Category Archives: polls

Hillary Clinton liar dishonest untrustworthy, Quinnipiac poll top 3 words chosen by voters, Also in top 12 crook untruthful criminal deceitful, What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of (candidate) ?

Hillary Clinton liar dishonest untrustworthy, Quinnipiac poll top 3 words chosen by voters, Also in top 12 crook untruthful criminal deceitful, What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of (candidate) ?

“I watched her on countless occasions blatantly lie to the American people and knowingly lie.”…Linda Tripp

“By July 1993, the Clintons and their associates had established
a pattern of concealment with respect to the Clintons’ involvement
with Whitewater and the Madison S&L. Because of the complexity
of the allegations of misdeeds involving these institutions, documents
and files are critical to any inquiries into the matter. Yet,
at every important turn, crucial files and documents ‘‘disappeared’’
or were withheld from scrutiny whenever questions were raised.…Senate Whitewater report June 13, 1996

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

From the Boston Herald August 30, 2015.

“Hillary Clinton has become Richard Nixon.

Consider the top three words voters used to describe her in a new poll this week: “Liar … dishonest … untrustworthy.” Also in the top 12: “crook … untruthful … criminal … deceitful.”

Crook — as in “I am not a crook,” a quintessential Nixon quote. Even the positive words that respondents used to describe Hillary were the same words that probably would have turned up in a survey about Tricky Dick circa 1974: “experience … strong … smart.”

All this comes out of the new Quinnipiac poll, which showed Donald Trump soaring on the Republican side and Hillary crashing among her fellow Democrats, even though the sixth most popular word used to describe her is “Bill.”

But the most interesting question was the open-ended one at the end: “What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of (fill in the blank)?”

Quinnipiac asked the question only of Hillary, Donald Trump and Juan Ellis Bush.”

“The day the poll came out I asked my listeners to call in with their own one-word descriptions of the candidates. On Hillary, I never realized how many pejoratives there are to describe a real-life Nurse Ratched, and I’m not even talking about the obvious ones like “cankles” “white-trash” and “wide-load.”

How about harridan, shrew, harpy, termagant and virago, just for starters?

Somebody texted me with another synonym for Hillary: crone. Seemed a bit off, so I looked it up. A crone is an old woman who is ugly and thin.

In other words, the texter was half right.”

Read more:

https://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/howie_carr/2015/08/carr_poll_pegs_hillary_clinton_s_jeb_bush_s_problems

 

Advertisements

Fairleigh Dickinson University Public Mind poll flawed, Bias uninformed sloppy methodologies?, Obama hiding records not just a theory, Unemployment rate question worded poorly

Fairleigh Dickinson University Public Mind poll flawed, Bias uninformed sloppy methodologies?, Obama hiding records not just a theory, Unemployment rate question worded poorly

“Fairleigh Dickinson University (“University”) occupies a position of prominence, trust and responsibility within the state, the nation and the world. The University’s reputation, welfare, and ability to advance its mission rests upon the commitment of every member of the community to act with the highest level of integrity at all times while performing their official duties. Conduct which falls below this standard is inimical to the University and may result in a loss of confidence in the University and its mission by constituencies, stakeholders and publics.”…Fairleigh Dickinson University code of conduct and ethics

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

Fairleigh Dickinson University’s Public Mind recently released poll results that were reported by Politico. Politico’s biased reporting was addressed at Citizen Wells yesterday.

The Public Mind poll result reporting and some of the methodologies will be addressed below.

Fairleigh Dickinson University

CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICS

“Fairleigh Dickinson University (“University”) occupies a position of prominence, trust and responsibility within the state, the nation and the world. The University’s reputation, welfare, and ability to advance its mission rests upon the commitment of every member of the community to act with the highest level of integrity at all times while performing their official duties. Conduct which falls below this standard is inimical to the University and may result in a loss of confidence in the University and its mission by constituencies, stakeholders and publics.

This Code of Conduct sets forth standards which Members of Fairleigh Dickinson University, as defined in Article II, are required to observe when representing the University or otherwise performing their official duties.”

“This Code of Conduct is applicable to members of the board of trustees, faculty members, staff members, fellows, researchers, graduate assistants, teaching assistants and student employees (“Member of the University” or “Member”).”

http://view.fdu.edu/files/codeofconductpdfversion.pdf

Let’s see how the University’s code of ethics meshes with the polling and poll reporting.

From the poll January 17, 2013.

“CONSPIRACY THEORIES PROSPER”

“Sixty-three percent of registered voters in the U.S. buy into at least one political conspiracy theory, according to results from a recent Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind Poll. The nationwide survey of registered voters asked Americans to evaluate four different political conspiracy theories: 56 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of Republicans say that at
least one is likely true. This includes 36 percent who think that President Obama is hiding information about his background and early life, 25 percent who think that the government knew about 9/11 in advance, and 19 percent who think the 2012 Presidential election was stolen. Generally, the more people know about current events, the less likely they are to believe in conspiracy theories – but not among Republicans, where more knowledge leads to greater belief
in political conspiracies.

The most popular of these conspiracy theories is the belief that President Obama is hiding important information about his background and early life, which would include what’s often referred to “birtherism.” Thirty-six percent of Americans think this is probably true, including 64 percent of Republicans and 14 percent of Democrats.

“This conspiracy theory is much more widely believed mostly because it’s been
discussed so often,” said Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University and an analyst for the poll. “People tend to believe that where there’s smoke, there’s fire – so the more smoke they see, the more likely they are to believe that something is going on.””

“In general, higher levels of actual knowledge about politics tends to reduce belief in conspiracy theories. In the poll, respondents were asked a series of four questions about current events, and respondents who were able to answer more questions correctly were less likely to endorse the conspiracy theories. Fifteen percent of people who got none of the questions right thought that three or four of the conspiracies were likely, compared to three percent of those who answered three or four correctly. Education also tended to reduce belief in the conspiracy theories.

However, the relationship between current events knowledge and belief in conspiracy theories is conditional on partisanship. Among Democrats, each question answered correctly reduces the likelihood of endorsing at least one of the conspiracy theories by seven points. Among independents, each additional question reduces it by two points. For Republicans, though, each additional question answered correctly tends to increase belief in at least one of the
theories by two points.

“There are several possible explanations for this,” said Cassino. “It could be that more conspiracy-minded Republicans seek out more information, or that the information some Republicans seek out just tends to reinforce these myths.””

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/outthere/

“The most popular of these conspiracy theories is the belief that President Obama is hiding important information about his background and early life”

This is no conspiracy theory. It is a well documented fact. Beginning in 2007 when Obama was interviewed while campaigning, Obama refused to supply records while he was in the IL Senate and consistently gave vague and evasive responses.

Beginning in 2008 and continuing to today, Obama has used a long list of private  attorneys such as Robert Bauer and numerous US Justice Dept. attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to avoid presenting legitimate birth, college, student loan and other records. For anyone not paying attention (living under a rock) during that period of time, Donald Trump, several months ago, offered Obama $ 5 million to release his college records. Obama refused to comply.

Conclusion: Obama hiding records?

Fact

Professor Dan Cassino stated:

“People tend to believe that where there’s smoke, there’s
fire – so the more smoke they see, the more likely they are to believe that something is going on.”

That is correct.

“Generally, the more people know about current events, the less likely they are to believe in conspiracy theories – but not among Republicans, where more knowledge leads to greater belief in political conspiracies.”

More knowledge by Republicans, and I would add, more respect for the US Constitution, makes them aware of Obama hiding his records.

“There are several possible explanations for this,” said Cassino. “It could be that more conspiracy-minded Republicans seek out more information, or that the information some Republicans seek out just tends to reinforce these myths.””

Bias apparent.

The questions asked were very poorly presented in the documentation. There are 2 questions that relate to unemployment:

“As far as you know, has unemployment increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past twelve months?”

“Is unemployment higher, lower, or the same as it was when President Obama first took office in 2009?”

Instead of clarifying what they are referring to such as “stated unemployment rate” or “US Labor Dept. unemployment rate” they just state unemployment. The truly informed will pause, perhaps ask for clarification, and if none is given may answer it is difficult to ascertain. So many have dropped out of the labor force, i.e. the Labor Force Participation Rate has fallen so much that the number unemployed has stayed the same or possibly risen.

This poll and polling analysis is clearly biased and sloppy. Can these people be this uninformed or does political idealogy cloud their methodologies?

Peer review.

I am qualified.

2012 election stolen?, Ohio Pennsylvania Florida irregularities, Voting machine problems, One of five Ohio voters probably ineligible, Florida errors should dictate recount

2012 election stolen?, Ohio Pennsylvania Florida irregularities, Voting machine problems, One of five Ohio voters probably ineligible, Florida errors should dictate recount

“the organization has come under intense scrutiny because of its voter registration practices. In several states voter registration forms have been found to include nonexistent or dead people. Some registrants have told elections officials they completed multiple cards at the urging of ACORN canvassers who claimed they would be fired if they did not meet a daily quota for signing up new voters.”…Catholic News Service. Oct. 16, 2008

“Late last night Congressman West maintained a district wide lead of nearly 2000 votes until the St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections “recounted” thousands of early ballots. Following that “recount” Congressman West trailed by 2,400 votes. In addition, there were numerous other disturbing irregularities reported at polls across St. Lucie County including the doors to polling places being locked when the polls closed in direct violation of Florida law, thereby preventing the public from witnessing the procedures used to tabulate results. The St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections office clearly ignored proper rules and procedures, and the scene at the Supervisor’s office last night could only be described as complete chaos. Given the hostility and demonstrated incompetence of the St. Lucie County Supervisor of Elections, we believe it is critical that a full hand recount of the ballots take place in St. Lucie County. We will continue to fight to ensure every vote is counted properly and fairly, and accordingly we will pursue all legal means necessary.”…Allen West campaign

“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”…Joseph Stalin

No official recount has taken place in the race between Allen West and Patrick Murphy. West is currently down by about 1900 votes, but every time the votes have been counted or processed the numbers change. Clearly there is a problem in his district and apparently in Florida. With all of the documented problems in Florida including known voter fraud and the closeness of the races, it is imperative that the votes throughout Florida be recounted.

Obama currently leads Romney by 73, 189 in FL. An automatic recount is triggered by a difference of less than .5 percent. That is 42,296 votes. With an honest, accurate tally, that threshold could have already been reached.

From American Thinker November 13, 2012.

“Was the 2012 Election Stolen?”

“As the 2012 election approached, conservative enthusiasm grew. Mitt Romney was drawing huge crowds while Barack Obama spoke in half-filled stadiums. All the passion lay on the right while the left was discouraged with a promised messiah who proved merely a politician. And the prediction was that, in contrast to 2008, Republican turnout would dwarf the tuned-out and carry the day. Hence the shock November 6 eve. How could Romney lose, especially by such a wide electoral margin?

Maybe he didn’t

At least not legitimately.

When I predicted Obama’s re-election, I stated that, despite our country’s inexorable leftist slide, Romney would still win on Election Day were it not for vote fraud. I explained that the Democrats could steal more than enough votes in crucial swing states to turn the election. And I still believe what I did then: electoral criminality put Obama over the top.

At the time, we heard stories about electronic-machine “glitches” switching Romney votes to Obama ones. And Patrick Moran, son of Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), was caught on tape facilitating vote fraud while Bridgeport, CT mayor Bill Finch essentially promised to commit same for a political partner in crime.

Since then, the indications of electoral criminality have been overwhelming. First there are the anecdotes, such as the court-appointed Republican poll watchers illegally expelled from 13 Philadelphia polling places in wards that, in most cases, went 99 percent for Obama; the poll observers who noted what they considered vote fraud but were powerless to stop; and the Democrats who actually bragged about voting more than once.

Then there are the statistics, such as this staggering fact: in 59 Philadelphia districts, Romney failed to get even one vote. Final Obama-Romney tally: 19,605 to 0.

Huh? Not even one person voted GOP accidentally? I mean, there even was a Washington, D.C. councilman who inadvertently voted to approve faux marriage, saying that he didn’t know what he was voting for (that would be Marion Barry).

Next, consider this report from The Columbus Dispatch:

More than one out of every five registered Ohio voters is probably ineligible to vote.

In two counties, the number of registered voters actually exceeds the voting-age population: Northwestern Ohio’s Wood County shows 109 registered voters for every 100 eligible, while in Lawrence County along the Ohio River it’s a mere 104 registered per 100 eligible.

Another 31 counties show registrations at more than 90 percent of those eligible, a rate regarded as unrealistic by most voting experts. The national average is a little more than 70 percent.

[…]Of the Buckeye State’s 7.8 million registered voters, nearly 1.6 million are regarded as “inactive.”

Understand the significance. Years ago I was contacted by a Washington, D.C. community leader (who’ll remain anonymous) who told me that he had “done some computer work for several candidates over the years in DC” and had conducted his own study of urban vote fraud. He said that inner cities’ great transiency ensures that any given large metropolis will have a great number of voters who no longer live in their precinct of registration. These areas also have Democrat operatives known by the get-out-the-vote term “block captains” or “apartment captains,” people who know the lay of the land and thus what registered voters have left town. So all they need do then is vote for these people or have others do so. This is very easy, too, with few voter-ID laws. And this is why Democrats oppose these laws so vehemently.

Now consider that Obama “won” Ohio by 100,000 votes. This means that to flip the state, Democrat surrogates had to illegally “activate” only 6.25 percent of its 1.6 million inactive voters.

Note also that Ohio secretary of state Jon Husted did ask Eric Holder’s DOJ for help negotiating conflicting federal laws pertaining to the purging ineligible voters from the rolls. The DOJ’s ultimate response? “No comment.”

Yet a voter doesn’t even have to be inactive, just disengaged. For example, when the aforementioned Patrick Moran offered advice on surrogate voting, he told an undercover reporter to masquerade as a pollster and call a targeted individual to make sure he wasn’t planning to vote. And this is nothing new. In fact, liberal leg-thriller Chris Matthews himself admitted that it has been going on for years.

Then there is the case of the missing military ballots. As Rachel Alexander at Town Hall reported:

The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.

Frankly, it is inconceivable that military interest in voting could’ve dropped so drastically given conservatives’ passion this election season. The damning conclusion? The Obama machine wants our soldiers to shed blood while it sheds their votes.

Striking as all this is, however, it’s likely just a partial picture. As with all crime, it’s a given that the discovered vote fraudsters represent only a tiny percentage of the total. And what about vote-fraud methods we haven’t even thought of yet? Remember, the Democrats have been honing this act for many, many years.

And vote fraud is Democrat domain. Liberals are the situational-values set, people who for years insisted that right and wrong is relative and that if it feels good, do it. And what feels good to them at election time is stealing votes to win – and they do it. They relish it, in fact. Like the liberal who addressed Bill Clinton’s it-depends-on-what-is-is infidelity and adamantly told me, “He did the right thing,” leftists love the con. To pull a fast one like private eye Jim Rockford, fool everyone, and get away with it is like winning the Nobel Prize in Prevarication in their world. Thus, it’s assured that there’s no small number of liberals who are currently brimming with pride at having negated the votes of countless knuckle-dragging conservatives.

Having said this, we can’t be sure about the exact magnitude of the vote fraud. But my judgment is this:

The election was likely stolen.

And whatever Barack Obama is presently, I don’t believe he will be a legitimate president come January 20.

This is why Congressman Allen West was right not to concede his Florida race. And, frankly, if Romney believes that the election may have been stolen nationally, he should withdraw his concession.

Radical?

Unprecedented?

Yes, but so is vote fraud on the scale perpetrated by Obama’s minions. And people needn’t fear creating a national crisis – we are already in a national crisis. The only question is whether good Americans will stand and be counted or allow 2012 to mark our official descent into banana-republic status.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/was_the_2012_election_stolen.html#ixzz2C7JO66sa

Obama Romney debate Gallup selects town hall audience, Recent Gallup change helped Obama, Hofstra CNN Crowley Gallup bias?, October 16, 2012 debate

Obama Romney debate Gallup selects town hall audience, Recent Gallup change helped Obama, Hofstra CNN Crowley Gallup bias?, October 16, 2012 debate

“I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.”…George Washington

“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.”… William Tecumseh Sherman

“The function of the press is very high. It is almost Holy.
It ought to serve as a forum for the people, through which
the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or
suppress the news is a breach of trust.”…. Louis D. Brandeis

Anyone paying attention for years should be aware of the bias from CNN and Candy Crowley. Yesterday at Citizen Wells, the bias in favor of the LGBT community at Hofstra University was revealed.

“A cursory examination of the Hofstra University website reveals what can only be described as an inordinate emphasis on gay issues.

For example. On the first page of the scholarship opportunities we find:

“LGBT Activism Scholarship

In 2002, Hofstra University established an unprecedented scholarship program for students engaged in service to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. The program is designed to demonstrate Hofstra’s commitment to equality and support for LGBT individuals. The program also includes the Hofstra Law School Fellowships for Advocacy for the Equality of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People, as well as the Mildred Elizabeth McGinnis Endowed scholarship for students in the humanities.”

“School of Law Scholarships”

“LGBT Rights Fellowship – The Law School supports a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Fellowship for students interested in pursuing advocacy work on behalf of these communities.”

LGBT Studies.

“LGBT Studies focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, their history and culture, considering sexualities and genders as identities, social statuses, categories of knowledge, and as lenses that help us to frame how we understand our world. A central core of courses is complemented by interdisciplinary courses taught across campus or by specialized syllabi for students taking a course that could lend itself to LGBT studies. Currently, a minor in LGBT Studies is available as part of the Hofstra College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.”

http://www.hofstra.edu/Academics/HCLAS/LGBT/index_LGBT.cfm

And last but not least.

“LGBT STUDIES PROGRAM, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY

and

HOFSTRA CULTURAL CENTER
present
a conference

Queer Rhetoric
The 6th Annual LGBT Studies Conference

Friday and Saturday, March 16-17, 2012
Queer Rhetoric is a relatively new field situated at the intersection of LGBT Studies, Queer Theory, Rhetoric and Cultural Studies. In short, Queer Rhetoric seeks to uncover the symbolic and performative strategies whereby queer identities have been and continue to be constructed in different times and places. Scholars working in this field locate the heteronormative occlusion of queer voices within a given cultural and social context and describe how queer voices develop a battery of technologies that offer a means of resistant expression. This conference will be the first ever devoted entirely to the subject of Queer Rhetoric. For more information click here.

Keynote Addresses will be given by:
Erik Gunderson
University of Toronto, Canada
Joseph G. Astman Distinguished Symposium Scholar
The Reluctant Queerness of Ancient Rhetoric

and

Chuck E. Morris III
Boston College
Joseph G. Astman Distinguished Conference Scholar
My Old Kentucky Homo: Abraham LIncoln is Here,
Queer, and Wants to Recruit You”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/obama-romney-debate-october-16-2012-hofstra-university-hempstead-ny-town-meeting-format-moderator-candy-crowley-cnn-hofstra-not-neutral-site/

Gallup is selecting the town hall meeting audience from undecided voters. Most of you are aware of the controversies surrounding polling methodologies and in many cases the skewing of results with an unrealistic representation of Democrats in the numbers. Recently Gallup changed it’s methodology midstream in the election cycle to the benefit of Obama.

From The Hill October 11, 2012.

“Obama approval rating gets a boost after Gallup tweaks its polling methodology”
“President Obama’s job approval rating spiked this month, according to Gallup’s daily tracking survey, but the jump may be the result of a shift in the polling outlet’s survey methodology.

Since late 2011, President Obama has held steady at just under 50 percent saying they approved of the job he was doing and just under 50 percent saying they disapproved.

Earlier this month, the trend line moved in favor of the president, and on Thursday it sat at 53 percent positive and 42 negative — a greater job approval rating than Obama enjoyed after the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

However, this movement may have been provoked by a change in the pollster’s methodology, without which the president may have seen no change in job approval.

“As we began this election tracking program on Oct.1, our methodologists also recommended modifying and updating several procedures,” Gallup CEO Frank Newport wrote on Wednesday.

Gallup increased the proportion of cellphones in its tracking survey from 40 percent, and now splits its calls to cellphones and land lines evenly. Newport defended the switch, saying it was an attempt to “stay consistent with changes in the communication behavior and habits of those we are interviewing.”

“Gallup switched primarily to telephone interviewing a few decades ago based on the increased penetration of phones in American households and the increased costs of going into Americans’ homes for in-person interviewing,” Newport wrote. “Now we know, based on government statistics (and what we observe around us), that Americans are shifting rapidly from reliance on landline phones to mobile devices.”

Still, the timing of the change — one month out from the presidential election — has some on the right exasperated.

“What I can say is that it’s problematic to alter one’s methodological approach to polling elections just five weeks before the biggest election in a generation,”writes Jay Cost, polling analyst for the conservative Weekly Standard. “In fact, I think this is a highly inopportune time to make such a change; do it in the summer of 2012 or the winter of 2013, but for goodness sake not the fall of 2012!”

The controversy will likely be fuel for those conservatives who claimed polls from earlier in the cycle were skewed in favor of Democrats.

The Romney campaign and other Republicans said polls showing Obama with a significant lead over their candidate were inaccurate.”

Read more:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/261485-obama-gets-a-boost-after-gallup-tweaks-polling-methodology

It appears to me on the surface that using a higher percentage of cell phones could include more young people.

From Gallup.

“How does Gallup polling work?

Gallup polls aim to represent the opinions of a sample of people representing the same opinions that would be obtained if it were possible to interview everyone in a given country.

The majority of Gallup surveys in the U.S. are based on interviews conducted by landline and cellular telephones. Generally, Gallup refers to the target audience as “national adults,” representing all adults, aged 18 and older, living in United States.

The findings from Gallup’s U.S. surveys are based on the organization’s standard national telephone samples, consisting of directory-assisted random-digit-dial (RDD) telephone samples using a proportionate, stratified sampling design. A computer randomly generates the phone numbers Gallup calls from all working phone exchanges (the first three numbers of your local phone number) and not-listed phone numbers; thus, Gallup is as likely to call unlisted phone numbers as listed phone numbers.

Within each contacted household reached via landline, an interview is sought with an adult 18 years of age or older living in the household who has had the most recent birthday. (This is a method pollsters commonly use to make a random selection within households without having to ask the respondent to provide a complete roster of adults living in the household.) Gallup does not use the same respondent selection procedure when making calls to cell phones because they are typically associated with one individual rather than shared among several members of a household.

When respondents to be interviewed are selected at random, every adult has an equal probability of falling into the sample. The typical sample size for a Gallup poll, either a traditional stand-alone poll or one night’s interviewing from Gallup’s Daily tracking, is 1,000 national adults with a margin of error of ±4 percentage points. Gallup’s Daily tracking process now allows Gallup analysts to aggregate larger groups of interviews for more detailed subgroup analysis. But the accuracy of the estimates derived only marginally improves with larger sample sizes.

After Gallup collects and processes survey data, each respondent is assigned a weight so that the demographic characteristics of the total weighted sample of respondents match the latest estimates of the demographic characteristics of the adult population available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Gallup weights data to census estimates for gender, race, age, educational attainment, and region.”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/101872/how-does-gallup-polling-work.aspx

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Tonight, January 3, 2012, the Iowa Caucus will be held. Rick Santorum has been surging in the polls, close to the front runner , Mitt Romney.

I have been listening to Rick Santorum being interviewed for years and have always been impresssed with his solid, consistent answers. Santorum was interviewed on Meet The Press on Sunday, January 1, 2012. It is clear from the interview that Rick Santorum is the right man to be the Republican candidate and President. The antidote for Obama.

Watch the entire interview and read the transcript here. If the interview disappears, let me know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45840626/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-jan/#.TwMZmNQV33c

From the transcript:

“it’s funny. i haven’t asked anybody. and the reason i haven’t asked anybody, i’m sitting at 3% in the national polls. and i really haven’t gone out and asked any united states senator, i haven’t asked a single one to endorse me. but i felt like i had to earn it first. that i had to go out and prove to — you know, i lost my last race. and the general consensus was, you know, we like rick, but, you know, you can’t — who goes from losing their last senate race to winning the presidential nomination? my answer to that was, well abraham lincoln. but other than abraham lincoln, this is not a common occurrence”

“if people want to endorse me, i’d love their endorsements. but i’m not coming to be buddies with my — with, you know, my friends in the senate and house, i’m coming to change the entire nature of washington, d.c. it’s one — one of the benefits, frankly, of being out and looking in, and seeing what, you know, sometimes you said i was running as a consistent conservative. there are votes that i took, not that i advocated these things but i voted for some things and look back and say, why the heck did i do that? you get involved in sort of the the — the idea that well, you got to make things happen, and you forget sometimes, you know, sometimes making some things happen is not — you’re better off”
“what i’ve said is your role as a member of congress, if you look at the constitution, is to appropriate money. of course if you appropriate money you’re going to say where that money’s going to go. and historically congress has taken the role of, you know, allocating those resources, and jim demint who led the charge on pork barrel spending, earmarked things for years and years. so what happened, after i left congress, was budgets began to explode. when i was in the senate, i voted for tough budgets, i voted for restrictions on spending, and made sure that that didn’t happen. and as president, i propose cutting $5 trillion over five years. i propose we’re going to balance the budget in at least five years, hopefully sooner. so if you’re looking for someone who’s voted for tough budgets, voted for spending restraints, and”

“well, what changed was who he’s running against. at the time, that was five days or four days before super tuesday, it was after florida. it became clear to me that there were two candidates in the race at that point. i thought mike huckabee– i would have loved to have mike huckabee out there. but i made the political judgment, right or wrong, that the best chance to stop john mccain, which was what my concern was, i had served 12 years with john mccain, i like and respect john mccain immensely personally, and he’s done a lot of great things, obviously, for this country. but i did not think he was the right person, based on my experience and deep knowledge of his record, that he was the right person to be the nominee”

“of course my background is to find compromise. that’s what you have to do in order to get things done. but you don’t compromise on your principles. i use welfare reform as an example. i — i went out and helped author the welfare reform bill that became the contract with america bill, and then when i was in the united states senate, i managed that bill as a first-term, first-year member of the united states senate. i went up against daniel patrick moynihan and ted kennedy and battled over two vetoes of president clinton and was able to get it done. did i make compromises? you bet. but the compromises i made were not fundamental to the transformation that was important in welfare. which was to end the federal entitlement, the only bill that i’m aware of, only law that’s actually ever ended a broad-based federal entitlement. i was the author and manager of the bill on. and we put time limits on welfare. and we put a work requirement in place. those were the things that i believe were transformational. was i willing to compromise on day care funding? yes, i was. was i willing to compromise on transportation to get folks from welfare to work? yes, i was. but what we did was something that was moving the direction of a more limited government, and in order to get the necessary votes to get that done, you have to make compromise. but, we did a direction of limited government, maybe less than what we wanted to. but we weren’t going in the direction of more government, and getting less of more. that’s where republicans have been in error for so many years. and that is, compromising on just a little less big government, instead of saying no. no more compromises and less big government. we’ll compromise on less-less government. but, not going the other way.”

“you have to have someone you can work with. and this president has done more to divide than any other president that i’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime. this president goes out and gives speech after speech after speech trying to divide america between class, between income group, between racial and ethnic groups. this is the great divider in chief. and it’s very difficult when you’re being led by the president on a regular basis, not just as a party but individually, to then — and the president, who i don’t believe has met with boehner or any of the republican leadership, and now six months, hard to compromise and work with someone who won’t meet with you. who won’t sit down and try to negotiate things and try to talk. so i’m not surprised at all that republicans are having a difficult time with someone who has no interest”

“number one, he didn’t support the pro- democracy movement in iran in 2009 during the green revolution. almost immediately after the election — i mean, excuse me, like within hours after the polls closed ahmadinejad announced he won with 62% of the vote. within a few days, president obama basically said that that election was a legitimate one.”

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it. the problem was this was an illegitimate election, the people in the streets were rioting saying please support us president obama, we are the pro- democracy movement. we want to turn this theocracy that’s been at war with the united states, that’s developing a nuclear weapon, that’s killing our troops in afghanistan and iraq with ieds and the president of the united states turned his back on them. at the same time, a year later we have the same situation where muslim brotherhood and islamists are in the streets of egypt opposing an ally of ours, not a sworn enemy like iran, but an ally of ours like mubarak and he joins the radicals instead of standing with our friends.”
“we know by the israelis. we don’t have any evidence, if you look at what’s being done, most of the evidence to actually trails back to the israelis and the methodology that they use. there’s no evidence the united states is at all complicit in working at that. that’s what — i would be very direct that we would, in fact, and openly talk about this. why? because i want to make sure that iran knows that when i say that iran is not getting a nuclear weapon, that we will actually affect out policies that make that happen. this president has not done that. he has opposed tough sanctions on iran, on their oil program. why? because he’s concerned about the economy and his re-election instead of the long-term national security interests of this country. i would say to every foreign scientist that’s going in to iran to help them with their program, you will be treated as an enemy combatant like an al qaeda member. and finally i would be working openly with the state of israel and i would be saying to the iranis you need to open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will degrade those facilities with air strikes and make it very public.”

“iran would not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.”

“yes, that’s the plan. i mean you can’t go out and say, this is — this is the problem with this administration. you can’t go out and say this is what i’m for and then do nothing. you become a paper tiger. and people don’t respect our country. and our allies can’t trust us. that’s the problem with this administration.”

I was pleased to hear Rick Santorum make the following statement:

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it.”

I continue to endorse Rick Santorum for the Republican nomination and the presidency. He is the breathe of fresh air that this country needs.

Rasmussen poll 17 percent say government has consent of the governed, Dow plummets, Colin Powell challenged on Obama birth certificate

Rasmussen poll 17 percent say government has consent of the governed, Dow plummets, Colin Powell challenged on Obama birth certificate

There is much to report today, August 8, 2011. The stock market is plummeting as I write this, Colin Powell has been challenged by the Birther Summit about Obama’s birth certificate, S&P continues to downgrade entities associated with the federal government and Obama et al blame everyone else. But wait, there is more. A new Rasmussen Poll.

“New Low: 17% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed”

“Fewer voters than ever feel the federal government has the consent of the governed.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 17% of Likely U.S. Voters think the federal government today has the consent of the governed.  Sixty-nine percent (69%) believe the government does not have that consent. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided.  (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The number of voters who feel the government has the consent of the governed – a foundational principle, contained in the Declaration of Independence – is down from 23% in early May and has fallen to its lowest level measured yet.

Perhaps it’s no surprise voters feel this way since only eight percent (8%) believe the average member of Congress listens to his or her constituents more than to their party leaders. That, too, is the lowest level measured to date.  Eighty-four percent (84%) think the average congressman listens to party leaders more than the voters they represent.

Voter approval of the job Congress is doing has fallen to a new low – for the second month in a row. Only six percent (6%) now rate Congress’ performance as good or excellent.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 1-2, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Democrats and voters not affiliated with either political party are more inclined to think the government does have the consent of the governed, but sizable majorities of all three groups don’t believe that to be the case.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of the Political Class, on the other hand,  feel the government does have the consent of the governed. Seventy-seven percent (77%)  of Mainstream voters disagree.

Most voters across the demographic board believe the average congressman listens to their party leaders more than the people they represent.

Voters also are more convinced than ever that most congressmen are crooks.

Most voters still lack confidence even in their own local Congress member. Given a choice between keeping the entire Congress or picking a new one and starting over, most voters want to dump all the incumbents.”

Read more:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2011/new_low_17_say_u_s_government_has_consent_of_the_governed

Blanche Lincoln, Obama Health Care Bill, Public Policy Polling, February 2 2010, Lincoln losing to John Boozman, Arkansas Senate race, Lincoln approval rating 27%

From Public Policy Polling, February 2, 2010.

“Blanche Lincoln Poll”

“John Boozman will enter the Arkansas Senate race this weekend as the frontrunner. He leads incumbent Blanche Lincoln by an amazing 56-33 margin in our first poll of the race.

Lincoln’s approval rating has sunk to just 27%, with 62% of voters in the state disapproving of her. She’s at a middling 51% even within her own party and just 17% of independents and 9% of Republicans are happy with how she’s doing.

A look inside the health care issue gives a good indication of how Lincoln has managed now to get it from all sides. 61% of voters in the state oppose the President’s plan, and among those folks Lincoln’s approval rating is just 8% with 79% of them expressing the belief that she’s too liberal. But she’s managed to antagonize a lot of the people who support the Democratic health care plan as well- 36% of them think she’s too conservative and her approval with them is just 57%. Barack Obama’s at 95% with that same group of voters.

What it all adds up to is Boozman winning 89% of the Republican vote while Lincoln’s at just 68% with Democrats. And Boozman has a 66-20 lead with independents as well.”

Read more:

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/02/blanche-lincoln-poll.html