Some Pollsters Reduce Skews, Election Tightens?

Now there's a shocker, friends! This week, ABC/Washington Post published a poll. It showed President Obama leading Mitt Romney by +2%, within the 4% margin for error. Compare that to polls with demonstrably skewed samples from last week. Let's remind ourselves what we learned last week:

Biblical Conservatism:  The Drive-By Media Keeps Doubling Down on Skewed Polls

Now we have an ABC/Washington Post poll with an at least reasonable poll sample of Democrat +3%. Granted, I still believe quite firmly that the actual election turnout will be closer to 2010's Republican +2% turnout, but +3% Democrat is at least PLAUSIBLE. It's in line with Rasmussen's +2% Democrat turnout.

Yet if you close your eyes and point at a liberal blog, you will find a post talking about how people like yours truly are all wet for talking about the skews in Drive-By Media polls. They love to ridicule us, pointing out the straw man of party registration (which we've discussed so many times here how it does not matter).

Today, after we in the New Media have absolutely slammed these polls for being skewed, now we're seeing a more realistic sample from ABC/Washington Post.  So let's ask the question: Why is it that, all of a sudden, if it was all over for Romney, are the polls tightening? They cooked up a polling sample in Florida and Ohio LAST WEEK to push Obama over the line in Fantasy World. What changed? What made them get realistic?

Well friends, the reality is this: The Drive-By Media, specificially ABC/Washington Post, is now admitting their own skew by using a more realistic sample (albeit still skewed Democrats +3 instead of looking at the 2010 turnout which was flat even.)

Friends, despite liberal trolls on the Internet telling conservatives how they're dreaming or whatever with their poll cooking accusations, reality is setting in, even to the Drive-By Pollsters. They've realized they are not believed and if they continue to lie to us about the polling samples and have egg on their face, their credibility will be shot.

Note to my daily readers: Tomorrow's blog will post about 1 pm instead of the usual 11 am. This will allow me to give a thorough reaction to the debate tonight. Thanks for reading!

Obama is Losing in a COOKED WaPo-ABC Poll!

You read that right, my friends! Even with a fantasy electorate, Obama is still losing in a new poll.

According to a Washington Post-ABC Poll released on Monday, Governor Mitt Romney is leading President Obama by 1%. The poll found Governor Romney receiving 47% of the vote with the Likely Voters they polled and President Obama receiving 46%. While this is reason enough to be cheerful, then one should look at the polling sample. Are you ready?

Democrat: 31%  Republican: 22%  Independent: 39% 

Now let's remind you of reality, shall we? According to Gallup's most recent poll of party affiliation 
(not registration), 31% of Americans consider themselves Democrats (so the Democrat sample is fine) but 29% consider themselves
Republicans and 38% identified as Independents (so the Independent sample is just fine).

So why THIS poll is claiming is that 9% of Americans identify with a third party?  Why are Republicans
undersampled? Even with a ridiculous undersampling of Republicans, once again, Obama is losing!

While we're at it, let's talk about the breakdowns of ideology (as opposed to party). According to THIS poll their 

ideological sample was:

Moderate: 41%   Conservative: 34%   Liberal: 21%  

So let's once again look at the Gallup poll of personal ideology (since once again Gallup is the only game in town

to poll this topic).

Conservative: 40%   Moderate: 35%   Liberal: 21%

So this poll undersampled conservatives by 6% and similarly oversampled moderates by 6%! So now the Drive-
By Media, instead of oversampling Democrats, is now undersampling Republicans and conservatives! You want 
to know how ridiculous the Washington Post-ABC numbers are? The lowest conservative rating in recent memory
was 36%...in 1992. The last time self-described moderates hit 40% was 1996. (Source: Gallup)

Either way it's just a new little trick from the Drive-By Media. Instead of living in an imaginary world where there are 
way more Democrats than Republicans, now they're imagining that Republicans and conservatives either don't
exist or won't vote (which is even sillier, since Republicans and conservatives are the most reliable voters groups!)

Friends, this is yet another telegraph of how worried the Drive-By Media is and how worried the Democrat Party
is...and that those of us who are pointing out that there won't be an 11% Democrat turnout advantage, or an 8%
Democrat turnout advantage, or a 5% Democrat turnout advantage...or likely a Democrat turnout advantage AT
ALL in 2012. So now, they're trying a new tactic. They'll undersample Republicans. They'll pretend the electorate 
is in terms of ideology looks like it did TWENTY YEARS AGO. 

The bottom line is this: The Democrat party is in deep, deep dog doo in 2012, both in terms of the White House
and in terms of Congress. The Drive-By Media's poll cooking proves it. This is our year, friends. I'll once again 
quote the same video I used yesterday:

Stop Railing on Fox News if you get your news from...

Stop Railing on Fox News if you get your news from:

- NBC                               - ABC                               - CBS
- CNN                              - MS-NBC                        - NPR
- The Huffington Post        - The New York Times      - The Washington Post   
- The Associated Press     - Media Matters

I can continue but I think I've made my point with the list I've made. What brings this on, you say?  In general, listening to people who get their news from sources that are just as biased as the same people accuse Fox News of being (and in many cases their sources are even more biased).

Am I arguing that Fox News doesn't lean to the right? No, I am not. I am saying Fox does indeed provide balance. They do it by balancing out the aforementioned sources, along with other sources like the Heritage Foundation, the Weekly Standard, the New York Post, the Washington Times, radio shows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and others.  Here's the reality of life, my friends: NOBODY IS UNBIASED. The people who claim to be pure "moderates" are either a) lying b) don't want to do the homework to have an informed opinion but want you to think they're smart.  Otherwise, absolutely everybody is biased.

If you know history, you know that the original free press that was protected by our Founding Fathers didn't claim to be as clean and unbiased as the modern very biased media claims. Balance was defined then (and, if we're honest, still ought to be defined) by having one biased news source that was balanced out by an equally and oppositely biased news source. That's the best way to have a legitimately balanced media, rather than having news sources that pretend that they're unbiased.

I've often said that Dan Rather and Rush Limbaugh are equally biased. Do you know the difference? Rush is completely honest that he is biased. Dan Rather did not.  Bias is not the problem, friends. Hidden bias is the problem.

Personally, I think the single most balanced news show in the last 20 years or so was Fox News' Hannity and Colmes.  For those who don't remember the show, it featured the very liberal Alan Colmes and the very conservative Sean Hannity, debating each other and having equal time to question guests from both sides of the aisle. THAT was a balanced show, because you saw both sides of the aisle in their pure form next to each other and individuals could decide.

So, my friends, if your news comes from a bias sourced, fine. I don't object to that. But for heaven's sake stop being high and mighty about Fox News. Your network is likely just as biased (if not more).

Santorum "Racial Gaffe" A Figment of Left's Imagination

It's the campaign season, and a conservative Republican is in the running for the nomination. As predictable as the tides, the Drive-By Media is now inventing offenses.  This time, they're claiming Santorum intended to call the President the "n-word."  I've watched the video several times now...all that's there is a single n in a stutter. Click here to view the video.

The quote was "We know what candidate Obama was like, the anti-war government (something...seriously just an N sound that was likely just a stutter), America was the source for division around the world..."

This has been followed by numerous amounts of inuendo disguised as rational and thoughtful analysis. The most logical answer is not in fact to assume a racial slur.  It is to assume it as a stutter, which is my best guess.  But just in case that's not what it was, and that some sort of insult was intended and then Senator Santorum decided against the insult, let's give you OTHER things that are both logical and plausible assumptions before going straight to the cry of racism.

"We know what candidate Obama was like, the anti-war government narcicist, America was the source for division around the world..." (A very accurate depiction of this President, by the way).

"We know what candidate Obama was like, the anti-war government instigator, America was the source for division around the world..." (Instigator is a synonym for "agitator," a term frequently applied to Mr. Obama's community organizer work.)

"We know what candidate Obama was like, the anti-war government nuisance, America was the source for division around the world..." (Another valid synonym for agitator).

"We know what candidate Obama was like, the anti-war government nitwit, America was the source for division around the world..."

"We know what candidate Obama was like, the anti-war government nincompoop, America was the source for division around the world..."

""We know what candidate Obama was like, the anti-war government nut-job, America was the source for division around the world..."

Every single one of these things are plausible. The top three make rhetorical sense as well given the President's past and personality.   The bottom three, while childish, are not racist. Then, of course, there is the single most probable answer: Senator Santorum stuttered mid sentence.

Senator Santorum has been the subject of inuendo by the Drive-By Media and the typical "well of course he's racist, we all know that" baloney that the Left spews and the Drive-Bys repeat since he became a viable candidate in January.  That doesn't surprise me.

What does surprise me is the number of genuinely intelligent and well meaning indivudals buy into these stories each and every time they happen and yet never notice the pattern...each time simply thinking "oh just this once it's true." This is media bias on parade, friends. Pass it on.

Why Are Obama’s Media Supporters So Clueless?

Just in case you’re actually steel willed enough to ignore anything that comes out of Newsweek and therefore have managed to block out the ridiculous article that graced the cover of that disgrace of a publication: the cover story of Newsweek recently asked the question “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?” 

Apparently Newsweek, a Drive-By Media anchor, has decided to turn away from page one of the Democrat Playbook (aka Republicans are cruel and want old/poor people to die) and have turned to page two (aka Republicans/Conservatives are dumb).  The claim is always that Democrats and liberals are brilliant and Republicans and conservatives are stupid.  The author of the article is the supposedly conservative (but only in a world where conservatism is synonymous with being anti-Israel, promotes redefining marriage to shoehorn in gay couples, supported Barack Obama in 2012 and one who calls himself a faithful Catholic yet lives a lifestyle that the Bible refers to as a “detestable sin”…these are traits of strong conservatives right?) Andrew Sullivan.  (Sadly, this is what passes for a conservative at Newsweek.)

Yes, the same guy who spent months obsessing about Sarah Palin’s uterus and asserting that Trig Palin wasn’t really Sarah and Todd’s child, throwing out such outlandish possibilities as “he’s really Bristol Palin’s son “ (even though Bristol was pregnant with her son Tripp at the time, and we can clearly see both children).  This is what the Drive-By Media considers a real journalist.

I’m not going to dignify this article with an analysis.  It’s a the typical baloney the Drive-By Media uses to prop up their candidates.  They used to get away with it.  Not anymore.  There is a Conservative Media now.  Back in the early 1990s when the Right-Wing Media consisted basically of Rush Limbaugh, the Weekly Standard, the Heritage Foundation and a few local talk shows, they got away with this baloney.  Now there’s not just Rush but Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, and so very many others on radio; Fox News; podcasts galore, and of course, lowly bloggers like yours truly.  There are people by the tens of thousands rebuking the Drive-By Media’s attempt to cover up the Obama Administration’s absolute failure. 

So here’s the truth, friends:  Obama’s signature bill, Obamacare, is so wildly unpopular the President won’t even talk about it.  Anyone remember how George W. Bush never talked about his signature tax cut, or how Ronald Reagan never talked about his tax overhauls, or how Bill Clinton never talked about Welfare Reform?  Me neither.  Yet the President won’t mention his Healthcare law, because he knows it’s toxic.  Economic recoveries don’t take the form of a hundred thousand jobs a month, and don’t take two years for the unemployment to drop .5%...unless they are so horribly mismanaged that business is unwilling to hire for fear of liberal punishment of success.  Successful presidents don’t get thrown out of countries that they’ve liberated and they don’t back the overthrow of a maniacal government that is friendly to our country in favor of a maniacal government that is equally repressive and also unfriendly to our country. 

Obama is a failure.  Pure and simple.  And yet his supporters blindly back him.  They can’t accept their own stupidity in backing a man who was brought to power on promises of Hopey-Change and has only made changes people don’t want that have not helped the country.  And yet his supporters blindly back him.  Obama has failed.  But rather than admit their mistake in voting for him, Obama’s supporters instead call those of us who saw through Obama in the first place stupid. 

So I must ask the question: Why are Obama’s Media supporters so clueless?

Recent Debates and Media Bias

Last weekend, when the Republican candidates met for two debates, moderated by two Drive-By Media networks, ABC and NBC. The specific moderators who I believe deserve to be smacked are George "Mr. Snuffleupagus" Stephanapolus and, now NBC (formerly PMS-NBC) anchor David Gregory. 

If you watched these debates, you likely found yourself wanting to smack Snuffleupagus and Gregory. First and foremost, this was Media Bias on parade.  Watch a Democrat debate next time there is one. You won't see Snuffleupagus and Gregory and Rachel Maddow and their Drive-By Media colleagues arguing points with the Democrat candidates in the middle of debates.  They won't find themselves trying to join the debate in an effort to play gotcha.

There was no better example of this than Snuffleupagus' arguing about making birth control illegal with Mitt Romney.  For all my arguments with Mittens, he did a great job of answering this ridiculous premise. The reality is absolutely nobody is saying "make birth control illegal," at least unless you think abortion is birth control.  (Conservatives oppose abortion because we believe that unborn child is a human being and, above all else, is entitled to their life.)  Abortion aside, I know almost nobody who opposes legitimate birth control methods (defined as methods that, through either barrier or hormonal method, stop a male's sperm cell from fertilizing a female's egg cell). 

Look, I've stated this before, the Presidential candidates must not have an issue with birth control when, for example, Mitt Romney and his wife Ann have five children in 42 years of marriage.  You just don't get that sort of results with Natural Family Planning when a couple has multiple years between children and only five total children. This was always an invented issue.  The Drive-Bys might have well asked the GOP candidates if they favored banning the sale of bubble gum and socks.  As Romney stated, nobody wants to do it, leave it alone!

For those of you who argue that there is no media bias, please, wake up and smell the coffee!  This type of baloney is soaked into the Drive-By Media mentality. They play gotcha with Republicans and handle Democrats with kid gloves.  I guarantee Barack Obama doesn't receive the same scrutiny on gay marriage that Republicans do, even though (at least on paper) his opinion is the same as the GOP candidates. And yet, only the Republicans receive this Drive-By Media rectal exam.  But hey, there's no media bias, right?