Sorry for the slang in the title. It seemed appropriate in this rare instance.
The debate in a nutshell:
Palin referenced Biden’s claim that taxes are patriotic early in the debate and used it well.
Biden’s attacks against Palin were utterly feeble.
Biden did better attacking McCain, but even then his attacks seemed ineffective. For example, he repeated several times that McCain voted against a bill for troop funding because it contained a timeline. Your average undecided voter is going to say, “Well duh, McCain is against timelines.”
There were a few questions Palin didn’t seem to like, such as one about a bill regarding bankruptcy. Nevertheless, she performed well in these circumstances. She gave no weak answers tonight, unlike Biden, who gave a couple.
Biden started out more comfortable, but began showing signs of discomfort as the debate wore on. For example, he was caught sighing, tugging his collar, and at the end of the debate began to cry. Yes, began to cry.
For the first 5 minutes, Palin seemed nervous but quickly overcame it. She only became stronger and more confident as the debate went on.
Overall, Palin gave a lot more in the way of strong answers than Biden. She had several excellent responses to his statements as well. Biden had a few good answers, but they were simply too few and appeared to weak in a few responses as well.
I would’ve been happy with a tie in this debate, but Palin dominated. Once again, Palin has exceeded expectations – including my own. Now, let’s see which MSM outlets declare Biden the “winner” or the debate a “tie”.
Previously, some of my readers prompted me to investigate the Diageo/Hotline poll. After doing so, one of my readers suggested I pursue the matter further, so I decided to write the following letter:
To the employees and ownership of RealClearPolitics.com,
The RealClearPolitics National Average is arguably the most trusted polling compilation in the country. It is both a valuable resource of information and highly influential over public opinion of the nature and condition of the presidential race. It is for this reason that I believe it worthy of intervention should its integrity be impugned. Being such, I have developed concern since it has come to my attention that one of the polls included in the average is conducted by a company whose stated interests conflict directly with the desire to conduct polling in a scientific manner, continually presents improbable data, has questionable ties including lobbying, and gives all impressions of partiality.
The poll in question is referred to as the Diageo/Hotline Daily Tracker Poll – named after two groups that sponsor it, Diageo and Hotline of the National Journal. The company which conducts the actual polling is known as Financial Dynamics – an international financial consulting firm.
The poll has consistently generated extraneous outliers which invariably benefit the Democratic ticket and compromise aggregate data. The large majority of the disparate data occurs in general election daily polls and on economic questions. For example, roughly a week ago both Rasmussen, one of the most credible polls in the country, and Diageo/Hotline polled the question, “Who would better handle the economy?” Rasmussen had McCain at 49% and Obama at 45%, while Diageo/Hotline had McCain at 36% and Obama at 47%.
Demonstrating that Obama is superior on the economy seems to be a recurring theme for Diageo/Hotline.
Currently, Diageo/Hotline has a question in which voters are asked to compare two short statements regarding the source of our economic trouble – one from McCain, one from Obama. Diageo/Hotline altered Obama’s statement to include a reference to Bush not present in the original speech. According to Diageo/Hotline, 46% of voters agree with Obama’s altered statement and only 31% with McCain’s.
Since the beginning of this month, all of the organizations you are using (at the moment I type this) to acheive your polling average have shown McCain with a lead in one of their polls at least once – except Diageo/Hotline. These organizations include:
In fact, Diageo/Hotline hasn’t shown McCain in the lead once since the general election began on June 3rd. Considering the small sample size (300 daily) and high volatility of Diageo/Hotline’s general numbers, the closeness of the race, and certain events that gave McCain an edge, this is highly improbable.
It is difficult not to conclude that Diageo/Hotline is promulgating erroneous data. As former pollster Paul Zannucci said after reviewing their numbers, “[T]hey are definitely producing skewed results, but are they doing it intentionally?”
In 2005, Financial Dynamics acquired a PR firm/Lobbying group currently known as Dittus Communications. Dittus’s purpose in Financial Dynamics is unchanged since before its inclusion: It PR’s and lobbies for both corporate and political interests. From the company’s website:
In the summer of 1993, Gloria Dittus founded The Dittus Group, pursuing a vision of serving clients by melding her grassroots experience and her years in corporate communications and public relations. She envisioned a communications shop that was different from the rest – one that delivered policy victories as well as market conquests.
Today, FD Dittus serves national and international clients, with its primary focus on public affairs. We work daily with the journalists who cover the issues, the policy-makers who oversee industry and the thought leaders who influence the outcomes. FD Dittus is best known for delivering legislative and regulatory victories for clients on some of the most controversial issues facing the business community, ranging from obesity, terrorism insurance and media ownership to seatbelt safety, homeland security and trade relations with China.
The company is still being operated (under Financial Dynamics) by its founder Gloria Dittus. Both she and her company are deeply entrenched with numerous political interests and important policy makers in Washington. Many of the political interests which employ Dittus are aligned with the goal of a Democratic victory in November. Indeed, if her political donations and event schedule are any indication, she too, appears aligned with this goal. On May 19th, 2008, she hosted a party for “Madame Speaker”, a book celebrating Nancy Pelosi – in her home.
Of course, the management of Financial Dynamics would have to be complicit in releasing information to aid Democratic political interests. I have researched the contributions given by the management team (excluding Gloria Dittus) of Financial Dynamics and found the following:
Money given to Democrats by management:
$18,900 given by Ed Reilly (CEO)
$16,700 given by Declan Kelly (Chairman, U.S. and Ireland)
$5,600 given by Paul Keary (Director of development)
$4,600 given by Gordon McCourn (Vice Chairman, Senior Director)
$4,600 given by John Quinn (CFO)
$2,500 given by Neil Dhillon (Senior Vice President)
$2,300 given by Sarabjit Walia (CEO)
$1,500 given by Christine Mohrmann (Industrials)
$750 given by Raoul Bhavnani (Consulting Services)
$500 given by Jeannine Dowling (Senior Vice President)
Money given to Republicans by management:
Indeed, in 26 years of operation, out of over 1,000 current and past hired employees, only one employee has given to the other side of the aisle. Mr. Wild gave $250 to John McCain in 1999, a year in which Democrats were rooting for McCain to knock out Bush in the primaries. It leads one to wonder what sort of questions come up in the company’s job interviews.
The regions the company operates in are diverse, and its employees are primarily involved in finance – a profession that disproportionately attracts Republicans. The odds of such a political makeup with a decent sized company as Financial Dynamics arriving by chance are significantly less than 1%.
In conclusion, it is highly unethical for Financial Dynamics to conduct polling meant to inform public opinion on political entities while simultaneously being employed to influence public opinion by political entities. It is highly questionable for such an unusually partisan corporation to claim to conduct an unbiased poll. Ethical problems aside, it is statistically improbable that the numbers given by the poll are accurate. For these reasons, I ask that you disabuse the public and the integrity of RealClearPolitics.com of this questionable data.
Your loyal reader,
I saw this video a few months ago. In retrospect, it seems completely prescient. Attacking John McCain (and Palin – especially Palin) on random unrelated tangents seems to be the norm for Obama’s campaign.
As a conservative, I’m getting quite sick of seeing Obama further desecrate the term, “Liberal”. The far-left has been pushing liberalism further and further to the fringe for decades, but Obama just took it on a giant leap. I’m equally sick of seeing my Liberal friends look at Obama and question their very core values simply because they share the label. Obama is not a Liberal.
Let me explain what I mean by that.
2 a: often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
See any Obama policies in there? Neither did I. But just in case, let’s take a closer look:
1. a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
Nope. What religious path did Obama choose instead? Reverend Wright.
2. a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
This describes economic Liberals. In the U.S., conservatives are economically liberal. Needless to say, Obama is not a conservative. While he has flip flopped a total of 4 times (and counting) on free trade, untold times on taxes, his voting record has always been against free trade and for higher taxes.
3. a political philosophy based on belief in progress,
Obama made very clear in his historic speech on race that America was still full of racism. Obama isn’t just someone who “believes” in progress, he denies that it is possible when he’s looking right at it.
4. the essential goodness of the human race
Obama: “So it’s not surprising then that they [people in small towns] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
5. and the autonomy of the individual
I think Michelle Obama described her husband’s approach best: “Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed”.
And, from Obama’s own website:
Require 100 Hours of Service in College: Obama and Biden will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year.
6. standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
Obama won’t even stand up for the lives of infants, let alone any of the issues he is supposedly for. How else can we explain his present votes on abortion and his claim that holding a concrete position on the subject is “above his pay grade”.
Indeed, how else can we explain any of his failures to fit with any of the many different possible forms of Liberalism except that he simply is NOT A LIBERAL.
So then, what is he? A socialist of the worst sort, and maybe, just maybe, the future leader of the free world. Let’s hope not.
Ever since this little blog’s inception, I’ve always received a steady supply of death threats from Obama Supporters. From those first memorable three to grace my inbox after my first article, I have looked forward to reading new threats on my life every day. However, since Sunday, I have received none. In fact, ever since the Republican National Convention, I have received very few. I have three separate theories for this:
A. I am being ineffective in my criticisms of Obama and his supporters, (at least, less effective than I was when I received death threats more frequently), and thus, angering fewer Obama Supporters into threatening me.
B. Obama Supporters are too busy trying to destroy Palin to send me new threats.
C. The Democrats got a bill through legalizing marijuana without me noticing, and the Obama Supporters are capitalizing on this new freedom.
Any other blog authors experience a similiar phenomenon?
You’ve probably heard the same new favorite myth of the Obama Supporters: that because youth rely on cell phones, they are drastically under-represented in the polls. If not, here are some examples of the myth:
Peter Dreier (Huffington Post, The Nation, etc):
Because so many young people rely on cell phones, they are undercounted in public opinion polls, which mainly survey people using home phone numbers.
John Baer (Philidelphia Daily News):
Realities of life: Older people tend to be home and answer the phone; younger people tend not to have landlines, and no one does cell-phone polling.
Carl Cannon (National Journal):
[Y]oung people are difficult to survey because so many of them lack “land line” telephones…..and, believe me, these young voters are living in Obama-land.
Gosh, these Obama Supporters sure sound certain of this theory! There’s only one problem – it isn’t true.
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,015 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Sept. 15-16, 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In order to assess the possible bias in our landline samples, we periodically sample cellular telephone numbers and systematically compare the results from the cell phone sample with those from our landline samples. Our most recent analysis released in January 2008 The Impact of “Cell-Onlys” On Public Opinion Polling, indicates that when data from both the landline and cell samples are combined and weighted to match the U.S. population on selected demographic measures, the results for key political measures (such as presidential approval, Iraq policy, presidential primary voter preference, and party affiliation) are virtually identical to those from the landline survey alone.
The sort of wishful thinking that allows such delusions is disheartening. The Obamabots would do better just to face the facts.
It was just a normal press conference and Kathleen Sibelius was busy informing us that Obama is black:
“Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American? That may be a factor. All the code language, all that doesn’t show up in the polls. And that may be a factor for some people.”
Then, suddenly, a voice from behind the curtain rang out, “Kathleen, no! Don’t tell them about the code!”
Before anyone knew what had happened, black helicopters sprang up from behind a grassy knoll and men wearing all black jumped out and took Kathleen away.
What did she mean, “code language”? I couldn’t stop thinking about it, so I approached a friend of mine who knew her well, asking him what she meant. He explained:
“She was referring to the secret code Republicans are using. Every time they use a magic secret code to remind people that Obama is black, it causes people to not vote for him.”
It didn’t make sense. I pried further:
“Wait, didn’t Kathleen herself just go out of her way to remind people Obama is black. And do voters really need to be reminded by “secret code” words to realize Obama has a dark appearance? On top of that, if these code words are “secret”, how the hell are the voters supposed to get the message? And one more thing, if these Republicans are using such powerful “code words”, why haven’t they gotten more of the vote?”
My friend was dumbfounded. He spoke haltingly, “Because, um, because, Obama is using code too! There, I said it! Are you happy now you dirty jew?”
I had no more to say to my old friend. Immediately I scoured every old video I could find of Obama giving speeches. I really didn’t know what to look for. After hours of listening to him drone on about hope and change and himself, the answer finally dawned on me:
The “uh”! Obama was using some sort of Morse-like “uh” code! After several hours of pattern checking, I discovered the following sequence:
Uh, uh….uh….uh, uh, uh….uh……..uh….uh, uh, uh….uh, uh, uh, uh….uh, uh
This exact sequence repeats OVER and OVER, whenever Obama isn’t using a teleprompter. After several more hours of code-breaking, I noticed that the frequency of the uh’s multiplied the span between them relative to the fraction of the total sequence gave small integer numerical values which correlated to certain letters. Put all together, the above pattern translates into:
“Vote for me, you idiot.”
So our Democratic friends are right – the entire election hinges entirely on secret subliminal messages sent by candidates to secretly hypnotize people into voting for them and informing them that Obama is black. One question remains – whose secret code language magic hypnotism words are better, McCain’s or Obama’s?
(Obama Supporters, this is satire.)