Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts
04 November 2008
03 November 2008
Nov 3, 2008 Polls are Puzzling - Skewed Towards Obama?
I know a lot of people are becoming suspicious of the polls showing Obama ahead by vast margins. I'm not a statistician or a pollster, so I'm not going to try to analyze the hard numbers. However, I do know some basics about selecting a good representation of the populace.
The first poll is the NBC-Wall Street Journal Poll released today which shows Obama up +8. Here's a few puzzling things about this poll. The first question about the poll is there sampling method. For some strange reason, they only accepted responses from individuals who only had a cell phone and no land line. Any respondents who answered that they had both were terminated from the poll.
1b. Do you have a landline in addition to your cell phone, or is your cell phone the only telephone you have? +
Likely
Voters
Have a landline ................................. - TERMINATE [139]
Cell phone is only telephone............. 100 CONTINUE
Not sure .......................................... - TERMINATE
+ Results shown reflect responses among likely voters.
As you can see, anyone who answered that they had a landline or unsure were terminated from the poll. Now this makes me wonder what type of population target would only have a cell phone. I understand it is becoming more and more popular, however, the pollsters do not share why this is such an important qualifier to participate in their poll.
The second point of confusion is the question dealing with the potential voters level of interest in this election. Basically, the only two criteria that allow you to vote in this poll is either if you rate it a 10 out of 10 or you have already voted.
2. Using a ten-point scale, please tell me how likely you are to vote in the November fourth elections for
president and Congress. If you are certain that you will vote, pick a number closer to "eight," "nine," or
"ten." If it is less likely that you will vote, use a number closer to "one," "two," or "three." You may choose
any number from one to ten. +
Likely
Voters
10, certain to vote ............................. 91 CONTINUE [140-141]
9 ....................................................... -
8 ....................................................... -
7 ....................................................... -
6 ....................................................... -
5 ....................................................... - TERMINATE
4 ....................................................... -
3 ....................................................... -
2 ....................................................... -
1, less likely to vote........................... -
Already voted (VOL) ....................... 9 CONTINUE
Not sure .......................................... - TERMINATE
+ Results shown reflect responses among likely voters.
Now for some reason they are using this response as their only way to determine whether or not someone is a likely voter. Now, I'm far from an expert, but why would someone who only viewed this election as a 9 out of 10 in importance be considered an unlikely voter?
Next on the hit parade is the Marist Poll which shows Obama +9 over McCain. Now this poll really makes me wonder about its validity all together. To me, if you were a pollster who really wanted to claim the validity of your poll, would you describe your respondents as the following:
Nature of the Sample: 830 Americans
This survey was conducted on November 2, 2008. 830 adults 18 years of age or older within the
continental United States were interviewed by telephone. Telephone numbers were selected based
upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation. The exchanges were selected to
ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. The results of the entire
survey are statistically significant at ±3.5%. There are 747 registered voters and 635 likely voters.
The results for these sub-samples are each statistically significant at ±4%. The margin for error
increases for cross-tabulations.
First of all, I'm glad that they sampled 830 Americans. I mean, if the results from Zimbabwe would have showed Obama +9 I would definitely be thinking that Obama could be posed for a landslide victory. But here is the problem with this description. There is none. Who is to say they didn't call San Francisco, New York City, Detroit, and Atlanta to come up with their sample? I mean, that would cover each region of the country right? Second, I don't know how in the hell you can take responses from 830 Americans and determine what nearly 130,000,000 plus potential voters will do. That is a sample of .0000061% of the population. That's roughly equivalent to to asking one person in California how the voted and then calling a race on it as an exit poll.
Next up is the Rasmussen Reports Poll. To see the full sampling method of this poll, you have to buy a subscription the the site, so you have to be a little leery to begin with. Second, Rasmussen admits to setting a goal to weight its polls by seeking out 9.7% more Democrats to responds than Republicans, which is rather unprecedented. There has never been that great of disparity in turnout before and I doubt that this election will be that much different. But hey, it sells subscriptions right?
Gallup is its own animal. They've hedged their bets using three different sampling methods. There final prediction is Obama 55% to McCain 44%. What doesn't make sense here is that third party candidates Bob Barr, Ralph Nader others have combined been attracting anywhere from 3-6% of the vote. So unless Gallup is suggesting that 105% of the electorate is going to vote this year, which is totally possible with ACORN registering more voters in Indianapolis than there are legal voting aged people, there is one red flag against them.
Then Gallup comes up with this gem of doublespeak:
--OR--
Should I multiply the two? Would that mean that they are trying to say that there is .0001 chance they are wrong? Do I carry they one? What about the numerator?
--OR--
Was in Col. Mustard in the Kitchen with the Candlestick?
Okay, then there is the Diageo/Hotline poll. Now if you visit the link provided by Real Clear Politics you get a page that looks like a third graders attempt at building a web page.
Once again, third party candidates aren't even factored into this poll:
McCain/Palin 45%
Undec 5%
So, as you can see, you either supported Obama, McCain or were Undec (which I'm assuming means undecided but could also be an abbreviation for a new UN agency Obama is proposing, totally funded by the US of course). There is no factoring for the 3-6% of third party votes.
Diageo/Hotline's description of their sample consisted of one louse sentence:
Today's Diageo/Hotline tracking poll, conducted 10/31-11/2 by FD, surveyed 887 LVs and has a margin of error of +/- 3.3%. Party ID Breakdown for the sample is 41%D, 36%R, 18%I.
Now I ask you folks. If you were a student and used that as your sample description in a junior high class, would you get away with it? Probably not. But, apparently its good enough for professional pollsters.
One last thing about this poll which is peculiar is this statement:
Based on an analysis of responses to questions on candidates' images, party ID and demographics, "Refused" responses in the head-to-head question were assigned to Obama, McCain or undec.
Um, so what exactly does that mean? Does that mean if someone responded that they were a registered Democrat and then refused to answer who they were voting for that the vote automatically went to Obama? The poll apparently only asked 3 questions: What party are you, did you vote yet and who will/did you vote for. I mean, if electing a president came down to who had more registered voters in their party, this poll and statement would make a lot more sense. Of course, ACORN has also been using the same philosophy, "stock-watering" the populace with fraudulent voters so pollsters skew and weigh their numbers to unrealistic proportions. I mean, they have to account for the fact that Mickey Mouse will be voting 15 times this year in 8 states and 3 counties in Ohio.
So folks, I'm not a professional by any stretch and I'm sure the Obama-trons will say that 50,000,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong, but there are a lot of fundamental questions about these polls that are accepted for gospel truth. The only thing we can do is make sure we get out and vote tomorrow if you haven't already and make these pollsters eat crow along with the rest of the main-stream media. That is of course if MSNBC doesn't call the race for Obama at 08:01 AM EST.
The first poll is the NBC-Wall Street Journal Poll released today which shows Obama up +8. Here's a few puzzling things about this poll. The first question about the poll is there sampling method. For some strange reason, they only accepted responses from individuals who only had a cell phone and no land line. Any respondents who answered that they had both were terminated from the poll.
1b. Do you have a landline in addition to your cell phone, or is your cell phone the only telephone you have? +
Likely
Voters
Have a landline ................................. - TERMINATE [139]
Cell phone is only telephone............. 100 CONTINUE
Not sure .......................................... - TERMINATE
+ Results shown reflect responses among likely voters.
As you can see, anyone who answered that they had a landline or unsure were terminated from the poll. Now this makes me wonder what type of population target would only have a cell phone. I understand it is becoming more and more popular, however, the pollsters do not share why this is such an important qualifier to participate in their poll.
The second point of confusion is the question dealing with the potential voters level of interest in this election. Basically, the only two criteria that allow you to vote in this poll is either if you rate it a 10 out of 10 or you have already voted.
2. Using a ten-point scale, please tell me how likely you are to vote in the November fourth elections for
president and Congress. If you are certain that you will vote, pick a number closer to "eight," "nine," or
"ten." If it is less likely that you will vote, use a number closer to "one," "two," or "three." You may choose
any number from one to ten. +
Likely
Voters
10, certain to vote ............................. 91 CONTINUE [140-141]
9 ....................................................... -
8 ....................................................... -
7 ....................................................... -
6 ....................................................... -
5 ....................................................... - TERMINATE
4 ....................................................... -
3 ....................................................... -
2 ....................................................... -
1, less likely to vote........................... -
Already voted (VOL) ....................... 9 CONTINUE
Not sure .......................................... - TERMINATE
+ Results shown reflect responses among likely voters.
Now for some reason they are using this response as their only way to determine whether or not someone is a likely voter. Now, I'm far from an expert, but why would someone who only viewed this election as a 9 out of 10 in importance be considered an unlikely voter?
Next on the hit parade is the Marist Poll which shows Obama +9 over McCain. Now this poll really makes me wonder about its validity all together. To me, if you were a pollster who really wanted to claim the validity of your poll, would you describe your respondents as the following:
Nature of the Sample: 830 Americans
This survey was conducted on November 2, 2008. 830 adults 18 years of age or older within the
continental United States were interviewed by telephone. Telephone numbers were selected based
upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation. The exchanges were selected to
ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. The results of the entire
survey are statistically significant at ±3.5%. There are 747 registered voters and 635 likely voters.
The results for these sub-samples are each statistically significant at ±4%. The margin for error
increases for cross-tabulations.
First of all, I'm glad that they sampled 830 Americans. I mean, if the results from Zimbabwe would have showed Obama +9 I would definitely be thinking that Obama could be posed for a landslide victory. But here is the problem with this description. There is none. Who is to say they didn't call San Francisco, New York City, Detroit, and Atlanta to come up with their sample? I mean, that would cover each region of the country right? Second, I don't know how in the hell you can take responses from 830 Americans and determine what nearly 130,000,000 plus potential voters will do. That is a sample of .0000061% of the population. That's roughly equivalent to to asking one person in California how the voted and then calling a race on it as an exit poll.
Next up is the Rasmussen Reports Poll. To see the full sampling method of this poll, you have to buy a subscription the the site, so you have to be a little leery to begin with. Second, Rasmussen admits to setting a goal to weight its polls by seeking out 9.7% more Democrats to responds than Republicans, which is rather unprecedented. There has never been that great of disparity in turnout before and I doubt that this election will be that much different. But hey, it sells subscriptions right?
Gallup is its own animal. They've hedged their bets using three different sampling methods. There final prediction is Obama 55% to McCain 44%. What doesn't make sense here is that third party candidates Bob Barr, Ralph Nader others have combined been attracting anywhere from 3-6% of the vote. So unless Gallup is suggesting that 105% of the electorate is going to vote this year, which is totally possible with ACORN registering more voters in Indianapolis than there are legal voting aged people, there is one red flag against them.
Then Gallup comes up with this gem of doublespeak:
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 3,050 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 31-Nov. 2, 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.
What the hell does that mean? I'm not exactly sure how you can have a percentage of a percentage. It's kind of like saying there will be a 90% chance of having 20% chance of showers this evening. How am I supposed to read that. Am I supposed to add the 5% uncertainty in their own polls to the 2% admitted margin of error? Is this their way of trying to say, hey, we could be off by 7% but it sounds a lot better on us.--OR--
Should I multiply the two? Would that mean that they are trying to say that there is .0001 chance they are wrong? Do I carry they one? What about the numerator?
--OR--
Was in Col. Mustard in the Kitchen with the Candlestick?
Okay, then there is the Diageo/Hotline poll. Now if you visit the link provided by Real Clear Politics you get a page that looks like a third graders attempt at building a web page.
Once again, third party candidates aren't even factored into this poll:
The Early Line: Diageo/Hotline Tracking Poll
Obama/Biden 50%McCain/Palin 45%
Undec 5%
So, as you can see, you either supported Obama, McCain or were Undec (which I'm assuming means undecided but could also be an abbreviation for a new UN agency Obama is proposing, totally funded by the US of course). There is no factoring for the 3-6% of third party votes.
Diageo/Hotline's description of their sample consisted of one louse sentence:
Today's Diageo/Hotline tracking poll, conducted 10/31-11/2 by FD, surveyed 887 LVs and has a margin of error of +/- 3.3%. Party ID Breakdown for the sample is 41%D, 36%R, 18%I.
Now I ask you folks. If you were a student and used that as your sample description in a junior high class, would you get away with it? Probably not. But, apparently its good enough for professional pollsters.
One last thing about this poll which is peculiar is this statement:
Based on an analysis of responses to questions on candidates' images, party ID and demographics, "Refused" responses in the head-to-head question were assigned to Obama, McCain or undec.
Um, so what exactly does that mean? Does that mean if someone responded that they were a registered Democrat and then refused to answer who they were voting for that the vote automatically went to Obama? The poll apparently only asked 3 questions: What party are you, did you vote yet and who will/did you vote for. I mean, if electing a president came down to who had more registered voters in their party, this poll and statement would make a lot more sense. Of course, ACORN has also been using the same philosophy, "stock-watering" the populace with fraudulent voters so pollsters skew and weigh their numbers to unrealistic proportions. I mean, they have to account for the fact that Mickey Mouse will be voting 15 times this year in 8 states and 3 counties in Ohio.
So folks, I'm not a professional by any stretch and I'm sure the Obama-trons will say that 50,000,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong, but there are a lot of fundamental questions about these polls that are accepted for gospel truth. The only thing we can do is make sure we get out and vote tomorrow if you haven't already and make these pollsters eat crow along with the rest of the main-stream media. That is of course if MSNBC doesn't call the race for Obama at 08:01 AM EST.
31 October 2008
Napalm in the Morning: Obama Insider Leaks Campaigns Tactics for Suppressing Republican Votes
I think I've finally found it. Seriously.
For the last few months, I've really had a nagging feeling that something is just not right. I already knew about the media bias and the left's love affair with Obama, but the numbers just weren't adding up. Of the people I interact with on a daily basis, very few are actual Obama supporters. I ask other people, have you noticed much support where you live? And many say, "Not nearly as much as when Kerry and Gore ran on 04 and 00."
Well, folks, I was on AJ Strata's Strata-sphere blog last evening, a great site that I have recently begun to grow fond of for his ability to interpolate the skewering of the polls and I found a very interesting post in the comments page of one of his posts. It was sent from another site from an anonymous source from inside the Obama
campaign. Now, obviously, as it goes with anonymous sources, you have to have a little bit of skepticism, however, if you have been paying attention to this race, especially a little too much like I have, you see that their message seems to make way too much sense.
If you've ever wondered why pro-Obama articles ruled Yahoo Buzz, Digg and other social bookmarking sites, or why moderate and balanced articles were often buried, look no further. I called this a few months back in my post "Liberal Smears Rule the Net." People, believe me when I say this. The staged support for Obama on the net is not an indicator of some sort of overwhelming support nation wide. It is an attempt, as stated below to frustrate and suppress Republican and Independent voters from voting for McCain.
The Obama camp has literally thousands of campaign workers hired to sit on a computer all day,
comb the net for conservative blogs and posts and spam, attack or flame them until the article or site is destroyed. So much for free speech, right?
The same goes for polls. What's worse is that the pollsters are falling for it. Here's what happens. ACORN and other agencies go out and register hundreds of thousands of fraudulent applications to vote. Pollsters see that there is a huge increase in registered Democrats in a state or precinct and begin to "tweak" their numbers to predict the outcome of the election based on such. But folks, here's what has been happening: When pollsters call respondents, McCain has actually been winning most of the polls. How is that you say?
Well, when Obama gets a vote, it doesn't get counted as one vote in the polls. It gets counted as anywhere from 1.01 to 1.5. The pollsters believe that by inflating the responses from Obama
supporters to match the rise in registration (many fraudulent) that their numbers will be more accurate. So in reality, often times respondents end up choosing McCain 55% to 45% yet when they apply their formulas, the results end up swinging Obama ahead by 4-5%.
This is exactly what the Obama camp hoped would happen. They know that not many people are going to actually going to be able to show and and show and ID and say "Hey, I'm Mickey Mouse and want to vote today." Well, some people might, but that's not the whole goal of the ACORN Fraudulent voter drives. The goal is to get the pollsters to apply their formulas and create the "bandwagon effect" for swing and Independent voters and to get Republican McCain supporters to stay home on election day.
I truly believe that McCain is really up by 4%. The Obama camp knew this from the beginning of their internal polls. Their whole hope is to erase that 4% through getting McCain supporters to stay home and feel as if the race was already won by Obama. This is truly why it is critical that those who support McCain get out and vote and get others to do the same. They want you to think its already sewn up.
And as we've seen from overseas ballot and Florida exit polling, McCain is turning is actually in the lead, despite having a a decisively higher amount of Democrats voting than Republicans.
Below is the post, and I hope you are able to see where the Obama camp is coming from and help spread the word. Now, I just have to sit back and get ready for the trolls to invade the Circus. Bring it on baby.
Ok, I want to clear my conscious a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow Clinton supporters out.
For the last few months, I've really had a nagging feeling that something is just not right. I already knew about the media bias and the left's love affair with Obama, but the numbers just weren't adding up. Of the people I interact with on a daily basis, very few are actual Obama supporters. I ask other people, have you noticed much support where you live? And many say, "Not nearly as much as when Kerry and Gore ran on 04 and 00."
Well, folks, I was on AJ Strata's Strata-sphere blog last evening, a great site that I have recently begun to grow fond of for his ability to interpolate the skewering of the polls and I found a very interesting post in the comments page of one of his posts. It was sent from another site from an anonymous source from inside the Obama
campaign. Now, obviously, as it goes with anonymous sources, you have to have a little bit of skepticism, however, if you have been paying attention to this race, especially a little too much like I have, you see that their message seems to make way too much sense. If you've ever wondered why pro-Obama articles ruled Yahoo Buzz, Digg and other social bookmarking sites, or why moderate and balanced articles were often buried, look no further. I called this a few months back in my post "Liberal Smears Rule the Net." People, believe me when I say this. The staged support for Obama on the net is not an indicator of some sort of overwhelming support nation wide. It is an attempt, as stated below to frustrate and suppress Republican and Independent voters from voting for McCain.
The Obama camp has literally thousands of campaign workers hired to sit on a computer all day,
comb the net for conservative blogs and posts and spam, attack or flame them until the article or site is destroyed. So much for free speech, right?The same goes for polls. What's worse is that the pollsters are falling for it. Here's what happens. ACORN and other agencies go out and register hundreds of thousands of fraudulent applications to vote. Pollsters see that there is a huge increase in registered Democrats in a state or precinct and begin to "tweak" their numbers to predict the outcome of the election based on such. But folks, here's what has been happening: When pollsters call respondents, McCain has actually been winning most of the polls. How is that you say?
Well, when Obama gets a vote, it doesn't get counted as one vote in the polls. It gets counted as anywhere from 1.01 to 1.5. The pollsters believe that by inflating the responses from Obama
supporters to match the rise in registration (many fraudulent) that their numbers will be more accurate. So in reality, often times respondents end up choosing McCain 55% to 45% yet when they apply their formulas, the results end up swinging Obama ahead by 4-5%.This is exactly what the Obama camp hoped would happen. They know that not many people are going to actually going to be able to show and and show and ID and say "Hey, I'm Mickey Mouse and want to vote today." Well, some people might, but that's not the whole goal of the ACORN Fraudulent voter drives. The goal is to get the pollsters to apply their formulas and create the "bandwagon effect" for swing and Independent voters and to get Republican McCain supporters to stay home on election day.
I truly believe that McCain is really up by 4%. The Obama camp knew this from the beginning of their internal polls. Their whole hope is to erase that 4% through getting McCain supporters to stay home and feel as if the race was already won by Obama. This is truly why it is critical that those who support McCain get out and vote and get others to do the same. They want you to think its already sewn up.
And as we've seen from overseas ballot and Florida exit polling, McCain is turning is actually in the lead, despite having a a decisively higher amount of Democrats voting than Republicans.
Below is the post, and I hope you are able to see where the Obama camp is coming from and help spread the word. Now, I just have to sit back and get ready for the trolls to invade the Circus. Bring it on baby.
Ok, I want to clear my conscious a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow Clinton supporters out.
I work for a campaign and can’t wait for this week to be over.
I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate but over time grew to love HRC.
The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.
We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a Clinton or McCain supporter who just switched our support for Obama”
We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.
We did this the whole primary and it worked.
Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out TV, news, websites, etc.
This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.
Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the YouTube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.
People makes posts to the effect that the world has “gone mad”
That's the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending.
We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn’t control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scary to a McCain supporter. Its worked, although the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.
see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become “sheeple”
The polls are roughly 3-5 points in favor of Barack. That's due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple.
Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as Teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and “fair and balanced” and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.
This is why nothing sticks.
The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless of the results.
There is no true inauguration draft or true grant park construction going on. There will be a party, but we are boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up.
Our goal is to continue to make you lose your moral. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all.
There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.
The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.
I am saying this because I know HRC was better for the country, and now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her. To me Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn’t know him or his policies, but now I understand more than I care to and I realize his interests are more for him, and the DNC and all working like puppets with dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everyone dependent on the government, this means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don’t see this as America, so I am now supporting John McCain.
Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can’t imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.
this is a big conspiracy and I am so shocked that its not realized.
We released a little blurb the other day that the Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts towards 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, its a lie. David is very smart, but its a sticky ugly not very truthful kind of intelligence.
Its not over yet, but I think the machine is working. And its a hill to climb.
I will be quitting my post on Nov 5th and my vote will be for John McCain. Fortunately, my position has been a marketing position and I don’t feel I had any part of anything I would feel guilty for. But I look forward to getting out of this as the negativity and environment upsets me.
I wish you all well, and good luck.
PS my name is not really Sarah. but I am a female and I understand your plight.
I don’t know how true this thing is but it is interesting and some of the things said here have happened.
27 October 2008
Napalm in the Morning: "Is this some sort of joke?"
Well, it sure has been a while since our last episode of Napalm in the Morning. I don't want to say I hit a rut, but I just didn't feel like composing much.
- OBAMA CHANNEL 74: Well folks, the time is near and I half to say I will be looking
forward to Nov. 5th. That is unless if we still recieve the OBAMA channel on Dish Network. It really makes you wonder who is funding Obama, especially in light of all of the fraudulent donations he has been receiving. It couldn't possibly be middle eastern and other foriegn money could it? Don't tell me all the poor folks that he is fighting for that don't have any shoes or food for their children are able to pony up millions of millions of dollars each month for his campaign.
- POLLS! I'm starting to have my suspicions that ACORN has a hand in the daily polls across
the country too. Especially since the Investors Business Daily Poll (the most accurate poll in the 2004 election) has the race withing 3% (2.8% to be exact) of each other and closing rapidly.
- POLLS (Part 2). Also interesting to note is that the overwhelming majority of Americans who do not "fly the flag" support Obama for President 66-27%. Kind of solidifies my point that the core of Obama's supporters truly hate everything America stands for. (See also Obama Campaign Threw Away American Flags after Speech.)
- WESTERN PA IS RACIST...No, just Redneck and Ignorant: John Murtha has said enough
and it looks like LTC William Russell (Ret) has a serious shot of winning. Michelle Malkin's site has him even in the lead. I'm almost afraid of what Murtha will say next. Possible he will put a bill before congress to declare a national Benedict Arnold Day.
- REDISTRIBUTION OF THE WEALTH = Take money from the people who work to give to the people who don't. I'm all for a hand up, but not a hand out. This is talk I would be expecting to hear coming from Moscow, not Miami. People wonder why the market is down? It's NOT because of the "Failed Policies of GW Bush." It's because any investor with half a brain in his head is pulling his or her money out of the market until the election is over in fear of an Obama victory and the subsequent tax hikes to follow. You people wonder why your IRA and retirements are down and why your boss is closing up shop? OBAMA. Plain and simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
