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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145425)	10/11/2012 11:42:30 AM
From: locogringo	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224774

Gallup is not biased. Nope...not in the least............none of them are biased. (Did you know that I just bought a pretty orange bridge) Doping: Marist Juices the Numbers to Help Obama Never in my life have I seen such obvious, blatant and one-sided skewing of media polls. I've noted before that the media have weaponized polling this election, using their voter surveys to buoy the struggling Obama campaign. Marist and Quinnipiac have been the most egregious polling propagandists this cycle. But, in their latest poll of Ohio, Marist has achieved a new depth breitbart.com Diane Sawyer Joins the Obama Campaign Last night, all three broadcast networks found the revelations heard in congressional hearings surrounding the September 11 anniversary attack in Libya (criminally lax security and an obvious White House cover up) unworthy of leading their nightly newscasts. All three hit the story, but all three are killing themselves to downplay an explosive scandal they know could damage Obama's reelection chances. breitbart.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145425)	10/11/2012 11:45:47 AM
From: longnshort	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224774

Under the Bus: Obama Campaign Calls Liberal Bloggers the ‘Tinfoil Hat Crowd’ Posted by Jammie on Oct 11, 2012 at 8:11 am Hey, useful idiots always have a limited shelf life. The Obama campaign referred to several major liberal bloggers as the “tinfoil hat crowd” in a statement to Fox News Wednesday. The campaign was responding to the cable channel’s request for a comment on an Internet conspiracy theory many of them had promoted. Shortly after the presidential debate last week, a number of liberal bloggers including ones at Daily Kos, FireDogLake, Democratic Underground, and the Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan, among others, began posting items suggesting that Mitt Romney had cheated during the debate. The theory was that, as some video of the event appeared to suggest, Romney slipped a folded piece of paper out of his pocket and onto his podium just before the debate started. The bloggers suggested this was a “cheat sheet.” The theory was pretty clearly debunked. The paper was in fact a handkerchief … that Romney was shown later in the debate mopping his brow with. With poor Sullivan pretty much on suicide watch these days someone will need to keep the sharp objects away.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145425)	10/11/2012 11:47:35 AM
From: longnshort	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224774

Emails suggest Axelrod leaned on Gallup after unfavorable poll Published September 06, 2012 FoxNews.com Employees at the venerable Gallup polling firm suggested they felt threatened by Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod when he questioned the methodology of a mid-April poll showing Mitt Romney leading the president – according to internal emails published Thursday. That poll showed Romney leading Obama 48-43 percent. The exchange, according to emails published by The Daily Caller, started when Axelrod sent a tweet saying the tracking poll was “saddled with some methodological problems” and directing followers to a National Journal story in which a professor suggested outdated sampling. According to the email chain titled “Axelrod vs. Gallup,” the White House in addition asked that a Gallup staffer “come over and explain our methodology,” which was apparently perceived as a subtle threat. A Gallup official said in an email he thought Axelrod’s pressure “sounds a little like a Godfather situation.” “Imagine Axel[rod] with Brando’s voice: ‘I’d like you to come over and explain your methodology…You got a nice poll there … would be a shame if anything happened to it… .’” The exchanges also show that Gallup invited White House officials to its Washington offices, but it remains unclear whether any of the meetings occurred. However, when Gallup declined to change its polling methodology, the Obama administration’s Justice Department revived a 2009 whistle-blower lawsuit against the firm by joining the suit, a senior Gallup official alleges. The suit was filed by former Gallup employee Michael Lindley, who claims the firm violated the False Claims Act by overcharging the federal government for its services. Gallup declined to talk about the issue. Calls to the Justice Department, the White House and the Obama campaign have not been returned. Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs told The Washington Times this week that he was unaware of any communications between the campaign and Gallup. Read more: foxnews.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145425)	10/11/2012 11:49:44 AM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224774

Gallup Polls Have Been Compromised by the White House and are No Longer Credible Posted on 06 September 2012. Yesterday I asked the question Is Gallup Skewing Polls Since Obama Justice Dept Filed Lawsuit? For me, I believe that Gallup Polls are not to be trusted. It turns out, I am not the only one with that opinion. In today’s Daily Caller, they have internal emails which I believe raise enough questions and concerns that I will no longer consider a Gallup Poll to be valid. From the Daily Caller: Internal emails between senior officials at The Gallup Organization, obtained by The Daily Caller, show senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod attempting to subtly intimidate the respected polling firm when its numbers were unfavorable to the president. After Gallup declined to change its polling methodology, Obama’s Department of Justice hit it with an unrelated lawsuit that appears damning on its face. TheDC is withholding the identities of the Gallup officials to protect them from potential retaliation from Obama’s campaign and his administration. In April, Axelrod tweeted that a poll showing Mitt Romney with a 48-43 percent lead over Obama was “saddled with some methodological problems,” directing his Twitter followers to read a National Journal story criticizing Gallup polls showing a Romney lead. In that National Journal piece, Ron Brownstein wrote that the polls showing Romney leading the president had “a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012.” Internally, Gallup officials discussed via email how to respond Axelrod’s accusations. One suggested that it “seems like a pretty good time for a blog response,” and named a potential writer. And this is not new. Back in 2009, the Obama White House attacked Gallup again for polls they didn’t like. From NewsBusters back on December 8, 2009: White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs lashed out at Gallup polling today for releasing poll data that the administration does not like. The most recent Gallup poll shows President Obama’s approval ratings at 47 percent, the lowest rating on record at this point in any presidency. “If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I’d visit my doctor,” Gibbs told reporters today, referring to recent fluctuations in the polling company’s reported presidential approval ratings. As of November 30, Gallup reported Obama’s favorable rating at 51 percent, with 42 percent responding unfavorably. The latter rose to 46 percent as of Sunday. Pollsters always seem to have an agenda. A vested interest in the outcome of the polls. Either to sway public opinion into believing a candidate is doing better (or worse) than they really are, or simply to move the average of Real Clear Politics to keep Obama in the lead. It happens with such regularity that it is unlikely a coincidence. Just as a Republican Candidate (Mitt Romney in particular) looks to be moving ahead in the RCP average, out comes a poll from a far left leaning source or Democratic pollsters (aren’t they one and the same?) that has some wild results that are totally outside of the samples the rest of the polls show. And if they bother to include the number of Republicans vs Democrats surveyed - many times they leave out this bit of important information – they have oversampled Dems by sometimes double digits. One wonders if they even make calls at all. Polls that are intentionally skewed or inaccurate are absolutely worthless to political junkies and the general population. They are campaign propaganda tools intended solely to influence public opinion – not measure it. And I have said this before and will continue to note the observation that contrary to what you hear, polls do not really grow tighter as the election nears. They simply begin using more accurate samples that reflect public opinion. Because a pollster’s reputation is not forged by their poll results in September or October, but rather those in November – or late October. And if your last few polls of an election cycle are are not close to the final results, your reputation suffers. It would be nice of the polls all used the methods now, in September, that they will be using in the last few days of this election. I believe if they did, the Republicans would show a lead of a few points in most races. You wouldn’t know it by most of the polls, but this is looking like it could be an exceptionally great year for the GOP. Again. At this point, I trust the Rasmussen Polls far more than the others. They don’t show general site visitors the internal numbers behind the polls, but Platinum members have access to all of the internals, and I check every poll and especially the Demographics in each one. Rasmussen tends to sample about an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, which is how the rest of the polls should be doing things. On a few polls, Rasmussen seems to be oversampling women a bit, but I don’t believe this is intentional. As for Gallup, unless things change between them and the White House intimidation squad, I think we should count them as compromised and not reliable.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145425)	10/11/2012 12:24:03 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224774

Michael Kinsley says President Romney: latimes.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145425)	10/11/2012 12:49:43 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224774

Gallup tweaks its methodology in Obama's favor 4 weeks before the election. Morning Jay: Politics and the Gallup Poll 6:00 AM, Oct 11, 2012 • By JAY COST weeklystandard.com Since about the beginning of President Obama’s tenure, the Gallup poll has generally been one of the least positive polls for the Democratic party. This has prompted outrage and pressure from the left-- even from presidential advisor David Axelrod. Over the summer Mark Blumenthal of Huffington Post wrote a critique of Gallup’s daily presidential job approval poll. The point of which was that Gallup was over-sampling whites and thus understating President Obama’s position in the adult population. I responded by arguing that Blumenthal’s case was underdeveloped and less-than-met-the-eye, and that was basically where things stood. Until, that is, this week. President Obama enjoyed a bounce in his Gallup job approval number after the Democratic National Convention, as was to be expected, but there was a twist: it did not disappear. And while Gallup on average had found Obama’s job approval around 47 percent with adults through most of 2012, for the last five weeks it has been regularly above 50 percent. Yesterday, it stood at 53 percent, a number we have not really seen since 2009. Unusual. So, what's going on? Alan Abramowitz of Huffington Post and The Democratic Strategist noticed that Gallup has increased its share of nonwhites from 27 percent the week of the convention to 32 percent last week, a nearly 20 percent boost. In other words, Gallup seemed to have tweaked its methodology with just weeks to go until Election Day to reflect the criticism that has come from the left. And indeed, in a wonky and elliptical statement, Gallup chief Frank Newport essentially confirms the shift: As we began this election tracking program on Oct.1, our methodologists also recommended modifying and updating several procedures. We increased the proportion of cell phones in our tracking to 50%, meaning that we now complete interviews with 50% cell phones and 50% landlines each night. This marks a shift from our Gallup Daily tracking, which has previously been 40% cell phones. This means that our weights to various phone targets in the sample can be smaller, given that the actual percentage of cell phones and cell-phone-only respondents in the sample is higher. We have instituted some slight changes in our weighting procedures, including a weight for the density of the population area in which the respondent lives. Although all Gallup surveys are weighted consistently to census targets on demographic parameters, we believe that these improvements provide a more consistent match with weight targets. So, from the looks of it, the left got what it wanted: Gallup altered its methodology with a month to go until Election Day. And the result – at least on the job approval question – is a shift in Obama’s favor. Whether or not this has altered the Romney-Obama head-to-head numbers among likely and registered voters, I cannot say. I also cannot speak to the merits of the change in methodology. Back in June, I thought there was less than met the eye to Blumenthal's critiques of Gallup. And I thought Gallup thought the same thing. Maybe the polling outlet changed its mind. Maybe it had other reasons for making the change. Who knows? That stuff is all "black box," proprietary methodology that is not open for public analysis. What I can say is that it's problematic to alter one's methodological approach to polling elections just five weeks before the biggest election in a generation. In fact, I think this is a highly inopportune time to make such a change; do it in the summer of 2012 or the winter of 2013, but for goodness sake not the fall of 2012! It is even more problematic to make the shift but not spell out in detail the political effect of it. One utility of the Gallup tracker was that it enabled comparisons across time. Those are now difficult to accomplish because we have to assume what effect these methodological shifts have had. My guess is that it has moved the needle toward Obama by maybe 3 points on job approval, but we cannot know for sure. We also have no idea the extent to which this changes the Romney-Obama head-to-head among registered or likely voters. What Gallup should have done is similar to what the Bureau of Labor Statistics does when it adjusts the unemployment rate to account for new Census data: Give the number as it is now calculated and as it would have been calculated absent the change, so everybody can know exactly what effect the changes in assumptions have had. Newport fails even to acknowledge whether and how this methodological change helped one side over the other, let alone its extent. Final point: We absolutely, positively must remember polling in 2012 is politicized as never before, and it is incumbent upon the consumers of political polls not to accept the data naïvely, but to perform due diligence to see what goes into the product. Jay Cost is a staff writer for THE WEEKLY STANDARD and the author of Spoiled Rotten: How the Politics of Patronage Corrupted the Once Noble Democratic Party and Now Threatens the American Republic, available now wherever books are sold.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145425)	10/11/2012 1:42:07 PM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224774

....."loco, there you go again "... Kenny, I see you have used this expression several times in last few posts....Are you channeling President Reagan now? LOL I think these are the words President Reagan used to make carter look goofy. At least you are quoting a good and decent Republican President...Good for you kenny.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (145425)	10/11/2012 3:00:22 PM
From: JakeStraw	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224774

So This Is What "God Dmn America" Looks Like americanthinker.com Four years ago, our media overlords assured us that President Empty Chair was really Candidate Empty Pew -- a parishioner who sat for 20 years in Reverend Jeremiah Wright's nutty, hate-mongering church and never heard a single word. "God bless America? No, no, no! God dmn America!" thundered Reverend Wright, and just in case you missed the delicate subtleties of his Black Liberation Theology, he helpfully noted that 9/11 was "America's chickens" "coming home to roost." Well, America's chickens are surely roosting overtime now. Surveying the wreckage of the country formerly known as the leader of the free world, you may be forgiven for suspecting that Obama did indeed overhear a sermon or two during his loyal decades in Wright's Trinity Church. Wright preached against "middle-classness," and hey, Obama's certainly taken care of that! In fact, even master debater Joe Biden admits that the middle class has been "buried" in the last four years. Did you know that Reverend Wright lovingly published Hamas editorials in his church's newsletter? There, ladies and gentlemen, is Obama's foreign policy in a nutshell. As for the Lifetime Achievement Award that Wright bestowed upon Louis Farrakhan, I fully expect that in a second Obama term, we'll all be graced with Secretary of State Farrakhan. And if that won't pass congressional muster, Obama can simply appoint Farrakhan our czar. Never mind The Audacity of Hope, the book title that Obama swiped from a Reverend Wright sermon. Let's spotlight the audacity of the media for de-materializing the screeching elephant in the national room that was Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Now, thanks to reporter Jerome Corsi and Hillbuzz.org founder Kevin DuJan, we learn that Reverend Wright may possibly have played an even more central role in Obama's fraud-filled life: arranging Obama's marriage to Michelle Robinson as a convenient cover for some of Obama's less savory "lifestyle choices." (By the way, I've got a zippy new hobby of collecting Democratic sham marriages. I'm a busy, busy girl.) As for the wedding ring that Michelle slipped on Obama's finger during the heartwarming marriage ceremony performed by Reverend Wright, it turns out that it's inscribed with these all-American words: "There is no God but Allah." Brilliant sleuthing by filmmaker Joel Gilbert has decoded the elaborate Arabic scrawls on the gold ring that Obama has been photographed wearing for more than 30 years, ever since his bachelor days at Occidental College. And yes, this is the ring that our commander-in-chief now wears in the White House. If you've been following the story so far, America is now cursed with a "president" who's steeped in America-hating theology, who is locked into a sham marriage to cover up his alleged dangerous and highly blackmail-able personal proclivities, and who slyly pledges his eternal loyalty to Allah. But wait, there's more! As our affirmative action pharaoh loses the respect of the American people, he's brazenly funding his campaign with millions of untraceable dollars from America's enemies. Only 2% of Obama's huge $181-million September haul is traceable, and much of it may be coming from Obama.com, a website owned by Robert Roche, an American citizen living in China with close business ties to the Chinese government. Obama.com redirects you to Obama's official campaign website, where you can donate without entering your credit card security code, making illegal foreign donations so delightfully simple. How blessed is our dear Reverend Jeremiah Wright! His fondest, hate-filled dreams are all coming true. Yes, Obama repudiated Wright in his hysterically acclaimed speech on race (which is now taught to America's schoolkids) and tried to bribe him to shut up by sending emissaries with $150,000 offers. Nevertheless, Wright has lived to rejoice in the racist, murderous, devilishly wicked Amerikkkan nation being brought to its knees by his most famous disciple. How low has America sunk? Mort Zuckerman recently harvested some economic indicators that should gladden the heart of any America-hater. Twenty-five million Americans lack full-time work; the percentage of unemployed Americans out of work for more than a year has skyrocketed to over 30%; labor force participation has collapsed to a post-World War II low; and the typical American family's income has dropped to 1995 levels. According to Zuckerman: The real unemployment rate is 15 percent, measured by what is called U-6, which includes people who are working part-time on an involuntary basis. We have 4.7 million fewer jobs than the peak reached at the end of 2007. And indeed much of the improvement in jobs has been through dubious "seasonal" adjustments, such as the July seasonal bump of 377,000 jobs-the largest such adjustment for July in the past 10 years. The labor participation rate has dropped to a 30-year low, and if not for that development, the unemployment rate would be much higher. The statistic that really pierces my heart is the collapse of the American birth rate to historic lows. Mr. Hope and Change has so demoralized the country that we're not even bothering to reproduce anymore; like Europe, we're trudging through today, having given up on tomorrow. Maybe that's because we can't afford to indulge in babies -- not with a GDP growth rate that's lower than that of Pakistan and Cuba. If America is cursed with a second Obama term, by 2016 the whole country will be swimming to Cuba to escape.