Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Republican strategy to beat Obama

The good news for Republicans recently has been that polls have shown that a generic Republican beats Obama. The bad news is that when "generic Republican" is replaced with an actual Republican, Obama wins.

Not any more.

Latest polling shows that some actual Republicans beat, tie, or are within the poll's margin of error, according to ABC News:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads Obama by a 48 percent to 46 percent margin, while Texas Gov. Rick Perry ties the president at 47 percent. Obama bests Ron Paul by a 47-45 divide and Michele Bachmann by 48-44 split. All results are within a 4-point margin of error.
What does this mean?

I dunno. Does anyone know what Americans' political thought processes are? I mean, a majority of voters actually elected Obama in 2008. So you can't depend on most American voters to do anything that makes sense. So I'm not sure we can make any sense out of this poll.

But I'm not going to let that stop me from trying.

Maybe this means that Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul (RONPAUL!!!1!!1!!!!), and Michele Bachmann are actually generic Republicans.

All this time, I thought Tim Pawlenty was. But, since T-PAW decided to drop out of the race, theres an opening for a generic Republican. And, it's being filled by fake conservative (but good-for-business) Mitt Romney, almost conservative (but plays one on TV) Rick Perry, speaks right when facts aren't involved (John Wayne/John Wayne Gacy, Elvis' birthday/death day) Michele Bachmann, or sh*t-house rat crazy Ron Paul (RONPAUL!!!1!!1!!!!).

What about the other Republicans? For example, my guy, Herman Cain?

They didn't ask. At least, when I read the full poll, I didn't see where they paired up Cain and Obama. But, among Republicans, Cain and Perry has the smallest "unfavorable/strongly unfavorable" totals. As for favorable, Cain and Romney came in second in "favorable/strongly favorable" to Rudy Guiliani, who's not running.

What all this means is that a lot of Republicans can beat Obama. Maybe even more than they poll.

This shows what the Republican strategy for 2012 will be: don't be Obama.

Which sort of screws it up for Huntsman, who worked for the guy. But maybe not. Remember Romneycare and Obamacare? Mostly a matter of scale. But Romney beats Obama. So, maybe not even Jon "Obama's a remarkable leader" Huntsman should be counted out.

Still, not being Obama looks like a winning strategy. Particularly since Obama appears to be still blaming Bush for everything.

"I'm not Obama" beats "I'm not Bush" hands down.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

If my guy is in the middle of the pack, am I still a conservative?

John Hawkins at Right Wing News posted results from a poll, asking for the candidates that conservative bloggers would be most likely to support.

I was a participant.

Yes, I know. Who knew that I was a conservative blogger? Conservative, sure. But a blogger? That's a stretch. At least, it'd be as stretch to consider me a serious blogger. Or a blogger whose opinion anyone would care about.

Still, I participated. And the results are here.

Who did I vote for? Haley Barbour.

Why? Well, the poll didn't ask that. But, Barbour is a conservative with experience and a successful track record. A longer track record than many of the others on the list.

My guy made the middle of the pack. Which means he's not the flavor of the day. Like Jindal. Or Palin. Or Christie.

I could vote for those. But, in all honesty, they don't have a long a track record as Barbour. And they aren't all as conservative as I'd like. Well, Palin might be, but Jindal or Christie aren't as far right as I'd like.

If Barbour ends up being the GOP nominee, I'd be thrilled. But, based on that poll, I'd be one of only a few. If one of the others end up being the GOP nominee, I could support them. At least, much more than whoever the Democrats end up nominating.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

So, how big of a screw-up is Obama?

Anybody with one eye and half sense can tell that Barack Obama is a screw-up.

Some of us knew he was before he was elected. Now, everyone else is finding out what we knew all along: Barack Obama is a screw-up.

The only question remains is: how big of a screw-up is Obama?

Well, I saw today's Gallup and Rasmussen polls. And Gallup, which poll a sample of voting-age Americans, has Obama's approval rate at 44%:



Rasmussen, which polls a sample of likely voters, has Obama's approval rating at 45%:



Now, think about that for a minute.

Gallup doesn't limit to likely voters. It includes more than likely voters. Which means those not likely to vote. Those that don't care enough to vote.

Obama is such a screw-up, that even people that don't care are pissed at him.

I can see November from my house.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Speaking of a Right Wing Nut House...

Rick Moran didn't like the list that a bunch of conservative bloggers came up with, and said so. And called them the "Dumbest Conservative Bloggers."

What?

Okay, a little background. John Hawkins at Right Wing News asked conservative bloggers to list their choices for the 20 worst figures in American History. And to submit an unranked list. Just a list of 20 names. Then, he would take the separate lists and compile them into one list of the 25 Worst Figures In American History.

43 bloggers responded ... including me ... and Hawkins posted his list.

Now, let me restate how the voting went. Each list submitted was unranked. No one said "this person is worse than that person." Rather, they all said "these are the 20 worst." And, for each list that named a particular person, that person got one vote.

Here's the complied list, including the number of lists on which each person appeared:
23) Saul Alinsky (7)
23) Bill Clinton (7)
23) Hillary Clinton (7)
19) Michael Moore (7)
19) George Soros (8)
19) Alger Hiss (8)
19) Al Sharpton (8)
13) Al Gore (9)
13) Noam Chomsky (9)
13) Richard Nixon (9)
13) Jane Fonda (9)
13) Harry Reid (9)
13) Nancy Pelosi (9)
11) John Wilkes Booth (10)
11) Margaret Sanger (10)
9) Aldrich Ames (11)
9) Timothy McVeigh (11)
7) Ted Kennedy (14)
7) Lyndon Johnson (14)
5) Benedict Arnold (17)
5) Woodrow Wilson (17)
4) The Rosenbergs (19)
3) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (21)
2) Barack Obama (23)
1) Jimmy Carter (25)
Nowhere in the submissions did anyone say Jimmy Carter is worse than Barack Obama. Nor did anyone say Barack Obama is worse than Timothy McVeigh. What did happen is that 2 more people included Carter than Obama on their list of 20. And 12 more included Obama than McVeigh on their list. That's a slight difference. But an important difference.

I have no idea how anyone else approached this poll. But here's what I did: I thought of Americans that I thought were really bad people and wrote them on a list.

I did remove some people from the list as it was being built, because I thought, "this person is bad, but not as bad as that person." On a few, I went back and added the person back to the list.

This went on for a bit, and I still wasn't happy with my list.

Then, I decided to make it a somewhat representative list. You see, is a serial killer a worse person than a president that causes hundreds or thousands of deaths? Or, like Melissa Couthier wondered, "(who) was the dumbass who convinced people that DDT was worse than dying from malaria and by extension participated in the deaths of over 25 million African children? ... Also, is a dude who buried grandma and 20 bodies in the backyard more evil?"

Dr. Clouthier has a valid point. Me, personally? I think the DDT guy is worse, because good intentions don't excuse bad behavior. Good intentions count for something, but millions of dead people count more.

Anyway, back to my methodology. I decided to become more diverse in my list. I thought specifically about traitors, and came up with a few, including Aldrich Hazen Ames, Benedict Arnold, Julius Rosenberg, among others.

I figured killers needed to make the list. So, I included Theodore Robert Bundy, Edward Theodore Gein, Timothy James McVeigh, Howard Barton Unruh, among others.

My list included politicians (who have the ability to do more harm than the killers on my list ever did) such as Edward Moore Kennedy, Frank Forrester Church III, Barack Hussein Obama, among others.

Throw in George Soros, Roger Nash Baldwin, and a few others, and my list of 20 was done. And, no, it wasn't the list I wanted. But, it was probably as good as any list that someone like me could come up with. Besides, it was 6:44 PM, running up against a 7:00 PM deadline. So, I sorted the list alphabetically and clicked "send."

I think I under-represented the 19th century in my list. And probably the 18th century as well. But, it's done.

42 others responded, as I mentioned, John Hawkins compiled them, and posted the results.

Which ... after that brief introduction ... brings me back to my point.

Some, like Rick Moran, seem to have got their panties in a wad over it.

He takes the gang of 43 (who he calls "The Top 43 Dumbest Conservative Bloggers" ... which is funny; funny/ha-ha, not funny/strange):
And what did all that 10 Watt brainpower come up with? ... Absolutely astonishing. One mass murderer (McVeigh) and one assassin (Booth) made the list. No gangsters. No old west gunmen. Both Woodrow Wilson and FDR in the top 5 worst? If you’re going to penalize presidents so severely for having wrongheaded ideas about economic policy, why not include George Bush? Or the modern Republican party who never met a deficit they didn’t embrace as long is it was caused by tax cuts.
Let me say that I like Rick Moran. Actually, I've never met him. I've never corresponded to any degree with him (in fact, he didn't respond to a recent, unrelated-to-this-list query to him). I guess it would be more accurate to say I enjoy reading his blog. I don't always agree, but it's still a good read.

He left enough weasel-room with his "perhaps not all 43 of this list of conservative bloggers" statement at the top of his post -- though I really don't think he cares if the insult hits me or not.

The thing is, though, Moran criticized the 43 for having more list Obama than Dahmer. Then he turns around and, in a Top Five ranked listing, positions William Randolph Hearst as worse than Ted Bundy. Hearst didn't personally kill a bunch of people. And he was one of the few newspapermen to point out what Nazi Germany was doing to Jews. That's not to excuse the Father of Yellow Journalism from his sins. But criticizing Hawkins' list for having Obama but not Dahmer ... then saying Hearst was worse than Bundy? Moran is typing out of both sides of his keyboard.

Then, there's this:
Frankly, this is embarrassing. Putting the Clintons, Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Sharpton, and other contemporary Democrats ahead of someone like Nathan Bedford Forest who was at least partly responsible for creating the KKK after the Civil War and spent his spare nights riding around the countryside whipping, lynching, and burning at the stake innocent African Americans demonstrates an extraordinary ignorance of American history.
I suppose the fact that the Ku Klux Klan that did all the lynching in the 1900s is not the same Ku Klux Klan that Forrest founded, but a same-named organization, doesn't "demonstrate an extraordinary ignorance of American history."

I think Moran's going a little overboard in his criticism of the list. My list doesn't match the final list. Of the 20 names I submitted, 10 made the final 25, and 10 didn't. My list matches the final list by a range of 40-50%, depending on how you look at it (10/20, or 10/25).

And I'm not the only one who thinks that Moran is a little off the mark in his criticism. Paul Mitchell called Moran's post "stupid." However, Andrew Ian Dodge and William Teach both compare Moran's comments to Charles Johnson.

That's not a fair comparison. Johnson is who he always was. He was bat-sh*t crazy opposing Bush before September 11, went gung-ho pro-Bush for a bit, then settled back to where he started.

Moran isn't like that. I certainly believe he's not like that. I think he's honest in what he writes, and isn't bat-sh*t crazy. But I think he went overboard in what he wrote.

Having said that, the compiled list is flawed. After all, it left off 10 of my picks!

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Hurray for failure

I'm trying to understand some polls I read this week:
  • Only 27% of Americans say the U.S. will remain the most powerful nation.
  • 47% of likely voters approve (30% strongly approve + 17% approve) of Obama's job performance.
I find that interesting. And disturbing.

Look at that again: Only 27% say we're remain the most powerful nation, while 47% approve of Obama.

If all 27% are part of that 47%, then 20% of Americans recognize and are okay with the weakening of our country.

But, I don't believe that all 27% are Obama supporters. I suspect most of them think we'll remain strong despite Obama.

If none of those are Obama supporters, then 47% of Americans recognize and are okay with the weakening of our country.

At least 1/5 -- and possibly almost 1/2 -- of this country recognizes that Obama is weakening the nation ... and are okay with that.

This is why I'm an angry conservative.

Friday, March 5, 2010

Best movies? Again?

No, I'm not going to bore you with another series of posts about the best movies.

Rather, John Hawkins at Right Wing News, did a poll of conservative bloggers. I participated. They weren't ranked submissions, simply a top ten list, with each entry being one vote.

Anyway, here is the post of the results.

Of the ten movies I submitted, six were in the top twenty results:
  • Casablanca (1942)
  • The Godfather (1972)
  • The Godfather Part II (1974)
  • Patton (1969)
  • The Princess Bride(1987)
  • Star Wars (1977)
So, since you asked -- that was you asking, right? -- what were the other movies I suggested?
  • The General (1927)
  • The Magnificent Seven (1960)
  • Stagecoach (1939)
  • The Wizard of Oz (1939)
There was one movie from 1939 on Hawkins' list -- and yes, you know that film (read the poll) -- although I submitted two other films from 1939. And that was the oldest film on Hawkins' list. I offered one silent film: The General DVD Blu-Ray. It's a classic. And, if you can sit down and watch it, you'll love it. That's why it's my second-favorite movie of all time.

Oh, the IMAO crew (Frank J, SarahK, and Harvey) also participated in the poll.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Numbers don't lie, but number-crunchers do

Two polls taken during the same 3-day time period with nearly the same sample size, show a difference of 17 percentage points in Obama's approval rating:


The Rasmussen Poll shows Obama's approval-disapproval rates at 47-51, a difference of -4.

The Gallup Poll shows Obama's approval-disapproval rates at 53-40, a difference of +13.

That's a 17-point swing in approval/disapproval for two polls, both taken over the same 3-day period (11 February - 13 February), with similar sample sized (1,547 for Gallup, 1,500 for Rasmussen).

Now, does this mean that either Gallup or Rasmussen are a bunch of liars? No. Well, maybe.

How do you explain this? Or, I guess I should ask, how do I explain this? (I mean, this is my blog, not yours. If you want to offer your explanation, you can use the comments, unless you're a troll or otherwise can't follow the comment policy.)

The Gallup poll is of all Americans, while the Rasmussen poll is of likely voters.

Which supports my belief that people who don't know what's going on are more likely to support a president who doesn't know what's going on. And Americans who care about this country (likely voters) don't think so much of a president who doesn't care about this country.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

The most trusted name in made-up news

According to a recent Zogby poll, "37.6% of those surveyed, news sources on the Internet are considered to be the most reliable."

More than Fox News. More than CNN. More than MSNBC. More than the New York Times.

Think about that for a minute.

I mean, if people believe the Internet more than news organizations, does that mean that they don't trust CNN, but do trust CNN.com?

I don't think so.

There's something else on the Internet they trust. And what could that be?

BLOGS!!!

Yes, blogs -- such as this blog -- are the most trusted source of news. That has to be it!

As a dues-paying member of the Internets, I, for one, am proud of the faith you have placed us.

Misplaced faith, to be sure. But we're not about to let your misguided notions of who to trust go to our heads.

We'll continue to make up stuff about liberals, never ceasing, never tiring, never stopping, ever growing, ever moving, ever rising till ... well, you get the idea.

Like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the New York Times, or any of those "news organizations," we'll continue to be make stuff up and to have a tremendous bias.

Unlike CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the New York Times, or any of those "news organizations," we'll continue to be open and honest about making stuff up and about our bias.

You can trust us on that.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

The "Elite" Media strikes again

Once again, the south doesn't get any respect. The University of Georgia fell in the college football polls again. And here's the problem. First, I'll admit I'm a Bulldog fan. While I don't attend their games regularly, I'm a typical UGA fan, I suppose. I've been to a handful of UGA games. Having said that, I ask any serious football fan to explain to me how a team can open the season ranked number one, win three straight, and wind up number three? "Unimpressive wins," is what I've heard. Well, if impressive wins meant a lot, why didn't Georgia play for the national championship last season? That's an excuse, not a reason. Here's the reason: teams from the south don't get the respect they're due. All the Ohio State, Southern California, Oklahoma and such fans will say how great their teams are. And I won't argue their point; they are football fans who are proud of their teams. But, I wonder if any of those teams opened at number one, then won their first three, would end up number three? I suspect not. Of course, like in politics, it's not the polls now that matter; it's the last one. Unfortunately for college football, each poll builds on the other. Which means that if Southern California, Oklahoma, and Georgia all run the table, the Bulldogs would likely be left out of the national championship game. Of course, the fact that half the top 10 (AP) are SEC teams (4 of 10 in the Coaches Poll), might help the Bulldogs. It didn't this week; they beat USC, an SEC team, and fell from number two to number three. This is why we need a playoff. And why we won't get one? Because the SEC would run the table. One or two individual teams in various conferences are pretty good. But top to bottom, the SEC owns college football. And should own the top of the polls.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Polls

You know what's funny about the New Hampshire primary results?

All the polls showed Barack Hussein Obama leading Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton in that state ... and Clinton up and beat Obama.

Okay, I'll admit it. The conspiracy theorist in me says it was all a setup to make Clinton "the comeback kid II." But that's silly.

Here's what I really do find interesting, though.

The polls were wrong. Very wrong.

And all the Democrats seem okay with that.

But I wonder ...

Suppose it was November. And suppose the Democratic nominee was leading the Republican nominee in the polls. And suppose the Republican ended up winning.

What would happen?

I think you'd hear all the Dems calling "fraud" and saying all those polls couldn't have been wrong, so the election must have been stolen.

Today, though, the silence is deafening.