I have been ruminating on this issue for the last couple of days. I knew it was coming, but I wanted to see just how it played out.
The attacks on Sarah Palin are horrendously sexist and wholly unfair.
I have been ruminating on this issue for the last couple of days. I knew it was coming, but I wanted to see just how it played out.
The attacks on Sarah Palin are horrendously sexist and wholly unfair.
The McCain Campaign has filed a lawsuit in New Hampshire.
Apparently the Republican voters are being blocked from being able to vote at several polling stations.
Should be in court with evidence and judgement soon.
Will keep you posted!
Thirteen campaign workers for Barack Obama yesterday yanked their voter registrations and ballots in Ohio after being warned by a prosecutor that temporary residents can’t vote in the battleground state.
A dozen staffers – including Obama Ohio spokeswoman Olivia Alair and James Cadogan, who recently joined Team Obama – signed a form letter asking the Franklin County elections board to pull their names from the rolls.
The letter – a copy of which was obtained by palestra.net, a Fox News affiliate – came a day after prosecutor Ron O’Brien publicly urged out-of-state campaign workers for both Obama and John McCain to “examine your conscience” before the elections board beings begins opening absentee ballots today.
Earlier in the week, O’Brien spoke with lawyers for both camps and urged them to make sure their staffs met permanent-residency rules, or face possible felony charges.
Also pulling his ballot yesterday was Hofstra University grad Jake Smith, an Obama volunteer who had voted in Knox County, Ohio.
On Thursday, O’Brien cut a deal with 13 out-of-staters, including four from New York, who tossed out their already-cast ballots and admitted they didn’t meet residency requirements.
Yeah, right, no fraud my ass.
For five years Ali and Mohammed have lived alongside US soldiers in their Baghdad neighbourhood near Rasheed Street, a prominent commercial artery running through the heart of the Iraqi capital.
During that time American culture and politics have become familiar to them, and they say that if they could, they would vote for Republican candidate John McCain in next week’s US presidential election.
“McCain would be best for Iraq because he would ensure stability,” said Ali, 66, an expert on the Sumerian era.
The personal qualities and political platforms of McCain and his Democrat rival Barack Obama are of little import to Ali, however. His focus is on Iraq and its neighbours such as Iran.
“The Iranians believe that if Obama is elected he will not take action against them despite their nuclear ambitions. That worries me,” said Ali, sitting on an old bench in Al-Zahawi coffee shop.
“If the Iranians get the bomb they will become the Tarzan of the region,” said the former teacher and lecturer at the University of Baghdad, referring to the vine-swinging strongman of the jungle in old Hollywood movies.
Mohammed, also a professor at the university, said he too preferred McCain “because Obama supports a rapid withdrawal of US troops.”
“Our army is still too weak and Turkey and Iran are threats. Iran’s President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad has warned Iran would fill the void left when US troops depart,” he said.
Today, a few hundred metres (yards) from Al-Zahawi coffee shop, is the famous Al-Mutnabi books market, the only place where Baghdadis can find English books and magazines….
Barack Obama’s image peers out between two editions of “Vanity Fair” magazine kept next to the memoirs of former US president Bill Clinton.
But “The Audacity of Hope,” one of Obama’s books, has yet to find a buyer.
“I have no customer for this book….”
“I trust the Republicans more. They’re more capable of establishing democracy in the world, especially in Arab countries,” said the 33-year-old. “Obama is far too left.”
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.)
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.”
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.
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.
Seventeen. That’s how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn’t prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007. As Stephen Spruiell points out in The Corner on National Review Online, Fannie and Freddie spewed out $1 trillion worth (face value) of subprime mortgages between 2005 and 2007. That’s a whole lot of toxic waste. For more detail, consult the items referred to in my previous blogpost on this subject (most of the comments seem to have been disputes about the plot line of the movie It’s a Wonderful Life, which I should think could be settled by consulting a reference work).
Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. The GSEs’ mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion’s share of their profits—which determined top executives’ bonuses—came from speculation.
John McCain has shied away from making this an issue, for reasons my U.S. News colleague Jim Pethokoukis speculates on. This National Republican Congressional Committee Web ad makes the point McCain has been avoiding. Jim Geraghty of the Campaign Spot blog at National Review Online seems exasperated by the McCain campaign’s failure to exploit this issue….
More at the link…
The only word I can think of, in internent parlance, is PWNT.
I will let this one speak for itself… From CNN
Gov. Sarah Palin said at the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate that Sen. Barack Obama has “pretty much only voted along his party lines. In fact, 96 percent of his votes have been solely along party line.”
Get the facts!
Congressional Quarterly examined Obama’s votes in the Senate. According to the analysis, Obama has indeed voted with the Democratic Party 96 percent of the time.
CQ – a non-partisan and highly respected journal of Congressional affairs – says Senator John McCain has voted in line with the Republican Party 86 percent of the time. McCain’s total number of votes is much larger, since he has been in the Senate since 1986, while Obama is in his first term.
Congressional Quarterly also looked at what it deemed to be “key” votes. That analysis found Obama voted with his party on 29 out of 30 votes, which came out to 97 percent of the time. For McCain, CQ said there have been 335 “key” votes over the years, and that he voted with his party on 266 of them — 79 percent of the time.
The Verdict: True.
First, on a lighter note, let me state that it is 100% impossible for John McCain to have voted with President Bush, after all the President has no voting powers in the Senate. But that’s just a laughable technicality. In reality, however, the problem with the McCain/Bush voting argument and the attempts to paint McCain as some radical right winger is that there are organizations that track the votes of congressional members. According to the Washington Post’s Votes Database Project, Obama and the DNC’s claims are 100% false.
McCain, unlike his Democratic Rival, has continued to maintain one of the highest levels of independence demonstrated by any US Senator since 2000. For instance, during the 110th Session of Congress, McCain ranked 65th among his colleagues having voted along party line 88% of the time, a far cry from the 12th place rank of Obama. Yet, McCain’s voting record during the current session of Congress is likely to hold closer to party lines due to the nearly 50 bills that contained an Troop Withdrawal Timeline. During the 109th session of congress, McCain ranked 94th out of 100 Senators, having voted along party lines 79.4% of the time. This ranking and percentage are nearly identical to his 93rd place rank during both the 107th and 108th Congressional Sessions.
That’s right, according to The Votes Database, During the 110th Congressional session running from Jan 2007 to now, Senator Obama ranked 12th among 100 Senators, having voted along party lines 96% of the time; an amazingly high percentage for someone who claims to be able to reach across the isle. The Obama campaign and pundits will argue that Obama’s voting record during this session was driven by a need to shore up support among his base supporters. Yet, if that were true then we would expect his record during the 109th session of Congress to reflect a greater level of moderation. According to the Vote Database Project, During the 109th session Obama was ranked 5th in the Senate having voted along party lines 94.8% of the time. Ironically, during both sessions of congress, Obama voted along party lines more often the Senator Kennedy, Senator Reid, and Senator Kerry. For a candidate who talks about unity and his ability to work with the side, he certainly has not demonstrated it. After all, how can a candidate claim moderation when the current Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has crossed party lines during the past two sessions of congress more often than Obama?
Make sure to go do PDOP to get the rest of the analysis and the numbers.
From Politically Drunk On Power!
Media outlets around the nation heralded the news yesterday that Hillary Clinton’s name would finally be placed in nomination and that a roll call would take place at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. The story was considered important because of the 2 months of lobbying by Clinton’s supporters to secure her place on the DNC ballot. Although media outlets were quick to report the news, most were just as quick to overlook the downside to the so-called victory for Clinton. After all, you can’t have a “deal” without concessions by both sides.
In reality, yesterday’s decision is nothing more than another propagandist message put forth by the Obama campaign and the DNC to attempt to re-attract Clinton supporters back to the Democratic party. Clinton’s name being “placed in nomination” is essentially pointless considering that the agreement also called for Clinton to release her delegates; a move that will all but assure the nomination of Obama. Why Is This Important?
Read the rest HERE
Angelo Kanis has an article over at the NObama Network entitled “My 15 Seconds With Hillary.”
Angelo apparently attended the “Obama” rally in Nevada hosted by Hillary Clinton and got a quick chance to speak with her as she was signing autographs and taking pictures… He has a large and wonderful article with lots of fantastic pics (Hillary looks great!) so be sure to check it out HERE but here is a little sniplet for you….
When Senator Clinton finished her speech the crowd again erupted as she walked down the steps and started to talk to people in the crowd along the security railing. She took the time to speak with people not just brush by them with a handshake and a smile. When she got to where I was standing I shook her hand and asked her to please put her name into nomination for the convention in Denver. Senator Clinton looked right at me and said “We are definitely taking it to a vote”. When I asked if she had gotten the 300 signatures she needs on the petition, the senator again looked me right in the eye and said “We are taking it to a vote”. I thanked her for all she has done and she thanked me for my support. It was a brief conversation, about 15 seconds, but its one I will never forget.
So all those talking heads and “Party Leaders” that say different… Stop lying to your constituents and trying to shut them down. They are getting really pissed off.
And for all those party leaders trying to make her out to be some sort of she-devil for wanting a vote… answer me one question…
In the history of the Democratic party, the oldest political party on the face of the Earth, has a candidate that won delegates ever not been included in a nomination roll call?
The answer is no, at least not in recent history.
God, I can’t wait for the Convention!
As most of us know, the Rules and Bylaws Committee gave back all of the delegates from FL and MI that were originally stripped from them, BUT gave each only a half a vote. This was most likely due to heavy campaigning on the part of the Obama campaign.
And now, Obama is calling for the delegates of both states to have their full votes restored. (CLICK HERE) This would put Hillary at about 100 delegates behind Obama.
While I do appreciate the gesture, some of it is a trick to muddy the waters a bit, a smoke screen if you will. Don’t forget that he still has 4 of her delegates and he has also been awarded the “uncommited” vote in MI.
This gesture, while nice, does not address the issues that PUMAs are upset about. It does not change the fact that the RBC changed the delegate appropriation and, therefore, people’s votes.
What it does show is that Obama is worried. His poll numbers are slumping. The Democratic party is shrinking and the PUMA movement is growing. (CLICK HERE).
I will give him this… he has learned that he needs to start puckering up and kiss some Clinton ass.
What I am not sure of is why he is doing this… by putting her at around 100 delegates behind, and with 15 already committed to switching if given the opportunity… the PUMAs would only need 85 delegates to change votes.
If the credentials committee were persuaded to rectify the MI fiasco created by the RBC… that would put her within just a handfull of delegates?
Is he really desperate? Does he have the super delegates in the bag and already know it? Is he kissing ass to see if his polling among Dems gets better? Is he making this concession to appease the PUMAs in order to avoid naming her the VP?
I am not sure.
Via NOT YOUR SWEETIE
Something Wild And Unruly comes out swinging today with this post about the bill that was up for a vote today… and apparently Obama, even though he was in DC, was the only Democrat that wasn’t there to vote for it. (well, except Kennedy, but you will have to excuse him… he has brain cancer.)
It was a bundle of bills dubbed Advancing America’s Priorities Act and included some very important pieces of legislation on things like children, healthcare, civil rights... you know, the friggin platform of the Democratic party!
I applaud the Dems that pushed these bills through… as for Obama… At least he didn’t vote “present” this time, right?
GO HERE for the full list.
Not Your Sweetie reports on a new LA Times polling map that shows Obama falling WAY behind in clinched states and, therefore, electoral votes.
The count right now…
Also, click here for more Not Your Sweetie analysis.
****Edit – apparently there has been some misunderstanding on the part of some that I am advocating a plan to kill puma… no, exactly the opposite. This post points out the ignorance of an anti-puma blog and it’s supporters plans to kill puma. I am a puma thru and thru.****
Over at a misinformation blog called “Yes To Democracy, Not PUMA” a person that left a comment is apparently formulating a plan to take PUMA down… and it’s just about the dumbest crock of crap I have ever heard…
Plan to kill the PUMA.
Step 1 – join PUMA, send an email to email@example.com
Step 2 – When you start receiving prowl info,
take note of the contact info and message
Step 3 – Contact the people they are contacting and
tell them that PUMA is a GOP swiftboat and
tell them to ignore the PUMA’s emails
Do these people even understand anything at all? Seriously… it is almost as if they are mentally disabled.
Here is why that won’t work…
1. One of the reasons that many of us became disaffected in the first place is because we got tired of getting called Racists and Republicans for not supporting your precious candidate… why is it that you think by calling us Racists and Republicans that you will bring us back in line?
2. There is no one “PUMA” group… It is a Mantra, not an organization… the Coalition is Just Say No Deal, but even that is not totally unified. PUMApac is a part of the larger movement. While they are doing wonderful work with great results, they are not the WHOLE movement. They are a part of the whole. Ever heard the term “like hearding cats?” Yeah, well pinning us all down would be more like herding PUMA’s… the difference? We bite back.
How about a plan that really works? Here, I will even spell it out for you morons…
1. Actually listen to our grievances and understand them
2. Take action against the sexism in our society… you could even do something symbolic, like putting the ERA back on the table. It is SHAMEFUL that has not been passed, and even more shameful that you idiots took it off the party platform.
3. Reform the primary system. The caucuses have to go, they are bull. You also need to seat Michigan properly by giving Hillary back her delegates and take away the delegates that Barack did not win.
4. Show some god damn respect to half your friggin party and to the person that got a hell of a lot more primary votes than all of you. Yeah, Aretha Franklin style.
5. Stop calling us Republicans and Racists… that really makes us mad.
6. Stop trying to “shut us down.” That really makes us mad too.
Basically, listen to us, take responsibility for your bull, fix what you have done and prevent it from happening again in the future.
But you people seem too dumb to do that, so I guess I might as well be talking to a wall.
Update: OOOO Blog owner responds in comments LOL, now Hillaryis44 and Darraugh Murphy are GOP operatives stealing our money LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL – Oh, and we are the cult members.
I do realize that a fight like this is completely childish and stupid, but I am getting really tired of getting called a GOP operative and a racist, especially by people that can’t even get the facts straight. So please indulge me.
UPDATE: Looks like my post is getting around… Lynette Long has it HERE, though she doesn’t give me a link? No biggie though!
The Denver Group has pointed out that there is a distinction between Hillary being on the ballot as a symbolic gesture, the proverbial pat on the head, and actually being up for nomination.
We cannot allow this to happen. We will not be tricked, we will not be bamboozled, and we will not accept a pity vote.
Please join The Denver Group, unite your voices and Just Say No Deal.
There is a crucial difference between Senator Clinton’s name being “on the ballot” and having her name being placed in nomination. And the difference is between being a genuine candidate and something that is nothing more than a symbolic sham. Both the DNC and Senator Obama’s campaign may be attempting to negotiate a settlement where Senator Clinton’s name is on the ballot but not placed in nomination. They may think that is enough to assuage her voters. They may think that voters can be fooled. Our ads are going to make sure they know that no one is going to be fooled.
The stated message is to make the people who voted for the FISA bill pay for it.
These people are pissed, organized and have HUGE audiences.
Oh Barry, what will become of you?!?!?! The netroots put you where you are… Will they put you back?
More at Wired
A Guest Blogger at Lynette Long’s Blog by the name of Susan B. Castner relates her story of a meeting she and a bunch of Clinton fundraisers had with Obama.
They hoped for a sense of unity, inclusion, and an invitation on board… what they got instead was evasion, a pat on the head, and an open hand asking for money…
The people I have been in the trenches with for the last 18 months all feel that Hillary’s achievements as the first woman to present a serious challenge must be recorded for history – especially since convention week includes the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage. Imagine attending THE convention that celebrates the phenomenal achievements of generations of women in politics! What would be a better way to join splintered Democratic constituencies into a winning alliance? After all, if the sensible shoe were on the other foot, would anyone in his or her right mind even think of suggesting that Senator Obama’s name not be placed in nomination? Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas (among others) have ALL had their names placed in nomination with far fewer than 1,896 delegates.
My friend who asked the question in DC explained that if we, on the finance committee, were expected to put our time, energy, effort, and rolodexes into getting Senator Obama elected, we wanted some assurance that we would be able to vote for Hillary in Denver.
We all thought it was a reasonably benign question with a relatively simple answer. I was absolutely stunned when Senator Obama replied that that there were many issues that needed to be “negotiated” and we would not have a “negotiating session” that night. He did attempt to placate us by saying that Hillary would be “front and center” at the convention. He also told the woman who asked the question that he DID want her rolodex. Answers to other questions about the blatant misogyny and reducing Hillary’s campaign debt were no more satisfying.
I cannot say that I am suprised at all. This is just an extension of the comment that Obama made to Rendell about not needing people, just their checks.
I am convinced that Obama could give less than a crap about the wants, need, desires or cares of the 18 million people that voted for Hillary. He is realizing that his funding machine is slowing down and that he is running out of donors, and while he doesn’t want to recognize or act on our desires or votes, he wants our money.
Sorry Barry, this ATM is closed. You are gonna have to find money elsewhere, cause you ain’t gonna find any here.