ABC/WaPo Poll Should Be Ashamed of Themselves

On Monday, the Washington Post and ABC published a poll that claimed Barack Obama was up 3% over Mitt Romney in their latest poll. There's just one problem: They used a sample of +9% Democrat. (A full 2% above the +7% Democrat record turnout in 2008.)

Do you want to know what makes this publish so preposterous? Directly from the Washington Post's article reporting this story:

Partisan identification fluctuates from poll to poll as basic orientations shift and with the sampling variability that accompanies each randomly selected sample of voters. In the current poll, Democrats outnumber Republicans by nine percentage points among likely voters; the previous three Post-ABC polls had three-, six- and five-percentage-point edges for Democrats. The presidential contest would now be neck and neck nationally with any of these margins.

Friends, the Washington Post ADMITTED IT! They admitted this was a bad poll! So why, pray tell, did they publish it? Let's make pretend it was an accident. Lets pretend this was a sampling anomaly (just to be charitable). Why would they publish this poll? It was clearly misleading.
Now I can see you thinking "what would the numbers have been if they used a real believable sample? Let's give you some quick numbers, shall we?

With a +3% Democrat Sample, Romney is leading by 1%, 48% to 47%.

With a flat even sample, by the way (which I believe is very likely given the 2010 election turnout) it becomes a Romney lead of 49% to 46%. It's a complete switch.

Some might ask why this matters. Well, aside from the fact that the Washington Post stated that the poll had a misleading sample IN THEIR ARTICLE, let's look at our old friend the Real Clear Politics average. Since I have an established propensity to not publish posts until a few days later, lets show you what the RCP average was on Monday, October 15th (when I wrote this post):

Notice that the polls other than this anomalous ABC/Washington Post poll have Obama at best at +1% to Romney at +2%, giving an RCP average of Romney +0.1%. Now, let's remove the Washington Post poll entirely. Just throw it right out. That moves the average from Romney plus 0.1% to Romney +0.6%. Now when you unskew it to a +3% Democrat sample (and giving Romney a +2% lead) we get to an RCP average of Romney 47.9%, Obama 46.8% to give Romney a +1.1% lead.

So I say, as I said in the title, shame on ABC and the Washington Post. How dare they publish this admittedly biased poll. They could have weighted the poll to a more reasonable sample easily (as most polls do) if the problem was really just the sample. That's easy to do, gang. They could have done it with just a modicum of honesty.

Instead, the Washington Post chose to publish this poll, they published this link on Real Clear Politics.. If you went to the Washington Post politics page, you could find this article.  In the third paragraph, it said "Obama 49%, Romney 46%." It's not until the 8th paragraph do we see "you really can't trust this poll because the sample is silly."  Most people won't read to the 8th paragraph of a story. Some of us did.

The truth is the Washington Post should be ashamed of themselves for publishing this poll. That's the truth they won't tell you. This poll is at best a horrible mistake. At worst, it's a willful lie.

Swing State Polls are as Cooked as the National Polls (Part 1)

The Drive-By Media spent last week telling us it was absolutely over. Obama has a commanding lead in the Swing States. He's going to win, they tell us. The current Real Clear Politics average shows Obama with 269 electoral votes either strongly, likely or leaning his way. So they say.

There was a day they would get away with this. We talked about a few of these cooked Swing State polls last week:

Biblical Conservatism: CBS is Now Cooking Swing State Polls

So let's look at where other polls are being cooked, shall we?



Ohio - RCP Avg: Obama +5.5% - Avg Democrat Oversample D+ 6.6%Ohio Voter Registration: +1% Republican

- For Public Policy Polling to get Obama to +5%, they had to oversample Democrats by +4%.

- For the Columbus Dispatch to get Obama to +9%, they also had to oversample Democrats by +9%.

- For Gravis Marketing to get Obama to +1%, they had to oversample Democrats by 10%.

(Other polls were included in this average, however they did not publish their samples.)

Florida - RCP Avg: Obama +3%. - Avg Democrat Oversample: 8%
Florida Voter Registration: +5% Democrat                                                                                              

- For Gravis Marketing to get Obama to +1%, they had to oversample Democrats by 7%.

- For Public Policy Polling to get Obama to +3%, they had to oversample Democrats by +9%

- For the Washington Post to get Obama to +4%, they had to use a sample of only 161 Likely Voters and a margin of error of 11%.

(Other polls were included in this average, however they did not publish their samples.)

I hope I've painted a nice, clear picture for you. In Ohio, to get Obama to an average of +5.5% the polls had to oversample Democrats and average of 6.6%. Unskewed and assuming that 90% of the Republicans would vote for Romney, we're looking at Mitt having a lead just of about .5%.

In Florida, to get Obama to an average of +3% the polls had to oversample Democrats by an average of 8%. Adjust that to an even turnout (which is a very reasonable guess this election) and assume 90% of the Republicans properly weighted back in, you see Romney leading by 2.5% in Florida.

This post will be continued Monday with a look at Wisconsin and Virginia.

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!

Romney 53%, Obama 45% (If CNN's Poll Wasn't Skewed)

No, it wasn't me who did that math. It was the Washington Examiner. They took the polling sample from the most recent CNN Poll and changed it to reflect the real electorate. The results, once Republicans weren't undersampled and Independents RIDICULOUSLY undersampled, was Romney 53%, Obama 45%. Now THAT'S more like it!

I've been pointing out the ridiculousness of the polling samples used by many Drive-By Media sources have continued to use this election. Oversampling Democrats, undersampling Republicans, and woefully ignoring Independents.  The sample was Democrats 50%, Republicans 45%, Independents a mere 5%!

Now CNN refused to show that sample in their poll. It took behind the scenes work by The Washington Examiner to uncover the sampling problems.  But seriously, 5% Independents???  Yet another thing to keep in mind: According to the same CNN Poll shows Romney beating Obama with Independents by 14%!  Friends, there is NO WAY that Obama loses Independents by 14% in a real electorate and somehow beats Romney period, let alone by 6%.

Again according to the Washington Examiner, once the sample is adjusted to reflect the actual electorate and not the Democrat and Drive-By Media fantasy electorate, The results would be Romney 53% - Obama 45%. Friends, that's a big win for Governor Romney. That's what these ridiculous polling samples are hiding.

They want you discouraged. They want you to feel that Governor Romney can't win and President Obama can't lose. The truth is quite the opposite. Mitt Romney is doing very well and is about to defeat Barack Obama in November. Trust me, friends, we're about to win, and no amount of skewed polls will change it.

Sources:

Washington Examiner: Questions raised about skewed CNN poll showing Obama up 6 points over Romney

Washington Examiner: Mitt Romney would lead eight in unskewed data from newest CNN/ORC poll 

Washington Post: Post-convention poll shows Obama holds slight lead over Romney 

Remember, friends, all these links and many many more are posted on the Biblical Conservatism Facebook Page! Like us to keep up on all the news throughout the day!

This ad was not paid for by any political campaign or PAC. It has been posted as part of this blogger's personal endorsement of Mitt Romney and is not subject to equal time laws.

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:

WaPo Poll - Obama Losing Independents, Tied With Romney (Due to Skewed Sample)

Yesterday, a Washington Post/ABC Poll came out. The results were staggering, especially when one looks at the skew in the overall polling sample to favor Obama.

A few things to note: This is a poll of Registered Voters, not Likely Voters. By the polls own admission (page 7 of the poll breakdown) only 79% of the individuals polled are either certain to vote or will probably vote. So more than 20% of the people polled won't show up to vote.  Then there was the polling sample. The sample of personal identification with a party (note: not party registration) was: Democrat - 33%, Independent - 36% and Republican - 24%. So a 9% advantage of Democrats over Republicans.

Compare that to Rassmussen's recent survey asking people of their personal party identification (again, not registration) was Republican - 33%, Democrat - 31%, and Independent - 28%. So to do a direct comparison, the Washington Post oversampled Democrats by 2%, undersampled Republicans by 9% and oversampled Independents by 8%. Either way, it's a massive swing of 11% in the favor of Obama. So that would explain how Obama manages to remain tied with Romney given his massive loss with Independents, which we will now mention.

According to the Washington Post/ABC Poll, specifically with the sample of Independents polled only (so the sample skew doesn't matter...this particular published finding is a sample of 100% independents so it doesn't matter if Independents were oversampled in the overall poll): Romney is beating President Obama 43% to 37%.  To compare, in 2008, Obama won Independents 52% to 44% for John McCain (not sure who the other 4% voted for?).

Bottom line here is this: if Obama loses Independents, he loses the White House. It's just that simple. Without winning independents Obama does not have a prayer. Putting aside the underhanded oversampling of Democrats by the Washington Post and ABC (which this blogger has come to expect), we can look at the individual samples of party indentification and see that self-identified Independents are not planning to vote for President Obama.

So unless the Democrat Party somehow manages to cook the electorate (not so subtle voter-fraud reference) Obama's in trouble. Which is what I've been saying all along. Game on.

WaPo is Telegraphing Obama's Potential Defeat

"Due to the evolution of politics and media, we may never see a two-term President again."

- Mark McKinnon, Washington Post

That's what the Washington Post is claiming in a recent article entitled "Can any president succeed in today’s political world?" Translation: Wahahaha boo hoo! It's just not fair! Poor Obama can't get anything done! (Pay no attention to the 2 years where Obama had not only had Democrat controll of the House and Senate through 2011, but that up until Scott Brown took office in February 2010, they had a philibuster-proof majority in the Senate.)

Here's what's really happening, friends: The Drive-By Media has begun to read the writing on the wall. Obama does not have a record to run on...at least not a positive one. He has one accomplishment that people approve of, and that is the killing of Osama Bin Laden. His biggest legislative accomplishment remains unpopular, and that's Obamacare. The Stimulus did not work, unless you buy into the baloney rhetoric that "it would've been much worse if we didn't act!" and we still haven't seen Obama's 2009 promise that "unemployment won't go above 8% if we pass the stimulus" come to fruition yet. (Weekly unemployment has not fallen below 8% since it went above 8% shortly after the ill-fated promise).

Now the Republican Party has a nominee. Oh, and by the way, while Mitt Romney may be as exciting as a children's book to a Rhodes Scholar, but he also has precisely the right experience for the problem at hand. We need to correct our economy...and we've got a guy who has major business experience, running major companies and correcting problems and turning money losing companies into profitable companies.

Not to mention the fact that Romney's prescribing solutions that have worked time and again, whether under President Warren Harding in 1921, or President Kennedy in the 60s, or under President Reagan in the 80s, or under President Clinton in the 90s (who, by the way friends, only saw the economic boom he saw by embracing conservative principles, as I have explained before).

Meanwhile, Obama has nothing but the same bad ideas that have never worked before, whether it was under Johnson in the late 60s or Carter in the 70s.  Unlike last time around, Obama has this pesky record. Turns out Presidents can't vote present...poor poor Obama.

So now the Drive-By Media has started with it's pre-emptive excuses. It's not Obama's fault, no President could get re-elected in such a partisan climate (I guess they don't remember what George W. Bush had to deal with for four years, including the filibustering of judges by Democrats). I also don't recall the Drive-By Media being so sad for poor President Bush. Actually I remember them piling on instead.

Why the excuses? Because the Drive-By Media sees what I've been telling you: Obama is not going to be re-elected, barring a miracle. The Drive-By Media can't exclusively direct the conversation like they used to be able to do before talk radio, the internet, and Fox News.  They can't carry Obama over the finish line. And Obama doesn't look likely to get himself across the finishline. So the Drive-By Media has to make excuses.

Rick Perry "Racist" Hunting Camp is a Grasp at Straws by the Left

In case you haven't heard, the Washington Post made a big deal this weekend about Governor Rick Perry's family leasing a hunting camp that had a rock that formerly...note: FORMERLY...had "Niggerhead" painted on it. (1)  It's a sign that dates back to segregation and days before Governor Perry had any ownership in the property.  Liberals and their willing accomplices in the Media are trying to claim that this is a sign that...wait for it...Rick Perry is racist.

There's a shock...the Left is calling a Republican a racist.  The claim of Perry being racist, of course, preposterous.  He expressed offense at the sign/grafitti.  Here is the real story of this nonstory:

Somewhere in 1983-84, Rick Perry's parents joined the lease for the property.  Governor Perry saw the rock at a visit to the camp shortly after the purchase, called his parents, and informed them of this legitimately offensive term.  When the governor's parents visited the camp again, they pained over the offesive word.  After that, in order to eliminate view of this rock further, they turned it over to cover the offensive word.

Now THERE'S  a sign of racism...attempt to eliminate a racist slur on one's own property.  Yep.  Racism!  Oh wait...no it's really just a sign that someone else who isn't Rick Perry or his parents was racist some point in the past and then the Perry family bought a piece of property that was once owned by someone who was racist...in the south...most likely before the end of segregation when the term "Niggerhead" was used, unfortunately, to describe many things in the South, including a tobbaco and soap products.  Believe me, this practice was wrong, but history is history.  Really all this proves about Rick Perry is that his family bought a hunting cabin that was owned by a racist at some point in history...and that Perry likes to hunt.

The article is a farce, by the way.  It contains journalism that would never have passed the muster of legitimate journalism fifty years ago.  There are numerous nameless sources who won't go on the record and one named source that does not challege Perry's story.  Even the article's direct quote of Perry shows a complete LACK of racism:

When asked last week, Perry said the word on the rock is an “offensive name that has no place in the modern world.” (1)


Bottom line, friends, Perry isn't a racist.  This is the Left grasping at any straw they can to protect Obama, because Perry would be a big threat to the President in the 2012 election.  So the Left is making another ad homonym attack against Perry.  It's baloney...no shock...but it is a lie, and I will not allow that lie to stand. 

------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) At Rick Perry’s Texas hunting spot, camp’s old racially charged name lingered