leading in Ohio by a margin of 50.5% to 46.5% and in Wisconsin by a margin of 49.5% to 47.5%. Of course, in the past several weeks there have been POLLS showing McCain leading the race nationally and in the battleground states. Are the results of such POLLS simply to be disregarded? On what grounds? Why should the POLLS that show Obama in the lead be given more WEIGHT than the POLLS that show McCain in the lead? Such reporting reflects the bias of the mainstream media, not the “truth” about how the American people are going to vote this November. Moreover, the idea – implicit in the daily fluctuations of the POLLS – that large numbers of American voters are regularly switching back and forth between McCain and Obama makes no sense. Who knows any real people who are going through such mental and political gymnastics? In short, the POLLS do not show that Obama is "winning" the race, anymore than they show that McCain is "winning" the race. What they show is that the contest is very close, and will not be decided until election day -- when the American people actually go to the POLLS and cast their votes. For the reasons I've stated before, I predict that more votes will be cast for McCain than for Obama. Steven M. Warshawsky is an attorney in New York City. americanthinker.com

To: nigel bates who wrote (51218)	10/13/2008 8:35:40 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224699

60% of this country is conservative John McCain and the Limbaugh Effect By Bruce Walker A majority of Americans consider themselves conservative. If only John McCain knew.... In late August I recounted that since early 2002 the Battleground Poll, a bipartisan poll which always asks a core set of questions and which always reveals the battery of questions asked, shows an astounding fact: In answer to Question D3, sixty percent of Americans in twelve consecutive Battleground Polls taken over six and a half years asking virtually the same question each time, call themselves conservatives. On September 17, a new Battleground Poll asked a new group of Americans Question D3. The result? Fifty nine percent of Americans called themselves conservative. Very recently, on October 6, Battleground released yet another poll asking a large number of questions and, as always, it asked respondents to answer Question D3. Fifty nine percent of Americans in this third Battleground Poll in less than two months called themselves conservative. In the August Battleground Poll, sixty percent of Americans had called themselves conservative. This is the single most consistent response in any area of any poll over the last decade or so. It ought to be very, very big news. Since early 2002, there have been no less than fifteen Battleground Polls and Question D3 is always asked. If you take all the polls, add the percentages of respondents who call themselves conservative, and divide by the number of polls taken, that percentage is 60%. If you look at the polls over these years individually, the number of Americans in any particular poll who have called themselves conservatives has been as high as 63% in May 2008, and it has been as low as and see the highest percentage of people who call themselves conservative has been as low as 58% in December 2007, but 12 out of the 15 Battleground Polls had the percentage of conservatives at 59%, 60%, or 61%. Conservatives, doubting how they could be majority, and liberals, certain that they are America, posted at blogs and comment sections many "problems" with my article. Some assumed that the Battleground Poll has an "agenda" - indeed it does. It has a high reputation for precision without any partisan leaning. That is the Battleground Poll agenda and that agenda reinforces, rather than weakens, my argument. Many people questioned if the respondents really "knew" what conservative meant. The Battleground Poll, Question D3 does not ask if someone is conservative or not; it does not ask if someone is conservative or liberal; it instead provides a number of different and mutually exclusive answers for respondents. One allowed answer is "moderate." Another allowed answer is "unsure/refused." And, of course, respondents can choose "somewhat liberal" or "very liberal." Those sixty percent of respondents who call themselves "somewhat conservative" or "very conservative" reject all four of those other answers. Why would they affirmatively choose conservative if they were really a moderate or if they really did not know or would prefer not to answer? The respondents obviously had a very clear idea of what conservative means. And why would Americans from different polling groups answer that question, and that question alone, so consistently? In every other area, public responses to questions jump all over the place. Responses are moved by events or by unpopular political leaders. The only response that never varies much is the question on political ideology. In statistical analysis, when a percentage that could vary never does, that means something. But a couple of weeks ago I was having dinner with Daniel Pipes and a group of collegiate conservatives at the University of Tulsa. Professor Pipes asked me a question that is harder to answer: Why does it feel like we are so much less than sixty percent of the population? If three fifths of our countrymen are conservatives, why do we conservatives feel like a minority? In answering that, we should consider the "Limbaugh Effect." Remember when Rush Limbaugh first began to be an unapologetic national voice for conservatives? What did callers say first? They thanked him for speaking for them. More than that, they thanked him for showing that they were not some "nutty right-wing loner," as the media, Hollywood, academia and other organs of information, entertainment, and communication had portrayed conservatives. The Left long ago stopped trying to win arguments. The Left long ago adopted the Alinsky school of political warfare: Destroy your opponent. Portray conservatives as racist, homophobes, wife-battering moronic paranoids and that campaign of political annihilation is largely won. The political movement which sanctimoniously prides itself on rejecting stereotypes smeared sixty percent of America with a savage, humorless defamation. And, as long as no one raised the banner of conservatism for others to join, sixty percent of America sat quietly in their living rooms, wondering if anyone else really believed what they believed. After Rush, people realized that they were not alone. No: We are not alone at all. We are the majority, really the overwhelming majority, in America. Consider other evidence. How does the Left win many of its policy battles? Through unelected federal judges who are appointed for life. How does the Right win many of its policy battles? By referenda and similar votes of the people. When did McCain get a bump? When he picked an unapologetic conservative running mate. How is Obama winning this election now? By never calling himself a liberal at all, by never mentioning his true allies and mentors, and by pretending not to be a radical Leftist. Conservatives lose when they deny that they are conservatives: When they seek that two percent of America that calls itself moderate at the cost of that sixty percent of America that calls itself conservative. When was the last time an unapologetic conservative ran against a nice, old-fashioned liberal? Twenty-four years ago. The result? The conservative got about sixty percent of the vote. John McCain desperately needs to understand the Limbaugh Effect, and apoply its lessons to his campaign. If Rush lost his guts the way that Republicans have these days, he would lose most of his audience as well. But he sensed, before Battleground Polls said it, that America is a profoundly conservative nation. Now all we need is candidate and president who understands this. Bruce Walker is the author of Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie, and the recently published book, The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.