Fox’s Eric Bolling Advises Trump Supporters

Fox News Host Eric Bolling had some advice for his fellow Trump supporters – the Deplorables. Poll after poll is showing support for President Trump slipping. Bolling says not to believe the polls. Don’t trust the polls, trust the crowds.

“Take a look at scenes from President Trump Wednesday night in Ohio,” he continued. “Just look at those crowds. Listen to them for a a second. I’m gonna double down on a call I made over a year ago.”

“Watch the people, not the polls,” he said.

Watch the video: read more

Can’t Beat Santy Claus

by: the Common Constitutionalist

(sorry, no time for pictures; just text)

So why did Mitt Romney lose election? Why did Barack Obama win the election?

I’ve been asked that question a lot today, by people in the office, the UPS driver that delivers our packages, some folks at the gym, even customers.

The title of this article sums it up, but not fully.

People like free stuff and most figure that Santa Obama can get them more than Romney the Grinch (before his heart grew three sizes that day).

Taking a look at some of the exit poll data can give us a clue, at least somewhat, of why people voted the way they did.

A solid majority of those who voted for Obama still blame George W. Bush for the economic problems this country faces today. I frankly was stunned at this revelation. How could any thinking person blame someone four years prior for the bad economy today? Exit poll respondents claimed that Obama just didn’t have enough time to turn things around.

If I were an exit pollster, I would have asked a simple follow-up question. That being, “How long, then, should, we give the president?” It would’ve been very informative to discover the response. If four years isn’t long enough, just how much time should he get?

As I recall it was just months after George W. Bush took office that the recession, that actually began in Bill Clinton’s final year, was dubbed the Bush recession. Funny, the double standard.

Exit polls also show the Obama auto bailout to be a success. It evidently carried more weight than did Romney’s overwhelming business experience.

Those polled had the impression that Romney wanted to simply drive the auto companies into bankruptcy and dissolve them. They apparently are unaware that bankruptcy can simply mean reorganization and not necessarily dissolution. They were also apparently unaware that GM did in fact go through a managed bankruptcy anyway.

This idea was especially true in Michigan. I would like to ask those polled, in about five years or so, if they still approve of Obama’s auto bailout, knowing that, according to GM’s own president, General Motors has plans to move most of their manufacturing to China.

Regarding jobs, of those polled six in ten that worried about jobs, favored Obama over Romney. This was quite confusing to me knowing that the president has never created a single private sector job.

9 out of 10 blacks voted for Obama while only 6 out of 10 racists (whites) preferred Romney. That’s a rather monolithic voting block for the president.

The only folks I knew of that received 90% of the vote were those like Hugo Chavez and Saddam Hussein.

Other minority groups also preferred Obama to Romney by wide margins.

According to the exit polls, young single women did vote their body parts, being more concerned with contraception and abortion than anything else.

That’s just sad.

At least a full one-third of voters from the ages of 18 to 29 actually believe socialism is preferable to capitalism. The only way one could have such a preference is having never studied or experienced true socialism. I venture to say; most of the 18 to 29-year-old ideologues are still living in their parents’ basements or forced to move back in, due to lack of employment. One could hardly blame the president for that.

The Heritage Foundation has a saying that may be of great solace to many despondent conservatives. It states, “There are no permanent victories, there are no permanent defeats.”

Another question that was asked of me today, rather frequently, was, what do we do now? Was it Romney’s fault? Was it just a sign of the times, changing demographics?

Well, it was all of these, to some extent. For the most part, Mitt Romney ran a fairly good campaign. At times though, it lacked specificity.

See, it is much easier to be a liberal than a conservative. Liberals have never had to really defend their positions. They don’t think; they just feel.

As a conservative, I find myself constantly having to defend the positions that I take and my beliefs. That causes me to think, research and truly understand why I believe what I believe. It’s a lot more difficult to be a conservative. It’s not enough for me to simply say, for instance, that I will stand up for the poor, or I’m for women’s rights. They sound great until you think about them. What do those statements even mean? The answer is that both of those statements mean absolutely nothing. If, however, a liberal politician was to say that to his or her constituents, that would be enough. No explanation would be required.

A conservative could never get away with such a hollow statement, nor should he.

As I see it, the only way that we can bring this country back from the brink of socialism is by education.

Every conservative, in his or her own little corner of the world must find a way to educate at least some of our youth. I say our youth, because most of the adult population that are dyed in the wool liberal will simply not listen. They will shut you out or shut you up.

We need to begin to reeducate our younger generation in the ways of our founding. We must teach them about the Declaration and Constitution and why this country differs from any other. We need to show them how every other form of government or society mankind has ever devised has been tried and failed time and time again. Most have failed with disastrous consequences. We must show them there are no new ideas, just repackaged old ones.

Although it seems like a daunting task, it can be done. It’s like cleaning out your garage. If you look at the job as a whole, you may never start, but if you begin in one corner and just concentrate on section at a time, before you know it, the whole garage is clean.

I personally am going to concentrate on my son’s and their friends. Maybe it will blossom into something larger, maybe it won’t, but something has to be started.

If anyone has a better idea or other suggestions, please share.

This Just In…Republicans are Racist

Methodologically Flawed AP Poll: Republicans Are Racist

by:

The Associated Press is claiming, based on the results of a recent poll of theirs, that anti-black sentiments have increased under President Obama so much that it stands to knock him back by five percentage points in the popular vote on Election Day.

The main offenders, those most likely to engage in explicit and implicit prejudice against blacks, are, naturally, Republicans.

The AP found similar results in 2008, a fact which really ought to be cause for them to re-examine their methodology, considering Obama won the popular vote in a landslide that year.

One reason the poll revealed racism is because of the AP’s definition of racism, which is an incorrect definition.

For example, one question it asks is, “Irish, Italians, Jewish [sic], and other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without special favors. Agree or disagree.”

If a respondent answered that he agreed with that statement, he is considered racist. It is considered racist to believe that we should hold all races to the same standard.

Another question the poll asks: “It’s really a matter of some people just not trying hard enough; if Blacks [sic] would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.” (Here I note that the word “Blacks” was incorrectly capitalized and the word “whites” was correctly not.)

If a respondent answered that he agreed with that statement, he is considered racist. The flaw here is that the same person who would agree with that statement would also agree with the statement even if any mention of a particular race were removed; e.g., “If people would only try harder, they could be well off.” That is a statement with which Democrats generally disagree and Republicans generally agree. Republicans recognize that it is the same exact question no matter what race is specified and no matter whether race is specified at all, and they will answer the same way regardless. The AP worded it in such a way that the expected Republican reply would necessarily come across as racist.

Many of the other questions that were asked used this same “gotcha” methodology, framing the questions so that Democratic replies would necessarily sound more favorable than Republican ones. (“Over the past few years, Blacks have gotten less than they deserve.” Agree or disagree? Republicans disagree, but only because they don’t believe anybody “deserves” anything beyond life, liberty, and the freedom to pursue their happiness, so this question is biased against Republican respondents.)

If there truly is an increase in the negative attitude towards blacks in America, the results

Republicans are all Racist

of a seriously flawed poll cannot be a reliable indicator of that.

But, if it is true, I have my own theory as to why: Barack Obama has engaged in the most racially divisive politics since the days of Woodrow Wilson, pitting blacks against whites. After four years of blacks being made to feel like the victims of whites, would it be surprising if they did hold any resentment towards whites? And after four years of whites being made to feel like their ethnicity is a thing to hide from, would it be surprising if they did hold any resentment towards blacks?

And just as an afterthought, I’ve never met a single conservative Republican who would prefer white Republican Jon Huntsman to black Republican Allen West, or white Republican Joe Scarborough to black Republican Thomas Sowell–for any office.

It’s Over, Obama Wins

 CBS: Obama Leads in Our D+13 Poll

by Mike Flynn

Anyone following the presidential campaign through the prism of media polls is doing themselves a serious disservice. Virtually every one of them uses a polling sample that is so heavily-skewed towards Democrats that it distorts the actual state of the campaign. Of course, that is a feature, not a bug of the polls. The polls are specifically designed to drive a narrative that Obama is surging and Romney is struggling. Increasingly, though, the polls are having to go to ridiculous efforts to support this meme. Friday’s CBS/New York Times poll, for example, uses a D+13 (13% more democrats polled) sample of registered voters. That’s registered, but not likely voters. This is absurd. 

In 2008, an historic election wave for Democrats, the electorate was D+7. In 2004, when George W. Bush won reelection, the electorate was evenly split. In other words, D+0. Repeat after me; the Democrat share of the electorate is not going to double this year. Given the well-noted enthusiasm edge for Republicans this year, the electorate is going to be far closer to the 2004 model than 2008. Any poll trying to replicate the 2008 is going to artificially inflate Obama’s support. 

CBS does apply a Likely Voter screen to the head-to-head match up. The LV sample is D+6, similar to the make up of the 08 election. In that, Obama leads Romney by just 3 points, 49-46. In the RV sample, which more than doubles the proportion of Democrats to D+13, Obama leads by 8 points, 51-43. See the simple relationship there? 

Let’s try a simple thought experiment. Imagine if, for a week, all media polls decided to use a sample that replicated the 2004 electorate–a D+0 model. Given the GOP’s enthusiasm edge–even the CBS poll found Republicans voters with a double-digit lead on enthusiasm for the election–the electorate is going to look a lot more like 2004 than 2008. Imagine how the narrative of the campaign would change. The CBS poll found Romney beating Obama among Independents by 11 points. With a balanced partisan sample, Romney would likely post consistent leads against Obama. 

A week of this and Politico would run out of fuel for its daily “Romney is struggling” theme. Which is why the media will never adjust its samples. This election, it isn’t so much about polling as propaganda. The polls are simply a tool being used by the media to try to depress GOP turnout and give a powerful lift to Obama’s obviously lackluster campaign. 

The polls confirm that the media aren’t really biased. Rather, they are active players for the other team.

An Offer You Can’t Refuse

Senior Obama Campaign adviser David Axelrod reportedly contacted the Gallup Organization to discuss the company’s research methodology after their poll’s findings were unfavorable to the President. After declining to adjust their methodology, Gallup was named in an unrelated lawsuit by the DOJ. 

Axelrod took to Twitter to direct people to an article by the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein suggesting a flaw in Gallup’s methodology. Brownstein compared Gallup’s demographic sampling predictions to previous election exit polls as well as contemporaneous research released by Pew, CNN/ORC and ABC/WaPo.

The heart of the Obama camp complaint lies with varying predictive models for 2012 turnout. Gallup had predicted a lower minority turnout, effecting Obama’s margin against Romney.

An email chain from Gallup employees reveals the deliberations about how to handle Axelrod:

In response to that suggestion, another senior Gallup official wrote — in an email chain titled “Axelrod vs. Gallup” — that the White House “has asked” a senior Gallup staffer “to come over and explain our methodology too.”

 That Gallup official, the email continued, “has a plan that includes blogging and telling WH [the White House] he would love to have them come over here etc. This could be a very good moment for us to [show] our super rigorous methods compared to weak samples etc. …”

The writer named several news organizations with their own polling methodologies, all of which resulted in numbers more favorable to President Obama at the time.

In response to that email, a third senior Gallup official said he thought Axelrod’s pressure “sounds a little like a Godfather situation.”

“Imagine Axel[rod] with Brando’s voice: ‘[Name redacted], I’d like you to come over and explain your methodology…You got a nice poll there….would be a shame if anything happened to it…’”

Since Axelrod first contacted Gallup, the DOJ has become interested in an old allegation made by a former Gallup employee, claiming that the firm violated the False Claims Act by overcharging on their contracts with other federal agencies. Michael Lindley, a former Gallup employee, filed suit against Gallup in 2009 and Gallup was served and responsed to Lindley’s suit in 2010. The DOJ signed on to Lindley’s suit in August of 2012.

Lindley, was a former field organizer in Iowa for the Obama campaign in 2008.

In addition to Gallup’s unfavorable polling numbers on the Obama re-election effort, they have also published employment numbers that are not “politically helpful” for Obama.

“Gallup publishes its research without seasonal adjustments,” William Tate wrote for the American Thinker. ”The BLS’s version applies adjustments in an alchemic formula that’s more mysterious than the Shroud of Turin.”

Polling 101

This article was from May of this year, but it is still instructive.

Navigating the Polls in an Election Year

by: Mike Flynn at Breitbart

with comments from the Common Constitutionalist [ ] cause I just can’t help it.

As the campaign season gets into full swing, voters can expect a deluge of polls. Every major media outfit and several independent polling organizations will provide almost real-time information on every twist and turn in the political landscape. The polls will not only cheer or frighten partisans on all sides, they will likely have a gravitational effect on individual campaigns themselves, as candidates adjust their campaigns to polling results. But, voters should beware. Even modern-day polling is more art than science. [I’ve seen many polls (most in fact) I believe are published for only one reason; to dispirit conservatives voters and hopefully cause them not to vote. They have all come from major media and polling organizations that are in the tank for Obama and the democrats. The polls you see are for public consumption and are usually not accurate. However, campaigns run their own internal polling that is usually for honest and accurate. They know they can’t afford to rely on the normally bogus public polls. We will never be privy to the internal polls.]

All polls reflect certain biases–not necessarily in the political sense–of pollsters. Taking a small sample and extrapolating it to the overall electorate involves lots of judgement calls that may not provide an accurate picture of the political landscape. While voters should look to sites like RealClearPolitics, which average a basket of recent polls to smooth out aberrations, the occasional “outlier” poll, showing results wildly different than other polls, is occasionally correct. It mostly comes down to the choices pollsters make in conducting their poll.

If you are reading this, you’re likely fairly politically aware and understand some basic differences between many polls. You understand that the first step in accessing a poll is looking at what’s called the “voter screen.” In other words, is the poll of adults, registered voters or likely voters. The difference matters a lot:

Both Pew Research and Nate Silver have each looked at the differences for different elections from 2004, 2008 and 2010; and they both came to essentially the same answer:

– Polling “adults” generally favors Democrats by a net of 7%.
– Polling “registered voters” generally favors Democrats by a net of 4%.
– Polling “likely voters” is always the most accurate.

So if you have one poll of “adults” which says D53.5%-R46.5%, another of “registered voters” which shows D52-R48, and another of “likely voters” which shows D50-R50, they’re all saying the same thing. When you factor in the relevant adjustments for each screen, they’re all showing a tie at somewhere around an exact 50/50 split of those who will actually wind up choosing between Democrats and Republicans.

For the life of me, I don’t understand why media outlets like The Associated Press continue to poll “adults” on political issues. Around 20% of adults aren’t registered to vote. Putting aside the rather large inherent bias toward Democrats, why do we even care to know the political views of those who won’t be voting? Its about as useful as polling Canadians on their preference of U.S. politicians. [ I sound like a broken record, but duh. The AP might as well be the Obama press office. The know when they poll adults it will heavily skew the results toward their end, which is getting “The One” relected. ]

With the exception of Rasmussen Reports, however, most media and polling organizations use the registered voter screen until late in the campaign. This is due to the not unreasonable belief that, early in the campaign season, it is difficult to estimate who is most likely to show up at the polls. It won’t come as a shock to learn that people often lie in polls, claiming they will definitely vote but then, for a variety of reasons, fail to do so. So, as you see polls of registered voters, keep in mind that there is a general bias of +4% for Democrat candidates. [ Again, duh. Any poll, at the very least, not using only likely voters is junk and is used only to influence voters.]

But, even polls using a likely voter screen can be inaccurate. At this point, we need to discuss one of the less talked about and least understood aspects of polling: weighting.

When you start from a random sample of voters and begin conducting the actual interviews, it is very likely that the total universe of voters you actually speak with aren’t representative of the overall populace. You may have too many male, white, low-income, high education or Midwestern voters. Polling firms deal with this by “weighting” the sample, essentially tossing certain interviews so that the final results reflect responses from a representative sample that matches the nation’s demographics. [ Or, of course, responses that skew the outcome of the poll.]

Most of this is fairly technical and, with the exception of the occasional disreputable firm, fairly straightforward. Where it gets very tricky is where polling firms “weight” their sample based on their estimate of the partisan breakdown of the electorate. In other words, how many democrats, republicans and independents they include in their sample. This judgement call can throw off even the more accurate likely voter screen.

In 2008, an obviously big year for Democrats, the partisan breakdown of the actual electorate was:

  • Democrats 39%
  • GOP 32%
  • Independents 29%

By ideology, the breakdown was:

  • Liberal 22%
  • Conservative 34%
  • Moderate 44%

[ Ah, moderates, got a love um. Liberals without the courage to admit it.]

In 2010, an obviously big year for the GOP, the partisan breakdown of the actual was:

  • Democrats 35%
  • GOP 35%
  • Independents 29%

By ideology, the breakdown was:

  • Liberal 20%
  • Conservative 42%
  • Moderate 38%

So, any poll in 2010 that used 2008 as their baseline, i.e. weighting their polling sample to reflect the partisan breakdown of 2008, would have been wildly off. Remember, the pollster would have “tossed” certain interviews to get to the D-39, R-32 and I-29 sample.

So, is the electorate in 2012 going to be more like 2008 or 2010? Personally, with an energized GOP and conservative base, I don’t think the 2012 electorate is going to come remotely close to the partisan breakdown we saw in 2008. But, most pollsters seem to disagree and are weighting their polls for just such an outcome.

Organizations like Gallup and The Associated Press make it almost impossible to find out their partisan screen. Newer organizations, though, like Politico, DailyKos and Fox News do make this information available.

A recent poll by DailyKos/PPP, which had Obama up by 3 points, had the following partisan screen:

  • Democrats 40%
  • GOP 37%
  • Independents 24%
  • Liberal 27%
  • Conservative 42%
  • Moderate 32%

So, the DailyKos poll expects a bigger Democrat and liberal turnout than in 2008. Somehow, I don’t think that’s likely.

Politico‘s recent poll, which found Romney with a 1-point lead had the following partisan screen:

  • Democrats 37%
  • GOP 34%
  • Independents 28%

(Note: I’ve done my own “weighting” and assigned “leans GOP” and “leans Democrat” to “Independents.”)

A recent FoxNews poll, which showed Obama with a 7-point lead had this partisan breakdown:

  • Democrats 42%
  • GOP 34%
  • Independents 20%

What color is the sky in FoxNews’ world if they think the Democrats, in 2012, are going to increase their share of the electorate from 2008? When was it, exactly, that a bunch of independents suddenly switched to the Democrat party? [ They’re trying to all fair and balanced, don’t ya know.]

I think all of these polls are oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans. The nadir for the GOP was 2008, when they only made up 32% of the electorate. In the wake of ObamaCare and a stalled economy, there is no way the GOP is going to sit home like they did when faced with a McCain candidacy. Also, the Democrats were at the high-water mark of the “hope and change” promise of Obama in 2008, when they made up 39% of the electorate. There is no way they reach that level again.

So, every poll you see, dig deep into the partisan breakdown. Your mileage may vary, but you’d be right to adjust the numbers accordingly.

Confirmation of the Santorum Surge

I attended a Republican forum the other night where the debates, polling and the various candidates were discussed. I introduced the results of a Rasmussen poll regarding the continued surge of Rick Santorum. Well, the place started buzzing. It seems, no one had heard or seen this poll.

I thought it odd the panel of experts discounted it so quickly, claiming Rasmussen’s record wasn’t that great. The mantra continued to be, Romney will win going away. He may very well & he’d better. The expectations in New Hampshire are that Romney kills the competition. In my opinion, if Santorum comes within 10 points of Mitt, it’s really going to upset things in the establishment.

From Newsmax:

Rick Santorum has vaulted into second place among the Republican presidential candidates, polling well into the double digits in the last month, according to two new national surveys from the leading poll outlets Rasmussen and Gallup.

Rasmussen has Santorum in second with 21 percent of likely Republican primary voters in its latest poll, just behind Mitt Romney at 29 percent.

The poll was conducted Wednesday night, a day after Santorum’s surprising second-place finish at the Iowa caucuses, in which the former Pennsylvania senator fell short of Romney by only eight votes.

The Gallup poll has Santorum’s share of the vote increasing to 11 percent, from 8 percent, in its daily tracking poll. Gallup uses a five-day rolling sample, meaning that only 20 percent of its interviews were conducted after Santorum’s showing in Iowa. That implies that Santorum polled at or just above 20 percent in interviews conducted on Wednesday alone, consistent with his standing in the Rasmussen Reports survey, The New York Times pointed out.

In the Rasmussen poll the two frontrunners were followed by Newt Gingrich at 16 percent, Ron Paul at 12 percent and Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman at 4 percent each. Santorum began November at 1 percent in the same survey, and finished the month at only 4 percent.