Tag Archives: media bias

Election Night Tips

November 6, 2012 – 7:17 pm

I’ll update this post over the next 18-24 hours and bump it as needed. Regardless of the outcome, celebrate democracy and the privilege we share. At 7pm on election night in 2008 I opened one of my best bottles of wine, toasted Barack Obama and wished him well in his Presidency. The outcome was obvious beyond an election day miracle and I’m not the biggest fan of deceiving myself. I hope both sides of the aisle will do the same Tuesday night whenever the winner is announced. We are all better off under those circumstances. Tomorrow’s going to be really interesting and a lot of fun. Enjoy the moment, it only comes around every four years.

Below are various tips from myself or others where noted:

  • Beware false stories of unprecedented lines at some precincts and desolate lines at other precincts. They may well all be true but voting patterns shift every election and getting too despondent or overjoyed based on random and possibly inaccurate anecdotes will make you crazy.  Both sides have quite possibly the strongest ground games in election history so anything is possible on election day.  Let it play out.
  • Ignore the “too close to call” game. If the media doesn’t have enough precincts reporting in a Republican state they will say the race is “too close to call.” If they don’t have enough precincts reporting in a Democrat state they will say the polls just closed so it’s too early to say anything. They do this EVERY election.
  • I put this on my Facebook page election night 4 years ago and have left it there.  It’s as true today as it was then and is a good thing to remember no matter the outcome. “A prophet is the one who, when everyone else
    despairs, hopes. And when everyone else hopes, he despairs. You’ll ask me why. It’s because he has mastered the Great Secret: that the Wheel turns.”








By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged | Comments (154)

If Media Don’t Like Poll Results, They Have the Results Changed

November 6, 2012 – 1:40 pm

Since NBC/WSJ/CBS/New York Times/ABC pay for the poll why should they have to report results running counter to their politics?  John Podhoretz at Commentary Magazine has the scoop:

A stunning tale today in the Salt Lake Tribune, however, reveals the dirty little secret of polls paid for by the media. The results are, in effect, owned by the media, and the media can insist that they be rejiggered.

The Tribune published a poll done by the respected Mason-Dixon firm that showed a 10-point lead for the county’s Republican candidate for mayor. The poll was released on Thursday. Later, editors for the paper objected to the results on the grounds that the poll had an insufficient number of Democrats in its sample:

Tribune editor Nancy Conway acknowledged the problem. “We are as concerned about this as anyone,” she said Monday. “As soon as we understood there was a problem we worked to correct it. “We had no reason to doubt the poll until we saw others conducted over the same period and could see differences in the numbers. That raised questions,” Conway said. “We contacted our pollster who did additional research on Salt Lake County demographics and found there was indeed a flaw. “We knew right then that we needed to correct our mistake and that’s what we are doing,” Conway said.

And so it was done, as the story explains.

These are stunning admissions:

To recap: A newspaper pays for a poll. It doesn’t like the look of the results. So it asks the pollster to reexamine them and alter them by changing his “weights.” He does so; he may agree with the call (as the Mason Dixon pollster says he does in the story) or he may be simply serving the interests of his paying client.

And it will do so based on the partisan split—the very controversy that is dismissed so cavalierly by media types. We only know about this one because of the highly unusual circumstances of its revision. The question you have to ask yourself now is: How many times does this happen before a poll is published?

But people like myself have been called every conspiratorial wacko name in the book for looking at the data, saying it is obviously wrong and charging the polling organizations with either incompetence or bias.  Turns out it is both.

By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged | Comments (54)

Moderators Give Democrats $37.8 Million in Free Advertising

October 17, 2012 – 7:32 pm

The growing contentiousness over media favoritism for Democrats in the Presidential debates is reaching a boiling point as we approach the final 1-on-1 confrontation Monday October 22 in Boca Raton, Florida. Thankfully plenty of conservatives are aggressively speaking up over Candy Crowley inappropriately injecting herself on the President’s behalf and incorrectly arbitrating the disagreement on the floor between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

The statistical measures of media bias are piling up following last night’s fiasco. Earlier we picked up on Katrina Trinko’s post on the excess time given to Democrats in the 3 debates thus far over Republicans:

  • In the first Presidential debate, Obama spoke for 3 minutes, 14 seconds more than Romney – which means he got 8 percent more talking time than Romney.
  • During the vice presidential debate, Biden spoke for 1 minute, 22 seconds more than Ryan.  That gave Biden 3 percent more speaking time than Ryan.
  • In the second Presidential debate, Obama spoke for 4 minutes and 18 seconds longer than Romney, giving him 11 percent more talking time.
  • Candy Crowley not only interrupted to incorrectly support President Obama, she interrupted Mitt Romney 28 times but only interrupted Obama 9 times
  • Crowley also allowed President Obama to get the last word on question 8 of the 11 questions

This means that over 3 debates actively managed by the moderators in favor of one party, the Democrat candidate has been given 8 minutes and 54 seconds more time than the Republicans with viewership consistently ~70 million people. To give some pop culture perspective, the series finale of Seinfeld in 1999 drew 76 million household viewers.

But how much would it cost the Democrats if they had to pay for the opportunity to speak 1-on-1 to the American public on prime time television with an expected viewership of 70 million people?

The only comparisons I could come up with for anticipated events with viewership of this magnitude were the Super Bowl which has 110 million viewers last year and the Opening Ceremony of the 2012 Summer Olympics which drew 40 million viewers.  Last year, a 30-second ad in Super Bowl XLVI (2012) cost $3.5 million dollars. At the summer Olympics advertisers paid as much as $725,000 for each 30-second prime-time spot.  If we slot the 70 million person audience right in the middle let’s call it $2.1-million per 30-second ad for a national prime time audience. This means that the “independent” moderators giving Democrats 9 minutes more speaking time have gifted Democrats $24.3 million dollars in free advertising over these 3 debate broadcasts.

[Addendum:  My friend Lisa in advertising pointed out the Oscars charge $1.7 million for 30-second spots and their viewership is just under 40 million so I'm being generous with my $2.1 million figure on a 70 million person TV audience.]

If you look at the ad spending numbers provided by NBC’s First Read, Obama and Romney for this week are both spending $13-14 million.  All of that is in only 8-9 Battleground States.  This means the Democrats are getting almost THREE weeks worth of Battleground State advertising free of charge through the willful incompetence of the “independent” moderators. At the same time if Mitt Romney wanted to spend his $191 million war chest on a 30-minute paid advertisement to run his 10-minute bio from the Convention or similar autobiographical materials I’d wager the networks would reject this because it would be unfair to the Obama campaign who has comparatively far less cash on hand.

This is just the latest disgraceful display by a media who are making in-kind contributions to the re-election efforts of Barack Obama through unrealistic polling that doubles as press releases for Obama For America and moderators who stifle Republican candidates while actively assisting the Democrats.

By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged , , | Comments (13)

Former Media Coordinator of CodePink Long Island Was One of the “Undecided” Questioners

October 17, 2012 – 12:19 am

Conservative critics complained that the questions were relentlessly partisan in favor of Democrats and critical of Republicans.  Now we know one of the reasons why. Jim Lindgren over at the Volokh Conspiracy has the goods:

How good was Gallup’s vetting of the questioners at the 2d Presidential debate held at Hofstra on Long Island?

One explicitly feminist question was asked by undecided voter Catherine Fenton:

And it’s Katherine Fenton, who has a question for you.
QUESTION: In what new ways to [do] you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?

By a strange coincidence, there happens to be a Catherine Fenton who in 2008 identified herself as the Media Coordinator of CodePink Long Island.

Is she the same Catherine Fenton? Presumably we will be able to determine this over the next few days. For now, it is worth noting that the CodePink Fenton discussed whether feminists in March 2008 should support Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or a third-party candidate:

As a liberal, I believed and still do believe, that after the complete and abject failure of conservatism, we should have been heralding in a President Al Gore, or if not, then a President John Edwards. Barack Obama is not my first choice. But as he did vote yes on banning cluster bombs in civilian areas, and speak out against this war before it happened, perhaps he is the better choice. Perhaps a third party candidate is a better choice for you. These are matters of individual conscience. But Hillary is not the answer.

And I’m not turning my feminist card in.

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION

Catherine Fenton
Media Coordinator
CODEPINK Long Island

The CodePink Fenton seems to argue that Hillary Clinton is not reliably left wing enough for her tastes.

By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged , | Comments (14)

ABC/Washington Post Poll Makes In-Kind Contribution to Obama Re-Election Efforts

October 15, 2012 – 1:49 am

Not to be outdone by the ludicrous NBC/WSJ/Marist Battleground State polls from last week, ABC/Washington Post reveal their national poll today showing President Obama with a 3-point lead 49 to 46. Mitt Romney leads among Independents by 6 points (48 to 42) and locks down his base more so than Obama — Reps support Romney 93 to 7 while Dems support Obama 91 to 8.  Yet Romney trails by 3.  How?  Incredibly, they polled 9% more Democrats than Republicans.  This is not a new phenomenon as I outlined in mid-September in the post “Obama’s National Lead Based Entirely on Over-Sampling Democrats.”  Today’s ABC/Washington Post poll is the crowning achievement this cycle in unrealistic national polls only 3 weeks out from the election.  But these types of advocacy “polling games” are nothing new.

The party identification in the survey is D +9 (Dem 35, Rep 26, Ind 33). This compares to 2008 when party ID was D +7 (Dem 39, Rep 32, Ind 29) and 2004 when party ID split evenly (Dem 37, Rep 37, Ind 26).  Making matters even worse, in their poll just over two weeks ago that survey had a party ID of D +3 (Dem 33, Rep 30, Ind 33).  Did the public tune in to Barack Obama’s debate performance and just have a groundswell of love for Democrat passivity and listlessness and embrace the Donkey Party? According to the Washington Post, pre-Debate the race was 48 to 46 in favor of Obama.  Post-debate the race is 49 to 46 in favor of Obama.  Must have been an uneventful debate right?  Here is over-the-top liberal Democrat Andrew Sullivan’s blog yesterday on post debate polls:

If anyone thought that the feisty Biden debate undid the massive damage the president did to himself in the first debate, the news isn’t great. Biden does seem to have reversed the speed of Obama’s free-fall but not the decline itself. Romney’s debate obliteration of Obama – something that, in my view, irreparably damages a sitting president – does not seem to be a bounce, but a resilient jump. It’s not going away by itself. That is: not a bounce.

Sullivan also provides a devastating chart showing the post-debate Romney surge in polls (red line) and Obama free fall (blue line):

But today the Washington Post and ABC see fit to publish a poll with Democrat affiliation 9 percentage points greater than Republicans. This blog has hammered the issue of party ID time and again. Basically there is a zero percent change the Democrat’s advantage at the polls in 2012 will be superior to their advantage in 2008. Here is what I wrote on October 1st when critiquing the large disparities in party identification:

In 2008 seven percent more Democrats than Republicans identified themselves as such on election day, well above the historic average of 3%. This was a big change from 2004 when party identification was evenly split between the Democrats and Republicans. But there were many reasons for the strong Democrat turnout that do not exist today. The top of the ticket was a historic candidate (first Black President), America had war and Bush fatigue, the financial meltdown created an anti-Republican wave, and his opponent wasn’t the strongest (good biography, bad and underfunded candidate). These factors led to a strong Democrat self-identification advantage at the voting booth in 2008. But in the 2012 election, none of the advantages outlined above are there for Obama and many of those factors are now largely working against the President: 8%+ unemployment for three years, sub-2% GDP, 23 million unemployed, Arab Spring blowing up and casting the historic vote in 2008 is yesterday’s news. Additionally the Romney campaign ground game has exceeded the McCain campaign across many metrics as much as 10- to 15-fold. Despite the stark changes in each of these factors, polling outfits thus far have consistently sampled an election turnout often greater than candidate Obama’s 2008 best-in-a-generation advantage.

Over the last month we have seen:

Interestingly many of these above trends actually show up in the ABC/Washington Post poll.  President Obama’s support among Non-Whites is a surprisingly low 73%.  His support is typically closer to 80% so this drop of is a major red flag in the President’s re-election efforts.  But this is where the Democrat over-sampling comes in to save the President.  I went to great lengths to demonstrate that these polls that over-sample Democrats are not simply over-sampling generic Democrats, these polls very specifically over-sample White Democrats.  And in this survey we see Barack Obama’s support among White voters at 43%, the same level he achieved in 2008. If that percentage was accurate Obama would almost certainly be re-elected.  Unfortunately for him that support level is not accurate based on the unrealistic disparity in party identification and the over-sampling of Democrats masks what is far more likely support for Obama among Whites closer to 36 or 37% as I explained in the previous post here.

Despite the mountain of evidence above completely undermining the unrealistic voter turnout models presented by ABC, the Washington Post and others, major news organizations pass off these unserious polls as credible when neither sense nor reason supports such claims.  Today’s disaster is only the latest example of major news organizations weakening the public’s trust by publishing fantastical polls whose sole purpose is to advocate for one candidate over the other.

By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged , , , , , , , | Comments (24)

Watch Out for Phony Early Vote Numbers in Ohio

October 14, 2012 – 3:32 pm

The stories that ~20% of Ohio voters have already cast votes has been floating around the blogosphere and twitterverse ever since the completely biased NBC/WSJ/Marist poll of Ohio last week.  I dismissed this as a noteworthy story to debunk because the statistic was so obviously false I didn’t think it even warranted mentioning.  To me it was just another stupid anomaly in an obviously biased poll.  But this grossly false statistic is showing up in otherwise credible news stories.  Today alone the LA Times ran a story on the battle for Ohio when I ran across this passage arguing for Obama strength in the state:

To counter the expected Republican advantage on the air, Obama will rely on his formidable get-out-the-vote operation, based in 120 offices in every part of the state. Already, just over a week into early voting here, that has begun paying off. The early vote so far comes to nearly a fifth of the likely turnout, election officials estimate, and so far has been disproportionately from areas that went for Obama in 2008. (An NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll released Thursday showed that 18% of likely voters said they already had cast ballots and 63% supported Obama.)

This is 100% false.

Sarah Hoyt guest blogging on Instapundit today, directs readers to a post on Ace of Spades shedding light on that patently false figure — it is part and parcel of the campaign to demoralize GOP voters since a low turnout is Obama’s only path to victory:

OPERATION DEMORALIZE CONTINUES: Pollsters: 1/5 of Ohio Vote Already In! Me: Bull by CAC over at Ace Of Spades Headquarters.

CAC’s bone of contention is this statistic is showing up in a PPP poll. For any new readers I don’t blog PPP polls because they are openly biased and not credible. Today’s takedown at Ace of Spades is only the latest instance:

[According to PPP's poll in Ohio] 19% of respondents have already voted and they are breaking 3-1 Obama. That seems to spell certain doom for Romney.

CAC then points out 3 red flags in PPP’s figure basically noting that in the most populous county that also leans heavily Democrat, the early vote total is under 5%.  This makes it mathematically implausible  Team Obama is over-performing elsewhere across the state enough to push the aggregate % to 19% or 20%. But that is just absentee ballots so CAC goes straight to the Secretary of State who only a few days ago released early in-person where we find that “59,353 Ohioans have already cast an absentee ballot in person.” Based on these figures CAC concludes the statistic is wrong and anyone using the stat “is either ignorant of the actual statistical numbers reported or they are deliberately pushing a very, very steamy pile.”

But instead of extrapolating from one county across the state, let’s do the math ourselves with actual figures since the press refuses to do their homework:0

For Ohio’s actual figures we’ll use the US Elections Project at George Mason University which is updated through today (October 14). Note: Ohio’s #s are kept up by our own blog-friend ningrim:

  • 256,915 absentee votes cast absentee thus far
  • 59,353 have cast in-person votes according to the Secretary of State
  • This totals 316,268 votes cast
  • The aggregate vote total for Ohio in 2008 was 5,721,374
  • 316, 268 divided by 5,721,374 equals 0.055 or 5.5%

Therefore the laws of mathematics say 5.5% of votes have been cast in Ohio  using early voting simply based on the 2008 turnout. The percentage goes lower if we assume a rejuvenated GOP or increased turnout from Team Obama micro-targeting.

This is far, far, far from the 19% or 20% figure being bandied about by PPP, NBC, the Wall Street Journal and LA Times among others.

We blogged about this “project demoralize” phenomenon before but it is clear the media lackeys for the Obama campaign will create and parrot any false story they can to improve Obama’s chances and keep Romney voters home.

By keithbacker | Posted in Ohio | Also tagged , | Comments (22)

Beware Crappy Battleground State Reporting in the Wall Street Journal

October 13, 2012 – 7:00 am

Neil King in the Wall Street Journal assesses the Battlegrounds following Mitt Romney’s post-debate surge.  But before we get to that let’s get the disclaimers about King out of the way first. He is the opposite of Jon Ralston below.  King is a lefty hack who does consistently partisan reporting in what are supposed to be news stories.  This one is no different. After President Obama threw up all over himself in the debate and is hemorrhaging support, King writes a piece on the state of the race and every section is a glass-half-empty scenario for Romney despite the overwhelming weight of evidence that Obama’s campaign is reeling in the polls, in the news cycle (Benghazi) and in fundraising (he spent 3 days fundraising in California rather than campaigning in mid-October — not good). As for positive mentions of Romney, no where is there a mention of the dramatic increases in voter registration in most every state relative to Obama’s overwhelming advantage in 2008.  I redacted as much of the tripe as I could leaving in some of the factual nuggets but it really is an embarrassingly partisan effort.  But that’s nothing new for Neil King, Democrat Advocate.

Now to the article: King sets up a dichotomy: Mitt Romney leads in the national polls — he is ahead or tied in 7 of the last 8 national polls according to Real Clear Politics.  But Team Obama argues they are leading in the important Battleground states which is how the race is ultimately won so they are in better shape than the national polls would indicate.  Let’s leave aside that state polls lag national polls, are polled less frequently and therefore fail to quickly capture meaningful changes in the electorate like the disaster that was the first Presidential debate.  No matter, Obama is leading in a majority of the Battlegrounds according to the Real Clear Politics averages (even if over 50% of those polls unrealistically over-sample Democrats) so at least at the moment they can make an argument that the electoral college favors them. King writes:

With the Republican challenger now surging to a slim lead in national polls, can the president’s lead in the swing states be sustained?

The Central Battlegrounds

[Among the Battlegrounds] Florida, Ohio and Virginia [have] the largest, second-largest and fourth-largest swing states by Electoral College clout. Yet, after months of heavy campaigning and a combined $250 million in TV advertising, plus millions from outside groups, neither candidate can claim a decisive hold on any of them.

FLORIDA & VIRGINIA: Mr. Romney has pulled abreast of his rival in Florida [ed. -- No mention that "abreast" doesn't mean "lead" and Romney leads by 2 in the RCP average] and Virginia since his strong performance in the first presidential debate. Most of his gains have come by eating into Mr. Obama’s margins in suburban neighborhoods and widening the Republican’s support among white voters and independents.

OHIO: For months, Ohio has presented the Romney campaign with its most stubborn challenge. Mr. Romney has lagged behind in Ohio by a wide margin until recently, when he has narrowed the gap with Mr. Obama in a running average of state polls. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Marist poll this week, though, found him behind by six percentage points. [ed. -- The Real Clear Politics average in Ohio is Obama +1.3 and that laughable NBC/WSJ poll cited is by far the greatest outlier]

Intensifying Battlegrounds

Colorado, Iowa and Nevada—are drawing attention in part because Mr. Romney would need to win these and others, should he lose Florida or Ohio. [ed. -- of course, not because Obama desperately needs them as well]

NEVADA: This week, the main super PAC backing Mr. Obama bought TV ad time in Nevada for the first time in the general election, a signal of the state’s status as an intensifying battleground. Housing and unemployment problems in Nevada have made many voters receptive to Mr. Romney’s message of charting a new course to economic growth. The Obama campaign is hoping to gain a boost from its strong ground operation and support from unions and Latino voters.

COLORADO: Colorado is a rare swing state in which Republican voters outnumber Democrats. But the GOP lead is slight. Mr. Romney has made late strides in the state, spending parts of eight days there since the political conventions.

IOWA: Mr. Obama has maintained a small lead in Iowa, a state where unemployment is well below the national average. “Iowa is a state that ought to be favorable toward Obama, because, if it’s all about jobs, we don’t have a problem with jobs,” said Steffen Schmidt, a political scientist at Iowa State University. [Note: this isn't true.  Iowa is deeply concerned about the national debt more than jobs which is why both campaign tailor messages on spending and national debt in the state...awesome reporting guys] At the same time, social issues are in the news there, with voters being asked whether to retain a state Supreme Court justice who voted to allow same-sex marriages. That fight could draw Republican-leaning voters to the polls. [ed. -- A rare positive anecdote for the GOP] In Iowa, the Obama campaign has made a strong push toward early voting, which began in late September. More than 101,000 Democrats have voted early, either by mail or in person, versus just more than 50,000 Republicans, as of Wednesday, according to data from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office. [ed. -- No mention that this is behind the rate of 2008 or that in 2010 Republicans dramatically closed similar gaps]

Wild Cards [ed.-- or dead heat races?]

Two wild cards: Wisconsin [RCP average Obama +2.3], which wasn’t seen as competitive before mid-September [ed. -- 100% false.  Even the Obama campaign listed this state as a battleground in June/July and when Ryan was put on the ticket in mid-August it was guaranteed to be in play], but where the race is close, and New Hampshire [RCP average Obama +0.7], Mr. Obama had built up a strong lead in New Hampshire before the Oct. 3 debate, and super PACs have pulled their ads from the state. Since then, Mr. Romney appears to have made up some ground, and the president plans to visit on Thursday.

By keithbacker | Posted in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin | Also tagged | Comments (2)

Can We Believe the Presidential Polls?

October 4, 2012 – 2:17 pm

Karl Rove knows a lot more about polls than just about anyone on the planet and he has a lucid column on the state of Presidential polling with some great references to 1980 and 2004. The truth of the matter is today’s contest is a close race with momentum waxing and waning between the two camps.  Right now Team Romney is riding high but expect the President to come back hard in the next debate.  No one gives up the crown without a fight and to expect anything less would be a great disservice to what will likely be a struggle to the last day. Also, based on Rove’s examples below he must read this blog ;)

First, the open embrace of pro-Democrat polls to help Jimmy Carter in 2980:

On Oct. 8, 1980, the New York Times released its poll on the presidential race in Texas, one of 10 battlegrounds. (Yes, the Lone Star State was then a battleground.) According to the Times, the contest was “a virtual dead heat,” with President Jimmy Carter ahead despite earlier surveys showing Ronald Reagan winning… Then came more hard punches. On Oct. 13, Gallup put the race nationally at Carter 44%, Reagan 40%. The bottom appeared to fall out two weeks later when a new national Gallup poll had Carter 47%, Reagan 39%. That produced more than a few empty chairs in phone banks across Texas. But most volunteers, grim and stoic, hung on, determined to stay until the bitter end. Only Election Day was not so bitter. Reagan carried all 10 of the Times’ battleground states and defeated Mr. Carter by nearly 10 points.

2012 polling

In the past 30 days, there were 91 national polls (including each Gallup and Rasmussen daily tracking survey). Mr. Obama was at or above the magic number of 50% in just 20. His average was 47.9%. Mr. Romney’s was 45.5%.

2004 polling (the last time an incumbent was running for re-election)

There were 40 national polls over the same period in 2004. President George W. Bush was 50% or higher in 18. His average was 49%; Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry was at 43.8%.

Media misrepresentations versus reality

An Oct. 4, 2004, story in the New York Times declared the Bush/Kerry race “a dead heat” and asked “whether Mr. Bush can regain the advantage.” Mr. Bush was hitting the vital 50% mark in almost half the polls (unlike Mr. Obama) and had a lead over Mr. Kerry twice as large as the one Mr. Obama now holds over Mr. Romney. So why was the 2004 race “a dead heat” while many commentators today say Mr. Obama is the clear favorite? The reality is that 2012 is a horse race and will remain so. An incumbent below 50% is in grave danger. On Election Day he’ll usually receive less than his final poll number. That’s because his detractors are more likely to turn out, and undecideds are more resistant to voting for him.

Unrealistic state polls

Then there is the tsunami of state-level polls. Last week, there were 46 polls in 22 states; the week before, 52 polls in 18 states; and the week before that, 41 polls in 20 states. They’re endowed by the media with a scientific precision they simply don’t have.

Take last week’s CBS/New York Times Florida survey, which had Mr. Obama leading Mr. Romney by nine points. The poll sampled more Democrats than Republicans—nine percentage points more. Yet the Democratic advantage in the 2008 presidential exit polls was three percentage points. Does it seem probable that Florida Democrats will turn out in higher numbers in 2012, especially when their registration edge over Republicans dropped by 22% in the past four years?

On Aug. 2, radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt asked Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University polling organization—which runs the CBS/NYT battleground state polls, including last week’s Florida poll—if he expected a Democratic advantage in the Sunshine State three times what it was last time. Mr. Brown responded that “I think it is probably unlikely,” but defended his polling organization’s record.

By keithbacker | Posted in Florida, General | Also tagged , , | Comments (10)

HAHAHAHAHA Washington Post Swing State Poll was 161 People

October 1, 2012 – 4:54 pm

I may just poll my comment section and pass that off as a Battleground State poll.  The Washington Post explained that rather curious “Swing State” subsection in today’s national poll where Obama had an incredible 11-point lead relative to his national lead of only 2-points:

The WaPo-ABC ‘swing state’ poll numbers, explained

Monday’s Washington Post-ABC News poll adds to the evidence of an emerging, important dynamic in the presidential contest showing closer parity nationally than in key battleground states, where President Obama has had clear leads.

The designated swing states were: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and Wisconsin

Pulling out respondents in these eight states — all of which Obama won in 2008 — from the new national poll, shows Obama at 52 percent and Romney at 41 among likely voters. We report these numbers to help connect the dots between the clear Obama leads in the collection of states and the continued closer parity nationally, not to suggest pinpoint precision on what’s happening now in any particular state.

Out of 929 registered voters in the new poll, 161 live in one of these eight states, with a margin of sampling error of eight points. The likely voter sample in these states is about nine points, making the 11-point gap an apparent edge. That margin is significant at the 80 percent confidence level, not a standard, conservative 95 percent threshold

This wholly unreliable subset is the basis for inclusion in an otherwise credible national survey. This has to be one of the more embarrassing media contortions by the media to put Obama in the most favorable light possible. Remember, they are not journalists who vote for Democrats. They are open advocates for one candidate.

By keithbacker | Posted in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin | Also tagged | Comments (17)

Hiding the Decline: What Polls Over-Sampling Democrats Mask

October 1, 2012 – 12:49 pm

The over-sampling of Democrats in today’s polls most likely hides a sharp decline in support for President Obama among White voters. If President Obama’s support level among White voters dips a single percent or two below 40, his road to re-election would be in jeopardy. The national polling results today showing President Obama with support levels among Whites between 40-44% likely over-sample support for President Obama by 4% to 8% among this demographic. Poll re-weighting by race achieves an accurate demographic make-up for the United States in 2012 but almost certainly a wholly unrealistic split between self-identified Democrats and Republicans. Because the accurate re-weighting of polls by race often achieves political splits that are not credible, polling organizations give rise to accusations of bias when in reality better selected sample inputs would most likely achieve more credible end results but also meaningfully worse results for the President.

Problems with polls

The majority of polling critiques this election cycle focus almost exclusively on the amount of Democrats versus Republicans surveyed with the observation invariably there are far too many Democrats in the sample. There is much in dispute around this complaint because most polling organizations do not weight polls by the party identification of respondents. Polling organizations argue the disproportionately high amount of Democrats sampled draws a sharp inference there are more Democrats in the overall electorate, not just in the sample size. While it is possible and even probable there are a few more self-identified Democrats in the American electorate (the average in elections since 1984 is 3% more Democrats), the great dispute is the unusually large disparity of Democrats showing up in today’s polls, often as much as 7 to 12% higher than Republicans among the respondents. There are many reasons to challenge this conclusion which I will discuss later, but if we assume these polls have too many Democrats, an interesting phenomenon appears among which Democrats are oversampled.

Most polling methodologies, including how polls are weighted once responses are collected, mirror the Gallup Organization who has been the standard bearer in the US for over 75 years. According to the organization, “After Gallup collects and processes survey data, each respondent is assigned a weight so that the demographic characteristics of the total weighted sample of respondents match the latest estimates of the demographic characteristics of the adult population available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Gallup weights data to census estimates for gender, race, age, educational attainment, and region.” Based on explanations like this there is little reason to suspect intentional political bias in the disparate party weighting, especially when they do not re-weight polls by party identification. Importantly, though, they do re-weight polls by race. This gives rise to some curious issues regarding support levels for the President today.

Racial demographics and voting preference in the US

In the 2008 election, the racial breakdown of the national voting public was 74% White, 12% Black, 9% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 3% Other. When a survey is conducted polling organization re-weight the respondent answers to ensure the each of these groups has accurate representation in the final results. Most national polls reflect this reality usually within a 1% variation for any group.

If you look how each one of these groups vote, you find outsized rates of support for Obama among the non-White groups: Blacks ~95%, Hispanics ~70, Asians ~65%. These levels of support for Democrats are consistent with most modern elections although President Obama has been able to boost these levels slightly above historic averages. In aggregate, non-White support for Obama is roughly 80% in nearly every survey. At the same time Obama, like Democrat Presidential candidates before him, struggles with the White vote. In these same polls, Obama typically averages 40-44% support among White voters. His 2008 support level was 43% and it is widely believed by the Obama campaign among others that he needs support of at least 40% Whites to win the election.

Low potential for over-sampling non-White support for Obama

If we consider the idea that polling today has large over-samples of Democrats, the consistently high percentage of support for Obama among non-Whites makes it almost impossible to over-sample minority groups. First there is not a lot of room for support increases and second, data on the voting trends in non-White groups is often achieved through demographic specific polling of solely Blacks or Hispanics for example. Hence, any over-samples in the non-White demographic would meaningfully alter the already high levels of support for Obama and reveal itself as inconsistent with independent polling. Additionally, any over-samples in the non-White demographic would almost certainly change the racial make-up of the survey and set off red-flags to anyone scrutinizing polls. Therefore it is highly unlikely over-sampled Democrat polls contain an excess amount of non-White voters.

White Democrats

This leaves only White Democrats as the over-represented respondent in these polls that arguably over-sample Democrats. If the average in election turnout since 1984 is 3% more Democrats and these polls have 7 to 11% more Democrats, that means the polls specifically have 4 to 8% more White Democrats surveyed in their likely voter results. The problem for the Obama campaign is if his support level among White voters (74% of the voting public) is between 40%-44% and that support is based on a sampling that over-states his support 4 to 8%, his real level of support is probably closer to 36% or 37%. This is meaningfully below the campaign’s own magic level of 40% and is a huge danger zone for any Presidential candidate no matter how much anyone may spin the demographic changes in today’s America.

Hiding the decline

The issue with the suspect polling internals and media embrace of the figures is the consistent lead for Obama would be immediately challenged if his support levels dropped dramatically among the outlined racial groups. Support levels of 60% among Hispanics (9% of the voting public) or 80% among Blacks (12% of the public) would jump off the page to poll watchers. The same holds true for support levels of 36/37% among Whites (74% of the voting public). It would be near impossible for Obama to win the Presidency with support levels like the ones I just outlined. Unfortunately support for President Obama among White voters has declined from 43% in 2008 to apparently as low as 36%-37% in today’s polls absent unrealistically high levels of self-identified Democrats. With White voters making up 73-74% of the electorate and support levels in the upper 30s, it is inconceivable President Obama has the advantage these polls lead readers to believe. But the results largely go unchallenged in the media despite the impractical internal party identification make-up.

Polling bias and Party identification

When we reflect on accusations of bias in polling based on party identification, it seems hard to justify when most organizations do not adjust their polls based on this metric. These organizations do, however, run the risk of confirmation bias where the media and polling firms have a predilection towards one candidate and upon achieving results they agree with fail to challenge outlier data like unrealistic Democrat turnout levels in 2012. Inconvenient poll compositions like the fantastical party identification of respondents shake the credibility of desired outcomes but no explanation is given for such oddities. This leaves more fair-minded poll watchers uneasy with the factual reporting on data with obvious internal issues while partisans react more strongly with bias accusations not substantiated based on the available data. The over-sampling of Democrats may not be showing the bias of polling organizations but it is likely hiding the decline of dwindling White support for Obama.

This only raises the question of where the polling firms are getting their samples from — possibly heavy Democrat districts — because the end results are party identification breakdowns unrealistic in today’s electorate. In 2008 seven percent more Democrats than Republicans identified themselves as such on election day, well above the historic average of 3%. This was a big change from 2004 when party identification was evenly split between the Democrats and Republicans. But there were many reasons for the strong Democrat turnout that do not exist today. The top of the ticket was a historic candidate (first Black President), America had war and Bush fatigue, the financial meltdown created an anti-Republican wave, and his opponent wasn’t the strongest (good biography, bad and underfunded candidate). These factors led to a strong Democrat self-identification advantage at the voting booth in 2008. But in the 2012 election, none of the advantages outlined above are there for Obama and many of those factors are now largely working against the President: 8%+ unemployment for three years, sub-2% GDP, 23 million unemployed, Arab Spring blowing up and casting the historic vote in 2008 is yesterday’s news. Additionally the Romney campaign ground game has exceeded the McCain campaign across many metrics as much as 10- to 15-fold.

Despite the stark changes in each of these factors, polling outfits thus far have consistently sampled an election turnout often greater than candidate Obama’s 2008 best-in-a-generation advantage.

That means something else is going on. But the polling organizations shrug their shoulders and have been found to say the losers in the results are just crying sour grapes. This is even though their sample outcomes have party identification splits unrealistic beyond any stretch of reason. Sadly no credible defense is given for the unusual party split in these results which gives rise to charges of bias whether intentional or accidental. If the polling firms believe today’s electorate will exceed the incredible 2008 advantage Obama achieved they should make the argument to justify results that contain suspect internal data. But they would also have to explain why the 2008 election gave Democrats massive majorities in the House of Representatives yet today’s electorate will likely return massive majorities in the House to Republicans. It defies all logic. But very likely due to “confirmation bias” the media and polling organizations report favorable results for President Obama without challenge.

There are many explanations for odd internal data in polls as well as the built in accuracy issues that come with the very nature of polling. As Michael Barone writes, “it’s getting much harder for pollsters to get people to respond to interviews. The Pew Research Center reports that it’s getting only 9 percent of the people it contacts to respond to its questions. That’s compared with 36 percent in 1997.” But consistently unrealistic sample outputs give rise to greater scrutiny from the polling outfits and media organizations who report the results uncritically for whatever their reasons may be.

By keithbacker | Posted in Columns, General | Also tagged , , , , , , , | Comments (33)

More Proof: MSNBC Caught Doctoring Clip From Romney/Ryan Rally

September 28, 2012 – 3:06 pm

The first reports I read on this were that Romney was graciously adding Ryan name into the chant of his name.  Later the below video surfaced alleging that the crowd was chanting Ryan and Romney was desperately trying to get the crowd to change their chant to insert his name.  God bless the Internet because I found where I read it first:

Ginger Gibson, originator of the tweet, is National political reporter at POLITICO covering the 2012 election on the trail with Mitt Romney.
Felicia Sonmez, who re-tweeted it, is Political reporter for The Washington Post.

Update: Adding to the list of reporters confirming the chant was “Romney, Romney, Romney” is Kasie Hunt of the Associated Press:

Mckay Coppins picks up on the controversy and writes the following:

BuzzFeed was present at the event, and took note that the crowd was actually chanting Romney’s name, before he encouraged them to add his running mate to the chant.

Coppins also identifies the New York Times write-up of the event confirming the above events and not the doctored video version:

After Mr. Ryan whooped up the crowd in Vandalia on Tuesday, Mr. Romney moved to the front of the stage. As the crowd began chanting “Romney! Romney!” he cut them off.“Wait a second,” Mr. Romney said, instructing the audience to cheer for “Romney-Ryan! Romney-Ryan!” They did.

Here is the doctored video, MSNBC giving it full airing complete with Fredo Scarborough in full defeatist crouch:

Remember the talking heads on TV are not independent people who vote Democrat, they are open advocates for one candidate.

By keithbacker | Posted in General, Ohio | Also tagged , | Comments (13)

Two Quick Points on the Debates and Impact on Election Outcomes

September 28, 2012 – 1:35 pm

I’ve seen a meme floating around today about how debates don’t change the fundamental trajectory of elections.  The invaluable Adrian Gray tweeted out two points that blows that false notion out of the water:

  • At the first debate 12 years ago, Bush was at 39% (down by 8%). Media quickly called it a win for Gore. Voters disagreed. #Election2012
  • In 2004, Bush had 11% lead going into debates. A week later, Bush led by 2%. Don’t tell me debates don’t matter. #Election2012

Do not buy the spin.  Remember the media already has Obama winning an election that is 40 days away.  The only thing else they could report on are things that would change a result they want.  Keep fighting.

Addendum: Some people are saying the Bush 2004 lead heading into the debate was only 6% but that doesn’t change the thrust of the argument

By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged , | Comments (9)

Why Ed Gillespie is a Smart Dude

September 26, 2012 – 12:18 pm

Gillespie is a senior adviser to Mitt Romney and was one of the campaign chairmen on Bush-Cheney 2004. I hear friends complain why isn’t the Romney campaign attacking the biased coverage in the media and we find out they have a rule in the Romney campaign: “no whining” about the media coverage. This is smart because that should be left to people like me and others who switch the channel and cancel subscriptions. Also, complaining about the media takes you off your message to the people and is a sure sign you’re losing. Smart stuff out of Gillespie:

The Mitt Romney campaign has a “no whining rule” about media coverage, senior adviser Ed Gillespie said Wednesday. “Fox & Friends” co-host Steve Doocy asked Gillespie whether he believes the media will convince Republicans that there is no point in voting this November because of recent polling that shows Romney down in a number of key swing states.

“Ed, do you buy into this theory, and there are some people on the right who say, look, mainstream media is going to talk down Romney’s chances of winning. They’re going to show Mr. Obama way up in the polls just to tamp down enthusiasm so Republicans go, ‘You know, why even bother voting because it’s a foregone conclusion the guy’s going to get four more years?’” Doocy said.

“Well,” Gillespie replied, “we have a no whining rule in Boston about coverage in the media. We just deal with the facts.” The choice between Obama and Romney’s respective paths will prove more important than the media’s role in the race, Gillespie said. “We think that big choice will overcome all of this horse race political analysis you see in the media on a day-to-day basis,” he said.

By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged | Comments (5)

Playing the Polling Game — Must Read

September 25, 2012 – 2:45 pm

From the inception of this blog I have argued wherever I see applicable that the polls misrepresent the voting sentiment, they  often do so purposefully, and this is nothing new.  The other day I contrasted today’s polling with Bush in September 2000 since that election everyone remembers as basically ending in a tie. But the Romney campaign has repeatedly said they expect the race to break like 1980s where the polls showed the race to be close up until the final weekend.  For those of us too young to break down polling in 1980, a sneaking suspicion was the race was never really tied but wholly biased polling made the conventional wisdom believe that it was close.  Thankfully Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator does a tremendous job breaking down the “polling game” of 1980 showing how partisan media outlets like the New York Times misrepresents the race to favor a failing Democrat Jimmy Carter. Read the whole thing for the write-up excepts with each story.  I focused on the polling but the actual write-ups are staggeringly awful.

First he sets up the story with a tale of media polling bias openly articulated by the Washington Post on behalf of the 4-years-later Presidential bid of Walter Mondale in 1984 :

In a series of nine stories in 1980 on “Crucial States” — battleground states as they are known today — the New York Times repeatedly told readers then-President Carter was in a close and decidedly winnable race with the former California governor. And used polling data from the New York Times/CBS polls to back up its stories. Four years later, it was the Washington Post that played the polling game — and when called out by Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins a famous Post executive called his paper’s polling an “in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign.” Mondale, of course, being then-President Reagan’s 1984 opponent and Carter’s vice president. All of which will doubtless serve as a reminder of just how blatantly polling data is manipulated by liberal media — used essentially as a political weapon to support the liberal of the moment, whether Jimmy Carter in 1980, Walter Mondale in 1984 — or Barack Obama in 2012.

The Battleground States of 1980

The states involved, and the datelines for the stories:

  • · California — October 6, 1980 [Reagan won by 18%]
  • · Texas — October 8, 1980
  • · Pennsylvania – October 10, 1980
  • · Illinois — October 13, 1980
  • · Ohio — October 15, 1980
  • · New Jersey — October 16, 1980 [Reagan won by 13%]
  • · Florida – October 19, 1980
  • · New York – October 21, 1980
  • · Michigan — October 23, 1980

Of these nine only one was depicted as “likely” for Reagan: Reagan’s own California. A second — New Jersey — was presented as a state that “appears to support” Reagan. The Times led their readers to believe that each of the remaining seven states were “close” — or the Times had Carter leading outright.

Texas [Reagan won by 14%]

In a story datelined October 8 from Houston, the Times headlined:Texas Looming as a Close Battle Between President and Reagan

  • A survey of 1,050 registered voters, weighted to form a probable electorate, gave Mr. Carter 40 percent support, Mr. Reagan 39 percent, John. B. Anderson, the independent candidate, 3 percent, and 18 percent were undecided. The survey, conducted by telephone from Oct. 1 to Oct. 6, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Pennsylvania [Reagan won by 7%]

Headline (Oct 10): Undecided Voters May Prove Key

  • Reagan, said the Times, “appears to have failed thus far to establish many positive reasons for voting for him.” Once again the paper played the polling data card, this time saying Reagan had a mere 2 point lead.

Illinois [Reagan won by 8%]

Headline (Oct 13): Poll Finds Illinois Too Close to Call: Both Camps Note Gains by Carter

  • New York Times/CBS polling data that proclaimed a Reagan one-point lead of 34% to Carter’s 33% as a sure sign that “Carter Gains and Reagan Slips in Close Illinois Race” — as an inside page headline proclaimed.

Ohio [Reagan won by 11%]

Headline (Oct 15): Ohio Race Expected to Be Close As Labor Mobilizes for President

  • New York Times/CBS polling data. Reagan was ahead by a bare 2 points, 36% to 34%. Two-thirds of the undecided were women and Reagan was doing “much worse among women voters than men.” Carter on the other hand had the great news that “35 percent of the undecided came from labor union households, a group that divides nearly 2-1 for Mr. Carter among those who have made up their minds.”

Florida [Reagan won by 17%]

Headline (Oct 19): Carter Is in Trouble With Voters In Two Major Sections of Florida

  • what was published was “the most recent Florida Newspapers Poll” that showed Reagan with only a 2 point lead over Carter: 42 for Reagan, 40 for Carter, with 7 for Anderson. The election, said the Times confidently, “was widely expected to be close.”

New York [Reagan won by 3%]

Headline (Oct 21): President is in the Lead, Especially in the City — Anderson Slide Noted

  • New York Times/CBS Poll: “showed Mr. Carter leading in the state with 38%, to 29% for Mr. Reagan….”

Michigan [Reagan won by 6%]

Headline (Oct 23): Party Defections May Tip Scales in Michigan Vote

  • No poll but: That same day, October 23, the paper ran a second polling story on the general status of the presidential election: In an election campaign reminiscent of the tight, seesaw contest of 1960, President Carter has pulled to an essentially even position with Ronald Reagan over the last month

Election Eve [Reagan won by 11%]

On November 4 — the day before the election — the Times proclaimed… proclaimed…

Headline (Nov 4): Race is Viewed as Very Close

Could you imagine in your wildest dreams any paper writing that election eve headline for McCain?  And he only lost by 7%

By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged | Comments (8)

Few Journalists Left in Washington: John Dickerson and Jake Tapper

September 24, 2012 – 5:08 pm

During the media frenzy over Mitt Romney’s comments on the Embassy attacks (and not the actual attacks themselves) I blogged “What if Mitt Romney had waited?” and cited John Dickerson, CBS News political director, and ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper as two of the few shining lights in an otherwise bastion of horrifically partisan media openly advocating for Obama’s re-election.  Friend and foe alike questioned how I could even make a concession that any of the Washington media are decent.

Since that time Jake tapper quickly took the Obama Administration to task for lying during the Univision appearance regarding the start of the Fast & Furious gun-running to Mexico operation:

Asked about the Fast and Furious program at the Univision forum on Thursday, President Obama falsely claimed that the program began under President George W. Bush. “I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration,” the president said. “When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it. We assigned a inspector general to do a thorough report that was just issued, confirming that in fact Eric Holder did not know about this, that he took prompt action and the people who did initiate this were held accountable.”

In actuality, the Fast and Furious program was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency.

Now we have Dickerson telling the truth about the partisan media refusing to report the news that the Obama Administration bungled the Benghazi security and intelligence and then repeatedly lied about the direct terrorism connection to cover for their failures.  Stephen Hayes smartly laid out the Administration pattern of falsely denying terrorist attacks on Americans and Dickerson openly concedes the news media refuses to do their job under the implicit guise that it will hurt Obama’s re-election (video at the link):

JOHN DICKERSON: Governor Romney jumped in the middle of the violence in the Middle East and he broke a little bit of a tradition by inserting himself. They he disappeared on the issue. We’ve since learned that this administration first thought this uprising in Libya was just a kind of– something that bubbled up from the ground. Well, now they are calling it a terrorist attack. What went wrong there? What did you get wrong in the first place? Why weren’t you securing the embassy the way you should have been? These are points that a Republican could make that Mitt Romney need to make because he knows the press isn’t necessarily going to make that case for him. He can’t make it because he was the one who jumped in and said hey this is a very serious issue. But instead he hasn’t really come back to it.

The Right will never get a fair deal from the media but all we ask is for a fair hearing.  Journalists like Tapper and Dickerson do their job well unlike 99% of their peers.

By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged , , , | Comments (3)

Romney to “come down hard” on Obama in Debates

September 24, 2012 – 12:57 am

For those looking for a little more moxie from Mitt Romney, more than a little be be in the works. The debates will be a major turning point in the election where the country genuinely tunes in and performance matters greatly (can anyone ever forget Al Gore’ “sighs”?). Despite the relentless Obama fandom proclaiming him the greatest of everything in the history of everything, his arrogance often gets the best of him when someone directly challenges him. It looks like Mitt Romney is going to bring the fight to Mr. ‘people faint at my rallies all the time’:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told Iowans in a telephone conference call tonight that he’ll have to “come down hard” on President Obama in the upcoming debates about claims in campaign advertising. Romney’s campaign conducted the call-in “town hall,” which lasted just over 20 minutes. Romney fielded questions about tax policy, Medicare and foreign policy.

One questioner, who gave his name as “Stan from Sioux City,” complained about negative ads he’s seen. “One that particularly bothers me concerning you is, the opposition keeps saying you’re going to provide tax cuts for the millionaires but you’re going to cut off the Medicare and insurance costs and so forth for seniors to the point that it’s going to cost us a lot of money,” Stan said. “How can they run ads like that and what’s your response?”

“So I appreciate, Stan, your making me aware of those ads. I know our team, our campaign team sees what he has out there but we may need to go out there and refute what he is saying,” Romney said, referring to President Obama. “Of course, I get the chance in the debate to do that as well.  He’ll probably reiterate some of those arguments and those statements and I’ll just have to come down hard and say, ‘Mr. President, you know that’s not true.’ And you hope to see something better than that from the person who’s serving as president of the United States,…” Romney said.

Romney also addressed the charges directly, saying he won’t raise taxes for the wealthy and that he’ll lower them for the middle class: “You know, it seems like truth has been a victim of some of the Obama campaign advertising and I find it very, very discouraging to hear stories like that. And it really is dragging down the White House, in my opinion, to say things that are untrue like that.  My tax policy is straightforward.  I will not lower taxes for high-income Americans. The top one percent will keep paying the same share that they pay today. We’ll make sure also that middle-income Americans don’t pay more taxes. In fact, my plan cuts taxes for middle-income taxpayers,” he said. “And then secondly, I have no cut whatsoever in funding or changes in programs for either Social Security or Medicare. In fact, the only person who is cutting Medicare is President Obama. He’s cutting it by $716 billion. And this is something that I would change, that I would restore the funding to Medicare,” Romney said.

The rest of the column is liberal tripe misrepresenting any question and answer in the least favorable light possible for Romney, but the real insight was the beginning.  Hopefully Romney really gets after Obama because unless Romney forcefully gets the truth out there, the partisan media will continue to repeat whatever lies Team Obama spreads.

By keithbacker | Posted in Iowa | Also tagged , | Comments (0)

How Big Was Obama’s Crowd in Wisconsin? MSM says 18,000, actual was 5,000 (photos and analysis)

September 23, 2012 – 12:41 am

UPDATE: Brilliant work in the wee hours of the night by our commenter cliftonchr.

Partisan hacks in the national media openly advocating for Obama say 18,000 attended President Obama’s rally today in Wisconsin with no evidence whatsoever.  Local press who are pleased to see the President but who also do their job and report on the actual event say 5,000. Thankfully we have battlegroundwatch.com commenter “cliftonchr” breaking down the conundrum.

After fishing around the internet cliftonchr dug up first a crowd shot (from the Democrat Underground) of Obama’s actually rally at the BMO Theater whose maximum attendance is 5000. And although there are reports of some empty seats in the nether regions (no overflow crowds like the Romney rallies in Cincinnati) we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt about rounding up to 5000. No problem there.

But compare that with the second photo which is a generic crowd shot of the Marcus Amphitheater next door which holds 23,000 even though the national media reports 18,000 (acknowledging the empty seats in the back?). These are two dramatically different crowd sizes yet the national media does not report of the factual crowd size and fabricates an enormous number which never occurred.

What Barack Obama’s crowd actually looked like What 18,000 people looks like

So Barack Obama who did fill the 23,000 seat amphitheater in 2008 (September 1, 2008 to be exact) before achieving his Democrat advantage in the state of D +6 at the voting booth could not even fill the 5,000 seat theater next door for his first visit to the state in 220 days during peak election fervor yet the media are polling this state as if he will achieve an even bigger turnout advantage in November? They’re not journalists, they’re partisan advocates.

Here were cliftonchr’s original links:

So recently I’ve started looking for pics and attendance stats for both sides at rallys, I think this is your real indicator for enthusiasm. Since Obama was having one in Milwaukee at the Summerfest festival grounds (Hank Aaron presenting him) and hadn’t been there in 220 days, I thought I’d watch for stories and pics on it. You would think it would be a big draw (Milwaukee pop is 600k), he won the state by 14 in 08′, Dem enthusiasm is supposed to be way up according to recent polls and he hasn’t visited in 2/3 of a year.

First couple articles I’ve seen said he had a crowd of 18,000 (I almost spit out my drink) and one said thousands, but I didn’t see any pics and thought man 18,000 people, pics would be popping up everywhere. Wow that would be pretty impressive.

[quote]Obama, speaking to an energized throng of 18,000 people in an at-times-rainy outdoor amphitheater[/quote] wow, the ampitheater capacity is 23k by the way. No pics to suggest this is true.
Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/09/22/4210936/obama-argues-against-romneys-top.html#storylink=cpy

[quote]As he addressed the crowd estimated at 18,000 people at the Henry Maier Festival Park, the rain came down and the wind picked up.[/quote]
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/22/obama-makes-pitch-to-wisconsin-in-the-rain/ again no pics suggesting this

[quote]There were no drums or guitars on the main stage, but the thousands of Democrats who packed the Summerfest music festival grounds Saturday greeted President Barack Obama like a rock star.[/quote] Now it’s a 73 acre complex so they didn’t pack it, lol
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20120922/GPG0101/309220394/Obama-draws-cheers-Milwaukee-campaign-stop

http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20120922/APC010402/309220419/Obama-cheered-during-rally-Summerfest-grounds-story-photos-?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp Some of the pics in the gallery of this link aren’t even at that rally although the captions say they are.

Turns out he was actually at the Harris BMO pavillion at the Summerfest music festival grounds, which holds 5,000, it did rain at one point halfway through the speech but it’s covered so no one got wet unless they stepped out in it.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/obama-to-speak-at-bmo-harris-pavilion-on-summerfest-grounds-mq6u1rp-170344706.html

This video has a part that looks like they took it right before it started and there were empty seats, there are 2500 seats and 2500 can fit on benches, it hardly looked overflowing, so i bet thousands is correct and give him the benefit of the doubt and say 5000
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/170816806.html

This video draws back and it doesn’t even look like a very big crowd
http://www.northlandsnewscenter.com/news/local/President-Obama-Criticizes-Romneys-Tax-Cut-Plan-in-Milwaukee-170855991.html

[quote]Obama energized his supporters who filled the 5,000-seat BMO Harris Pavilion, along with thousands more who sat in bleachers and stood on the pavement beyond the protection of the roof, even as wind and rain lashed down in the latter moments of the near 30-minute speech.[/quote] strangely absent pics to back up the overflowing crowd…..
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/obama-fires-up-supporters-raises-money-here-qn6uq79-170861621.html

I looked at numerous articles and was really looking for pics to back up the size of the crowd, I posted the ones I found that made the crowd look the biggest, can’t really tell if there is 5000 or not, either way D+6 (2008 turnout) would have packed that ampitheater at 23k. Unless big crowds start showing up I do not think there will be a D+anything turnout, right now there isn’t.

It also seemed like the local media articles didn’t stray from thousands or 5000, but some of the national articles said 18,000.

Here’s a link to a pic of the pavillion with a great angle so you can see how big it really is, most of the press pics (in the articles) I saw are tight angles and you can’t see how big the crowd is. I think the place was probably only half full or they would have used an angle like this. http://www.flickr.com/photos/wrokic/7460411590/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Note: I changed the title and moved the lead sentence since multiple people got confused until they got deeper into the story.

By keithbacker | Posted in Wisconsin | Also tagged | Comments (32)

If You Question Whether Polls are Biased, Read This Immediately

September 21, 2012 – 1:23 pm

Jim Geraghty, who is one of the people who inspired me to do this type of blog, has an interview with Republican pollster John McLaughlin (not the TV show host) discussing exactly what I have been talking about in these biased, state-bought, partisan campaign driven polling.  It’s so good I’m excerpting the entire piece:

How he’s defining likely voters right now: “For the most part we’re polling likely voters. It’s a loose screen. We keep people who say they’re only somewhat likely to vote. But the vast majority say that they are definitely or very likely to vote. They’re voting.”

How campaigns try to sway polling results: “In a close race, the operatives are trying to manipulate the turnout through their paid and earned media. The earned media includes lobbying and trying to skew the public polls. Historically the most egregious case was the 2000 Gore campaign’s lobbying the networks’ exit pollsters for an early, and wrong, call in Florida. This suppressed the Florida Panhandle and Western state turnout.” (Polls close at different times in different parts of the state, because the state stretches into two time zones.) “In our post-election Florida poll, we found that thousands of Panhandle Floridians heard the call and although their polls were still open for an hour in a close national race decided not to vote. Panhandle voters went two-to-one for Bush. The CBS early wrong call nearly triggered a national crisis.”

On what a realistic partisan breakdown would look like: “The 2004 national exit polls showed an even partisan turnout and Bush won 51–48. Had it been the +4 Democratic edge of 2000, John Kerry would have been president. 2008 was a Democratic wave that gave them a +7 partisan advantage. 2010 was a Republican edge. There’s no wave right now. There are about a dozen swing states where in total millions of voters who voted in 2008 for Obama are gone or have not voted since. There are also hundreds of thousands of voters in each of several swing states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, and others who voted from rural, exurban or suburban areas in 2004 for Bush who did not vote in 2008, because they were not excited by McCain or thought he would lose. They are currently planning to vote mainly as a vote against President Obama.”

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. Then there’s the debate between calling off a random-digit dial of phone exchanges vs. a known sample of actual registered voters. Most polls favoring Obama are random and not off the actual voter list. That’s too expensive” for some pollsters.

By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged , | Comments (3)

Why You Should Ignore Every One of Those Biased Polls

September 20, 2012 – 9:31 pm

In case you can’t tell from my dripping sarcasm, I’m genuinely beginning to enjoy the absurd severity of bias in the state-run media polls.  But based on your comments and emails, not everyone shares my dark humor watching media outlet after media outlet shill for a failing President of their dreams.  But to quell your fears that this anonymous blogger from the bowels of liberal central (Manhattan) who has to walk through Occupy Wall Street protestors whenever they actually congregate (especially on weekends) isn’t just a Team Obama mole misleading you about these awful polls so you will remain complacent that Romney is on the right path, I decided to jump in the “way back machine” and take a few moments out of my life to google Battleground State polls from September 2000 (not as easy to find as you’d think).  And looky-looky what I saw:

Here’s the epic lead-in paragraph for awful polling giving Democrats false sense of inevitability  (you can practically substitute in Romney for Bush and Obama for Gore):

Since Labor Day, the media have released about 20 polls [sadly the link no longer works] on the presidential race. Three show a dead heat, one shows George W. Bush leading by a single percentage point, and the rest show Al Gore leading by one to 10 points. In the latest polls, Gore leads by an average of five points. It’s fashionable at this stage to caution that “anything can happen,” that Bush is “retooling,” and that the numbers can turn in Bush’s favor just as easily as they turned against him. But they can’t. The numbers are moving toward Gore because fundamental dynamics tilt the election in his favor. The only question has been how far those dynamics would carry him. Now that he has passed Bush, the race is over.

But let’s look at the Battleground State polling, that’s what this blog cares about.   In these state results remember Bush lost a few % in the final days over the DUI arrest that was unsealed making these polls even worse versus the final outcome. If you click on the links, note much of the journalism. They called the single-digit leads “deadlocked” and “virtual ties” because they are within the margin of error. Now the Obama re-election team masquerading as journalists refer to the same leads as much more reflective of the eventual outcome which we all know will be an Obama victory.

Battleground States:

  • Florida (Sep 7): Al Gore +3, CNN/USA Today/Gallup Tracking Poll (Bush won)
  • Florida (Sep 14): Al Gore +4, Sun Sentinel poll (Bush won)
  • Pennsylvania (Sep 17): Al Gore +18 EPIC/MRA poll (Gore won 4)
  • Minnesota (Sep 29): Al Gore +7 Minnesota Public Radio poll (Gore won by 2)
  • Michigan (Sep 17): Al Gore +8 EPIC/MRA poll (Gore won by 5)
  • Sadly I can’t find any polls from Sep 2000 in Tennessee except this one from October saying Gore was in the lead but Bush is now in front.  Same point, but not as effective since this was Gore’s home state so of course Gore was going to win it…

National Polls:

** Remember in the national vote, Gore actually got 0.5% more votes

Thankfully all of these polls were not just wrong, but very wrong.  The media does this every time but memories are short and before blogging, they really were the only source for information.  Today, we have all sorts of resources and outlets to debunk their tried and true methods to persuade low information voters or dissuade soft support for Republicans who are easily discouraged.  The bottom line is, sift through the noise, keep your friends on track and off the ledge and make certain every Battleground State friend you know votes Romney.  If for no other reason just so we can all have a  good laugh at the media and Obamabots’ expense.

By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged , | Comments (5)

NBC/WSJ/Marist Question Why Romney is Even Still Bothering to Campaign

September 20, 2012 – 7:12 pm

Last week I said the race was over because NBC/WSJ/Marist polled the DNC and that’s what they told me. Now I think Mitt Romney needs to drop out.  His arrogance and relentless gaffes are bringing down the national economy and if we could just let President Obama get back to work, we’d all have jobs forever, pay raises to make Chicago teachers blush, and Islamsists wouldn’t hate us so much (do you think they’re protesting Romney challenging Obama?  Could be).

We’ll break down the party IDs first since that is where most of the noise comes from.

Colorado: Obama leads by 5 (50 to 45) with 4 Undecided

  • Party ID: D +2 (Dem 34, Rep: 32, Ind: 32) versus 2008 R +1 (Dem 30, Rep: 31, Ind: 39) and R +9 (Dem: 29, Rep: 38, Ind: 33) in 2004
  • After the peak of hopey-changey in 2008, Obama is going to stretch his turnout margin another 3 percentage points?  Not happening
  • Too many Democrats, too few Independents — can’t see how Inds voted but it is pro-Romney based soley on the top-line Obama lead (I wrote that too quickly, Inds should be close and probably slightly for Obama).
  • Also 3% drop in White demographic. Fairly aggressive for Colorado when Hispanics are only up 1% in the survey and African-Americans are down 1%

Wisconsin: Obama leads by 5 (50 to 45) with 4 Undecided

  • Party ID: D +5 (Dem 33, Rep 28, Ind 38) versus 2008 D +6 (Dem 39, Rep 33, Ind 29) and R +3 (Dem 35, Rep 38, Ind 27) in 2004
  • Nearly full hopey-changey in a state going through a full political transformation over the last two years and a popular native son on the opposition ticket in a swing district? Hmmm
  • Too few Republicans and too many Independents.  Can’t wait to see how they voted
  • Race demographics are clean

Iowa: Obama leads by 8 (50 to 42) with 7 Undecided

  • Party ID: D +5 (Dem 36, Rep 31, Ind 33) versus D +1 (Dem 34, Rep 33, Ind 33) in 2008 and R +2 (Dem 34, Rep 36, Ind 30) in 2004
  • In the state with probably the least movement this year, a large evangelical base and massively increased Rep voter registration Team Obama will have a FAR superior turnout than 2008?  Keep dreaming
  • Too many Dems and too few Reps
  • Race demographics are mostly clean with a shade high on the white vote but in Iowa that doesn’t have the same impact  (state is 90%+ white) as elsewhere in the country

More to come when I get Independents.

By keithbacker | Posted in Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin | Also tagged , , , | Comments (5)

What’s Bigger News: Michigan is in Play or Robert Gibbs Says National Polls are Wrong?

September 20, 2012 – 11:23 am

Yesterday Karl Rove and Robert Gibbs sat down at a political forum in Lansing, Michigan and revealed a great many political insights.  They disagreed on plenty but it was interesting to see first, Karl Rove forcefully argue Michigan is either in  play or will be on election day. But maybe more telling was  Robert Gibbs, rather than latch onto these unrealistic national polls showing Obama with huge leads, conceded the race will go down to the wire.  Here’s the write-up:

Two of the country’s foremost political strategists predict the presidential race will be extremely tight but veer apart on whether Michigan’s in play for Republican Mitt Romney.

Wait a second.  That throwaway open completely contradicts the wave of national polls saying Barack Obama is a shoe-in this November.  What does Robert Gibbs know that our state-run media isn’t telling us?

Robert Gibbs, a senior campaign adviser for President Barack Obama, said Wednesday night that the fight is being waged in eight or nine states. “You [Michigan] currently are not one of them,” he told the crowd at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce’s annual legislative reception and dinner, reasoning that the state has not been inundated with presidential TV ads.

Not so fast  Mr. Gibbs

That drew a response from his on-stage partner Karl Rove, the GOP strategist and former adviser to President George W. Bush who is behind two conservative political organizations spending big money against Obama this election cycle. He pointed out that Restore Our Future, a different pro-Romney group, is again running a TV ad in the state. Neither campaign has paid for airtime here since the February presidential primary, though. “Michigan is going to be in play,” Rove said. “You go tell (state GOP Chairman Bobby Schostak) it’s not in play. That guy’s raising a bundle of money for 23 Victory Centers. We’re already on pace to exceed the number of phone calls and the number of doors knocked and the number of contacts that we made in the state in 2004.” He said Gibbs and Democrats want Michigan voters to have the mentality that the race is over.

Burying the lede

Regardless of what happens in Michigan, both strategists anticipate a tight race nationally. “This is going to be an extraordinarily close election. It was always going to be an extraordinarily close election,” Gibbs said, noting that Obama only won 53 percent of the vote in what pundits called a “landslide” election.

So Gibbs admits both a) those national polls are wholly inaccurate and untrue to the state of the race and b) the media will exaggerate anything positive for Obama to absurd levels.  Thanks for the moment of candor

The 47% comment

Rove acknowledged Romney will “roll in the tank” for a week because of the comments but argued that Obama had made controversial statements, too. The economy and the candidates’ economic plans will have more sway for voters than remarks made at a fundraiser, he said, discounting the notion that they will cost Romney the presidency…Gibbs said the comments were not fatal to Romney’s chances.

So that secret tape about the 47% wasn’t fatal?  The media lied to me?  I’m shocked… shocked to find out the media isn’t telling the truth.

By keithbacker | Posted in Michigan | Also tagged , | Comments (0)

Obama In 1998: “I Actually Believe In Redistribution”

September 18, 2012 – 5:21 pm

Funny that he said the same thing again in a moment of candor in 2008 and it was only right-wing meanies who thought this was a window into who is the real Obama while today the media is jumping on the Romney video whole-hog as the calamity to end all campaign calamities:

By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged , | Comments (0)

State-Run Media Find Obama +8 in Virginia — Washington Post

September 18, 2012 – 4:10 pm

Remember when many of us marveled at how much money Team Obama was spending on polling in the summer.  Those excessive costs seemed wasteful and not very productive during Spring and Summer months when persuadable voters are not tuning in to politics.  We’ll I’m beginning to get an inkling where all that money went.  Just like Mark Halperin publicly admitted the media will do just about whatever the Obama campaign wants, all that money Team Obama showered the media and polling firms is coming back 10-fold with ridiculously biased polls.

Is this a quid-pro-quo instance of pseudo-bribery?  Absolutely not.

Here’s how it works: Team Obama curries favor with the pollsters (and media) with the steep polling investments all summer.  Team Obama’s alleged revolutionary get-out-the-vote effort of micro-targeting every possible voter (dubbed in the most secretive manner “Project Narwhal” — which was then relentlessly leaked to lapdog media) gets fawning coverage ad nauseam in the admittedly compliant media.  The same polling outfits now readily buy into the Team Obama mantra that not only are they going to match the 2008 effort but through their revolutionary, never-seen-before super-expensive micro-targeting, they are finding voters they never even knew existed in 2008 and in many cases will EXCEED the height of hopey-changey fanfare in the last election.  And the pollsters willingly buy into whatever Team Obama is selling and we get consistently biased and unrealistic polls unrepresentative of voters this year.

That is your wholly compliant media and pollsters bought and paid for by the Obama re-election campaign.  How else do you explain a current over-sampling of Democrats by 9 percentage points in Virginia – a state that was R +4 in 2004, D +6 in 2008, but eviscerated every elected Democrat since? These polls are part and parcel of the publicly disclosed Obama campaign strategy of depressing the vote in 2012 and attempting to convince marginal Republican voters to not show up because they want to further the idea the race is already over. Heck, Chris Matthews found it offensive and arrogant Romney was even challenging Obama.

That’s how you get a poll showing Barack Obama with a huge 8-point advantage in the state that is probably the closest in the entire Republic.  Congratulations Washington Post, you get your gold star from Team Obama and there will be a job for you in the new Administration if we can carry this disinformation campaign through election day.

Now I only wish I could drink these days because tonight’s new NBC/WSJ poll must be a doozy if they are going to top the Washington Post’s “inevitable Obama” sell-job.  And drinking makes these humorous polls at the more comical because you really have to just laugh at their absurdity. I simply keep thinking what their incredulous faces will look like on election night when none of these polls are remotely close to reality and they don’t have the faintest concept how they lost or why their loyal minions are so angry at being misled.  Just know, you’ve been warned.

By keithbacker | Posted in Virginia | Also tagged , | Comments (7)

No way Obama is up 8 in Virginia

September 18, 2012 – 1:29 pm

The new Washington Post poll showing Obama up 8 in Virginia has to be a survey of the Washington Post news room or restricted to Fairfax County because Virginia is tight as a tick. I’m on the road right now but will drill down on the details soon.

Write-up on this wholly unrealistic poll here.

By keithbacker | Posted in General, Virginia | Also tagged , | Comments (2)

Who are the 47%?

September 18, 2012 – 1:23 am

The media echo chamber is in high dudgeon over candid remarks made by Mitt Romney at a fundraiser regarding the fact that 47% of American citizens pay no Federal Tax.  Despite the apoplectic reaction on the Left and in the media (redundant, I know), this is neither a new phenomenon nor narrowly-held view. The 47% may be the updated figure but it has been in that range for the last few years following the increased retirements of Baby Boomers and rapid expansion of government hand-outs.  Here is a  Wall Street Journal profile from 2010 titled: “Obstacle to Deficit Cutting: A Nation on Entitlements” on what was then the 45% but has now climbed to 47%:

Efforts to tame America’s ballooning budget deficit could soon confront a daunting reality: Nearly half of all Americans live in a household in which someone receives government benefits, more than at any time in history. At the same time, the fraction of American households not paying federal income taxes has also grown—to an estimated 45% in 2010, from 39% five years ago, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research organization.

A little more than half don’t earn enough to be taxed; the rest take so many credits and deductions they don’t owe anything. Most still get hit with Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes, but 13% of all U.S. households pay neither federal income nor payroll taxes. “We have a very large share of the American population that is getting checks from the government,” says Keith Hennessey, an economic adviser to President George W. Bush and now a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, “and an increasingly smaller portion of the population that’s paying for it.”

So despite the breathless reporting, this is neither a new development nor a foreign view. Thus far Mitt Romney’s media-determined gaffe is telling a roomful of donors that America has a looming structural problem to both pay down its deficit while sustaining the growing client state of citizens who pay no taxes. That may be harsh to the sensitive ears of the pro-Obama media, but it has the luxury of being true and greatly problematic for the long term-solvency of the country:

As recently as the early 1980s, about 30% of Americans lived in households in which an individual was receiving Social Security, subsidized housing, jobless benefits or other government-provided benefits. By the third quarter of 2008, 44% were, according to the most recent Census Bureau data. That number has undoubtedly gone up, as the recession has hammered incomes. Some 41.3 million people were on food stamps as of June 2010, for instance, up 45% from June 2008. With unemployment high and federal jobless benefits now available for up to 99 weeks, 9.7 million unemployed workers were receiving checks in late August 2010, more than twice as many as the 4.2 million in August 2008.

Remember this profile is from 2010, each of these figures has worsened. Earlier this month, as reported by NBC News “The Bottom Line”, the number of people on food stamps is now 46.4 million, over 15% of the US population:

With 22.4 million households using food stamps, fully 15 percent of the American population is on the program. The costs, at $6.025 billion for the month … There were fewer than 31 million people on food stamps as recently as November 2008, but an aggressive effort by President Obama’s administration has helped build participation, with the total increasing by 44 percent since the president took office in January 2009.

And before any Lefty reflexively calls critiques like this racist (I’m looking at latent racist Chris Matthews here), a sizable plurality of food stamp households are non-Hispanic Whites at ~35% while African-Americans households make up 20-22%. So from a raw numbers standpoint it’s not even close.

But as the 2010 WSJ piece points out, an aging population and unwillingness to alter benefits rapidly leads us to European style problems

An aging population is adding to the ranks of Americans receiving government benefits, and will continue to do so as more of the large baby-boom generation, those born between 1946 and 1964, become eligible. Today, an estimated 47.4 million people are enrolled in Medicare, up 38% from 1990. By 2030, the number is projected to be 80.4 million. The difficulty of restraining benefits when so much of the population depends on them is now on view across Europe, where efforts to rein in deficits are forcing governments to cut popular entitlements. European countries have traditionally provided far more generous welfare benefits than the U.S. has, including monthly allowances for children regardless of income, free college tuition and universal health care. Public retirement programs are also bigger, since the combination of aging populations and low birth rates means fewer workers are paying into the system.

All of this comes at a price to the remaining 53% of federal tax-payers:

All this is expensive. Payments to individuals—a budget category that includes all federal benefit programs plus retirement benefits for federal workers—will cost $2.4 trillion this year, up 79%, adjusted for inflation, from a decade earlier when the economy was stronger. That represents 64.3% of all federal outlays, the highest percentage in the 70 years the government has been measuring it. The figure was 46.7% in 1990 and 26.2% in 1960.

These are the facts and realities of a weak economy and fiscally unsustainable budgetary structure that needs fixing sooner rather than later before painful austerity measure are put in place like in Greece, Portugal, Spain and elsewhere.  One candidate is willing to talk about this while the Palace Guards in the media attack him at every side.  The other candidate has a fundraiser to attend in Las Vegas while Egypt burns.

By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged , , | Comments (1)

Quick Thoughts on the Romney Video

September 17, 2012 – 11:55 pm

All stolen from my twitter feed:

By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged , , | Comments (0)

Why I Don’t Care About Politico’s “Hit Piece” on the Romney Campaign and Stuart Stevens

September 17, 2012 – 12:34 pm

Anyone who reads this blog knows there is an overwhelming media bias in favor of Democrats and against Republicans. It’s one of the reasons I started the blog — to counter media misrepresentations with accurate facts and figures reflecting the actual race for President and not the one pro-Obama media surrogates try to foist on the public.

Well, over the weekend, Politico ran at least its 3rd major “saturate the Gang of 500″ hit piece on Mitt Romney in just the last 30 days. A month ago they used an astonishing Thirty-Six anonymous sources to trash the selection of Paul Ryan as Vice President — declaring the race was over right then and there. Just over a week ago Politico ran an entire pro-Obama press release talking about how alleged “Romney advisers” were conceding Obama’s campaign strength and bemoaning the hopelessness of Romney’s attempt to beat him. It was so laughable I refused to like to the piece at the time but offered my extensive look at the actual campaign numbers with verifiable data and saw a very different race than Politico works to feverishly to advocate.

Now 8-days after the most recent hit piece, the same authors at Politico run an entire hatchet job on the Romney campaign and its manager, Stuart Stevens. After reading such unassailable anonymously sourced tripe we Romney supporters are all supposed to cower in defeat due to the awesomeness that is the President Obama re-election team and its surrogates masquerading as journalists. This is all because of the incontrovertible truth that in mid-September in a race no worse than tied against a President presiding over an abysmal economy and a foreign policy currently aflame with widespread protests, violent attacks and even public official deaths ?  No thank you.

Politico is not a journalistic medium for fair political reporting and discourse.  It is an outright advocacy artery with an agenda to get Barack Obama re-elected.  That they regularly scoop alleged Republican “insiders, always anonymously of course, that do nothing but trash Republicans only weakens their already poor reputation.

And anyone who wants to do the slightest bit of sleuthing on alleged Romney “insiders” perpetrating the unforgivable sin of disloyalty in the middle of a campaign should start at Politico’s own earlier hit piece on the decades-long in-fighting among GOP consultants who all wanted to contract with Mitt Romney’s campaign but lost out to Stuart Stevens.  Anyone with an axe to grind here?

By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged | Comments (3)

What if Mitt Romney had waited?

September 12, 2012 – 7:39 pm

The media has been in overdrive all day feverishly writing every story from any angle that squarely puts the focus on Mitt Romney and not the fact that Obama’s foreign policy experienced a colossal failure with 2 embassies being attacked an ambassador being murdered and three other fatalities on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history. This was because Mitt Romney boldly stepped forward into the leadership void of President Obama’s silence, and issued a statement condemning violence and castigating an apology for hurt feelings of murderous extremists written by Embassy officials in Egypt in response to the uprising.

But what if Mitt Romney had waited for President Obama’s press release 24 hours after the attacks and press conference that following morning at 10:30am?

What would be the press focus?  Would they focus on the tragic murders? Would they focus on the extremism being fomented by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood? When politics arose, would they focus on the policy failure?

We know the answers to those rhetorical questions because outside a few exceptions like a Jake Tapper or John Dickerson the media will always play a “heads they win, tails you lose” game with Republicans, especially when their chosen candidate is both at risk and is suffering the worst foreign policy failure of his Administration, an allegedly impenetrable strength in his re-election efforts.

The first wave of stories would be how “no drama Obama” remains cool in the face of tragedy.

The second wave of stories would be how Mitt Romney was caught flat-footed because he waited so long to reply.

The third wave would be how Romney is scrambling to catch up to always fleet-footed Obama.

The fourth wave would be how each act by Romney falls short in comparison to “no drama Obama.”

The fifth wave would be how in Romney’s first test on foreign policy, he was found wanting — recycling the earlier “flat-footed”stories and how his actions/statements fall short of the grandiose Obama. A negative feedback loop always in play with Republicans.

The sixth wave of stories would be how inept the Romney campaign was to miss the golden opportunity to fill the leadership moment inherent in  the cautious “no drama Obama” You can hear the quotes: ‘Can you imagine Axelrod or Carville/Clinton not pouncing on this opportunity?’ ‘Those pros never would have waited for the President to speak.’ ‘They would have jumped right in to defend America under attack.’ The embedded hypocrisy of this last wave is not lost on me but the double standard absolutely applies to Romney while “no drama Obama” relies on his re-election team in the mainstream media to carry water on his behalf.

At no point would the media have appropriately focused on the policy failure, just as they are not today. Every election the media decries the nature of campaigns not being about policy, ideas or issues.  Here was a colossally big issue of policy where the media circled the wagons to cocoon the inept and failed foreign policy of President Obama.  On the anniversary of 9/11 two US embassies were attacked and desecrated.  One US Ambassador was murdered along with three other US personnel.  In each of the countries the US was instrumental in bringing democracy and freedom to its citizens. This is a story about failed ideas of the Obama Administration leading from behind.  This is a story about a policy that distances America from our greatest ally in the region Israel while embracing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt who are openly directing the actions in Egypt. This is a story about issues going to the core of President Obama’s unwillingness to support democracy movements in enemy-state’s like Iran while tossing aside allies like the Mubarek regime in Egypt in favor of extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is a story from beginning to end fraught with every substantive issue imaginable about the foreign policy of the current President yet the media wants only to talk about press releases, timings of press releases and hope for regret from a Presidential challenger who stood tall for American values in the face of Islamic extremists.

By keithbacker | Posted in Columns, General | Also tagged , , | Comments (1)

Several Questions on Cairo and Benghazi

September 12, 2012 – 1:18 pm

National security and State Department official in the Reagan and both Bush Administrations Elliot Abrams asks several important questions missing in EVERY media report:

  • Why police protection was not provided until it was too late?
  • Where is Egypt’s new president, Mohammed Morsi? Why has he not gone on Egyptian TV to express outrage? Coming from a Muslim Brotherhood leader that would be significant; its absence is even more significant.
  • The protest had been announced in advance and was related to an apparently offensive film created somewhere in the United States. What did the State Department say to our embassies around the world, and particularly in the Islamic world, about risks and protective steps?
  • Where is the wave of condemnation from Islamic religious leaders? By choosing to attack the U.S. embassy on the anniversary of 9/11, the Egyptian protesters were expressing their support not for the victims but for the perpetrators of that act of terror and mass murder. In Benghazi our ambassador and several others were murdered on 9/11.
  • Condemnations from Washington will have no impact on rioters and potential rioters, while condemnations from their own religious leaders might. The issue is a simple one: Is the taking of life an appropriate response to hurt feelings?
  • [The Cairo Embassy apology] is a bizarre statement to make on 9/11, an event that was not about “hurting feelings” but about murdering Americans…If it was an effort to buy off potential demonstrators by showing respect for their “feelings” as “believers,” of course it failed…Entirely missing from the embassy’s statement was any reminder that violence is never justified, even when religious “feelings are hurt.”
  • Muslims, and Islam, are not under assault in Egypt. Christianity and the Coptic community are. If you were an Egyptian Copt watching the assault on the American embassy on TV and then reading the embassy’s statement, would you feel the Americans planned to work hard to protect you and your rights? And given that the Egyptian government will not even protect the American embassy, what are the chances that it will protect Christians in Egypt?
By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged , , | Comments (0)

CNN reporting attack was pre-planned. Not related to any movie

September 12, 2012 – 12:30 pm

Enough with the false pretenses this was an act of war:

But our press sees Obama’s foreign policy decisions and inattention as unnewsworthy. Just Romney’s reaction to it

By keithbacker | Posted in General | Also tagged , , | Comments (0)
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 216 other followers