In perhaps the most ominous sign yet for Richard Mourdock, Dick Morris declares in his column that the Indiana Senate candidate remains a strong contender:
Quote :
The polling reflects that Mourdock is alive and kicking and may be able yet to keep the Indiana seat Republican. John McLaughlin, Mourdock’s pollster, found the race tied at 44 to 44 percent on Tuesday night — the night of his infamous comment. As of Wednesday night, he had the race still tied at 44-44.
Mourdock’s comment has not received the focus that Akin’s remarks did, partly because now there is far more clutter in the political environment. Unlike Akin, he was not declared anathema (another foray into theology) by the Republican elders or even by Mitt Romney. The presidential hopeful said that he did not agree with Mourdock’s comments, but let an ad endorsing him continue to run in Indiana, a state he is carrying by 15 points.
So all is not lost. Despite himself, Mourdock still has a solid chance of winning. He is a reliable conservative and, as we have seen, honest to a fault, and deserves all the support he can get. Simply put, we need that seat.
For readers not familiar with Morris's record as a forecaster, he has previously predicted that Herman Cain would survive his sexual harassment scandal and that Michele Bachmann would be one of the two finalists for the GOP nomination. And that was just in 2011!
He also suggests in his column today that Republican candidates are moving up in the New Jersey and Rhode Island Senate races. Big points to any readers who know can name the Republican nominees in both those states. Actually, points to any readers who knew there were Senate races going on in both those states.
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 10/29/2012, 9:06 am
Quote :
Dick Morris @DickMorrisTweet Gallup Explains Why Other Polls Are Wrong
A wise man said
Quote :
Usually, when a poll is an outlier relative to the consensus, its results turn out badly
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 10/31/2012, 9:07 am
Voters have figured out that President Obama has no message, no agenda and not even much of an explanation for what he has done over the past four years. His campaign is based entirely on persuading people that Mitt Romney is a uniquely bad man, entirely dedicated to the rich, ignorant of the problems of the average person. As long as he could run his negative ads, the campaign at least kept voters away from the Romney bandwagon. But once we all met Mitt Romney for three 90-minute debates, we got to know him — and to like him. He was not the monster Obama depicted, but a reasonable person for whom we could vote.
As we stripped away Obama’s yearlong campaign of vilification, all the president offered us was more servings of negative ads — ads we had already dismissed as not credible. He kept doing the same thing even as it stopped working.
The result was that the presidential race reached a tipping point. Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama’s favor.
His erosion began shortly after the conventions when Indiana (10 votes) and North Carolina (15) moved to Romney (in addition to the 179 votes that states that McCain carried cast this year).
Then, in October, Obama lost the Southern swing states of Florida (29) and Virginia (13). He also lost Colorado (10), bringing his total to 255 votes.
And now, he faces the erosion of the northern swing states: Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4) and Iowa (6). Only in the union-anchored state of Nevada (9) does Obama still cling to a lead.
In the next few days, the battle will move to Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (15), Wisconsin (10) and Minnesota (16). Ahead in Pennsylvania, tied in Michigan and Wisconsin, and slightly behind in Minnesota, these new swing states look to be the battleground.
Or will the Romney momentum grow and wash into formerly safe Democratic territory in New Jersey and Oregon?
Once everyone discovers that the emperor has no clothes (or that Obama has no argument after the negative ads stopped working), the vote shift could be of historic proportions.
The impact on Senate races could be profound. Give the GOP easy pickups in Nebraska and North Dakota. Wisconsin has been a roller coaster. Once an easy win for Republican Tommy Thompson, then a likely loss as Democrat Tammy Baldwin caught up, and now Republican again, it will probably be a third pickup. Romney’s surge in Virginia is propelling George Allen to a good lead for the first time all campaign. In Montana, Republican Denny Rehberg holds and has held for some time a small lead over Democrat incumbent Jon Tester. And, in Pennsylvania, Smith has powered his campaign to a small lead over Democrat Bob Casey Jr.
The GOP now leads in these six takeaways. But it is also within easy striking distance in Ohio and Florida, where incumbents are under 50 percent and Republican challengers Connie Mack (Fla.) and Josh Mandel (Ohio) are only a few points behind. It may even be possible to entertain daydreams of Rhode Island (Barry Hinckley) and New Jersey (Joe Kyrillos) going Republican.
Republican losses? Look for a giveback in Maine and possibly in Indiana and Massachusetts. In Indiana, Republican Richard Mourdock had established a 5-point lead over Democrat Joe Donnelly. But his comments about rape knocked him back to a tie. With Romney carrying the state by 15 points, however, Mourdock could still make it. In Massachusetts, Brown has been in hand-to-hand combat with Elizabeth Warren. Down by five a few days ago, he’s now tied, but the undecided usually goes against the incumbent.
The most likely outcome? Eight GOP takeaways and two giveaways for a net gain of six. A 53-47 Senate, just like we have now, only opposite.
Barack Obama’s parting gift to the Democratic Party.
What fun we're going to have on Nov 7 slicing and dicing this. His Senate prediction is especially hilarious considering that Nate Silver has it the exact opposite with a 90% probability.
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 10/31/2012, 4:01 pm
The biggest dumbass in punditry would like you to know that Mitt Romney won't just win, but he'll win in a landslide!
In the next few days, the battle will move to Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (15), Wisconsin (10) and Minnesota (16). Ahead in Pennsylvania, tied in Michigan and Wisconsin, and slightly behind in Minnesota, these new swing states look to be the battleground.
Or will the Romney momentum grow and wash into formerly safe Democratic territory in New Jersey and Oregon?
Once everyone discovers that the emperor has no clothes (or that Obama has no argument after the negative ads stopped working), the vote shift could be of historic proportions.
It's one week before the election, and Morris is dreaming about people "discovering" something new about Obama. Like how he's Kenyan and hates freedom. He also expects a Republican six-seat Senate gain, because if he's going to be wrong, he might as well be spectacularly wrong.
1:52 PM PT: Ha ha, I didn't even notice this but it was pointed out in the comments.
Morris says Michigan has 15 electoral votes. It has 16
He says Minnesota has 16 electoral votes. It has 10.
He says Colorado has 10 electoral votes. It has 9.
He says Nevada has nine electoral votes. It has 6.
Oops.
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/1/2012, 4:34 pm
Quote :
Dick Morris @DickMorrisTweet I'm excited that Allen has developed a significant lead over Kaine for the Senate seat in Virginia, largely on the strength of Romney.
Kaine is 88% probable to win according to 538.
Quote :
Dick Morris @DickMorrisTweet There are two Senate seats where we have a decent shot of taking them away from the Democrats. Both in swing states Ohio and Florida.
Yeah,538 has Ohio @ 96% probable for Dems and Fla at 100% for Dems.
Quote :
Dick Morris @DickMorrisTweet Whether deliberately or not, the New York Times/CBS/Quinnipiac Poll is wrong! It shows Obama carrying Ohio, Florida, and Virginia.
I plan to keep track of all this idiot's predictions so we compare them after the votes are counted.
Last edited by Artie60438 on 11/1/2012, 4:44 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Added Ohio & Fla nonsense)
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/1/2012, 8:11 pm
Current State Of Play By Dick Morris on November 1, 2012
Here’s the rundown:
• Romney leads in all the states McCain carried in 2008 for 179 electoral votes.
• Romney is convincingly ahead in Indiana (10), North Carolina (15), Florida (29), Colorado (9), and Virginia (13) total: 255 needed to win: 270
• Ohio (18): It looks like we are ahead. Rasmussen has us up by two. So do some internal polls. But with the variation in turnout motivation and the undecided going against the incumbent, we should win by more than that.
• Iowa (6) Ditto. Latest polls have us one ahead.
• NH (4) Rasmussen has us up by two but probably more than that given turnout and undecided voters.
• Pennsylvania (20) Our ace in the hole! We are outspending Obama 6:1 here. Partly because of your donations to Super PAC for America (Michael Reagan’s outfit). Give some more! Last night’s poll had us ahead by two in Pennsylvania. If we lose Ohio, Pennsylvania will put us over the top.
• Wisconsin (10) Rasmussen has it tied at 49-49. We have a great organization here that won the recall contest against Gov Walker. I bet we win here. Now the focus of a major Romney effort.
• Minnesota (10) Believe it or not, coming within range. Just a few points behind and a lot of money going in there this weekend.
• Michigan (15) We should be closer here than we are. Lots of new money going in over the weekend, but we have faded a bit here.
Overall: Likely a 5-10 pt Romney win and above 300 electoral votes.
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/3/2012, 8:41 pm
"I think Bloomberg has been bitterly disappointed by President Obama. And I think he may be offended by the President trying to use NYC as a backdrop for a final week for a campaign where I’m not so sure he wants him to be re-elected," - Joe Scarborough, the day before Bloomberg endorsed Obama for reelection.
Yup. That’s right. A landslide for Romney approaching the magnitude of Obama’s against McCain. That’s my prediction.
On Sunday, we changed our clocks. On Tuesday, we’ll change our president.
Romney will win the states McCain carried in 2008, plus: Florida, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
In the popular vote, Romney will win by more than 5 points.
The Obama campaign made the following key mistakes:
• It bet the farm on negative ads in swing states. It didn’t realize that Mitt’s convention speech and the three debates would give him the chance to live down the charges and demonstrate — through facts and his demeanor — that they were baseless.
• Obama had no Plan B if the negatives didn’t work. He never really laid in a convincing defense of his record, except to recall the mess that he inherited and to try to make people believe things were better. He had no vision for his second term, except more of same. He never moved to the center — the shift that reelected Bill Clinton.
• Obama drew his list of swing states too narrowly. He did not contemplate that he would be forced to defend Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan or Minnesota and squandered his money contesting unwinnable states like North Carolina. When Romney bypassed Obama’s “firewall” states (like the Germans did the French Maginot Line in World War II), the president had not laid in the necessary prophylactic irradiation of negative ads, and three of the states embraced Romney.
• By focusing on the negative, Obama sacrificed first his personal popularity and then his dignity and presidentiality. No longer was he the hope and the change. He became nothing more than a nasty partisan, throwing epithets at his rival. A president does not let himself be quoted as saying that his opponent is a “bullsh–ter” or that voting is the best “revenge.” Even his dress was wrong. Instead of appearing in a dark suit, he dressed in an open-neck white shirt, trying to be everyman but succeeding only in not looking like a president.
• Since he offered nothing more than a negative campaign and a grab-bag of special-interest pleadings for single women, unions, college kids and minorities, Obama failed to inspire the turnout that he needed. Against Santorum and Gingrich, Obama could have made the case that their prospective presidencies were sufficiently dangerous that liberals and Democrats must rush to the polls to stop them. But against the congenial Romney, the warnings rang hollow.
• In the first debate, Obama was terrible. We’ll likely find out what his excuses are after the polls close. Did he have the flu? Was it the altitude? Had he, as Bob Woodward suggested, just received a dose of bad news? Why did he appear distracted?
• Obama should have gotten the facts out quickly about Benghazi rather than let them drip, drip, drip out over six weeks. He could then have handled the crisis and won points for determination and toughness. Instead, to the very end, he looked like he was covering up the fact of a terrorist attack. Because he was.
• After Sandy, Obama visited New Jersey and surveyed the damage with Gov. Chris Christie (R). He should have stayed on the storm, superintending relief efforts, urging FEMA on, absorbing the lessons of Bush’s failure to cope well with Katrina. Instead, he returned to the partisan wars and the strident speeches in swing states.
None of this should take away from Romney’s brilliant campaign. By staying on the economy and not being tempted into side issues like Libya, Mitt kept the focus where it needed to be and never let up. His campaign’s foray into Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin was vital to his chances of victory. More about what Mitt did right in my post-election column on Thursday. But for now, let’s celebrate the new president we are about to elect.
But wait!! That's not all!! Besides his super duper predictions
Quote :
Click HERE to Learn How to Earn Money While You Sleep!
Annual ROIs as high as 20% – 30%, even 50% or better!! AND get substantial Tax Benefits on Top!
I'm gonna be rich!
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/6/2012, 9:24 pm
The hell with the news channels. Watching Dick Morris melt down on Twitter is hilarious. He thinks they're calling states too soon Recapping his picks tomorrow vs the actual results? Priceless!
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/6/2012, 11:32 pm
Well, not everyone can be right. Here’s POLITICO’s rundown of the top pundits who got it wrong and predicted a Mitt Romney win. Oops:
Newt Gingrich:
“I believe the minimum result will be 53-47 Romney, over 300 electoral votes.” – Oct. 25, on Fox News.
Karl Rove:
Romney 285, Obama 253. “If crowds at his recent stops in these states [NV, WI and PA] are any indication of his supporters’ enthusiasm, Mr. Romney will likely be able to claim victory in these states as well.” — Nov. 5, on his website.
Fox News contributor Dick Morris:
Romney 325, Obama 213. “It will be the biggest surprise in recent American political history. It will rekindle the whole question as to why the media played this race as a nailbiter where in fact I think Romney’s going to win by quite a bit.” — Nov. 4, on Fox News.
Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham:
“I think he’s going to win New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and a few other surprises. I think this thing is going to be close.” — Oct. 31, on the Laura Ingraham Show.
The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol:
“I’m cautiously optimistic that Romney’s going to win.” — Oct. 31, on the Laura Ingraham Show.
Conservative columnist George Will:
Romney 321, Obama 217. “The wild card in what I’ve projected is I’m projecting Minnesota to go for Romney.” — Nov. 4, on ABC’s “This Week.”
UnskewedPolls’ Dean Chambers:
Romney 311, Obama 227. “Despite the pattern of skewed polls, most of them commissioned by the mainstream media, the overall electoral landscape is looking more and more favorable for Romney.” — Nov. 1, on examiner.com.
The Washington Examiner’s Michael Barone:
“Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals.” — Nov. 2, writing in The Washington Examiner.
House Speaker John Boehner:
“I think Ohioans vote with their wallets. That’s why I think Romney’s going to win on Tuesday.” — Nov. 4, on CNN.
Sarah Palin:
“I do believe that enough Americans have awakened and understand it’s time for a shift.” — Nov. 2, on Fox News.
Fox News’s Sean Hannity:
“I got this, Romney three points.” — Nov. 2, on Fox News.
CNBC’s Larry Kudlow:
”I am now predicting a 330 vote electoral vote landslide. Yes, that’s right — 330 electoral votes.” — Oct. 25, on CNBC.
Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer:
“Romney, very close. But he’ll win the popular by I think about half a point, electoral college probably a very narrow margin.” — Nov. 2, on Fox News.
Rush Limbaugh:
“All of my thinking says Romney big. All of my feeling is where my concern is. But my thoughts, my intellectual analysis of this — factoring everything I see plus the polling data — it’s not even close. Three hundred-plus electoral votes for Romney.” — Nov. 5, on his radio show.
The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan:
“I think it’s Romney. … While everyone is looking at the polls and the storm, Romney’s slipping into the presidency. ”— Nov. 5, on her Wall Street Journal blog.
Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer:
“My prediction: Romn 50.1%-49.5%. Romn w minimum 271 EVs (FL, VA, CO, WI, NH). 309 EVs if he takes OH&PA. Pres-elect Romney.” — Nov. 4, via Twitter.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/7/2012, 8:59 am
Our long national nightmare, aka the presidential campaign, is over. Barack Obama has been reelected and not only were the polls not skewed, they actually understated his electoral advantage. I can’t wait to hear what Dennis Dean Chambers has to say. Even after strongly narrowing his prediction down to Romney barely winning with 275 votes, he still wasn’t even close.
He predicted that Romney would win Ohio, Colorado, and Florida. So all that talk from Chambers about how the polling companies were skewing the results, that they were beset by liberal bias and that “leftists” were desperately clinging to Nate Silver to hold on to fading hope — all bullshit, as any rational person knew it was. So what will Chambers say now? Will he admit he was full of shit? Will he claim the election was rigged? Will he claim there was massive voter fraud? I’m dying to hear.
I’m also dying to hear what Dick Morris has to say. And Vox Day. And Michael Barone. And George Will. All of them predicted a landslide for Romney, which was so completely contradicted by the evidence that they would have to be nearly delusional to believe it. As I said, there was always a possibility that Romney would eke out a win, but if you thought he was going to win a landslide with 315+ electoral votes, you were engaging in the most absurd wishful thinking.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/7/2012, 9:07 am
And it was fun watching Rove whine like a child:
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/7/2012, 9:20 am
Heretic wrote:
And it was fun watching Rove whine like a child:
Yeah,that was insane. As soon as it was called for Obama I switched to Fox to enjoy the whining. SNL should have a field day this week with what went on immediately after Fox called Ohio for Obama.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/7/2012, 9:33 am
The most striking political development of the last decade or so has been the abandonment, by the political right, of any concern with reality. Mitt Romney ran the most deceitful and dishonest campaign in US political history, vowing not to be deterred by fact-checkers. His partisans, in the US and Australia have made denial of reality an artform. This approach has had some remarkable successes, notably in delaying action against climate change. But there is always the risk that deception will turn into self-deception and the US Presidential election illustrated that, with the emergence of “poll trutherism”, the belief that the polls pointing to Obama’s re-election were skewed in order to encourage Democratic turnout.
Now that poll-based predictions have turned out to be as close to accurate as statistical theory would predict, how will the right react? I can think of three possibilities
(a) Going deeper down the rabbit hole with the idea that the “increase Democratic turnout” strategy ensured that the polls were a self-fulfilling prophecy (b) Attempting to return to reality on this issue, while maintaining delusional positions on other issues, and maintaining faith in the pundits who led them astray this time round (c) A serious attempt to shift to a policy discourse based on evidence and analysis rather than talking points in support of positions chosen on a basis of tribal faith
I can’t imagine much progress towards (c). Apart from anything else, most of the existing rightwing commentariat would be unemployable if this were required of them. So far, I haven’t seen much evidence of (a), but it may well be bubbling below the surface. Still, at this point (b) looks most likely.
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/7/2012, 5:40 pm
How did Gallup end up being one of the most inaccurate pollsters of the 2012 cycle? In a word, they earned it. Obviously the mammoth lead Gallup showed for Mitt Romney once they moved to a ‘likely voter’ screen caused considerable heartburn for Democrats while seriously heartening Republicans. They crept back to something like the consensus after taking a week off polling after Sandy. But how did they end up getting the election so wrong?
It ends up there’s a very simple and I think even unitary answer: race. Gallup somehow seemed to think the electorate would be much whiter than it ended up being.
The numbers are stark. Gallup projected that whites would make up 78% of the 2012 electorate. In fact, the final exit polls say the number was 72%.
When you consider that minority voters went overwhelmingly for President Obama and white voters went decisively for Romney, that six percent difference in the composition of the electorate really makes all the difference in the world. I don’t know whether there were other problems with Gallup’s modeling. My point though is that this alone can easily explain why their numbers were so much more favorable to Romney than almost anyone else.
Now why did they come up with that number? There’s a certain logic. But it seems like an extremely poor one. In 2004, the white vote was 77% of the electorate, in 2008, 74% of the electorate and in 2010, 78% of the electorate. So Gallup posited that that the racial make up of the electorate would be the same as two years ago and that 2008 was an outlier.
But there are two real problems with that reasoning.
First, presidential years are always higher turnout elections compared to midterm elections. Always. And historically racial minorities are more inconsistent in their voting than white voters. So there were lots of reasons to think that the percentage of whites would be lower than 2010, even without factoring in that it was a blow out for the disproportionately white GOP.
But there’s another issue: the country is getting less white. We know that right? Anyway, there are really good reasons to think that the percentage of white voters would go down from 2004. Gallup just seemed to be assuming that 2008 was an outlier, an exceptional year. Again, that was certainly possible. But projecting the 78% number didn’t just prove to be wrong. It also looks really hard to justify.
Everything I’ve discussed to this point is focused on statistics and what I guess I’d call logical and historical arguments. But more subjectively, after the attacks on Hispanic Americans over the last two and for years, after the attacks on voting rights and so much more, it just seems preposterous to assume that the minority vote this year wouldn’t be substantial. And yet that’s what they did.
Obviously there are lots of really experienced and smart pollsters and statisticians who work at Gallup. But in the future, at least for me, it’ll be really hard to look at Gallup and impute any presumption of accuracy from the name or the brand.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/8/2012, 9:41 am
And on the other side: Juan Cole rips apart O'Reilly's whining about minorities with the usual thing that ruins conservative talking points... math. Rachel Maddow asks conservative to join us back here in reality:
Quote :
Last night was a good night for liberals and for democrats for very obvious reasons, but it was also, possibly, a good night for this country as a whole. Because in this country, we have a two- party system in government. And the idea is supposed to be that the two sides, both come up with ways to confront and fix the real problems facing our country. They both propose possible solutions to our real problems. And we debate between those possible solutions. And by the process of debate, we pick the best idea. That competition between good ideas from both sides about real problems in the real country should result in our country having better choices, better options, than if only one side is really working on the hard stuff. And the if the republican party and the conservative movement and the conservative media is stuck in a vacuum-sealed door-locked spin cycle of telling each other what makes them feel good and denying the factual, lived truth of the world, then we are all deprived as a nation of the constructive debate between competing feasible ideas about real problems. Last night the republicans got shellacked, and they had no idea it was coming. And we saw them in realtime, in real humiliating time, not believe it, even as it was happening to them. And unless they are going to is secede, they are going to have to pop the factual bubble they have been so happy living inside if they do not want to get shellacked again, and that will be a painful process for them, but it will be good for the whole country, left, right, and center. You guys, we're counting on you. Wake up. There are real problems in the world. There are real, knowable facts in the world. Let's accept those and talk about how we might approach our problems differently. Let's move on from there. If the Republican Party and the conservative movement and conservative media are forced to do that by the humiliation they were dealt last night, we will all be better off as a nation.
edge540
Posts : 1165
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/8/2012, 9:56 am
Great comments, here's my favorite:
Quote :
"Now that Obama is re-elected; I’m kind of looking forward to see who my mandatory gay marriage partner will be. My wife is looking forward to being married to a tree. I hear Rick Santorum will be forced to gay marry his familie’s Rottweiler."
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/8/2012, 11:00 am
Victoria Jackson had what I can only describe as something close to an aneurysm:
Quote :
“America” is dead. That is very rational political analysis. It’s called “truth.” And, Huff Po, as Jack Nicholson put it, “…you can’t handle the truth.”
Pamela Gellar said, “Truth is the new hate speech.”
“America” was The Constitution, The Bible, the Ten Commandments, the traditional family unit, and free enterprise. That is dead now. It has been replaced with a Dictator, his special friends (oligarchy), secular humanism, free sex, and redistribution (Marxism). “America” is gone.
Why did America die? Because we kicked God out. . .
The Democrats voted God out of their platform, and then, they voted in Obama…again…knowing that our economy is worse since he was elected, our debt is much higher, our unemployment much worse; knowing that Obama is a liar, a racist, a communist, and not a natural born citizen; knowing that he is guilty of treason, he has aided our enemies, dissed our allies, crippled our energy – coal, gas and oil industries; and that he has over-regulated small business out of business; and, that he is endorsed by dictators and communists.
. . .
Freedom of Religion? Dead. Obamacare did that. Freedom of Speech? O’s Benghazi proved that. Freedom to Bear Arms. That’s next. All my friends are stocked up on guns and ammo. I asked an AZ Tea Party friend what he’s gonna do when this government comes to his home to take his gun away. He said, “Call my posse.” We are prepared. We are the 50%.
. . .
I think the red states should secede and create our own country called Original America. Obama can name his dictatorship of blue states, “Obamutopia.” The rules of Original America are; 1) If anyone from “Obamutopia” crosses our border without an invitation they are shot. 2) No welfare system. Everyone takes care of their own traditional family, and the church takes care of widows and orphans. 3) The Ten Commandments and Prayer are in our public school system and the Bible is a required course. 4) You can become a citizen if you learn English, take a test, get a job, and pledge allegiance.
I do have to say my absolute favorite part of this election was watching absolutely rabid evangelicals embracing Mormonism, which only several days earlier, was widely dismissed as a cult.
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/8/2012, 12:45 pm
In Fox News' election coverage Tuesday night, there was little pretense of fairness or balance. What there was, from the start, was a glum tone that turned downright funereal by the time Mitt Romney finally conceded, near 1 a.m. To watch the network's anchors and guests work through the dawning realization that their candidate was doomed was to witness a textbook case of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross's five stages of grief.
Denial: With the early returns breaking badly for Romney, Karl Rove points to an exit poll suggesting that Democratic turnout was low in Ohio's Cuyahoga County. Everyone basks in the critical importance of Ohio's Cuyahoga County. Anchor Megyn Kelly asks, "Is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?" Rove assures her it's real.
Mike Huckabee, meanwhile, is counting on rural voters to turn things around: "I still think Mitt Romney wins when it is all over."
Anger: Shortly before the race is called, Sarah Palin says an Obama victory would be a "catastrophic setback to our economy" and lashes out at the public: "I just cannot believe, though, that the majority of Americans would believe that incurring more debt is good for our economy. … I cannot believe the majority of Americans would believe it's OK not to follow the Constitution and not have a budget."
As midnight nears and reality sinks in, Megyn Kelly takes out her frustration on liberal colleague Susan Estrich: "You, having managed the Michael Dukakis campaign, are familiar with the losing feeling."
Bargaining: With all of the networks calling the race for Obama, including Fox News, Karl Rove pleads for his fellow hosts to un-call Ohio, promising that forthcoming returns in the state will be favorable to Romney.
Kelly, followed by the cameras, heads back through the bowels of the building to grill Fox News' decision desk and see if the network's analysts will change their minds. They won't.
Depression: Ed Henry, reporting stone-faced from Obama headquarters as it erupts in jubiliation: "The crowd is near pandemonium now, despite the fact that unemployment is hovering near 8 percent."
Charles Krauthammer: "As a psychiatrist, I will offer to write prescriptions for anyone who needs them right now."
Acceptance: Still waiting on this one.
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/8/2012, 6:10 pm
A Fordham University Study ranked 28 polling firms on how their pre-election national surveys compared to the results on Election Day. The ranking:
1. PPP (D) 1. Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP 3. YouGov 4. Ipsos/Reuters 5. Purple Strategies 6. NBC/WSJ 6. CBS/NYT 6. YouGov/Economist 9. UPI/CVOTER 10. IBD/TIPP 11. Angus-Reid 12. ABC/WP 13. Pew Research 13. Hartford Courant/UConn 15. CNN/ORC 15. Monmouth/SurveyUSA 15. Politico/GWU/Battleground 15. FOX News 15. Washington Times/JZ Analytics 15. Newsmax/JZ Analytics 15. American Research Group 15. Gravis Marketing 23. Democracy Corps (D) 24. Rasmussen 24. Gallup 26. NPR 27. National Journal 28. AP/GfK
John Sides plots the data from the study on a nice chart
Tom Jensen of PPP told New York magazine the key to the firm's success: "We just projected that African-American, Hispanic, and young voter turnout would be as high in 2012 as it was in 2008, and we weighted our polls accordingly. When you look at polls that succeeded and those that failed that was the difference."
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/9/2012, 10:29 am
Rush Limbaugh still doesn't quite get it. Matt Taibi documents Rush's attempt to make send of the election:
Like a lot of people, I listened to Rush Limbaugh the day after the election. Pure Schadenfreude, I admit it; I just wanted to hear the reaction. I searched the right-wing media landscape far and wide and tried to find even a hint of self-examination, self-criticism, and I didn't find much. Then again, they didn't lose the presidential vote by much, so they didn't take the election result as a total repudiation of their belief system, as they probably shouldn't have, anyway.
But some introspection was probably in order, particularly with the question – soon to become the dominant question in American major party-politics – of what the Republicans have to do to do better with women and minorities. They dominated with white males, but lagged with almost all other groups.
Rush addressed the question with a long, passionate soliloquy. It was fascinating. Let me excerpt it here. He began with the difficult (for him) admission that his party is not doing well with minority groups. The emphasis here is mine:
It's being said once once again that the Republicans have an outreach problem, that we don't have Hispanics, we don't have blacks, and we don't have women and it's... Okay, fine, we don't, what are we supposed to do?
From there he self-apostrophizes, asking what the Republicans need to do to get those votes. He answers the question in a mocking tone that in fact is the entire source of his problem – the very answer to his question is drop the freaking sarcasm when you talk about minorities and minority issues, and you just might get their votes – but he's so psychologically well-defended that this never occurs to him, and he just plows on.
The whole thing is worth reading.
edge540
Posts : 1165
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/10/2012, 6:55 pm
Ah yes, another aneurysm:
Quote :
Ted Nugent On Obama Election: 'Pimps Whores & Welfare Brats' Voted For 'Economic & Spiritual Suicide'
The Huffington Post | By Cavan Sieczkowski
Detroit rocker and right-winger Ted Nugent was not too happy when President Barack Obama was reelected, so he took to Twitter to denounce the "pimps," "whores" and "welfare brats" who voted for America's "economic [and] spiritual suicide."
Nugent tweeted some choice words on Wednesday after Obama earned four more years in the White House in a landslide victory over GOP candidate Mitt Romney. He bid America "Goodluk" [sic] and good riddance. @TedNugent Ted Nugent Pimps whores & welfare brats & their soulless supporters hav a president to destroy America
November 7, 2012 10:36 am via txtReplyRetweetFavorite
@TedNugent Ted Nugent What subhuman varmint believes others must pay for their obesity booze cellphones birthcontrol abortions & lives
November 7, 2012 11:30 am via txtReplyRetweetFavorite
@TedNugent Ted Nugent Goodluk America u just voted for economic & spiritual suicide. Soulless fools
November 7, 2012 11:34 am via txtReplyRetweetFavorite
Nugent's Twitter meltdown does not come as a surprise to some. The Amboy Dukes guitarist has long been a source of controversy for his political commentary.
In April, while speaking at a National Rifle Association convention, Nugent said there are two alternatives for him if the "vile," "evil" and "America-hating" Obama beat Romney. "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year," said Nugent, who has also defended Romney's "47 percent" comment.
Four years earlier, he threatened both Obama and 2008 competitor, Hillary Clinton.
While dressed in camouflage hunting gear and wielding two machine guns during a 2007 concert, Nugent raged: "Obama, he's a piece of sh-t. I told him to suck on my machine gun." Continuing, "Hey Hillary. You might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless b-tch."
Nugent was not alone in his anti-Obama ranting after the incumbent's victory. Donald Trump called for a "revolution." Former "SNL" cast member Victoria Jackson said "America died." And born-again Christian actor Stephen Baldwin tweeted that God's wrath is now upon the U.S.
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media 11/13/2012, 4:10 pm
Good news Guys! Get ready to take back the House of Reps and increase our margin in the Senate..
Quote :
By the time the bi-elections come in 2014, I think the American people will have had enough of the Democrats and we will see a change.
As the popular vote counts emerge and we move out from under the shadow of the media spin, we are learning the real reason Romney lost.
Apparently this column supersedes his previous column on why Romney lost. Is it because no one bought that load of bull? Nope, it's because of the media spin! Which he's happy to counter. Just like he countered public polling by claiming he had THE ONE TRUE poll.
He's so credible!
Quote :
The mainstream media is pushing the story that a massive turnout among minorities and the young drowned the white male vote as America changes its demography.
Brown people "drowned" white people? He sure knows his audience.
Quote :
But the real reason is that the whites who supported Romney didn’t turn out to vote.
Brilliant call, Sherlock. White people supported Romney but they didn't support Romney. Where do I send you a check for more of that?
Quote :
Just look at the fact, brought to my attention by National Review and Washington Examiner columnist Byron York, that Obama carried Ohio by 107,000 votes (some are still being counted) and that Romney got about 100,000 fewer votes than McCain!
I know math is hard, but 107,000 is still a bigger number than 100,000.
Quote :
Why was the white vote so low? Why did so many anti-Obama voters stay home? The immediate cause was the total failure of the ORCA system for getting out the vote. This new hi tech gadgetry had never been beta tested and crashed repeatedly on Election Day.
That's what happens when Republicans run shit. It crashes.
Quote :
But the failure of the white vote to turn out was also because neither the Romney campaign nor any of the super PACs rebutted Obama’s attacks on the Republican candidate. Unanswered, the attacks transformed Romney’s Bain Capital experience into a nightmare of outsourcing and callous layoffs.
It's impossible to rebut what is true.
Quote :
Finally, the storm Sandy had a great deal to do with Obama’s re-election. His presidency may be its most lasting damage to our nation and its inhabitants. One voter in six cited the storm as the key factor in their decision to back Obama according to exit polls, a last minute bump for the president that was not reflected in the polls. Why not? Because there were no polls. The polling firms could not reach the affected areas during the storm. We were all flying blind when Obama and Governor Chris Christie’s display of bi-partisanship garnered votes of the Democratic ticket.
I've rebutted the Sandy thing before, but take a real close look at Dick's argument again—
Obama got a bump that helped him win the election in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, Nevada and Wisconsin—but it didn't show up in the polling because pollsters couldn't call Connecticut, New Jersey or New York. He's so smart!
Now yes, Dick Morris is stupid, he's always been stupid, and he'll always be stupid. So why keep mocking him? Well, because it's fun, and because he remains a regular "analyst" on Fox News. And nothing illustrates the vapid uselessness of Fox News as an effective analytical outlet than the fact that they depend on this guy to inform their viewers.
Sponsored content
Subject: Re: An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media
An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media
Home 
Publications 
...
Kaine is 88% probable to win according to 538.
