Obama is losing, so the Drive-By Media Cooks Some Polls

It's happening, friends. The Drive-By Media is releasing cooked poll after cooked poll to show President Obama as stronger than he really is in head to head polls against Mitt Romney.  We talked about it in late April when the offender was NBC.  This time we have two offenders: Reuters/Ipsos and Tipp Online. Both have Obama beating Romney. Both have skewed poll samples to favor Obama.

Important to note is what these two polls do to the Real Clear Politics average.  (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, what Real Clear Politics (henceforce referred to as RCP) does is take all polls in a given election and give a straight average, whether the poll is of adults, registered voters, or likely voters.) What these two polls have done is given the President a slim lead in the RCP average of 46.2% to Romney's 46%. (So close it's a statistical tie.) However, this includes our two doctored polls. More on this later.

Before we go into the two polls, let's once again set the baseline in this country for conservatives, moderates, and liberals. As I've said so many times before, this is far more accurate than naming party affiliation, because so many people in the South especially are still registered as Democrats but vote conservative...holdovers from a past where a conservative Democrat was a real thing. However, it is reasonable to presume that conservatives will vote Republican and liberals will vote Democrat, leading the moderates as the group who may or may not vote down their party line or be a swing voter.

So, in 2011, Gallup did, as in past years, conduct a series of polls to establish the ideological demographics of this nation. In January 2012 Gallup published their National Ideology Poll.  At that time, 40% of Americans self-identified as conservative, 35% self-identified as moderate and 21% self-identified as liberal.  So a legitimate assumption would be to presume 40% of Americans to lean Republican and only 21% to lean Democrat. Even if we assume 20% of those moderates are true swing voters (as conventional wisdom proclaims) and split the remaining 15% with the two parties as moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, that means 47.5% Republican leaners and 28.5% Democrat leaners. (Translation, they need ALL the true swing voters to win.)

The first offending poll is Tipp Online.  Tipp shows the President beating Mitt Romney 46% to 43% amongst registered voters (not likely voters, registered voters).  Even Tipp admits that "Race Tightens, Obama Lead Over Romney Narrows To 3 Points" in their headline.  But there's a problem with their polling sample. They gave Democrats a 7% advantage! You have to look at the very bottom of this poll to find it, but when Tipp asked the individuals polled which way lean politically, 38% self-identified as Democrat, 31% self-identified as Republican, and 27% self-identified as independent. 

That's a 7% advantage simply handed to the Democrats...one that does not exist in reality!  The only way to justify this poll is to claim, erouneously, that 65% of all moderates lean Democrat while only 35% lean Republican.

The second offending poll is Reuters/Ipsos. The poll shows Obama with a mildly comfortable lead of 49% to 42% over Mitt Romney (not likely voters, registered voters). There's just one problem...they went and handed a 9% advantage to Democrats in this poll! Whooops!  Their polling sample was 47% Democrat leaners to 38% Republican leaners! Holy cow! Once again, this does not match up with the real electorate and their political ideologies!

The only way to justify this poll is to eroneously claim that 74% of self-identified moderates lean Democrat. Nice try, but no dice. This does not add up to any reality.

So back to that RCP average that we talked about. Let's take the other polls involved, including two 3-day rolling average polls in Gallup and Rasmussen; as well as two polls of likely voters rather than registered voters in Rasmussen and Democracy Corps (ironically, these guys are a Democrat polling organization yet they're being more honest).

Rasmussen has Romney defeating Obama 49% to 44%, a 5% margin of victory (2% above the margin of error). Gallup has Romney defeating Obama 47% to 44%, a 3% margin of error (exactly the margin of error).  Democracy Corps has a tie of 47% to 47% for both candidates.

These three polls have an average of Romey 47.75% to Obama 45.5%.  This means Romney averaging a +2.25% margin of victory.  Compare this to the RCP average including the cooked Tipp and Reuters polls, which shows Obama beating Romney 46.2% to 46%.  So by publishing cooked polls, these two organizations push the RCP average from Obama losing to Obama winning.

Friends, the Drive-By Media likes to do this to dishearten conservatives, to make us give up on winning the White House. They want to make you believe that Obama will be re-elected so you won't work hard to defeat him. But what polls like this show is that they are very worried. They are trying to convince you (and themseleves) that Obama is a stronger candidate than reality shows. We must not let him. We will defeat Obama in 2012!

why we should study culture (repost)

(i originally wrote and posted this to renown on April 14, 2010.)

I will shout it from the rooft... well, from my deck and front porch (because my roof is really steep and I'm a little afraid to shout anything from up there) that = we (the Western Church) MUST study our culture like (cross-cultural) missionaries ferociously study the culture that they are sent to! 

We are missionaries to Western culture and we've gotta start acting like it. When I move to sub-Saharan Africa one day, I am going to study the heck out of that culture. I should do the same as a missionary here in Charlotte!

So, of course I'm excited when I read Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger (both profs @ Fuller - my 2nd choice according to THIS) writing awesome missional lists like this one in their book I've been reading, Emerging Churches. Below is their awesome list with my thoughts and commentary following.

*11 Key reasons why the church must seriously study culture:

1            Because of the Incarnation

Jesus took on our culture and practices = “As Jesus did, we must immerse ourselves in the local cultures of our time.” “As Jesus did, we must provide a critique, but that evaluation must come from within rather than be imposed from outside the cultural context.”
*Jesus critiqued as fully a part of the culture and immersed in it! right on - this should be obvious. We can’t be missionaries to China and not be fully immersed in their culture, but still condemning and critiquing their culture! we don't get it when we do that!

2            Because Cultural Understanding has Always been Essential to Good Mission Practice

“Questions regarding the relationship between church and culture are critical to the mission of the church. Faithful mission practice requires understanding of the culture in which one is serving.” of course it's the same in Western culture - just like in any other culture.

Missionaries historically engage the culture, “seeking to communicate the gospel in indigenous forms while remaining faithful to Scripture.”
*duh. BUT, in the West we sell culture way short! We're convinced we understand the various cultures in the West, but this is a big mistake… because we obviously don't. we need to study it.

This is great advice = “The church must recognize that we are in the midst of a cultural revolution and that nineteenth-century (or older) forms of church do not communicate clearly to 21^st century cultures.” A major transformation MUST occur in the way the church understands culture!

*And I think this is a fair and important warning on this point =  

“The church must embody the gospel within the culture of postmodernity for the Western church to survive the 21^st century.”

3            Because Christendom and Modernity are in Rapid Decline

The Church does NOT maintain the central place in society anymore. The Church is pretty much non-influential.

“More often than not the church has found itself taking the side of modernity, defending its project against all viewpoints.” = ouch. [& for what purpose?]

**So, this shift from Christendom and modernity has profound implications for the Church, the nature of ministry, mission in postmodernity, and the ways next gen leaders are equipped for these new challenges!

We can hunker down/run away or move forward in this new mission!

4            Because the West is in the Midst of Huge Cultural Shifts
It used to be that a certain culture hung around for an entire lifetime. Now, the church can’t even relate to its surrounding culture which is why we’re perceived as irrelevant.

*A few cultural changes Gibbs & Bolger say have contributed to marginalization of the church:
1) shift to postmodernity

2) shift from Westernization to globalization

3) communication revolution = shift from print to electronic-based
4) shift in our economic mode of production = transition from national and industrial-based economies to international, info based, and consumer driven.
5) we're on the verge of breakthroughs in human biology

           6)a convergence of science and religion that hasn’t been seen in centuries

“Any one of these shifts requires significant theological reflection. Pastoral leaders must listen carefully to culture and be prepared to abandon cherished forms if necessary.”

5            Because the Church is in Decline

A big reason (imho) is that culture has drastically changed and we haven't kept up. Somehow we can be missionaries when we cross oceans, but we don't apply those same principles in our cities here in the West!
I'm stoked to be a part of a generation that has a completely different philosophy on this. I'm stoked to see how God might use us to be a part of changing the way the Western Church looks at culture and therefore the scope of our influence for His Name's sake!

There are thoughts on the 1st 5 reasons. Check in tomorrow for thoughts on the 2nd 5!

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? 
AGREE OR DISAGREE? OR BOTH??

Can we stop talking about dogs in the 2012 Campaign, please?

Both sides. Seriously, friends. I get it, ok. Nearly thirty years ago, Mitt Romney transported his dog in a car-top dog carrier on a road trip. Also, over thirty years ago, as a child, President Obama was served dog meat and ate it.

I love dogs too, people. Seriously. I'm one of the world's biggest dog lovers. But this is blatantly stupid. So stupid that I'm even defending the President here.

Let's look at these stories realistically. We've come a long way in thirty years when it comes to safety. I'm willing to bet the Romney boys were quite possibly not buckled up and were in the cargo section of the station wagon. Simply stated, we as a society weren't as safety conscious as we are now.

Let me give you an example: How many of you have seen 1983l's National Lampoons Vacation?  In this famous scene, Clark shares a beer with his young teenage son during a roadside break WHILE DRIVING.  (A lot of modern parents would absolutely flip over giving half a beer to a kid that age.  I don't agree with that, provided this is done in responsible quantities (ie a half glass of beer or wine) with parental supervision is a good thing...takes the mystery away from alcohol.)  There are numerous other examples of films where a dad is driving his family and drinking a beer at the same time.

That was the time, friends. We were less safety conscious. Seat belts were in cars but not required/enforced by law. Drinking and driving was very loosely enforced if at all. Open container laws were nonexistent. People had 900 pound televisions on top of a TV tray.

As far as President Obama eating dog...he was a child. He was eating what he was served. Furthermore, eating dog meat is prevalent in many parts of the world, including nations that would be equally repulsed by the eating of beef. It's a cultural difference, friends. Some of the same people have pet sheep or pet pigs.  We eat those.  Tons of people have pet fish. Ultimately, they are all animals, friends.

I wouldn't want to eat a dog or a cat, don't get me wrong. But that is because I live in a culture where dogs and cats are pets. I have had multiple pet dogs. I have a pet cat now. Amber and Jazz and Buster and Shelby were/are dogs that do or did belong to me or a close relative. Same with my cat Benny. To me they are friends. This is because I am familiar with them and keep/kept them as a pet.  They were all socialized as pets and treated as members of the family.

As I understand it, in the nations where cats and dogs are food, they are not raised as pets then eaten. They are raised like we raise cows and pigs as I understand it. This is a cultural difference, friends, not a crime against canine kind. As I said, animals are ultimately animals, not human beings.

At the end of the day, friends, let's move on and talk about real issues. We have serious problems that require serious solutions. This election needs to be about the health of this country, not 30 year old stories about dogs. So let's move on to real issues. I'm begging you.