Both Senator John McCain & the Director of the CIA (who would definitely know) publicly refuted last week's rampant GOP claims which gave credit to the use of torture ("enhanced interrogation") in bringing about the death of Bin Laden.
Decidedly Un-Presidential candidate, Senator Rick Santorum's reply to McCain:
"McCain is wrong. He doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works..."
Oh, is that so, Mr. Santorum? You have a Guinness-record-setting amount of hubris (and completely-dead/necrotic gray matter) to make the declaration that a man who - unlike yourself - has actually experienced being tortured (he endured 5 yrs. of torture when he was held as a POW in Vietnam) "... doesn't understand" torture.
Mr. Santorum's personal experience with torture: None. Unless you count how he tortures us everytime he opens his mouth.
"For pure, blind stupidity. nobody beats Santorum. In my 20 years in the Senate, I never met a dumber member." - Mark Salter - McCain Senior Staffer - 20yrs in Senate.
Please enjoy this brief clip on this remarkable story from last night's The Rachel Maddow Show:
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Friday, October 01, 2010
GOP Leadership: "How are the mighty fallen..." Or: From Integrity To LCD
Oh, GOP Leadership...
What sad, regretful events we find ourselves witnesses to...
"How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle"
And, with each passing day, it is ever more surprising how much farther the (once) mighty fall/are willing to fling themselves.
The Congressional GOP Leadership - those select individuals who consistently showed themselves to be exceptional examples of "rising above" and whose words and actions showed the considerable amount of wisdom they'd cultivated and valued - even if it wasn't popular with those with... ah, flexible/pliable morals/character.
Those respected leaders whom the GOP membership looked to as Standard Bearers.
(Heck, even I had a great deal of respect for them.)
Those individuals who not only refused to participate in infantile mud-slinging and lame, low-down & dirty politics, but who condemned such petty behavior...
Those few who never "waffled"...
Have now, sadly, themselves crumbled, collapsed & caved...
Falling phenomenally fast from those hard-won and well-deserved positions of respect and trust...
Appearing to have now abandoned entirely, their life-long moral high-ground...
Only to join the rank and file of lost and misled...
The ones who - because they are suffering under the manipulations of petty politicians of questionable character for whom being low-down, dirty and mud-slinging is a celebratory achievement - are most in need of their formerly invaluable, experience-rich guidance...
They've now taken up the very same undignified behaviors which they themselves had recently and rightfully condemned: inappropriate and completely-off-the-point assertions and already-refuted innuendos... ones previously-acknowledged as laughable; ludicrous; ridiculous; desperate and utterly undignified...
In other words... the LCD.
Here's a brief clip from TRMS... which illustrates this unhappy transformation perfectly...
Enjoy (?)
What sad, regretful events we find ourselves witnesses to...
"How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle"
And, with each passing day, it is ever more surprising how much farther the (once) mighty fall/are willing to fling themselves.
The Congressional GOP Leadership - those select individuals who consistently showed themselves to be exceptional examples of "rising above" and whose words and actions showed the considerable amount of wisdom they'd cultivated and valued - even if it wasn't popular with those with... ah, flexible/pliable morals/character.
Those respected leaders whom the GOP membership looked to as Standard Bearers.
(Heck, even I had a great deal of respect for them.)
Those individuals who not only refused to participate in infantile mud-slinging and lame, low-down & dirty politics, but who condemned such petty behavior...
Those few who never "waffled"...
Have now, sadly, themselves crumbled, collapsed & caved...
Falling phenomenally fast from those hard-won and well-deserved positions of respect and trust...
Appearing to have now abandoned entirely, their life-long moral high-ground...
Only to join the rank and file of lost and misled...
The ones who - because they are suffering under the manipulations of petty politicians of questionable character for whom being low-down, dirty and mud-slinging is a celebratory achievement - are most in need of their formerly invaluable, experience-rich guidance...
They've now taken up the very same undignified behaviors which they themselves had recently and rightfully condemned: inappropriate and completely-off-the-point assertions and already-refuted innuendos... ones previously-acknowledged as laughable; ludicrous; ridiculous; desperate and utterly undignified...
In other words... the LCD.
Here's a brief clip from TRMS... which illustrates this unhappy transformation perfectly...
Enjoy (?)
Friday, September 12, 2008
Why Tackle Issues When There's Lipstick, Pigs and Spin?
I hereby award a Generous Thump on the Head To:
Senator John McCain, his campaign handlers, spin dorks and everyone who took false and flaming umbrage at Senator Barack Obama's statement that "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.".
Not only is there videotape of John McCain using that same exact phrase Three Times over the last year or so...
McCain used the "Lipstick on a pig" phrase when referring to Senator Hillary Clinton's Health Plan.
Did the Democrats get all apoplectic and offended?
No.
Even evil Darth Cheney used the exact phrase not that long ago.
So... What's all the Hubub About?
Well, apparently, McCain and the GOP have noticed that when Actual Issues That Affect Americans and What Needs To Be Done To Get Our Country Back on Track are being discussed in the various media, across the Blogosphere and across the United States of America...
Senator Barack Obama and his strategies for positive change fare much better than the plans of John McCain (if he has any).
So?
So...
The Republicans - when faced with the fact that, as far as The Issues go, they don't have a leg to stand on - fall back on the 'swift-boating' style of attack used against Senator John Kerry and many others before him.
Their aim becomes one of trying to create as many diversions as they can to distract the American people's attention away from the fact that, the issues that are affecting the majority of us: the Iraq War; the Afganistan War; the heart-and-record-breaking deficit; the price of gas; the economy; Global Warming; the sub-prime mortgage racket and subsequent taxpayer bail-outs of banks and Fannie & Freddie (businesses that knew better but did it anyway and that won't learn any lessons if they get bailed out); rising food prices, skyrocketing healthcare costs, callous incompetence following natural disasters... (I could go on, but it's getting late) are the 7-going-on-8yr. legacy of Republican President and John McCain good buddy, George W. Bush and that John McCain and the GOP have no intention to change anything... Why would they? They're rich old white men who have lots of money, homes, job offers (lobbying?) and state-of-the-art health care.
Lacking substance, strategy and any reason to change their status quo...
What's a GOP candidate to do to try to convince the American people to vote for him?
The Republican Razzle Dazzle:
They attack their opponents character like a herd of rabid and foaming chihuahuas.
They pick through their opponent's speeches with tweezers and a microscope, find actionable words and take them completely out of context and then combine them with much harrumphing, "How dare you's" and fabricated fake offense (they're really good at the fabricating stuff - see Iraq War Build-Up/WMDs).
In this instance, the spin dorks excised that one innocuous sentence with the precision of a surgeon, added Sarah Palin and injected some artificial insult, chewed it up, swallowed it and regurgitated it like a projectile... in some cases they followed it with a demand for an apology from Senator Obama.
An apology? For What Exactly?
What Senator Obama was commenting on is this:
As an analogy, let's say that the Bush Administration, its policies and practices are a pig.
Here comes John McCain and the rest of the Bushies saying "Rah! Rah! Change is coming." (This is The LIPSTICK.)
In other words...
The more things McCain... The more they stay McSame.
No apology necessary on Senator Obama's part...
But, if the GOP wants to apologize for instantly assuming that any mention of a pig refers to Palin...
Don't hold your breath...
The Republicans don't do apologies or admit any wrongdoing - even when everyone knows they're wrong... Not Ever. (Just ask 'the Decider'.)
Peace.
L.
(From: slate.com)
Who First Put "Lipstick on a Pig"?
The origins of the porcine proverb.
By Ben Zimmer
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2008, at 5:37 PM ET
When Barack Obama told a crowd at a campaign event on Tuesday, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," the McCain campaign swiftly took offense, claiming the analogy was directed at vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki countered the accusation, saying, "That expression is older than my grandfather's grandfather and it means that you can dress something up but it doesn't change what it is." Is the expression really that old?
The concept is an old one, but the phrasing used by Obama is rather new. Many porcine proverbs describe vain attempts at converting something from ugly to pretty, or from useless to useful. The famous maxim that "You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear" dates back at least to the mid-16th century. Other old sayings play on the ludicrousness of a pig getting dressed up. "A hog in armour is still but a hog" was recorded in 1732 by British physician Thomas Fuller. As Francis Grose later explained in A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (1796), a "hog in armour" alludes to "an awkward or mean looking man or woman, finely dressed." Charles H. Spurgeon noted another variation in his 1887 compendium of proverbs, The Salt-Cellars: "A hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog," meaning, "Circumstances do not alter a man's nature, nor even his manners."
The "lipstick" variation is relatively novel—not surprising, since the word lipstick itself dates only to 1880. The incongruity of pigs and cosmetics was expressed as early as 1926 by the colorful editor Charles F. Lummis, writing in the Los Angeles Times: "Most of us know as much of history as a pig does of lipsticks." But the exact wording of "putting lipstick on a pig (or hog)" doesn't show up until much later. In 1985, the Washington Post quoted a San Francisco radio host on plans for renovating Candlestick Park (instead of building a new downtown stadium for the Giants): "That would be like putting lipstick on a pig."
Ann Richards did much to boost the saying's political popularity when she used a number of variations while governor of Texas in the early '90s. In 1991, in her first budget-writing session, she said, "This is not another one of those deals where you put lipstick on a hog and call it a princess." The next year, at a Democratic barbecue in South Dakota, she criticized the George H.W. Bush administration for using warships to protect oil tankers in the Middle East, which she considered a hidden subsidy for foreign oil. "You can put lipstick on a hog and call it Monique, but it is still a pig," she said. Richards returned to the theme in her failed 1994 gubernatorial race against the younger Bush, using the "call it Monique" line to disparage her opponent's negative ads.
Since then, "lipstick on a pig" has spiced up the political verbiage of everyone from Charlie Rangel to Dick Cheney. John McCain himself used it last year to describe Hillary Clinton's health care proposal. And even though the folksy expression is one that sounds old (and connects back to genuinely old proverbs), it's not quite the vintage of anyone's grandfather's grandfather.
Senator John McCain, his campaign handlers, spin dorks and everyone who took false and flaming umbrage at Senator Barack Obama's statement that "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.".
Not only is there videotape of John McCain using that same exact phrase Three Times over the last year or so...
McCain used the "Lipstick on a pig" phrase when referring to Senator Hillary Clinton's Health Plan.
Did the Democrats get all apoplectic and offended?
No.
Even evil Darth Cheney used the exact phrase not that long ago.
So... What's all the Hubub About?
Well, apparently, McCain and the GOP have noticed that when Actual Issues That Affect Americans and What Needs To Be Done To Get Our Country Back on Track are being discussed in the various media, across the Blogosphere and across the United States of America...
Senator Barack Obama and his strategies for positive change fare much better than the plans of John McCain (if he has any).
So?
So...
The Republicans - when faced with the fact that, as far as The Issues go, they don't have a leg to stand on - fall back on the 'swift-boating' style of attack used against Senator John Kerry and many others before him.
Their aim becomes one of trying to create as many diversions as they can to distract the American people's attention away from the fact that, the issues that are affecting the majority of us: the Iraq War; the Afganistan War; the heart-and-record-breaking deficit; the price of gas; the economy; Global Warming; the sub-prime mortgage racket and subsequent taxpayer bail-outs of banks and Fannie & Freddie (businesses that knew better but did it anyway and that won't learn any lessons if they get bailed out); rising food prices, skyrocketing healthcare costs, callous incompetence following natural disasters... (I could go on, but it's getting late) are the 7-going-on-8yr. legacy of Republican President and John McCain good buddy, George W. Bush and that John McCain and the GOP have no intention to change anything... Why would they? They're rich old white men who have lots of money, homes, job offers (lobbying?) and state-of-the-art health care.
Lacking substance, strategy and any reason to change their status quo...
What's a GOP candidate to do to try to convince the American people to vote for him?
The Republican Razzle Dazzle:
They attack their opponents character like a herd of rabid and foaming chihuahuas.
They pick through their opponent's speeches with tweezers and a microscope, find actionable words and take them completely out of context and then combine them with much harrumphing, "How dare you's" and fabricated fake offense (they're really good at the fabricating stuff - see Iraq War Build-Up/WMDs).
In this instance, the spin dorks excised that one innocuous sentence with the precision of a surgeon, added Sarah Palin and injected some artificial insult, chewed it up, swallowed it and regurgitated it like a projectile... in some cases they followed it with a demand for an apology from Senator Obama.
An apology? For What Exactly?
What Senator Obama was commenting on is this:
As an analogy, let's say that the Bush Administration, its policies and practices are a pig.
Here comes John McCain and the rest of the Bushies saying "Rah! Rah! Change is coming." (This is The LIPSTICK.)
In other words...
The more things McCain... The more they stay McSame.
No apology necessary on Senator Obama's part...
But, if the GOP wants to apologize for instantly assuming that any mention of a pig refers to Palin...
Don't hold your breath...
The Republicans don't do apologies or admit any wrongdoing - even when everyone knows they're wrong... Not Ever. (Just ask 'the Decider'.)
Peace.
L.
(From: slate.com)
Who First Put "Lipstick on a Pig"?
The origins of the porcine proverb.
By Ben Zimmer
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2008, at 5:37 PM ET
When Barack Obama told a crowd at a campaign event on Tuesday, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," the McCain campaign swiftly took offense, claiming the analogy was directed at vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki countered the accusation, saying, "That expression is older than my grandfather's grandfather and it means that you can dress something up but it doesn't change what it is." Is the expression really that old?
The concept is an old one, but the phrasing used by Obama is rather new. Many porcine proverbs describe vain attempts at converting something from ugly to pretty, or from useless to useful. The famous maxim that "You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear" dates back at least to the mid-16th century. Other old sayings play on the ludicrousness of a pig getting dressed up. "A hog in armour is still but a hog" was recorded in 1732 by British physician Thomas Fuller. As Francis Grose later explained in A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (1796), a "hog in armour" alludes to "an awkward or mean looking man or woman, finely dressed." Charles H. Spurgeon noted another variation in his 1887 compendium of proverbs, The Salt-Cellars: "A hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog," meaning, "Circumstances do not alter a man's nature, nor even his manners."
The "lipstick" variation is relatively novel—not surprising, since the word lipstick itself dates only to 1880. The incongruity of pigs and cosmetics was expressed as early as 1926 by the colorful editor Charles F. Lummis, writing in the Los Angeles Times: "Most of us know as much of history as a pig does of lipsticks." But the exact wording of "putting lipstick on a pig (or hog)" doesn't show up until much later. In 1985, the Washington Post quoted a San Francisco radio host on plans for renovating Candlestick Park (instead of building a new downtown stadium for the Giants): "That would be like putting lipstick on a pig."
Ann Richards did much to boost the saying's political popularity when she used a number of variations while governor of Texas in the early '90s. In 1991, in her first budget-writing session, she said, "This is not another one of those deals where you put lipstick on a hog and call it a princess." The next year, at a Democratic barbecue in South Dakota, she criticized the George H.W. Bush administration for using warships to protect oil tankers in the Middle East, which she considered a hidden subsidy for foreign oil. "You can put lipstick on a hog and call it Monique, but it is still a pig," she said. Richards returned to the theme in her failed 1994 gubernatorial race against the younger Bush, using the "call it Monique" line to disparage her opponent's negative ads.
Since then, "lipstick on a pig" has spiced up the political verbiage of everyone from Charlie Rangel to Dick Cheney. John McCain himself used it last year to describe Hillary Clinton's health care proposal. And even though the folksy expression is one that sounds old (and connects back to genuinely old proverbs), it's not quite the vintage of anyone's grandfather's grandfather.
Poll Madness: Gallup-ing To The Right... Again.
"McCain pulls ahead of Obama in National Poll."?
Ouch.
Hearing those words from the news anchor's lips induced a slight twinge in the center of my chest.
"That can't be right", I quickly reassured myself, "There's no freaking way those ridiculous results can be scientific or accurate."
After all, McCain had just introduced Sarah Palin as his nominee for VP. Regardless of the outwardly boisterous - if not internally bewildered - support shown for McCain's choice... I mean Come On... Are You Serious?
After hearing all of the cries from both Senator Clinton's camp and the Republicans about Senator Obama being too inexperienced... McCain chooses an unknown Governor from a sparsely-populated state... who hasn't even finished her second term as Governor... who has never been a member of Congress... who can be seen in a video on YouTube to be declaring the Iraq War to be God's Plan... who also invoked God's will when encouraging another audience to pray for a a $30 billion national gas pipeline project to be built in Alaska... who reduced the aid given to pregnant teenagers in Alaska (luckily for her own pregnant teenage daughter, the Palins do O.K.) to lead the U.S. Senate and possibly be in line for the Presidency?
Then, there's the whole pitiful act of desperation shown by McCain's campaign people when they suddenly pulled out their "New" motto "Change is Coming.".
(The Original Rallying Cry - "Change You Can Believe In" - is from Senator Barack Obama's campaign - going back about a year.):
To say McCain's campaign is painfully lacking in originality and in new or good ideas is an understatement.
But, Hey... He is Right about One Thing...
Change is Coming... It's Just Not Coming By Way of John McCain and Sarah Palin.
He's a Bushie.
'Nuff said.
Back to those goofy poll result claims...
My first question would be...
Who owns/pays the salaries of those who allegedly did the polling?
Rupert Murdoch? Nah... News Corp. is another behemoth entirely.
Well, I did some searching...
The questionable poll results came from Gallup, USA Today and CBS News polls.
I checked into Gallup's practices regarding whom they choose to poll...
Apparently, Gallup doesn't adjust its "pool" of voters to add or subtract Republicans or Democrats in an effort to mirror those parties' estimated make-ups in a population.
Something they did often enough in 2004 - skewering things so as to make it appear as though the Republicans were further ahead "in the Polls" than they actually were (or could - be based upon exit poll numbers.) - that MoveOn.org placed a full-page ad in the New York Times with this headline:
"Gallup-ing to the Right. Why does America's top pollster keep getting it wrong?".
Maybe instead of Gallup, we should start getting our poll information from Zogby International, an independent polling firm that does adjust its pool so as to reflect a given population.
Who owns USA Today?
Gannett.
What does Gannett own?
Among other things... Gannett owns 100 daily newspapers in the USA; the Army Times, Navy Times, Navy Times Marine Corps, Air Force Times, Federal Times, Defense Times, and Military Market.
Who owns CBS?
Well, both CBS and Viacom are owned by multi-billionaire Sumner Redstone. Mr. Redstone is also Viacom's founder. Viacom was was split-off from CBS Corporation in 2005.
Check the current article below and see for yourself just what might explain the the alleged McCain "jump in the polls".
Oh...
In case you were unaware...
"In 2007, Viacom filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube for copyright infringement and recently a federal judge granted Viacom's request for data of all YouTube users. The blogosphere has since called for a boycott of all Viacom properties - so that means no MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon or - gasp - Comedy Central for you!" (From: neatorama.com)
My final thought:
"Hey, Gallup... Poll This."
Peace.
L.
From: huffingtonpost.com
Poll Madness: McCain Takes Lead Even As Democrats Out-Register Republicans?
This week's mainstream coverage of the presidential horse-race has been dominated by a series of polls showing the McCain-Palin ticket with its first stable lead over Obama and Biden. Gallup's tracking poll, USA Today and CBS News all show the Republicans with some kind of lead over the Democratic ticket. But, interestingly, all three polls were also conducted using a higher sampling of Republican voters than in July, raising a question of methodology.
In a year in which Democrats have a lead of 11 million registered voters over Republicans, and have been adding to that advantage through a robust field operation, are pollsters over-sampling Republicans?
Despite a raft of advantages in the electorate for Democrats, in September's first Gallup tracking poll, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats were surveyed (including "leaners") from Sept. 3-5, compared to a 10-point Democratic identification advantage two weeks ago. That partisan makeup of the polling pool resulted in a 5-point lead for McCain in Sept. 5 tracking poll. Meanwhile, the new CBS poll features a 6-point swing in partisan composition toward Republicans, which plays some role in the poll's two-point lead for McCain. Finally, the latest USA Today poll, which claims a four-point edge for McCain, was arrived at after a 10-point swing in partisan makeup toward GOP respondents.
Some polling experts say the changing state of party affiliation in the field is slow to be reflected in polls themselves. Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg told the Huffington Post that "when it comes to registration and turnout, the polls often do a very bad job of taking those [factors] into account," because newly registered voters aren't in the voter files used by firms that survey public opinion. "You could make the argument they are under-representing new registrants," she said, which would mean that the Democrats new edge would not be taken into account.
Monday's USA Today poll had a 48-47 split between Democrats and Republicans surveyed. That represents a nearly 10 point shift in party identification toward Republicans since USA Today's July polling. When asked for comment, USA Today polling editor Jim Norman wrote that "it's possible" that their latest sample includes too many Republicans. Though he added, "it's also possible that we have too many Democrats," because "there's always the chance of an over- or under-representation" in polls.
Still, Norman admitted that the GOP identification in the latest survey has spiked. "The party ID in our most recent poll does show a shift away from what Gallup has been getting in earlier polls, going all the way back to 2005," Norman said. "But previous conventions -- the Republican one in 1988, the Democratic one in 1992, the Democratic one in 2000 -- have also shown shifts in party ID toward the party that had the convention, and those shifts seemed to last, to greater or lesser degrees, though the election. Further, I've been told by Gallup that their tracking poll has shown a similar shift in party ID since the Republican convention. ... I guarantee you we will be watching closely in all of our polls between now and election day to see whether there are further shifts in party ID in either direction."
And it's true. Gallup's own GOP identification (including leaners) has swung six points in the last month, from 42 percent of voters to 48, according to tables provided to the Huffington Post. Meanwhile, solid and leaning Democrats have fallen from 52 to 48 percent of those polled. For political scientists who believe that partisanship is largely stable over time -- and who take note of the advantage in voter registration being experienced by Democrats during the same period -- the newly GOP-heavy poll samples can raise eyebrows.
Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz is highly skeptical of the new Gallup, USA Today and CBS polls. About the latter, which showed a statistically insignificant two point lead for McCain, Abramowitz said: "One reason for the dramatic difference between the two recent CBS polls is that the two samples differed fairly dramatically in terms of partisan composition. The first sample was 35.2% Democratic, 26.2 percent Republicans, and 38.6 percent independent. The second sample was 34.9% Democratic, 31.1% Republican, and 34.0% independent. That's a change from a 9 point Democratic advantage to a 3.8 point Democratic advantage. That alone would probably explain about half of the difference in candidate preferences between the two [CBS] polls."
Ouch.
Hearing those words from the news anchor's lips induced a slight twinge in the center of my chest.
"That can't be right", I quickly reassured myself, "There's no freaking way those ridiculous results can be scientific or accurate."
After all, McCain had just introduced Sarah Palin as his nominee for VP. Regardless of the outwardly boisterous - if not internally bewildered - support shown for McCain's choice... I mean Come On... Are You Serious?
After hearing all of the cries from both Senator Clinton's camp and the Republicans about Senator Obama being too inexperienced... McCain chooses an unknown Governor from a sparsely-populated state... who hasn't even finished her second term as Governor... who has never been a member of Congress... who can be seen in a video on YouTube to be declaring the Iraq War to be God's Plan... who also invoked God's will when encouraging another audience to pray for a a $30 billion national gas pipeline project to be built in Alaska... who reduced the aid given to pregnant teenagers in Alaska (luckily for her own pregnant teenage daughter, the Palins do O.K.) to lead the U.S. Senate and possibly be in line for the Presidency?
Then, there's the whole pitiful act of desperation shown by McCain's campaign people when they suddenly pulled out their "New" motto "Change is Coming.".
(The Original Rallying Cry - "Change You Can Believe In" - is from Senator Barack Obama's campaign - going back about a year.):
To say McCain's campaign is painfully lacking in originality and in new or good ideas is an understatement.
But, Hey... He is Right about One Thing...
Change is Coming... It's Just Not Coming By Way of John McCain and Sarah Palin.
He's a Bushie.
'Nuff said.
Back to those goofy poll result claims...
My first question would be...
Who owns/pays the salaries of those who allegedly did the polling?
Rupert Murdoch? Nah... News Corp. is another behemoth entirely.
Well, I did some searching...
The questionable poll results came from Gallup, USA Today and CBS News polls.
I checked into Gallup's practices regarding whom they choose to poll...
Apparently, Gallup doesn't adjust its "pool" of voters to add or subtract Republicans or Democrats in an effort to mirror those parties' estimated make-ups in a population.
Something they did often enough in 2004 - skewering things so as to make it appear as though the Republicans were further ahead "in the Polls" than they actually were (or could - be based upon exit poll numbers.) - that MoveOn.org placed a full-page ad in the New York Times with this headline:
"Gallup-ing to the Right. Why does America's top pollster keep getting it wrong?".
Maybe instead of Gallup, we should start getting our poll information from Zogby International, an independent polling firm that does adjust its pool so as to reflect a given population.
Who owns USA Today?
Gannett.
What does Gannett own?
Among other things... Gannett owns 100 daily newspapers in the USA; the Army Times, Navy Times, Navy Times Marine Corps, Air Force Times, Federal Times, Defense Times, and Military Market.
Who owns CBS?
Well, both CBS and Viacom are owned by multi-billionaire Sumner Redstone. Mr. Redstone is also Viacom's founder. Viacom was was split-off from CBS Corporation in 2005.
Check the current article below and see for yourself just what might explain the the alleged McCain "jump in the polls".
Oh...
In case you were unaware...
"In 2007, Viacom filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube for copyright infringement and recently a federal judge granted Viacom's request for data of all YouTube users. The blogosphere has since called for a boycott of all Viacom properties - so that means no MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon or - gasp - Comedy Central for you!" (From: neatorama.com)
My final thought:
"Hey, Gallup... Poll This."
Peace.
L.
From: huffingtonpost.com
Poll Madness: McCain Takes Lead Even As Democrats Out-Register Republicans?
This week's mainstream coverage of the presidential horse-race has been dominated by a series of polls showing the McCain-Palin ticket with its first stable lead over Obama and Biden. Gallup's tracking poll, USA Today and CBS News all show the Republicans with some kind of lead over the Democratic ticket. But, interestingly, all three polls were also conducted using a higher sampling of Republican voters than in July, raising a question of methodology.
In a year in which Democrats have a lead of 11 million registered voters over Republicans, and have been adding to that advantage through a robust field operation, are pollsters over-sampling Republicans?
Despite a raft of advantages in the electorate for Democrats, in September's first Gallup tracking poll, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats were surveyed (including "leaners") from Sept. 3-5, compared to a 10-point Democratic identification advantage two weeks ago. That partisan makeup of the polling pool resulted in a 5-point lead for McCain in Sept. 5 tracking poll. Meanwhile, the new CBS poll features a 6-point swing in partisan composition toward Republicans, which plays some role in the poll's two-point lead for McCain. Finally, the latest USA Today poll, which claims a four-point edge for McCain, was arrived at after a 10-point swing in partisan makeup toward GOP respondents.
Some polling experts say the changing state of party affiliation in the field is slow to be reflected in polls themselves. Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg told the Huffington Post that "when it comes to registration and turnout, the polls often do a very bad job of taking those [factors] into account," because newly registered voters aren't in the voter files used by firms that survey public opinion. "You could make the argument they are under-representing new registrants," she said, which would mean that the Democrats new edge would not be taken into account.
Monday's USA Today poll had a 48-47 split between Democrats and Republicans surveyed. That represents a nearly 10 point shift in party identification toward Republicans since USA Today's July polling. When asked for comment, USA Today polling editor Jim Norman wrote that "it's possible" that their latest sample includes too many Republicans. Though he added, "it's also possible that we have too many Democrats," because "there's always the chance of an over- or under-representation" in polls.
Still, Norman admitted that the GOP identification in the latest survey has spiked. "The party ID in our most recent poll does show a shift away from what Gallup has been getting in earlier polls, going all the way back to 2005," Norman said. "But previous conventions -- the Republican one in 1988, the Democratic one in 1992, the Democratic one in 2000 -- have also shown shifts in party ID toward the party that had the convention, and those shifts seemed to last, to greater or lesser degrees, though the election. Further, I've been told by Gallup that their tracking poll has shown a similar shift in party ID since the Republican convention. ... I guarantee you we will be watching closely in all of our polls between now and election day to see whether there are further shifts in party ID in either direction."
And it's true. Gallup's own GOP identification (including leaners) has swung six points in the last month, from 42 percent of voters to 48, according to tables provided to the Huffington Post. Meanwhile, solid and leaning Democrats have fallen from 52 to 48 percent of those polled. For political scientists who believe that partisanship is largely stable over time -- and who take note of the advantage in voter registration being experienced by Democrats during the same period -- the newly GOP-heavy poll samples can raise eyebrows.
Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz is highly skeptical of the new Gallup, USA Today and CBS polls. About the latter, which showed a statistically insignificant two point lead for McCain, Abramowitz said: "One reason for the dramatic difference between the two recent CBS polls is that the two samples differed fairly dramatically in terms of partisan composition. The first sample was 35.2% Democratic, 26.2 percent Republicans, and 38.6 percent independent. The second sample was 34.9% Democratic, 31.1% Republican, and 34.0% independent. That's a change from a 9 point Democratic advantage to a 3.8 point Democratic advantage. That alone would probably explain about half of the difference in candidate preferences between the two [CBS] polls."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)