Now Poll – Obama Landslide Over Romney!

This poll also spells big trouble for the Rethugly strategy to tank the country to “get” Obama!

IF Obama has any “coattails” – this could indicate a seismic swing and refutation of the 2010 mistake of electing Tea Baggers and Bigots.

Reason to smile!

Obama Leads In Poll As Voters View Romney As Out Of Touch

Barack Obama has opened a significant lead over Mitt Romney in a Bloomberg National Poll that reflects the presumed Republican nominee’s weaknesses more than the president’s strengths.

Obama leads Romney 53 percent to 40 percent among likely voters, even as the public gives him low marks on handling the economy and the deficit, and six in 10 say the nation is headed down the wrong track, according to the poll conducted June 15- 18.

The survey shows Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, has yet to repair the damage done to his image during the Republican primary. Thirty-nine percent of Americans view him favorably, about the same as when he announced his presidential candidacy last June, while 48 percent see him unfavorably — a 17-percentage point jump during a nomination fight dominated by attacks ads. A majority of likely voters, 55 percent, view him as more out of touch with average Americans compared with 36 percent who say the president is more out of touch.

The New Jim Crow — Why Some Polls Under-Report Obama’s Approval Numbers

I have noticed for some time now, the disconnect between polling done by Gallup on the national level and that done by organizations doing polling in the states. Gallup seems to represent polling results that are 2-3 points lower than you would expect judging by the state data. At worst, Gallup often agrees with Rasmussen – which isn’t really in the business of polling, and operates as an arm of the Republican Party. Pew, and some of the other polling organizations seem to come up with numbers consistently higher for Obama that Gallup.

Unlike Rasmussen – there is no reason to believe that Gallup is tweaking the poll numbers. Gallup is the most established and highly respected pollster out there. So why the difference?

The difference appears to be race. And no – Gallup isn’t racist. Nor is there any evidence that they intentionally skew their numbers. That is not what is being said here.  It has to do with how they assemble their samples. With 90% of black voters supporting Obama, and under-participation of black folks in the polling has almost a 1-1 correlation with the results. That is, if the statistical sample doesn’t match the racial makeup of the population, then the result skews 1 point for each point of over, or under – representation of black, and Hispanic voters.  Gallup’s current polling methodology under-counts Minority voters.

The following is a really good article on how Gallup does its polling, and how their choices of how to do sampling impacts their data.

2012-06-11-Blumenthal-ApprovalChart.png

Obama’s Approval Rating has been consistently lower by a few points on Gallup (in red) versus other polling organizations.

Race Matters: Why Gallup Poll Finds Less Support For President Obama

With the race for president between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama now shifting into high gear, politicians, journalists and the general public are scrutinizing each new poll, with every small swing in one direction or another elevated to outsized importance.

Among the many polls released every day, one always stands out. The Gallup Poll is arguably the most trusted survey brand in the world, a name virtually synonymouswith public opinion polling. It has measured presidential job approval and vote preference without interruption since the 1940s and now conducts a daily tracking poll that reaches more than 3,600 adults every week — a volume of data that dwarfs that produced by other firms. As a result, Gallup’s numbers enjoy unique influence and public prominence.

Over the past few years, however, polling junkies have noticed something curious: Gallup’s polls have produced results that appear slightly but consistently more negative to President Obama than those produced by other firms.

2012-06-11-Blumenthal-PresidentVote.png

Romney’s projected percentage of vote has been consistently higher on Gallup (in red) than in other polls.

The Huffington Post has conducted an independent analysis that confirms the phenomenon and points to a likely explanation. The problem lies in the way that Gallup handles the racial composition of its samples, and the findings highlight significant issues with how polls are developed and conducted today.

The dirty little secret of telephone surveys now conducted by most media outlets is that their unweighted samples alone cannot provide reliable estimates of population demographics like race and Hispanic ancestry. A dramatic fall in response rates has led to what pollsters call “non-response bias” in their raw data. Partly because survey response rates are typically lowest in urban areas, unweighted samples routinely under-represent black and Hispanic Americans.

As a Pew Research Center study recently demonstrated, random-sample surveys continue to provide accurate data on most measures — but only when their samples of telephone numbers include both landline and mobile phones, and only when the completed interviews are weighted to match the demographic composition of the population. That means the weighting procedures that pollsters use are critical to producing accurate results.

The need to weight accurately by race and ancestry is particularly significant when it comes to evaluating the contest between Obama and Romney. As Gallup itself reported in early May, Romney led Obama among non-Hispanic white voters by 54 to 37 percent, while the president had the support of more than three-quarters of non-white registered voters (77 percent). Obama’s support among African Americans on Gallup’s tracking poll stood at 90 percent.

That gap makes the way pollsters account for race hugely important. When pollsters weight their samples to match population demographics, every percentage point increase in black representation translates into a nearly one-point improvement in Obama’s margin against Romney. The difference of just a few percentage points in the non-white composition of a poll can produce a significant skew in its horse race results… (Read the rest of this article here)

Of Black Mormons and Romney

Not even delving into the issue that a number of conservatives don’t have much love for Willard -

This article delves into the mixed feelings of Black Mormons…

Black Mormons Face Tough Election Choice Between Romney And Obama

Large Image

Early Black Mormons

Twenty years ago, who would have predicted the 2012 U.S. presidential race would pit a black incumbent against a white Mormon?

“I’ve been black my whole life and a Mormon for 30 years and never thought either of these (candidacies) would happen in my lifetime,” says Utah attorney Keith Hamilton.

“This is a day that all Americans should take some solace in — that things are changing. Regardless of who wins, this sends a message to our children.”

Darius Gray, former head of Genesis, a long-standing support group for black Mormons, sees this historic choice between two members of traditionally outsider groups as evidence of a “marked change for this nation, a maturing too long in coming. You can take joy that both groups are now players on the scene.”

Unlike white Mormons, the vast majority of whom side with Republicans, African-Americans overwhelmingly vote Democratic. So black Mormons look at Obama, the Democrat, and Romney, the Republican, and find themselves caught between political perspectives: Many still lean liberal, others have switched parties after joining the church, and some find themselves going back and forth.

Not so long ago, there were very few black Mormons even to consider.

Until 1978, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints barred blacks from its all-male priesthood. After that landmark shift 34 years ago, missionaries found some success winning black converts, but African-Americans still represent only about 3 percent of the Mormons’ 6 million U.S. members. Continue reading

Corey Booker’s Walk Back

Corey Booker quickly walked back his criticism of the Obama campaign hammering Willard Romney for his role in Bain Capital destroying jobs…

Our First Gay President

And no – it wasn’t George Bush…

James Buchanan, fifteenth President of the United States who served from 1857 to 1861.

Our real first gay president

The new issue of Newsweek features a cover photo of President Obama topped by a rainbow-colored halo and captioned “The First Gay President.” The halo and caption strike me as cheap sensationalism. I realize airport travelers look at a magazine for 2.2 seconds before moving on to the next one. I grant that this cover will probably get Newsweek a 4.4 second glance. I also understand that Newsweek is desperate for sales. Nevertheless, I doubt that the Newsweek of old, before it was sold for a dollar, would have pandered as shallowly.

The caption is a superficial way to characterize an important development of thought that the president — along with the country — has been making over recent years. It is also entirely wrong. Like the mini-furor a couple of months back about the claim that Richard Nixon was our first gay president, the story simply ignores that the U.S. already had a gay president more than a century ago.

There can be no doubt that James Buchanan was gay, before, during and after his four years in the White House. Moreover, the nation knew it, too — he was not far into the closet.

Today, I know no historian who has studied the matter and thinks Buchanan was heterosexual. Fifteen years ago, historian John Howard, author of “Men Like That,” a pioneering study of queer culture in Mississippi, shared with me the key documents, including Buchanan’s May 13, 1844, letter to a Mrs. Roosevelt. Describing his deteriorating social life after his great love, William Rufus King, senator from Alabama, had moved to Paris to become our ambassador to France, Buchanan wrote:

I am now “solitary and alone,” having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone; and should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection.

Despite such evidence, one reason why Americans find it hard to believe Buchanan could have been gay is that we have a touching belief in progress. Our high school history textbooks’ overall story line is, “We started out great and have been getting better ever since,” more or less automatically. Thus we must be more tolerant now than we were way back in the middle of the 19th century! Buchanan could not have been gay then, else we would not seem more tolerant now.

This ideology of progress amounts to a chronological form of ethnocentrism. Thus chronological ethnocentrism is the belief that we now live in a better society, compared to past societies. Of course, ethnocentrism is the anthropological term for the attitude that our society is better than any other society now existing, and theirs are OK to the degree that they are like ours.

Chronological ethnocentrism plays a helpful role for history textbook authors: it lets them sequester bad things, from racism to the robber barons, in the distant past. Unfortunately for students, it also makes history impossibly dull, because we all “know” everything turned out for the best. It also makes history irrelevant, because it separates what we might learn about, say, racism or the robber barons in the past from issues of the here and now. Unfortunately for us all, just as ethnocentrism makes us less able to learn from other societies, chronological ethnocentrism makes us less able to learn from our past. It makes us stupider. ( - more -)

President Obama – About that Dogcatcher Thing…

Uhhhh…Pres…

The primary results in West Virginia yesterday were not good. A convicted felon serving time in jail got 41% of the vote!

While it isn’t time yet to circle the wagons…

I do think it is (long) past time to start hanging some foot up Republican derriere.

You need to do 3 things to get the Moderate and Progressive Dems to turn out and vote:

  1. Get the rhetorical Louisville Slugger out of the closet and apply it liberally to Republicans every time you speak from now until the election.
  2. Turn Harry Reid loose to exercise the “Nuclear Option” on baseless filibustering by the Reprobates. Get those Judges appointed immediately.
  3. Make it very clear to the electorate that simply electing you to office isn’t enough. They need to get behind their local Democrat politicians to throw the scumbags out – else watch their states suffer as Wisconsin has.

No matter how intransigent and crooked the Republicans are – YOU are the man in charge, and one seen as having the responsibility ultimately to make the system work. The General gets the blame for losing the war – not the moron soldiers who loaded cases of liquor instead of artillery shells in their trucks.

Harry Truman faced the same issue – as did FDR.

There are some folks in this world you just can’t reason with other than at the receiving end of a baseball bat.

Ouch! Obama loses 41 percent of W.Va. primary vote to federal inmate.

Inmate Keith Judd

In an embarrassment to President Obama, Federal Inmate No. 11593-051 – otherwise known as Keith Judd – won 10 counties and 41 percent of the vote in West Virginia’s Democratic presidential primary Tuesday.

Mr. Judd is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in TexarkanaTexas, where he is serving a 210-month sentence for extortion, according to TheCharleston Gazette. Judd had paid the $2,500 filing fee and submitted a notarized “certificate of announcement” to appear on the ballot.

He is even qualified to have a delegate at theDemocratic National Convention, because he won at least 15 percent of vote. However, no one has stepped forward to fill that role.

But those are just details. The Republicans are having a field day with this slap at the president. Mr. Obama is deeply unpopular in West Virginia and was already certain to lose the small mountainous state in November. But the fact that enough people bothered to turn out in an uncontested primary to register a protest against the incumbent is telling.

“Just how unpopular does someone have to be for this to happen?” says Joe Pounder, research director and deputy communications director at the Republican National Committee, in a statement.

He notes that Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia wouldn’t say whom he voted for in the primary. “Apparently, it’s a smarter political calculation to let people believe you may have voted for the guy in federal prison over the sitting president of your own party. Just saying,” Mr. Pounder writes.

West Virginia’s Democratic governor, Earl Ray Tomblin, has also not revealed his vote. Energy is a big issue in his state – America’s second-biggest producer of coal – and the Environmental Protection Agency’s handling of mining-related permits has angered the local industry, writes theAssociated Press.

In addition to being a convicted felon, Judd is also a serial presidential candidate. In the 2008Idaho Democratic primary, he finished third behind Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton with 1.7 percent of the vote, per The Charleston Gazette.

Don’t Hurt Him, Charles!

I can’r see any way possible this election turns up positive for Republicans. I mean – they have pissed off just about everyone in America except white males over 50.

They pissed off the majority of women with their War on Women – 51% of the vote…

They pissed off black folks, who weren’t going to vote for them anyway – 13% of the vote…

They pissed off Hispanics, of who Cubans are the last Republican holdouts – 15% of the vote…

Not to mention pissing off, and trying to screw serially – teachers, unions, federal and state workers, and poor people

They have several Governors and a dozen or more State Representatives under recall by their local constituencies…

They have voted against or filibustered every single effort to move the country out of a recession – they created.

If the Rethuglys get 35% of the total vote this year – I would ask for a recount, as they have hacked the voting machines…

Again.

Barkley to Romney: ‘We’re going to beat you like a drum’

According to always-outspoken Charles Barkley, Mitt Romney’s “going down” in November’s presidential election.

The former pro-basketball star and NBA hall-of-famer turned hoops-analyst made the comments Sunday night during the airing of a playoff game between the Boston Celtics and the Atlanta Hawks.

Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and his wife Ann were at game, which was held at Boston’s TD Garden. A picture of them in the crowd was shown on TNT, which along with CNN is part of Time Warner’s Turner Broadcasting division.

“We are going to beat you like a drum in November. But don’t take it personally. I like you. You seem like a nice guy. But you’re going down bro,” Barkley said on the TNT broadcast, after seeing Romney in the crowd.

Barkley, a former Republican who switched his party affiliation to Democrat, has previously spoken out about the race for the White House. In December, he described the GOP presidential candidates as “idiots” for their criticism of the president.

Barkley twice weighed runs for the governor’s office in his home state of Alabama, but never took the plunge into campaign politics.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 141 other followers