The Problem With Pollsters

As everyone knows, or should know by now, political polls have been both accurate and inaccurate in the past and have become the subject of debate during this primary season.  The big problem with polling at the present time on McCain vs. Clinton/ Obama is that the numbers are unreliable.

 

John McCain is the Republican nominee but neither Clinton or Obama is the Democratic nominee at the present time, so the voting public should pay no attention to the numbers being given on that match up.  The numbers will change once the Democratic nominee is known.  The only reason the polls are being taken now on that match up is to influence the people's vote in the up coming Democratic primaries.

 

Once the debate starts between the two final candidates, then the people will have a chance to see what real policies they will advocate and talk about.  The issues and the answers put forward by both candidates will become clearer for the people to understand and sharper in their tone.  Right now that is not possible and the polls do not take that into consideration.

 

The issues now being raised by journalists on cable news do not represent the real issues facing the candidates, the country, or the people and, in fact, represent false reporting of trying to create issues that are not even there.  They are good at running captions on the T.V. screen that have no bearing on what is actually taking place in the campaign.  Case in point: "Should Clinton Drop Out of The Race?";   "Is Bill Hurting Hillary's Chances?";  "Obama's Lead Can Not Be Overcome," and the beat goes on and on. 

 

The polls will definitely change when the final nominees are known and the real issues are focused on---The War in Iraq; The War on Terror; The Economy; Fiscal Responsibility; The ability to lead and the ability to be an American first and put ideology on the shelf.  The people will do well to remember the best poll is the one that takes place in the voting booth.  The pollster's polls try to circumvent that. 

 

The Morning Dose---4/2

Today's Morning Dose comes from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and is entitled, Not so fast: The Clinton-Obama race still has a way to run:

_______________________________________________________________________

Just when Pennsylvania is about to have its moment in the presidential primary season, calls have been made in the Democratic Party for Sen. Hillary Clinton to drop out and concede to Sen. Barack Obama in the interest of unity.

Mrs. Clinton says she will fight on -- and she's right to do so. We say that not because of Pennsylvania's interest in holding a relevant primary on April 22. Simply put, this fight isn't over.

To be sure, Mrs. Clinton is trailing in the combined totals of delegates and the math looks bad for her chances. Even so, Mr. Obama hasn't clearly won. What we have now is something of a stalemate, one that is likely to harden before it breaks. As Sen. Bob Casey said of the candidate he endorsed Friday, Mr. Obama is "the underdog in our state." Gov. Ed Rendell, who supports Mrs. Clinton, believes the race will tighten.

All of this speaks to the larger picture: It's premature for Mrs. Clinton to quit while the race remains competitive. These calls to step down by Obama supporters are no more realistic than the earlier ones floated by the Clinton camp that Mr. Obama would make a great vice presidential nominee on a "dream ticket."

While Pennsylvania has a late primary, it is not the latest. Among others, the voters in Indiana and North Carolina (May 6), West Virginia (May 13) and Kentucky and Oregon (May 20) will still have to be heard from after Pennsylvanians go to the polls three weeks from today.

As Major League Baseball starts another season, a bit of hardball wisdom from Yogi Berra applies to the Clinton-Obama race: "It ain't over till it's over."

Iraq: "The Outcome Of The War Will Merit The Sacrifice"

Those were the words of George Bush after the 4000 deaths of Americans in Iraq was recorded this past week.  Mr. Bush continues to be in denial on why he started this war and he and his supporters who want to continue this war are too small of a people to admit to their mistakes and incompetence.  As a result Americans will continue to die over WMD that did not exist.

 

Anyone who is following this war knows that American and Iraqi casualties have been going back up since the first of the year.  Bush and his administration are now trying, through the news media, to compare the deaths in Iraq to those that the U.S. has suffered in our two world wars, Korea, and Vietnam.  They do so to try to minimize the deaths in Iraq and use other wars where there is no comparison.  In those wars, the U.S. was not the aggressor nor were any preemptive wars.  Our opponents in those wars had millions of troops we faced in battle.  In Iraq, by our own count, Al Qaeda and the Sunnis and Shiite who are carrying out the civil war number less than 5,000---a great difference than the other wars that the Bush administration mentions.

 

Now in its 6th year, Bush, McCain, Cheney and the neocons intend to keep our military in Iraq for years to come.  This will be remembered as Vietnam, number two.  We are already well pass the half way point of that war.  Our men and women in uniform are being used as pawns, with 3 and 4 deployments, continually putting their lives at risk, even though Bush proclaimed over 4 years ago, "mission accomplished." The only mission Bush has accomplished, unfortunately, is destabilizing the entire Middle East and making America hated around the world.  

 

Our troops go where the President tells them, without complaint, to do their job well and serve their country.  The least a Commander-in-Chief can do for them is to make sure that they are fighting the war for the reason the war was started in the first place.  This President violated that responsibility to our troops.  

 

It should be noted with great concern the remark Bush made on March 29, 2008 at a joint news conference with the Canadian prime minister.  Bush said that we are in Iraq to establish Democracy in Iraq and the Middle East.  That statement, as we start the 6th year of war, was not the reason he gave the people for going to war in 2003.  Another bold face lie. History will not and should not be kind to Mr. Bush. He used the services of our men and women in uniform to mold the Middle East and Iraq in his own warped ideology.  He purposely misled them, and the country, on why we went to war.  Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, said this week that Bush misled the Congress about the intelligence and about the reasons for going to war.  He also noted that Bush had already decided to go to war in Iraq even before Congress voted for the resolution he asked for. Democrats have long been saying that.  Now a well respected Republican is.  These are impeachable offenses and the President needs to be judged on that level of thinking.  

The Morning Dose---3/30

Today's Morning Dose comes from the Washington Post and is entitled, Don't Stop Campaigning:

_____________________________________________________________

The growing chorus among some Democrats and other interested observers for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) to get out of the race for the Democratic Party's nomination for president is troubling. We're not promoting Ms. Clinton over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), or either of them over Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), for that matter. A time may come when someone should gracefully bow out. But their extended contest informs the electorate and serves to battle-test them both. We don't see why the process should be short-circuited when millions of votes are yet to be cast and two qualified candidates believe themselves to be the best potential Democratic nominee...

One proffered justification for ending the campaign now, in fact, is the assumption that we know pretty much how everything will turn out. Ms. Clinton will win Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama will carry North Carolina and so on. But throughout this campaign, just about everything we've "known" has been wrong: Mr. McCain was finished, Ms. Clinton was inevitable, Mr. Obama had New Hampshire locked up. No doubt the Democrats have gotten themselves into a fix with rules that may leave the final decision to unelected superdelegates -- but why is the answer to that less democracy? Why not give as many voters as possible a chance?

Last week they tackled the economy and the mortgage meltdown. But there are plenty more questions for voters to consider. How would the candidates pay for their billions in increased spending on health care, energy and education? With diplomacy toward North Korea faltering, how would they handle its nuclear ambitions? What's the future of affirmative action? The list of issues to hash out is endless, and doing so in polite political combat could produce a stronger Democratic candidate for the fall and a better-informed electorate....

And this contest is far from over. While Mr. Obama leads Ms. Clinton in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates, it's assumed that neither candidate will win the 2,024 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

Count Every Vote!

-"One of our most sacred rights as Americans is the right to make our voice heard at the polls." (11/8/05)

-"Working as a civil rights attorney to make sure that everybody's vote counted." (11/20/07)

-"There is no place for politics in this debate, no room for those who feel they can gain a partisan advantage by keeping people away from the polls". (1/31/07)

-"That we can participate in the political process...and that our votes will be counted." (7/24/04)

Those were the words of Senator Barack Obama, a man now apparently opposed to all that he stated previously.  The third quote really speaks to the essence of the problem with not holding revotes in Florida and Michigan.  It is now well known that it was the attorneys of the Obama campaign who blocked revotes from happening.  Why?  Because they might put him behind in the popular vote, and Obama didn't want to risk losing.  

The point is that silencing people is not the way to go.  I, as I'm sure the people of Florida and Michigan feel, could not care less about the process; couldn't care less about the DNC's stupid rules.  After all, the people of Florida and Michigan didn't choose to move their primaries up.  They didn't choose to have their delegates stripped.  But they did, however, choose to show up in huge numbers to vote for the candidate of their choice.  

Why should the American people have to suffer for the DNC's rules?  Since when did PROCESS become more important than PEOPLE in America?  There is no positive excuse for Obama to make.  He, for his political benefit, is refusing to let the people of Florida and Michigan have a say in this election.  

Just remember, first, when asked if he would allow the delegates to be seated as they were, he said no, because his name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and he didn't get to campaign in Florida.  Then, last month, when confronted with the opportunity to have his name on the ballot and to campaign in those two states, he rejected the plan.  Why so scared, Barack Obama?  That's really all this is---cowardice.  But let me pose a question to Obama and his supporters---Is it winning if the only way you can win is to silence millions of Americans?  I think not, but apparently Obama disagrees.  

This Is What It Means For So Many:

Happy Women's History Month!!!

Senator McCain's Speech on Foreign Policy

Senator McCain, in what was billed as a major foreign policy speech, this week in Los Angeles made the case why his supporters should vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election.  The following phrases were used by Senator McCain:

 

Calls for stronger ties with allies and cautioned that American power does not mean that we can do what we want, wherever we want, whenever we want.  The government should close Guantanamo Bay prison and work with allies to forge a new understanding on how to treat detainees.  America needs to be good stewards of our planet and urge steps to limit green house gas emissions. 

 

Those are the same positions that Democrats have long been advocating.  However, this is an election year,  so John McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush and his past support of Bush's policies.  The Senator will say anything to try and mask his blunders concerning foreign policy.  McCain was an early backer of going it alone in Iraq.  His late embrace of diplomacy is only a campaign speech.  Remember the Republican control of Congress which McCain was part of backed Bush's policies to the hilt.

 

As for his call for a new understanding on how to treat detainees, it is a mere political statement because we already have one.  It's called the Geneva Convention and America's own rules and regulations for treating detainees.  McCain has flipped flopped on this issue now for sometime.  His attitude on the Iraq war is still the same: stay the course with no end in sight and no plan or policy to define success, much less end the war.

 

Senator McCain also mentioned early in his speech President Truman's leadership in foreign policy.  Republican presidential hopefuls always talk about past Democratic presidents when they are looking for votes because those Presidents were good at developing foreign policies that worked.  One thing is for certain, President Truman would never have invaded and occupied a country over WMD that did not exist.  He would have recognized that Iraq was not a threat to our national security.  He would have also had something to say in strong words to McCain, Bush, and others who still support this unnecessary war. 

 

The Senator will be making many speeches before November in an effort to change his image and positions he has held on the war, the economy, the planet, immigration and etc., and you can be sure he will be moving closer to the Democrats' positions on those issues.  What the people need to remember is that the Republicans have made an art out of lying and the policies McCain now backs away from, are the same ones he has proudly defended for many many years in the Senate.

The Morning Dose---3/29

Here's a new series, The Morning Dose,  which I would like to continue every few days, where I take an interesting article and simply post excerpts from it.  Instead of commenting on the article in my post, I'll let you, the reader, form your own opinion on it.  If necessary, I'll post a comment I have on it in the comments section.  

The Morning Dose today comes from Mark Ambinder, over at the Atlantic.  It's titled, How to Count the Popular Vote:

___________________________________________________________

So -- my fairly conservative calculation has Clinton netting about 446,000 votes between now and June 3. Under all scenarios that exclude Florida and Michigan votes -- and count the votes of Washington's primary -- Obama still retains a popular vote lead of not more than 330,000 -- or an advantage of less than one and a half percent.

Under a scenario that includes the Florida and Michigan votes for Clinton, gives Obama all of the uncommitted Michigan votes, estimates the votes for all the caucus states and includes the Washington primary, Clinton wins by about 16,000 votes -- or about a tenth of one percent.

Which scenario is "right?" Under DNC rules, until the credentials committee figures out which delegations to seat, Florida and Michigan do not exist. But the voters in those states certainly do in the existential sense -- and if we're answering the question by figuring out how many Democrats voted for Obama versus how many Democrats voted for Clinton.

Are there historical precedents? Well, Democrats like to count every vote. So -- advantage Hillary? But there has to be some tempering factor to account for Obama's name not being on the Michigan ballot. Ok, but then there has to be some tempering factor to account for the fact that Obama's campaign made the decision to stay off the Michigan ballot as least as much because they feared losing the state to Clinton as they wanted to make a statement to Iowans about the integrity of the calendar process.

So...This Is How Obama Wins...

Having some extra time on my hands, and still outraged at the Obama campaign's refusal to cooperate with revotes in Florida and Michigan, I began running the numbers to see just how Sen. Clinton would fair if Michigan and Florida were counted as per the January results.  What I found was pretty interesting:

Okay, by counting Florida and Michigan, you also count their superdelegates.  I estimate that Sen. Clinton would get a 40-50 superdelegate bounce by counting those two states.  Then you look at the pledged delegates.  I have to estimate she would get a net of about 50.  All together that would bring Sen. Clinton within about 20 delegates of Sen. Obama heading into the convention, just as things stand now.  Considering big enough wins in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana, and West Virginia, and Clinton could potentially overtake Obama even in pledged delegates.

The problem still stands though.  That problem is Barack Obama.  I love how he claims that the people should decide, while at the same time having his lawyers stand in the way of millions of Americans voting.  Same thing with Pelosi.  She said, just today, that the will of the American people must be honored.  Well, how about applying that standard to Florida and Michigan.  They are, after all, people and Americans, aren't they?  So is this how Obama wins?  By silencing millions of voters?  Is this democracy?  Cause let's face the current outlook: the only way Obama ends with more popular votes, and potentially delegates, is if Florida and Michigan don't vote.  Sad, really, really sad.  

Interesting Tidbit for All You Hill-Haters

I'm all to well aware of those Obama supporters, both in the media (who are we kidding, everyone in the media loves Obama) and in the blogosphere who are calling for Sen. Hillary Clinton to drop out this instant.  Well, unfortunately for those who share this close-minded view, most Democrats don't agree.

In the latest Rasmussen poll, just 22% of Democrats feel Clinton should drop out.  That may seem like a high number...that is until you look at the number of Democrats who want Obama to drop out: 22%.  That's right---it's a tie.  So, before everyone goes on another crusade, signing petitions and the such telling Clinton to get out, maybe I should do the same for Obama. After all, Democrats want him to drop out just as much as they do Clinton.  But you know what?  I'm not going to do that and no one should.  Let's let the Democratic voters decide.  There are still 10 contests left and the issue with Florida and Michigan to be resolved.  

A second interesting tidbit comes to us from Gallup and it is the number of Democrats who wouldn't vote for the other candidate should theirs not get the nomination.  Remember when Obama claimed he would get Clinton supporters, but she couldn't get his.  Not so says the voters.  An astounding 28% of Clinton supporters say they would not support Obama.  Even more disturbing, they say that instead of just staying home, which is damaging enough, they would vote for McCain.  To compare, just 19% (still a lot, I know) would not support Clinton.

The point of this post: let's throw conventional wisdom out the window.  The media and Obama supporters want to push Clinton out the race and silence the voters in the upcoming states as well as Florida and Michigan.  They want the clouds to open up, angels to sing, and a voice from above to anoint Obama the nominee.  The voters think differently, however.  So let me ask everyone out there: who should decide our next President----the voters, or Obama supporters and the media?  I would hope the answer is clear.  If not, we have a bigger problem then just a prolonged nominating campaign; we have the destruction of democracy itself.