As Predicted…. Hillary Marginalized By Kennedy And Obama.

On July 17th, I wrote a post about why I thought Kennedy decided to endorse Barack Obama.

The basic premise was that….

The Rest Of This Article Has Been Moved To My New Home.  Please CLICK HERE

The Big Question: Will Obama Name A Woman To A Top Cabinet Post?

The big question that has been getting me in the wake of Barack Obama’s election is, “Will he name a woman to a top cabinet position?”

As I listen to the names of his transition team and cabinet begin to leak out, with others being talked about, the one thing I do not hear is the name of a woman.

Chief of Staff – Rahm Emanuel

Sec State – Bill Richardson or John Kerry

Sec Def – Chuck Hagel (a Republican no-less)

Sec Treas – Paul Vockler

Sec EPA – RFK Jr

Notice the lack of a woman’s name?  And I am not even talking about Hillary Clinton, who many Democrats, including Joe Biden himself, think deserved to be named AT LEAST Vice President.

And now, Obama is likely to even pass her up in considering who to name to top cabinet spots?

Hell, the Republicans named Sarah Palin to the VP slot, Condi Rice to the NSA and then Sec State slots…  and yet Obama, even as a Senator….

For The Rest Of The Post, Please CLICK HERE

A Message To “Disaffected Dems” And The Republican Party

Barack Obama is right.  Now is the time for change.

The American public rejected the hard right swing that was part and parcel with the Bush Administration and, blinded by rhetoric, swung far to the left…  but not the traditional Democratic left.  This is a new Democratic Party.

In the wake of this election cycle, people should remember that:

• It was Democrats that voted against GLBT rights in 4 states
• It was Democrats that voted against two very strong and capable women
• It was Democrats that attacked two very strong women with vicious sexism
• It was Democrats that found the attacks on freedom of speech acceptable (truth squads)
• It was Democrats that applauded unfair and unethical election practices (primaries)
• It was Democrats that abandoned campaign finance reform
• It was Democrats that conducted a questionable war on the sanctity of the vote (acorn, ohio)

And also that

• It was evangelicals that failed to come out for the Republican Party
• It was the evangelicals that turned out in higher numbers for the Democrats

No matter what the rhetoric, no matter what the politicians say, the Democratic Party has abandoned two of its’ key constituencies…  women and gays.  I shudder to thing what will happen when little bites begin to be taken out of Roe v Wade.  I no longer have any confidence that the Democratic Party will protect women’s right to choose.

It is time for the Republican party to abandon the Neo-Conservatives.  It is time for the Republicans to recapture the center and to become the party of Lincoln, Martin Luther King and Barry Goldwater once again.

It is time to remake the face of the Republican Party as the party of small government, both in business and in our daily lives.

It is time for the Republican Party to become the party of equal rights and freedoms for all.

It is time for the Republican Party to become the party that it once was.  The party that fought to give African Americans the right to vote.  The party that fought to give women the right to vote.  The party that helped the first woman get elected to Congress.  The party that fought for the individual against the crushing weight of the society and the government.

It is time for the Republican Party to abandon the path set forth by John Sears and Karl Rove and get back to its’ roots.

I am calling on the Republican Party to abandon the “Religious Right” that abandoned you.

I am calling on the Republican Party to abandon its attack on a woman’s right to choose.

I am calling on the Republican Party to abandon the attacks on the division between church and state.

I am calling on the Republican Party to abandon the injection of religion into social policy

I am calling on the Republican Party to allow people of any race, creed, color or sexual preference to associate in any way they deem appropriate…  including marriage.

I am calling on the Republican Party to defend my rights as a citizen to live my life without interference from the government as long as my actions are not harming others.

I am calling on the Republican Party to stop being a RINO and start being Republican once again.

Mark Warner Wins Virginia!

My 3rd favorite democrat (behind Hill and Bill) has won the Senate seat in Virginia!

Guest Blogger CT: Be Careful When Puma-ing, You Might Get More Than You Bargained For

Note From Texas Hill Country – CT is a blogger and a dedicated Conservative Republican.  This is the story about how (s)he came to know the PUMA movement and subsequent impressions.  I found this very interesting, wonderfully written and asked if I could cross-post the article here.  CT was kind enough to allow me to do so, and here you go…

From Politics and Critical Thinking

A few days ago one of the contributors on Conservative Badlands did a piece called the PUMA Factor, it was a look at how this block of voters might be one of the groups to decide the Presidential election in 08’. It made me realize that I didn’t know much about their movement or philosophies, other than the obvious. PUMA means Party Unity My Ass and they were angry because HRC got lambasted in the primaries and there was a SERIOUS possibility of caucus manipulation. So, I had an out of the ordinary idea, I figured go into their virtual community and ask them if anyone would be interested in answering a few questions for this post. Well I got some takers.

Most of the PUMA’s that answered the call of the wild in my open thread were female but the composite of their whole movement, I imagine, is a little harder to determine. One very pleasant and intelligent woman, who goes by the SN, Angrynana said this, “Also, there is a mistake in thinking all Pumas and Puma types are older, white women. There are men, people of many religions, all races, gays and lesbians, young, middle-aged, and older Pumas. There are groups from the West and the East. There are Native American Pumas and African American Pumas.” I can honestly say I believe this assessment. Since there were about 18 million people who voted for Hillary in the primaries and the Democratic Party is noted for its pluralism, it makes sense they are a very diverse lot.

What I was more curious about was what brought them to this point and what were they going to do after the election. Their responses ranged from moving to the GOP, going Independent, to retaking the Democratic Party. Judging the answers, Ereizindian sums the majority of their thoughts up well, “If the Dem leadership continues to deprecate its members who were slandered and vilified in the primaries and GE, I shall become an Indie, possibly on my way to becoming a Republican.” This is not to say all of sudden they identify with the Republican or Conservative movement. For them, however, it will be a near strategic impossibility to retake the Democratic Party. It has slid too far into an abyss of identity politics and viral cult worship, it is no longer about issues, it is about one man.

Despite their obvious visceral anger towards the Democratic Party establishment a single theme reigned supreme in the great majority of their posts and emails. Helen put it best, “IT IS COUNTRY AND PRINCIPLES BEFORE PARTY.” I was absolutely, jaw droppingly, astounded to hear a Hillary supporting Democrat in Exile say this. These responses gave me the insight to look at them as I have never looked at a political opponent before, I saw Americans who care about their country. This got me thinking, who am I to judge whether they can love their country just because they are Democrats. Neither Republicans nor Conservatives have the copyright or moniker on patriotism. After all aren’t PUMA’s demonstrating this by standing by our sides?

They have become apostates to their party but not their country, that speaks volumes to me. PUMA’s have recognized that this is about America, not a singular person. They also understand this has nothing to do with the sweeping change and one man, little m, cannnot shoulder this all by his lonesome. That goal is far too lofty and enchanting to be anywhere near reality. Truth be told, he is neither Atlas nor Prometheus, even if he thinks he is.

In closing I would like to thank all of the ladies and gentlemen who so graciously accepted my invite to participate in this undertaking, I hope I did you justice. Sometimes we get reminders of things from unexpected sources and that is what the PUMA’s did for me. My suggestion to Republicans and Conservatives, alike, try and understand them. Politically we may need them as much as they need us, we are rapidly becoming a house that is acquiring vacancies and they may need a home. More importantly, they are Americans who love their country enough to look past partisan lines. That, my friends, is the miracle of being an American first.

-CT

“Happy Hunting!”

Pic cred to The Confluence, I violated some internet copyright laws by snagging them. Hopefully in the spirit of the post they won’t mind.

Barney Frank Wants To Raise Taxes, Cut Military Spending By 25%, And ‘Spread The Wealth’

SouthCoastToday

After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states’ stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.

The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said.

“The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection,” he said. “It’s extraordinary.” The Maliki government in Iraq “can’t sell (the withdrawal deal with the U.S.) because it sounds like we’re going to stay too long.”

“I was teasing (U.S. Rep.) Jack Murtha (a key supporter of military budgets) and I said to him, ‘For the first time, somebody else has got a bill that’s almost as big as yours.’ We don’t need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review.”

Rep. Frank called on President Bush to appoint a senior official to guide the economic stimulus packages through the transition to the Barack Obama or John McCain administration when it takes office in January.

And he said that if the Democrats can’t find an adequate agreement on a stimulus package in the lame-duck Congress, they would rather wait until the new Congress takes over — likely with many more Democrats, if polling results bear fruit in the November voting….

And, ultimately, there will be tax increases on the upper brackets. “We’ll have to raise taxes ultimately. Not now, but eventually,” he said.

Make Your Voices Heard – Help Run Ads – Contribute Today!

At the end of the Democratic Primary season, this was the situation:

Popular Vote
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: 17,857,446, (48.04%)
Senator Barack Obama: 17,584,649 (47.31%)

Pledged delegates

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: 1,730.5 (39.17%)
Senator Barack Obama: 1,747.5 (39.55%)

(source)

Then, for no apparent good reason, in June Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosis decided THEY, not the delegates chosen by the electorate and not the superdelegates appointed via proper party procedure, were going to decide who would represent the top of the ticket for the general election. Now that same leadership wants YOU to legitimize their undemocratic and unprincipled methods by putting their selected candidate into the White House on November 4.

But WE can say no to the subversion of democratic principles within the Democratic Party. We can say no with our votes and by urging our fellow Democrats to pay attention to the particulars of the candidate Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi selected to represent the Democratic Party.

Put this ad on the air and let America know that our voices count.

Over the next 24 hours and across the internet, we as a community will urgently be raising money to run edgy and persuasive ads made by Democrats in key battleground states. Generous contributors have pledged $500 in matching funds. Your voice counts. Please contribute now

CLICK ON ROSIE TO DONATE:

Or go to Democrats For Principle Before Party – The Denver Group’s general election website, where you can view other ads the group is running:

Ohio: Bush Orders Justice Dept To Investigate Voter Fraud

From Public Record

In a déjà vu moment from Campaign 2006, President George W. Bush again is asking his Attorney General to launch an investigation into the registration of hundreds of thousands of new voters, many of whom are expected to vote Democratic.

Bush forwarded to Attorney General Michael Mukasey a Republican request that he intervene in the battleground state of Ohio to force 200,000 new voters to either verify the information on their registration forms or cast provisional ballots, which are often thrown out after the voter leaves the polling place….

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, sent a letter to Bush asking for his extraordinary intervention after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to get involved in the Ohio dispute.

“Unless action is taken by the [Justice] Department immediately, thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of names whose information has not been verified through the [Help America Vote Act] procedures mandated by Congress will remain on the voter rolls during the Nov. 4 election. …

“There is a significant risk if not a certainty, that unlawful votes will be cast and counted. Given the Election Day is less than two weeks away, immediate action by the Department is not only warranted, but also crucial.”

On Friday, White House spokesman Carlton Carroll said Bush had referred Boehner’s letter “to the Department of Justice for their review.”

Dan Rather Makes Interesting Comments Re: TV, Newspapers And Internet

I want to hear what you think Rather is saying in this clip…

Madeline Albright Agrees With Biden: ‘It’s A FACT, If Obama Is Elected, Terrorists Will Attack’

As a follow up to my post about Biden’s comments HERE, comes confirmation from Madeline Albright, former Secy of State under Bill Clinton, that electing Obama = terrorist attacks!

Newsmax

Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, one of the most prominent Hillary Clinton supporters now in support of Barack Obama, admits it is a “statement of fact” that the election of the Democratic senator from Illinois as president will result in him being tested by a generated international crisis by America’s enemies.
Responding to last weekend’s comments by Obama’s vice presidential running mate Joe Biden — who said Obama would be tested within the first six months of his administration — Albright told CNN’’s John Roberts, “It’s just a statement of fact. In my book [“Memo to the President Elect: How We Can Restore America’s Reputation and Leadership”], I talk about the fact that there are a lot of big issues out there, but also something unexpected. You always have to be prepared for that.”

This confirms it…  HELL NO.

I can’t wait till they spin this… elect Obama and we get a guaranteed 9/11, but he will handle it better than Bush did?

How about we elect John McCain and skip the whole terrorist incident thing?

Sounds good to me.

Also…  This is starting to sound like a bit more than foreshadowing and like they actually know something is gonna happen, and how they would know that…  well I am gonna leave that question for you to answer.

Guest Blogger: Insight Analytical – Why Modern Polls Are Total Crap.

Thanks to Insight Analytical for providing this amazing insiders view on the history of and modern goings on in the world of polling.

IA is a former pollster and study director for companies such as Gallup, and even has some good inside scoop on Zogby.  This is a must read for anyone interested in politics.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Scroll down for the latest update on Gallup’s new polling methods…

***

I’m SO HAPPY (snark) to report that the Zogby Interactive Survey has now re-appeared in my inbox! I am always curious about what’s being surveyed and how, because I have a “pollster past.” Over the last few months, they had mysteriously disappeared. But now, with Obama the presumtive nominee, the folks at Zogby have decided to pay attention to me again. Perhaps they didn’t bother with me for months because I was one of those older women who weren’t coveted for their sampling.

Of course, “Interactive Phone Surveys” are subject to a big dose of suspicion. Signing up to participate is open to anyone and is ongoing. Zogby picks respondents from this pool. A few times before the primaries began I was contacted and occasionally told I wasn’t suitable for the survey after being asked a few screening questions. This is a normal part of polling as clients sometimes need to focus on certain demographics. Which is why I noticed when at the height of primary season I wasn’t getting polled anymore. Was it my age, sex, and the fact that I sometimes had answered that I was a moderate instead of a progressive or liberal? I never knew exactly how to answer that question because the terms were not defined as part of the question.

And therein lies one of the flaws of polling, whether respondent selection is deliberately skewed or not. Or, if a poll is online or even a supposedly “more reliable” telephone poll. If questions are poorly worded, unclear, or leave a lot of leeway for interpretation by the respondent, how accurate can the poll be?

Another problem area that I’ve found with Zogby’s Interactive Survey is the omission of questions that related to a respondent’s experience with market research. Some polls ask right at the beginning whether a respondent has ever worked in a particular industry to eliminate any bias which might impact a particular client’s survey. Many pollsters ask right upfront if a respondent has ever worked in the market research field. Every time I receive a Zogby poll I’m interested in seeing if they ask if I, as a respondent, have ever worked in market research. Even though I left the field ages ago, I still know a few tricks of the trade and can see where a survey is going and can guess what type of client is polling and what emphasis they are looking for in the result.

So, am I capable of skewing a poll beyond just answering questions with choices that don’t really reflect my opinion? Sure I am. Especially when the interactive poll like Zogby’s allows you to go back and change answers once you’ve guessed who’s polling or the type of responses the poll is fishing for (and even allows the poll to be copied)! [I've done it for another piece I wrote on a related topic. I literally copied and saved the survey for later reference...see Pundits, Pollsters and Should We Be Getting Ready for the Next Play of the Race Card? (Clues in the latest Zogby survey I received?) (Updated 1X)]

Do I do this? Not deliberately. But if there’s poorly worded question or a questions whose answers don’t allow me to REALLY GIVE my opinion, then I’m in the same box every respondent to that poll is in…trying to do an honest job, but being led along by the pollster.

John Zogby’s telephone polling methods are also suspect. I have not studied this closely, but I have read/seen that they have changed their methodology on their phone polls, shifting their sampling toward a heavier weighting of progressive/liberal support across the board… which would explain his string of primary polls which tended to result in lower poll numbers for Clinton than was actually the case.

Also on some minds is the influence of John Zogby’ s brother, James Zogby. James Zogby, who blogs at the Huffington Post, is “founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), a Washington, D.C.-based organization which serves as the political and policy research arm of the Arab American community.” His organization is active in promoting voter registration and mobilization within this community.

His political work also involves Democratic politics:

Dr. Zogby has also been personally active in U.S. politics for many years. Most recently, Zogby was elected a co-convener of the National Democratic Ethnic Coordinating Committee (NDECC), an umbrella organization of Democratic Party leaders of European and Mediterranean descent. On September 24, 1999, the NDECC elected Dr. James Zogby as its representative to the Democratic National Committee’s Executive Committee. In 2005 he was appointed as chair of the DNC’s Resolutions Committee.

In his March 7, 2008 blog at The Huffington Post entitled “The Big Costs of Hillary’s “Big Wins,” James Zogby basically accused Clinton of dividing the party and “wounding” Obama. James Zogby, of course, is entitled to his own opinion, but a question arises about whether his politics has any influence on the way brother John polls.

This is a legitimate question to raise because buried in the depths of his Huffington Post bio is the fact that he “is a Senior Analyst for the polling firm Zogby International.” The question is, what does that title/job really encompass? Another question is how closely James Zogby is tied to the Obama camp. The Interactive Poll I just received a few days ago seemed to be more than just a general survey on the current political scene. As I read through the questions, it seemed to be something that the Democratic Party may have paid Zogby to do. In other words, the DNC may have been the client; the questions were not neutral, in my opinion, but heavily weighted to the types of questions used to find out how to mold a campaign around public opinion on certain topics, notably one series of questions about “The American Dream” (undefined by Zogby, but in the questions, focused on “material versus spiritual values.”

Here are a couple of links to discussions from 2006 that delve into one of the more interesting examples of flawed Zogby polling specifically related to the attitudes of American troops in Iraq:

Zogby’s Flawed Polls (Interesting tidbit from this piece: Poll in question was conducted in conjuntion with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies–James Zogby “received a Bachelor of Arts from Le Moyne College. In 1995, Le Moyne awarded Zogby an honorary doctoral of laws degree, and in 1997 named him the college’s outstanding alumnus.”–from his bio, linked above.)

Polling Zogby: Agenda-Driven Polling Par Excellance?

******

Opinion polling, in general, has other problems.

Once a survey is returned from the field, manipulation of the data is another area of potential mischief. In my time as a researcher, I had several instances where I witnessed manipulation of the questionnaire data.

In my second job in marketing research, I was a coding supervisor for a now defunct company in New Brunswick, NJ. My job was to make sure all the questionnaires were properly coded and if I found problems, I would alert the project director. Questionnaires that didn’t meet demographic requirements or were incomplete were obvious problems and were eliminated if the respondent couldn’t be contacted again. But sometimes the clients themselves created a problem.

One part of my jobs was to create a codebook for all the “open-ended” questions. These are questions where the respondent is able to answer freely, without having to select from a list of answers. I would tally each answer then write up the codes that the coding staff would use.

I’ll never forget how one client, a major financial outfit, suddenly decided they wanted to save money on their project. I had created approximately 36 “answers” from the open-ended question on the survey. Orders came down to “collapse” the codes, which meant I was supposed to cut the number of answers down to about 18. The only way to do this was to combine answers. The result? An entirely meaningless set of answers which really didn’t accurately reflect the opinions of the respondents. Supposedly, the client was going to use these answers to plan their marketing, but how they would be of any real value was beyond me. (Immediately after this episode, I started looking for another job, and left a few months later.)

While working at another company in Hoboken, NJ I was working as a project director on a taste test for an imported beer. The interviewees weren’t reacting too favorably to the product. Once again, a client interceded. I received a phone call asking me if there was some way I could get more favorable answers from the taste testers!

In between these two jobs I worked at The Gallup Organization in Princeton, NJ. This was way back when the founder, George Gallup, Sr., was still roaming the halls. Phone interviewing there was in its infancy. The main source of general survey data was the “omnibus” Gallup survey which was conducted IN PERSON. Appointments were arranged with respondents and pages of questions from various clients were asked, as well as the presidential preference questions that Gallup included for its poll. Of course, as time went on and fewer people were at home, even Gallup was forced to do more phone surveys.

At Gallup, many of the project directors had advanced degrees and there was an “academic” feel to the place. There was a great deal of pride in doing good work. It was at Gallup that I learned how to create a series of questions, figure the statistical significance of results and how to write a report from data. As a study director I also fielded studies and supervised people who recruited interviewees for studies like the infamous microwave oven evaluation, where ovens being sent out for the California part of a study which had begun in Princeton wound up in Japan instead of San Francisco. Luckily, I had an ace field specialist who was able to rearrange the interview schedules and make up the lost time after the ovens finally arrived back in California! And I personally had to make sure we had the correct pool of respondents in terms of demographics and experience even as we were really pressed to refield the study.

At Gallup, there was never any question of altering a survey or slanting the data because of client pressure once the study was designed (with client requirements considered) and finally fielded. Furthermore, Gallup did not undertake any polling from special interests groups, such as the Democratic or Republican parties, other politcal groups, or any organizations with a particular agenda. INDEPENDENCE was the hallmark of The Gallup Organization. In addition, the man who sat in the small office down the hall and designed the sampling criteria was an ex-Marine who was a stickler about sampling. Gallup was not to be messed with! And Andy Kohut, who was President of Gallup when I was there and later went on to run Pew, was someone else who was a great teacher and took the business of polling seriously.

(For an absolutely fascinating history of how Gallup became the “world’s pollster,” check out this story which describes the early years of Gallup and how he learned the hard way after being wrong about the Dewey-Truman outcome that “Lesson No. 1 was to keep polling, right up to Election Day.”)

Of course, “my” Gallup no longer exists. Gallup was bought out a few years after I left. When George Gallup Sr. died, Gallup was acquired by a company in Nebraska in 1988 and has since expanded greatly into other areas, including psychological “profiling” of people to see how they “fit” into an organization. The “new” Gallup also has “expanded its activities from tracking presidential approval to tracking consumer product and customer service approval.” It has since further expanded by developing “The Gallup Path” which aimed to answer the question, “What is the role of human nature in driving business outcomes?“

“Gallup’s next major technical advance provided the answer to this question. Gallup sorted through billions of bits of economic information and analyzed more customer and employee data than had ever been studied before. The answer to the role of human nature in driving business outcomes is contained in the management theory known today as The Gallup Path.

And the next step in 2002 was even more ambitious:

Gallup has designed and engineered the world’s first Web storage system containing millions of records of what people have thought over the last 65 years. The Gallup Brain, introduced in October 2002, provides ongoing opinion tracking data concerning virtually all issues affecting humankind. The Gallup Brain is the first information or intelligence resource designed specifically for the world’s 20 million leaders. Access to the Gallup Brain offers these leaders the opportunity to significantly improve their decision-making ability in practically every area of their lives. (NOTE: “Gallup loosely defines a world leader as any individual with an (overlapping) personal constituency of at least 1,000 people.”)

In 2003, Gallup went one step further:

Gallup opened a 50-acre Gallup University campus on the Missouri River in Omaha, Nebraska, in August 2003. Gallup’s future efforts will focus on educating, informing, and advising the 1 million most influential people who lead, mentor, and determine the futures of the remaining 6 billion people who inhabit Earth.

Obviously, Gallup has morphed into a business that’s a far cry from the small organization that I worked for in Princeton years ago. And the question for me becomes, how does the emphasis on tracking people for business now affect the way Gallup polls politics?

Back in October 2004, Steve Soto at The Left Coaster studied the internal data and found that Gallup had oversampled Republicans in a large swing out of line from the 1996 and 2000 elections. And this had not been the first time during 2004, either.

So, there we are. It appears that my beloved Gallup has gone the way of Zogby. Oh, the corporate history talks about independence and objectivity, of course:

Although Gallup has typically conducted its polling activities in collaboration with various media organizations and, on occasion, with worldwide associations and academic institutions, these polls have always been carried out independently and objectively.

This single, chosen ethical principle — independence — has made the Gallup name famous and among the most trusted brand names on Earth, synonymous with democracy and the democratic process.

But to me, it sounds as if the company has been absorbed by the borg of business interests and surveying for the world’s most powerful “leaders.” And Zogby’s mission statement sounds eerily similar:

“To offer the best polling, market research, information services, and business solutions worldwide based on accuracy and detailed strategic  information.”

Do you think Zogby and Gallup are really interested in “surveying the will of the people” anymore without another agenda behind what they do?

I think George Gallup, Sr. must be turning over in his grave…

UPDATE/ADDITION July 2, 2008

In light of my post on Missouri and McCain, I’m adding this information about polling:

Smaller samples usually yield larger margins of error (at Gallup we used to consider a sample below 1000 or 1500 as the range where a sample was considered to be small). Beware of data from breakdowns of the total sample if it is fairly small since the number of respondents in the individual sub-samples will be very small at that point. For example, a total study size of 546 is small; results based on a breakdown into numbers from 6 or 7 income levels, lets say, would then be very small samples and the data quoted would be unreliable.)

UPDATE/ADDITION October 17, 2008

The Gallup Poll continues its slide into a ruined reputation with this new twist in it’s methodology and it’s downplaying of the standard “likely voter” polling which is the norm by this time in an election cycle:

Gallup is presenting two likely voter estimates to see how preferences might vary under different turnout scenarios. The “expanded” model determines likely voters based only on current voting intentions. This estimate would take into account higher turnout among groups of voters traditionally less likely to vote, such as young adults and minorities. That model has generally produced results that closely match the registered voter figures, but with a lower undecided percentage, and show Obama up by six percentage points today, 51% to 45%.

The “traditional” likely voter model, which Gallup has employed for past elections, factors in prior voting behavior as well as current voting intention. This has generally shown a closer contest, reflecting the fact that Republicans have typically been more likely to vote than Democrats in previous elections. Today’s results show Obama with a two-point advantage over McCain using this likely voter model, 49% to 47%, this is within the poll’s margin of error. — Frank Newport

In other words, in the new model, they’re not taking into account how often people have actually voted in the past and are instead estimating how people who are less likely to vote will now be voting  and are assuming this group will vote in higher numbers this time around–essentially, they are pumping up the “registered voters” sample.  The media can now conveniently choose to highlight this new polling method rather than the traditional “likely voter” model and, since it comes from Gallup, it has “credibility.”

New York Times Does A Hit Piece On… Cindy McCain? The Anatomy Of A Hit Piece.

The New York Times did a long profile of Cindy McCain and it was not flattering, but it was not overly agressive either.  The negativity was more subtle…  and totally uneccessary.

This article is a perfect example of the how subtle hit pieces can be.  I will walk through the article to show how the insidious negativity sneaks into the article, posing as objective commentary.

The article paints Cindy McCain as a weak and depressed person, uncomfortable with the political scene, that needs approval and reassurance.

It starts out with a story about when Cindy first arrived in Washington and attended her first political function.  The name tag given to her had the name of John’s first wife, Carol.  The NYT paints a story of Cindy being meek and slinking off to table off to the side, hiding out and  being ignored by those around her.  The NYT insinuates that events like this led Cindy to run back home from DC, feelings hurt.

Cindy McCain was new to Washington and not yet 30 when she arrived at a luncheon for Congressional spouses to discover a problem with her name tag.

It read “Carol McCain.” That was the well-liked wife John McCain had left to marry Cindy, to the disapproval of many in Washington.

Fearing that the slight was intentional, she slinked to a half-empty table that never filled. “No one wanted to sit at her table,“ said Barbara Ross, a friend who was not surprised when Mrs. McCain announced a few months later that she was moving back to Arizona. “It was like high school.”

Instead of telling a story about the events like they happened, the New York Times instead projects weakness on Cindy.  They make it sound as if she was a nerdy teenager, unsure of herself, whose self-conciousness was compounded by DC and that she ran back home all butt hurt, tears in her eyes.

The truth of it is that John’s first wife was very well liked in DC, and it is very probable that instances like the name tag being in the first wife’s name were intentional slights, especially considering how people treated her socially.  She was ignored, rejected, and treated rather shabbily by a great many people.  And Cindy grew tired of that and the constant parade of DC functions and functionaries.  Cindy preferred to be more productive and active than ornamental.  So she left DC to pursue her own life.

Then they get into the general theme of her life… 

From the start, Mrs. McCain’s marriage has been defined by her husband’s ambitions, and despite her sometimes punishing ride in political life, she does whatever she must to help fulfill them.

They make it sound like she is a Pasty Cline type that is some sort of Stepford Wife at her husbands beck and call. 

Nothing could be further than the truth.

Cindy McCain has a life all her own and is an incredible woman.  She does everything from help in third world relief efforts and travelling to the most needy parts of the planet to lend a hand, to drift racing cars.  And I suspect she would be doing many of the same things even if she were not married to John.

This is one of the reasons she left DC, as I said above.  She and John are best friends and partners.  She is not some sexist image of a beaten down 50s housewife that is completely deferential to her husband.  She has her own life too.

Then they quip off with these little tibits…  some of which they explain later and some of which they do not.

She played a role in the Keating Five savings-and-loan scandal, and just as her husband was rehabilitating his reputation, she was caught stealing drugs from her nonprofit organization to feed her addiction to painkillers. She has a fortune that sets the McCains apart from most other Americans, a problem in a presidential race that hinges on economic anxieties. She can be imprecise: she has repeatedly called herself an only child, for instance, even though she has two half-siblings, and has provided varying details about a 1994 mercy mission to Rwanda.

That sort of rollout of basically factual information without any context makes the situation look much worse than it really is.

The “role” in the Keating scandal was this…  Keating owned the largest savings and loan in Arizona.  Cindy and her father, who ran their finances completely independently of John (the father has since passed, but Cindy continues to manage her own finances independently), invested in a shopping center.  Keating, the biggest banker around, was also involved in the deal.

Keeping in mind that John was found to have done nothing wrong, the fact that Cindy and her father (large business and real estate investors), and that Keating was the biggest banker around…  this is ridiculous…  but the article doesn’t bring any of this up.  It leaves out the details of the situation in the explanation later in the article that would minimize any negativity, and I suspect it is done on purpose to make the goings on much more sinister.

As far as calling herself an only child…  the article completely fails to explain any of this.  She was essentially raised as an only child.  She does have two half-siblings, but did not grow up with them and had VERY VERY VERY little contact with them.  They are essentially strangers.  The fact that she has siblings is basically a technicality and that is about it. 

Because there is no explanation, the article instead makes it seem as if she is hiding something, especially considering the context of the rest of the quote…  like varying stories of her relief efforts in Rwanda…  pfft.  Ridiculous.  There are photojournals and plenty of third party accounts of her time there…  and hell, did either one of those reporters volunteer to help care for the refugees in the camps in central Africa? 

No? 

Then they need a big glass of STFU.

So then we get into the more slimey stuff that dimishes her charity work…

Those close to Mrs. McCain say she aspires to be like another blonde, glamorous figure married to an older man: Diana, the Princess of Wales. Mrs. McCain sought out the same mine-clearing organization that the princess supported, joining its board and traveling to minefields, just as her role model had.

Ok, so Cindy wants to be a Diana’s doppleganger?  A mere copycat without an original idea?  Because, though you may not realize it up front, that is the underlying psychological message of this sentence.

The fact is that she respects Diana’s work immensely…  we all do.  Who the hell wouldn’t?  Why would her joining the mine-clearing organization have to only been done in an attempt to copy Diana?  Why couldn’t she just have heard of the organization because of Diana’s involvement, thought it was a wonderful organization and joined it for those reasons?

No…  that could not be the reason, the article leads us to conclude.  She is a weak and unsure person that is trying to be like Diana, her teenage idol.

And so the article goes…  giving heavy or incomplete descriptions of the negatives, giving a not-so-great slant or worse to the average, and barely a nod to the wonderful things.

As I said, there is nothing overtly bad or wrong about the article…  it is the choice of context and wording that makes this a hit piece.

And for those that think that I am reading too much into this or that I am “paranoid,” think of it this way…

A journalist is a professional writer whose job it is to tell a story.  Words, phrasing and context are essential elements of their JOB.  And the people that write for the New York Times are superlative writers…  among the best story tellers of them all.

And the story of these people tell does not leave you with the impression of a woman that has fought adversity, had an amazing recovery from a stroke, done amazing chairty work, is incredibly dynamic, warm, funny, personable and adventurous…  it leaves you with a picture of a weak, scared, lonely, self doubting and less than truthful housewife that lives in seclusion in the shadow of her husband.

And that is intentional.

Shame on you New York Times.  Shame on you.

Ohio Shocker: Democracy Is Dead

I don’t even know what to say about this one…. I am completely shocked. I will do my best to explain what has happened, but I just cannot believe this is actually going on….

As a follow up to my piece showing how college kids from FL, CA and elsewhere, rented a house in OH and voted…  IN OHIO…  And are still registered in their home states, comes the next chapter…

It starts with Ohio Sec’y of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, and her decision to allow people to register to vote and participate in early voting on the same day. This is typically not allowed because the state is supposed to verify that a person is eligible to vote before allowing that person to vote…. Translation: It opens up the possibility of massive fraud.

And in a nutshell, it looks like this is what has happened.

When Brunner decided that same day registration and voting would be allowed, the RNC challenged the decision in court. The Ohio court decided with Brunner and allowed the same day registration and voting to take place. Approximately 600,000 people participated in this process.

There were reports of “non-partisan” groups picking up the homeless and people off of the streets and taking them to polling places. Annectdotal accounts say that these “non-partisan” groups provided transportation only to Obama supporters and went so far as to instruct voters to vote Obama.

The law provided a couple of weeks after the early voting process for the counties to verify that the people who voted were eligible to vote. The process, from what I understand, is laid out by state law that the Office of the Sec’y of State would allow access to DMV and Social Security databases to verify that the information on the voter registration cards were accurate.

Brunner not only decided to not release the information to the counties but shut down the computer links to both the DMV and Social Security databases. Basically, she eliminated any way for the counties to verify that the votes were valid!

The RNC immediately filed suit.

IIRC, the first court sided with the RNC and ordered Brunner to release the information to the counties. Brunner then appealed and the decision of the lower court was overturned. The RNC appealed this decision, and the Federal District Court then re-instated the decision of the lowest court and ordered Brunner to release the information to the counties so they could verify the votes were valid.

In her briefs to the court, Brunner admits that approximately 200,000 of the votes are “problematic.” Translation… 200,000 of the votes are FRAUDULENT!

Brunner then appealed to the US Supreme Court where Justice John Paul Stevens (a Democratic appointee) handed down the decision that Ohio did not have to verify those votes validity.
.
.
You have got to be kidding me?
.
To put this into perspective, in 2004, George Bush won the election because he won Ohio.
.
He won Ohio by less than 200,000 votes.
.
This election is being stolen right in front of our eyes! No wonder the American people are apathetic and don’t think their votes count!!!
.
Democracy is dead. And so is the Democratic Party.

The Inside Scoop On How Polling Works

This is from a post on Insight Analytical (a favorite of mine) called “Musings on Pollsters:  Confessions of a Former Gallup Study Director.” 

I highly suggest you follow the link to read the whole thing, it is amazingly informative, but here is a bit to get you started.  You will get the inside scoop on both Gallup and Zogby, two of the largest and most “reliable” polling companies in the US, as well as some tips on how to tell a good poll from a bad.

In between these two jobs I worked at The Gallup Organization in Princeton, NJ. This was way back when the founder, George Gallup, Sr., was still roaming the halls. Phone interviewing there was in its infancy. The main source of general survey data was the “omnibus” Gallup survey which was conducted IN PERSON. Appointments were arranged with respondents and pages of questions from various clients were asked, as well as the presidential preference questions that Gallup included for its poll. Of course, as time went on and fewer people were at home, even Gallup was forced to do more phone surveys.

At Gallup, many of the project directors had advanced degrees and there was an “academic” feel to the place. There was a great deal of pride in doing good work. It was at Gallup that I learned how to create a series of questions, figure the statistical significance of results and how to write a report from data. As a study director I also fielded studies and supervised people who recruited interviewees for studies like the infamous microwave oven evaluation, where ovens being sent out for the California part of a study which had begun in Princeton wound up in Japan instead of San Francisco. Luckily, I had an ace field specialist who was able to rearrange the interview schedules and make up the lost time after the ovens finally arrived back in California! And I personally had to make sure we had the correct pool of respondents in terms of demographics and experience even as we were really pressed to refield the study.

At Gallup, there was never any question of altering a survey or slanting the data because of client pressure once the study was designed (with client requirements considered) and finally fielded. Furthermore, Gallup did not undertake any polling from special interests groups, such as the Democratic or Republican parties, other politcal groups, or any organizations with a particular agenda. INDEPENDENCE was the hallmark of The Gallup Organization. In addition, the man who sat in the small office down the hall and designed the sampling criteria was an ex-Marine who was a stickler about sampling. Gallup was not to be messed with! And Andy Kohut, who was President of Gallup when I was there and later went on to run Pew, was someone else who was a great teacher and took the business of polling seriously.

(For an absolutely fascinating history of how Gallup became the “world’s pollster,” check out this story which describes the early years of Gallup and how he learned the hard way after being wrong about the Dewey-Truman outcome that “Lesson No. 1 was to keep polling, right up to Election Day.”)

Of course, “my” Gallup no longer exists….

Ohio: House Full Of Out-Of-State Kids Register And Vote

Basically what happened is this…

A dozen or so college kids rented a house in Franklin County, Ohio.  Their purpose…  to help people register to vote and vote absentee in Ohio.

The group is called “Vote From Home ’08” and counts among it’s volunteers a variety of young people from all over the country.  None of the people staying at the rented house in Franklin county were from Ohio.

The target of the group is mostly aimed at the homeless and helping them vote.  These people can use the address of a shelter as a point of contact because registration does require a physical address.  There is nothing illegal or shady about this.

Where it does get super shady and possibly illegal is this…  It seems these “volunteers” registered to vote and voted in the election themselves…  even though they are still registered in their home states and are clearly not residents of Ohio.

This brings into sharp focus the HIGH probability of massive voter fraud, and with the Ohio Sec’y of State fighting in court so that she doesn’t have to verify that voters in OH are even eligible…  it looks like these votes will count.

CLICK HERE for in depth analysis and video.

 

UPDATE:  looks like the votes are gonna count…  SCOTUS sides with Brunner…  doesnt have to check to see if votes are valid.

Jesse Jackson: Obama Would End Zionist Power

In a statement that I am sure will thrill the Jewish population in the United States, Jesse Jackson essentially indicated that there is a zionist cabal (aka “The Jews Control The World” conspiracy bullshit) in the United States, that Obama would taken them down a peg, and that Obama would be weak on Israel, giving a larger ear to the Palestinians.

From the NY Post

PREPARE for a new America: That’s the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week….

He promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy….

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House….

“Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss,” Jackson says. “Barack will change that,” because, as long as the Palestinians haven’t seen justice, the Middle East will “remain a source of danger to us all.”

“Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims,” Jackson says. “Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel….

  WTF?  Are you serious?

RICO Case Filed Against ACORN In Ohio

I am wholly disappointed in the Department of Justice for sure! It turns out it isn’t our ahem! esteemed DOJ filing charges. These charges are coming from a think tank…I never even considered it would be The Buckeye Institutefor Public Policy Solutions of Columbus, OH. This information has just been released today by the institute. Here is more on those charges:

The Buckeye Institute, a Columbus-based think tank, today filed a state RICO action against the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) on behalf of two Warren County voters. The action filed in Warren County Court of Common Pleas alleges ACORN has engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity that amounts to organized crime. It seeks ACORN’s dissolution as a legal entity, the revocation of any licenses in Ohio, and an injunction against fraudulent voter registration and other illegal activities.

It still distresses me that it is a state action not a federal action. Where is the US Department of Justice on ACORN? As far as I can tell missing-in-action.

More from the Institute:

Plaintiffs Jennifer Miller of Mason, Ohio and Kimberly Grant of Loveland, allege that ACORN’s actions deprive them of the right to participate in an honest and effective elections process. They allege fraudulent voter registrations submitted by ACORN dilute the votes of legally registered voters.

“The right to cast a vote that is not diluted by fraudulent votes is a fundamental individual right,” Buckeye Institute President David Hansen said.

“ACORN appears to be recklessly disregarding Ohio laws and adding thousands of fraudulent voters to the state’s roles in the process,” Maurice Thompson, Director of the Buckeye Institute’s 1851 Center for Constitutional Law said. “Such voter fraud erodes the value of legally cast votes,” he added.

In the complaint, Thompson cites an accumulation of evidence showing numerous instances of admitted fraud by ACORN employees, as well as individuals solicited by ACORN.

“In light of its hiring, training and compensation practices, ACORN should have known its conduct would cause fraud,” Thompson said. “It also should know that its conduct will cause fraud in the future.”

In addition, the complaint cites conduct by ACORN in Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

A full copy of the complaint is available online at Buckeye Institute here

Buckeye does have a mission and is completeing it in Ohio.

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, together with its 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, is a nonpartisan research and educational institute devoted to individual liberty, economic freedom, personal responsibility and limited government in Ohio.

All I can say is I am glad someone is doing something to knee-cap ACORN. Good one for The Buckeye Institute. Where is the Department of Justice? Are you out there somewhere? Are you doing your job? Where are the federal RICO charges?

Florida Still Has Felons On Voter Rolls

Florida are you awake yet? Eight years and 30,000 felons remain on voter rolls in Florida! The Sun Sentinel reported on just this issue today in the following article, “Many convicted felons remain on voter rolls, according to Sun Sentinel investigation” and they assert that “thousands who should be ineligible are registered to vote”.

This is a rather disturbing pattern. Why haven’t these ineligible voters been purged from the voter rolls? Wasn’t this an issue in previous presidential elections? I am not trying to digress but the Elections Board in the Kansas Secretary of States office asked this question last week, where is there proof that felons vote Democratic? Here is the proof!

More from the Sentinel:

More than 30,000 Florida felons who by law should have been stripped of their right to vote remain registered to cast ballots in this presidential battleground state, a Sun Sentinel investigation has found.

Many are faithful voters, with at least 4,900 turning out in past elections.

Another 5,600 are not likely to vote Nov. 4 — they’re still in prison.

Of the felons who registered with a party, Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two to one.

Here is a statement from Florida’s Secretary of State:

Florida’s elections chief, Secretary of State Kurt Browning, acknowledged his staff has failed to remove thousands of ineligible felons because of a shortage of workers and a crush of new registrations in this critical swing state.

Browning said he was not surprised by the newspaper’s findings.“I’m kind of shocked that the number is as low as it is,” he said.

Asked how many ineligible felons may be on Florida’s rolls, Browning said, “We don’t know.”

The Division of Elections has a backlog of more than 108,000 possible felons who have registered to vote since January 2006 that it hasn’t had the time or staff to verify. Browning estimated that about 10 percent, once checked, would be ineligible.

What has the Secretary of State in Florida been doing with his time? Is he going to appoint more people to clean up the rolls or allow wholesale voter fraud in November?

The law pre-dates the Civil War as seen in the following excerpt from the Sentinel:

Florida’s felon ban originated before the Civil War, and today the state remains one of 10 that restrict some felons from voting even after they’ve served their time. The law requires state and county elections officials to remove felons from voter rolls after conviction and add them only when they’ve won clemency to restore their voting rights.

In 2007, the state eased the restrictions by granting automatic clemency to most nonviolent offenders who have completed their sentences. Others, including people convicted of federal offenses, multiple felonies or crimes such as drug trafficking, murder and sex charges, must still apply for clemency and have their cases reviewed.

The Sentinel unearthed names of some more famous felons who remain on the voter rolls:

The felons the Sun Sentinel identified never received clemency, but their names remain on Florida’s voter rolls. Some are well-known: ex-Broward Sheriff Ken Jenne and ex-Palm Beach County Commissioner Tony Masilotti, for instance, both convicted last year of public corruption.

Browning said the state painstakingly checks all voters before removing them to avoid inadvertently taking off eligible voters as happened in two previous large-scale purge attempts.

“The policy of this department, this state, is that we will err on the side of the voter,” he said.

Err on the side of the voter. The Florida is clear, take the felons off the rolls.

Mountain Sage: What Really Happened In The Texas Primary?

This is a fantastic article and I am glad someone took the time to put this up!

From Mountain Sage

There have been allegations by Hillary Clinton supporters of Caucus fraud on the part of the Obama campaign in various states. While this may have been the case in many of the states they cite, it can not be true in one of them… Texas.

The reason it cannot be true it Texas is that Texas does not have a Caucus.

Oh, I know that is what the media has told you and what everyone would like you to believe, but Texas does not have a caucus, you don’t get to “vote twice” for the nominee, and most importantly… no one “wins” part two of the Texas Two-Step the night of the primary.

Contrary to what the media, the pundits and the Obama campaign would have liked you to believe, Texas is no different than any other state in the delegate selection process. Texas has a primary and then a series of conventions that select the delegates to the national convention, just like every other state. There are small differences in how this selection is conducted though. But one of the differences is most certainly NOT a caucus.

First, lets talk about two mythical states and how they conduct their elections… each one has 100 delegates that they send to the national convention, but one has a primary and one has a caucus. These generalizations are true for every single state. Including Texas.

Follow the link…  the rest of the article explains how Texas’ primary really  works, what happened and offers some really interesting questions at the end.

Good stuff from Mountain Sage as usual!

My Palin Tribute Weekend…

I am back…  for my Palin Tribute weekend I went dove hunting with my father-in-law…  had a great time and forgot about all of this crap.

It really put things into perspective and am now even more clear.

There is no way I am putting up with the bullshit the Democrats have pulled this year.  Hell No.