Tag Archives: mccain

Support for Palin Increased Following the Debate & One user voted more than 600 times for Obama and Biden in our poll

The source

Support for Palin Increased Following the Debate. What Does That Mean?

“fraudulent poll respondents favored Obama and Biden more than McCain and Palin. One user voted more than 600 times for Obama and Biden in our poll. We removed those votes from this analysis, and we also removed those of three other respondents with suspicious voting patterns”

In combing through the results of our Palin/Biden vice-presidential debate poll, I came across an interesting trend: readers who completed our poll the morning after the debate favored Sarah Palin much more than readers who took the survey immediately after the debate.

Between 11pm and 11:29pm on Thursday, 24% of respondents who were not undecided said that Sarah Palin had won the debate over Joe Biden. The following morning, that figure had risen dramatically, to 43% between 10:00am and 10:29am. (The margin of error is ±2 points on the first figure and ±5 points on the second figure.)

This result suggests one (or more) of these three possibilities:

  • Republicans were slower to get on the Internet after the debate than were Democrats. This could be due to a number of reasons. I’m thinking time zones: the debate ended at 10:30pm on the East Coast, but only 7:30pm on the more liberal West Coast. It’s possible that liberal Westerners voted immediately after the debate, while conservative Southerners voted the next morning. Or it could be that Republicans go to bed earlier than Democrats.
  • Sarah Palin received enough positive media coverage after the debate that readers who absorbed this analysis before voting in our poll (i.e., those who voted in the morning) were more sympathetic to Palin than were those who voted before reading any analysis. Expectations for Sarah Palin were about as low as possible before the debate, which left many commentators at least somewhat impressed. This sentiment might have been effectively transmitted to voters between the end of the debate and the following morning.
  • Reactions to the debate were visceral. Neither candidate spent much time during the debate talking about policy, so perhaps immediate reactions were primarily emotional. Sarah Palin is fairly divisive, so it is possible that many respondents watched the debate, walked away with a strong opinion, and then moderated over the next twelve hours as they went back to thinking about the reasons that they support one candidate or the other—reasons that tend to be deeply held and not easily changed by a single debate.

Vp_poll_results_v2_2 The second and third hypotheses are supported by the fact that more respondents were undecided about the winner of the debate on Friday morning (7%) than on Thursday night (3%).

I’d be the last one to suggest that a Web poll like this one is scientific, but this trend is substantial. Practically everyone who took our poll arrived there by searching Google for some variation of “debate winner.” Our sample, then, was thinking about the debate in terms of winners and losers, and they were interested in seeing results presented in those terms. These results seem, at the very least, to suggest that voters may moderate their views after they have given their political senses a short rest.

A few other interesting things emerged from our poll, as well. Undecided respondents tended to favor the Obama-Biden ticket after watching the debate: of the 16% of respondents who said the debate had changed their minds, 48% said that they would vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden, while 40% said that they would vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Democrats were also more confident of their own candidate’s performance: of those who reported that they would vote for McCain and Palin in November, 91% said that Palin won Thursday’s debate. Of those intending to vote for Obama and Biden, 96% said that Biden won the debate.

A final note: fraudulent poll respondents favored Obama and Biden more than McCain and Palin. One user voted more than 600 times for Obama and Biden in our poll. We removed those votes from this analysis, and we also removed those of three other respondents with suspicious voting patterns—only one of whom entered votes favoring McCain and Palin.

–Jon Bruner

Leave a comment

Filed under vp debate

Factors that Could Lead to Obama’s Downfall

I really wish the Republicans will take heed of this excellent advice…..
by Lorie Byrd

Change is an effective mantra in elections following two consecutive terms by one party in office. That is especially the case when the current officeholder is unpopular and the economy is weak. Barack Obama has that as a tremendous advantage in this race and recent polls breaking his way show it, but there are some significant factors that could still lead to his undoing.

When you look at the unpopularity of the current administration, the financial crisis that has overshadowed all other issues, the fawning media and the promise of a charismatic young figure offering change, it would appear this race is over. In fact, it would not be surprising if that candidate were leading by twenty points by now. Prospects are certainly looking good for an Obama win at this time, but there are a few factors that can still work in John McCain’s favor. Obama’s liberal voting record, his far left associations and the fact that Democrats control the Congress could all still cause trouble for Obama.

Obama is spending significantly more in my state of North Carolina than McCain, so I see a lot of Obama ads. One I saw several times this week was incredibly reminiscent of some Bill Clinton ads from 1996. I remember the Clinton ads because even though I opposed him, I was impressed by how good and how persuasive they were. Bill Clinton sat in what looked like could be a living room, or perhaps a large homey office, with natural lighting, and talked directly to the camera. He told voters that he was for a middle class tax cut and for “ending welfare as we know it.” I couldn’t argue with either of those ideas. I knew enough about the Democratic party at the time to know it was pretty unlikely that would happen, but I had to admit it sounded good.

When Clinton promised those things, the economy had already begun, and was maintaining, a steady recovery. That didn’t stop him from referring to it as the worst economy in 50 years, though, and the nation bought it. Now we have an economic situation that both candidates agree is one of the most dire our country has faced. In spite of the fact that Democratic policies are largely to blame, the unpopular sitting Republican President and his party are going to be saddled with the majority of the blame. Those in the media will ensure they are, regardless of whether or not they are deserving of it.

In the Obama ad I have seen many times this week, he is sitting in a setting very similar to the one Bill Clinton used in 1996. Also like Clinton, he talks directly into the camera and promises tax cuts for the middle class. Will this approach be as effective for Obama as it was for Clinton?

A big difference between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama is that Clinton could credibly claim to be a moderate. He was a governor from a southern state. Southern Democrats are sometimes just as conservative as their Republican counterparts. Barack Obama is from Chicago and he has an unbelievably liberal voting record both as a state legislator and in the United States Senate. Barack Obama has voted against tax cuts or for tax increases 94 times. Obama has a liberal track record that should set off voters’ alarm bells. Why should anyone believe he would now cut taxes when he has consistently opposed them for so many years?

Bill Clinton promised tax cuts, but even in an economy that was recovering nicely, he came back to voters barely a month in office and said that in spite of working as hard as he had ever worked, he was not going to be able to deliver them. There are certainly many excuses Obama could find to back out of his tax cut promise, but even if he did come through on it, there is another problem with it. Obama’s tax plan is hard on small businesses. Even though many lower and middle income individuals would see less taxes personally, small businesses would face a bigger tax burden. Those small businesses employ lower and middle income people. If voters understand that the same tax policy that might allow them a bit more money in their refund checks could also put them in the unemployment line, they might not be so eager to vote for it. The only way they will know that though is if John McCain can successfully make that point.

The only reason Bill Clinton delivered on his “ending welfare as we know it” pledge was because after vetoing it twice, he was told that he had to pass it or he would lose his re-election. He therefore signed a welfare reform bill that a Republican majority had passed. That brings up another factor that could work in McCain’s favor. Voters favor divided power.

The Democrats currently control both the House and Senate and barring some extreme unforeseen circumstances will not only continue to hold, but most likely increase their margins of control. Barack Obama has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. Most far left liberal policies are not terribly popular with American voters, but if the Democrats control the White House and all of Congress, voters will have essentially given them a blank check to do just about anything they want. One only has to look at the extreme liberal voting record of Barack Obama, as well as the liberal agendas and records of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to see what they can expect in an Obama presidency.

It should be obvious to voters that an Obama presidency along with a Democrat-controlled Congress would result in the most liberal policies many of us have seen in our lifetimes or imagined in our wildest nightmares. Add to that the very real possibility that a President Obama would appoint two or three Supreme Court judges. There would be virtually no check on the power held by liberal Democrats and they would feel emboldened by the election to claim a mandate for anything they proposed.

This is a scenario that should frighten all but those in the most extreme left wing of the Democrat Party, but I don’t think it is a scenario that most voters have really considered. Those in the media are not going to write or talk about Obama’s extreme liberal voting record, just as they have not, and will not, investigate his associations with the likes of domestic terrorists, slumlords, and fat cats that fleeced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is up to the McCain campaign to draw that picture for the voters.

Those on the left will say it is fear mongering, even though for years they have warned of the extreme right wing and the fascist dictator state that America would become under Republican governance. They can’t do that with John McCain, who has so often been in opposition to conservatives. Since he would almost certainly have a Congress controlled by Democrats, any attempt to scare Americans with a rightwing fascist state is absurd.

Those on the left can neither credibly argue that a far left agenda would not prevail in an Obama administration. Barack Obama’s voting record is Exhibit One that is exactly what voters should expect. The case against Obama and complete Democrat control of government is bolstered by crooked associates of Obama such as William Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Rev. JeremiahWright. Additional clues to the leftist paradise that might exist under Obama can be seen in the thuggish attempts to silence his critics, whether it be his goons trying to shut down talk radio interviews or his operatives in state offices who are threatening to sue anyone who makes claims about Obama they deem false.

It would be no mystery to voters that an Obama presidency would be dominated by a far left liberal agenda if they were looking at the track records and associates of the candidates. Instead they are largely being shown an illusion of a modern day Messiah who is ready to unite the country and solve all its problems. They are being shown images of adorable children singing songs of worship and praise to Obama who is going to “rearrange” things to make them right. They are being given fluffy, puffy stories about the candidate by those who profess to be news reporters. The veil is so thin, really, if you know what stands behind it. Whether or not the McCain campaign can lift that veil in the final month of this campaign will determine the course of the country in ways we can only now imagine.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Barack Obama is ‘aloof’ says British ambassador to US

Barack Obama is a “decidedly liberal” senator “who was finding his feet, and then got diverted by his presidential ambitions”, according to a frank verdict delivered to Gordon Brown by the British ambassador to the United States

Sir Nigel Sheinwald, ambassador in Washington since last year, delivered his unvarnished assessment of the White House front runner in a seven-page letter to the Prime Minister, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, just before the Democratic nominee’s visit to Downing Street just over two months ago.

The candid letter, marked as containing “sensitive judgements” and requesting officials to “protect the contents carefully” gives a remarkable insight into how the Foreign Office views the political phenomenon who stunned Mr Brown’s inner circle by defeating their favourite, Hillary Clinton, in the Democratic primaries.

Although the picture Sir Nigel paints is a highly complimentary one – Mr Obama’s speeches are “elegant” and “mesmerising”, he is “highly intelligent” and has “star quality” – he also judges that his “policies are still evolving” and that if elected he will “have less of a track record than any recent president”.

The letter’s contents suggest that Mr Brown could initially find it difficult to deal with a President Obama because he remains a largely unknown quantity who “resists pigeon-holing” and the leak is likely to complicate relations.

Last month, the prime minister was forced to backtrack after an article written in his name broke with convention by showering praise on the Democratic candidate at the expense of his Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

Sir Nigel traces the ambition of Mr Obama, 47, to reach the White House right back to his 20s or before. “He has talked at least since the 1980s about a shot at the Presidency.”

He also identifies several political vulnerabilities that Sen McCain will seek to exploit in the last month of his campaign against the Illinois senator. The leaked letter will provide him with welcome ammunition.

Mr Obama “can seem to sit on the fence, assiduously balancing pros and cons”, Sir Nigel wrote, and “does betray a highly educated and upper middle class mindset”. Charges of elitism “are not entirely unfair” and he is “maybe aloof, insensitive” at times.

“He can talk too dispassionately for a national campaign about issues which touch people personally, eg his notorious San Francisco comments [in April] about small-town Pennsylvanians ‘clinging’ to guns and religion.”

Mr Obama’s Democratic primary victory over the former First Lady showed that “he is tough and competitive. This is of course the Chicago school.

You don’t beat Clinton without being resilient” but “his energy levels do dip and he can be uninspiring e.g. in debates”.

Curiously, there is no mention of his wife Michelle – a central figure in his rise and his closest adviser – and little examination of his time in Chicago, where he had radical associations, or his background in Hawaii, essential to understanding why “Obama is cool”, as the letter puts it.

Sir Nigel detects a potential clash between Downing Street and an Obama administration over Iran.

“If Obama wins, we will need to consider with him the articulation between (a) his desire for ‘unconditional’ dialogue with Iran and (b) our and the [United Nations Security Council]’s requirement of prior suspension of enrichment before the nuclear negotiations proper can begin.”

But Sir Nigel – who described the Iraq war as “the Iraq expedition” and “Bush’s Iraq adventure” – briefed that Mr Obama’s Iraq policy gelled with Britain’s.

“Whatever the detail, our own proposed transition in south-east Iraq would be consistent with Obama’s likely approach. Obama’s ideas on a more expansive regional framework for Iraq would also fit well with our thinking.”

He wrote approvingly of Mr Obama’s “mainstream team of youthful economic advisers, with strong credentials [who] approach policy with refreshingly few prescriptions”, his “progressive position on climate change” and his ‘pragmatic realism” and “balanced approach to the big security issues”.

Sir Nigel concludes that searching for a deal between Israel and the Palestinians is “unlikely to be a top priority for Obama” and he expresses concern about his protectionist trade policy, while noting that he has “repositioned himself somewhat towards free trade”.

British officials said that since it became clear that Mr Obama would overcome Mrs Clinton, Sir Nigel had worked hard to dampen down what he viewed as “Obamamania” within Downing Street that had become so strong that he feared it might alienate the McCain campaign.

Sir Nigel’s letter, though initially drafted by his political staff, is an intensely personal assessment of Mr Obama and is based largely on the ambassador’s owns observations from the campaign trail.

He has travelled to rallies as far afield as New Hampshire and South Carolina – where he had a personal meeting with Mr McCain – and to the party conventions in Denver and St Paul, Minnesota.

Although he has the lowest public profile of any recent British ambassador in Washington, Sir Nigel has won respect for his range of contacts within the Bush administration and the campaigns.

The letter quotes Tom Daschle, a former Senate Majority Leader and Obama confidant who is hotly tipped to become White House chief of staff should Mr Obama be elected, from a private meeting with Sir Nigel.

There is a strong indication Sir Nigel also consulted Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican who has worked with Mr Obama on legislation and travelled abroad with him.

“Obama’s politics and policies are still evolving,” Sir Nigel wrote.

“His Illinois and US Senate careers give us only a few clues as to his likely priorities in office.

“In the Senate he took a low profile in 2005-6, but was a diligent member of the Foreign Relations Committee, respectful and friendly to the veteran Republican Senator Lugar, with whom he travelled to London in 2005.

“His voting record was decidedly liberal. But the main impression is of someone who was finding his feet, and then got diverted by his presidential ambitions.”

Sir Nigel later reiterates the point: “Although he has been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years, and a regular attender of meetings in his first two, there is little Obama track record to refer back to.”

He highlights luck as a key factor in Mr Obama’s rise. “He was certainly lucky in having Democratic and Republican opponents for the US Senate in 2004 who were tarnished. He was lucky that Hillary Clinton had such a bad organisation in the primary campaign, and took so long to respond to Obama’s threat.”

A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington declined to comment.

1 Comment

Filed under obama

The Palin Rebound

 

Published: October 2, 2008
There are some moments when members of a political movement come together as one, sharing the same thoughts, feeling the same emotions, breathing the same shallow breaths. One of those occasions occurred Thursday night when Republicans around the country crouched nervously behind their sofas, glimpsed out tentatively at their flat screens and gripped their beverages tightly as Sarah Palin walked onto the debate stage at Washington University in St. Louis.

There she was, resplendent in black, striding out like a power-walker, and greeting Joe Biden like an assertive salesman, first-naming him right off the bat.

Just as the midcentury psychologist Abraham Maslow predicted, Republicans watching the debate had a hierarchy of needs. First, they had a need for survival. Was this woman capable of completing an extemporaneous paragraph — a collection of sentences with subjects, verbs, objects and, if possible, an actual meaning?

By the end of her opening answers, it was clear she would meet the test. She spoke with that calm, measured poise that marked her convention speech, not the panicked meanderings of her subsequent interviews.

When nervous, Palin has a tendency to over-enunciate her words like a graduate of the George W. Bush School of Oratory, but Thursday night she spoke like a normal person. It took her about 15 seconds to define her persona — the straight-talking mom from regular America — and it was immediately clear that the night would be filled with tales of soccer moms, hockey moms, Joe Sixpacks, main-streeters, “you betchas” and “darn rights.” Somewhere in heaven Norman Rockwell is smiling.

With a bemused smile and a never-ending flow of words, she laid out her place on the ticket — as the fearless neighbor for the heartland bemused by the idiocies of Washington. Her perpetual smile served as foil to Biden’s senatorial seriousness.

Where was this woman was during her interview with Katie Couric?

Their primal need for political survival having been satisfied, her supporters then looked for her to shift the momentum. And here we come to the interesting cultural question posed by her performance. The presidency and the vice presidency once was the preserve of white men in suits. As the historian Ellen Fitzpatrick pointed out on PBS Thursday night, if, in 1984, Geraldine Ferraro had spoken in the relentlessly folksy tones that Palin used, she would have been hounded out of politics as fundamentally unserious.

But that was before casual Fridays, boxers or briefs and T-shirt-clad Silicon Valley executives. Today, Palin can hit those colloquial notes again and again, and it is not automatically disqualifying.

On Thursday night, Palin took her inexperience and made a mansion out of it. From her first “Nice to meet you. May I call you Joe?” she made it abundantly, unstoppably and relentlessly clear that she was not of Washington, did not admire Washington and knew little about Washington. She ran not only against Washington, but the whole East Coast, just to be safe.

To many ears, her accent, her colloquialisms and her constant invocations of the accoutrements of everyday life will seem cloying. But in the casual parts of the country, I suspect, it went down fine. In any case, that’s who Palin is.

On matters of substance, her main accomplishment was to completely sever ties to the Bush administration. She treated Bush as some historical curiosity from the distant past. Beyond that, Palin broke no new ground, though she toured the landscape of McCain policy positions with surprising fluency. Like the last debate, this one was surprisingly wonky — a lifetime subscription to Congressional Quarterly. Palin could not match Biden when it came to policy detail, but she never obviously floundered.

She was surprisingly forceful on the subject of Iran (pronouncing Ahmadinejad better than her running mate) though she stepped over the line in claiming that Democrats sought to raise the “the white flag of surrender.”

Biden, for his part, was smart, fluid and relentless. He did not hit the change theme hard enough. He did not praise Barack Obama enough. But he was engaging, serious and provided a moving and revealing moment toward the end, when he invoked the tragedy that befell his own family and revealed the passion that has driven him all his life.

Still, this debate was about Sarah Palin. She held up her end of an energetic debate that gave voters a direct look at two competing philosophies. She established debating parity with Joe Biden. And in a country that is furious with Washington, she presented herself as a radical alternative.

By the end of the debate, most Republicans were not crouching behind the couch, but standing on it. The race has not been transformed, but few could have expected as vibrant and tactically clever a performance as the one Sarah Palin turned in Thursday night.

Leave a comment

Filed under debate, sarah palin

Those condescending Democrats

Finally someone with a bit of brain has figured out why our omniscient Democrats loose elections.

Losing the last two elections to George Bush and now running against his dismal eight-year record, a Democratic presidential victory would seem to have been theirs for the taking. However, one must not discount some undeniable truths.

Democrats are inept. They nominate candidates who do not appeal to the majority of American voters. Even Bill Clinton won each of his two elections with just a plurality. Now they offer Barack Obama, probably the least-qualified candidate ever.

Instead of introspection to determine what they are doing wrong, Democrats often react with unrestrained vitriol at their opponents. Even with support by most media outlets and that bastion of popular culture, Hollywood, they continue to fail.

Could it be that many Americans are turned off by the condescending, angry and self-righteous attitude of Democrats, and their minions, that they know what’s best for us?

Crosby P. Engel
Weatherby Lake

2 Comments

Filed under democrats

Verdict from People’s Court

While the intolerant liberal/secular jihadists and that Hollywood parasites burn in their rage, millions of people including foreign leaders are fully impressed with Sarah Palin. Have a look at some of the comments that was posted on aol news……

Mlp7595

02:06 AMSep 25 2008

The liberals will stop at nothing to prevent awesome fantastically Reaganesque Palin from gracing the office of VP. She is an extremely well qualified woman with reform credentials, articulate, strong, beautiful, and competent. Compared to the blue pants suit, Osama, and the plagiarist, she has more executive experience than all three combined AND SHE IS GORGEOUS. Palin represents the liberals worst nightmare and they will do anything to stop her. Unfortunately for them, she is strong in her faith and will wear their evil attacks as a badge of honor. What the Marxists are not counting on is how all this scrutiny will backfire because, at some point, the media, in its desire to APPEAR somewhat balanced, will turn its attention to Osamas closet of horrors. In their zeal to get THE VP CANDIDATE, they will open the door and actually force it to happen. As usual, evil will turn and consume itself like frenzied sharks and it will be delicious to watch and ensure McCain/Palin victory.

JXV605

02:20 AMSep 25 2008

All the anti palin posters should give her the benefit of the doubt. After all she is a governor of the largest state in united states of america. Has received an 80% approval rating from the people of Alaska. Her abilities to deal with politcal issues have been proven, and her abilities to deal with tough political men in her state of alaska has been proven. I am sure she will be a confident statesman if she is our Vice President and will be tough and fair with any foreign power. Gov palins mentor will be Sen Mccain and other expericenced members of the republican and democratic party who will give her advice and guidence, she will use her intelligence, and communications skills to deal with any issue. Only time will tell if she is elected, that goes for both sides. Hope you all make your choices based on facts and truth, and not false polls and other media bias stories. Use your own common sense and vote for who you think will do the best for the country. good luck with your c…

SalNil

01:49 AMSep 25 2008

Beauty, brains, charm and sincerity will do her well in all her diplomatic dealings, as she has proven in captivating our population. Her job as Governor requires people motivating skills that all of the other candidates lack. She has a trustworthy demeanor that Obama lacks. Obama comes across as a slick con artist without substance.

D troy der

01:42 AMSep 25 2008

i don’t blame the liberals for your socailist opinions. And I don’t doubt your hatred of Sarah Palin.Probably comes from you two mommy upbringing….I’d fear an All-American beauty who has a head on her shoulders too. What I’d do if I were you is run a socialist arab for president, who hates America and wants to completely destroy the country. Sounds like a real clear plan to me….good luck with that. By the way maybe a complete idiot for the arabs running mate or a pissed off woman to boot, yah that makes sense….

Emicam1

01:24 AMSep 25 2008

What’s the problem? Women can be gorgeous and men can be handsome. Now-a-days, it can be either…but I digress. There is nothing wrong with compliments. We just aren’t used to women being in such high national positions who are young and healthy-looking. I’m sure if Hillary heard that, she would be thrilled and so would her followers. Anyway, it isn’t our cultural “norm” to speak that way in professional meetings. But who are we to judge another’s cultural practices? (re: Pakistan’s President Calls Palin ‘Gorgeous’)

PHYSIOED1

01:40 AMSep 25 2008

Prohuman1: in work in Academia and I know a dozen individuals who have multiple degrees from exclusive colleges and universities. What have they accomplished in life besides making their lives of that of their students miserable? Nothing. They a derelicks who have lost touch with reality, who believe they are above life (Obama) and prides themselves and enjoy torturing others. So, having degrees from elite uniiversities mean nothing, unless you have accomplishments and have contributed positively to society. This is something Obama knows nothing about. PS: I doubt Obama could fly a complex aircraft, especially a high performance combat plane. those of you who thing is easy try it. I am sure you will develop some respect for George Bush and Senator McCane.

Leave a comment

Filed under People, Uncategorized

From a Black Voter: Obama Does Not Have the Character and Values to be President

Leave a comment

Filed under Videos