Warning: Be Skeptical of Pollsters!

Sharon Caliendo, formerly from Ohio, now in Oklahoma and a Republican activist there, sent me the following link from YouTube -- it's an Ohio GOP ad, and Sharon says it makes her proud of her home state: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkytVjgn-Uc Other states, please take notice . . .

Bulletin: There's growing evidence that Bill Clinton is NOT going to back Barack Obama. See my Monday column on: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. I've titled the column, "Bill, Hillary MUST Denounce Obama." See also the following link: http://purplepeoplevote.com/2008/08/04/clinton-remarks-bolster-mccains-claims-that-the-race-card-was-played/

"Don't always take at face value what pollsters tell you."
"A lot of people have gone broke betting that the pollsters are right."

One point to remember about Barack Hussein Obama is that he "polls" better (usually by 3 points or more) than he does on the day of the balloting. In contrast, McCain tends to do BETTER than he polls.

You may (vaguely) remember that in the Pennsylvania Primary (balloting on April 22) the MSM was saying that the race was tightening, and they even used their favorite phrase "too close to call." I predicted just before the Primary that Sen. Clinton would win by about 10%. She carried PA by 9.2% -- actually by a margin of nearly 15% outside Philadelphia County.

The results were similar in Ohio, where we were also told the Clinton-Obama race was "too close to call" and that Obama "was closing strong." Actually, he almost NEVER closes strongly. The undecided and the unsure (at least those who vote) almost always go for Obama's opponent.

The real situation in an election depends on the Likely Voters (those who vote with some regularity in elections). Obama tends to do well with "registered voters," a good portion of whom do NOT vote. (In fact, a significant portion of Likely Voters also don't vote -- about two out of ten or more -- but that's another story.)

Almost everywhere, voters who are -- or lean -- Republican are more likely to vote than Democrats. Also, on election day there are "exit polls" that tend to be presented as Gospel, but that can be very misleading. If you doubt that, just ask "President Kerry," who won all the (early) exit polls on election day in 2004.

Why does that happen? Because voters favoring the Republican candidate in a national (or other other federal) election tend to vote LATER than those favoring the Democratic candidate. That situation happens always -- in every election.

Also in 2004, some national polls (Zogby was one) said that last-minute-deciding Independents were "break eight-to-one" for Kerry. Again, "President Kerry" could only have wished that were true, which it was not. GWB won in 2004 by about 3 million votes, and the Independents generally vote for Bush. Pollsters are really bad at determining what late-deciding Independents are doing.

In 2004, Gallup responded to public pressures (from the MSM and Democrats) that accused it of including too many Republicans in their surveys. Gallup in fact changed its "gold-standard" polling template. It ended up predicting that Bush would carry PA -- and Kerry would carry Ohio. I said at the time that Gallup seemed to have mixed up the two states. In fact, Bush carried OH narrowly -- and Kerry did the same in PA.

Gallup also suggested that Kerry might win FL. In fact, he lost it by 300,000-plus votes.

Independents are less likely to vote than either Democrats or Republicans. In fact, some people who claim to be "Independents" are in fact uninterested in politics. "Independents" in that category rarely vote.

Obama/Clinton: Politics of Hatred

On my PennsylvaniaforJohnMcCain site today, I write about a common practice in PA (and many other states): Democratic vote-buying.

This is Samantha Power, the Obama advisor who had to "resign" because she called Hillary Clinton a "monster." She said a whole lot more than that, and it indicated the white hot hatred between the two candidates. Samantha is an academic who has quite a "potty-mouth." I'll be writing more about her later today (Wednesday).

I didn't know how exactly how one "resigns" from a volunteer role, but here's the contrite (and, I believe, hypocritical) statement she made:

"With deep regret, I am resigning from my role as an advisor the Obama campaign effective today. Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign."

She added, "And I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and the remarkable team I have worked with over these long 14 months."

For a young woman, Ms. Power expresses herself in a profoundly pompous way. Why not just "variance" rather than "marked variance?" Why not just the "spirit" of the Obama campaign rather than "spirit, tenor, and purpose?"

Power's original condemnation of Hillary Clinton went far beyond merely calling the New York Senator a "monster.' Here's what she said, according to the Guardian publication, focusing first on Clinton's win in the Ohio Primary: ""We f----d up in Ohio. In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win. She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything." (Note: Power had earlier agreed that everything she said would be on-the-record.)

Power also added, "You just look at her [Hillary] and think, 'Ergh'. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."

Power's comment about the "obsessed" people of Ohio probably won't go over well in the Buckeye State. Given her entire comments about Senator Clinton (including the "Ergh"), Power's supposed "admiration" for Obama's rival rings very hollow. (In her writings, Power has concentrated on condemning the Bill Clinton Administration for not responding decisively to genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia.)

In fact, Power has worked up a good deal of hatred for Senator Clinton. After 14 months on the job as an advisor, her animosity can't have come as a major surprise to Obama or her staff.

With the national media, we don't expect them to convey any sense of what's really going on in political campaigns. One wonders how much Samantha Power reflects the Obama Campaign's deep dislike -- call it hatred -- of Hillary Clinton. Ms. Power let us look under the rock and, lo and behold, there were a host of creepy crawlies. Yes, she resigned, but we have to wonder if she wasn't just "taking one for the team."

On Thursday, I'll be writing about racial dimensions ("The Democratic Race: Racial Politics") of the Democratic primary campaigns. The report Tuesday night is that Barack Obama won 90%-plus of the Black vote in Mississippi. At the same time, Hillary Clinton won 72% of the White vote, while Obama got about 27%. My questions are these: (1) Why is Obama getting such an overwhelming percentage of the Black vote? (2) Why is Hillary Clinton getting approximately three-out-of-four White votes?

I'll be looking into Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Obama being "lucky" that he's a Black male candidate. Ferraro's statements horrified the prissy cable media, which is easily horrified. I believe both Clinton are using race to gain political advantage. Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are using the "race card" to their advantage -- and to the disadvantage of Black people.

Sadly, there's nothing unusual about the approach they're taking. Democratic politics is about three things: race, gender, and redistribution of income.

"The combustible issue of race threatened to detour the race for '08." (Candy Crowley, CNN)

I got the following information from MSNBC, which got it from TheDailyBreeze.com. Hey, everything has to start somewhere.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro

"Geraldine Ferraro defended her remarks and went even further in another interview with the Daily Breeze, where Ferraro's original comments appeared. This time SHE claimed to be the victim of racism and said, "Sexism is a bigger problem." ...

"But far from backing off from her initial remark, Ferraro defended it and elaborated on it."

" 'Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,' Ferraro said. 'Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?'...

"Ferraro said she was simply stating an obvious truth, as seen in exit polls that show Obama taking as much as 80 percent of the black vote in the Democratic primaries." [Note: In Mississippi, Obama got 92% of the Black vote.]

" 'In all honesty, do you think that if he were a white male, there would be a reason for the black community to get excited for a historic first?' Ferraro said. 'Am I pointing out something that doesn't exist?' ...

"She also said she is familiar with [Obama adviser David] Axelrod from his work for minority candidates in New York."

" 'He knows damn well that the best thing to do in a situation like this is to come back and hit with race,' Ferraro said, adding that the response is a sign that the Obama campaign is 'worried' about the first-term senator's lack of experience."

Whither Goest Hillary Rodham Clinton?

8 p.m.: CBS News tonight mentioned that the early exit polls (ones from this a.m.?) indicated that, in Texas, the Hispanic vote (mainly going to Hillary Clinton) was way up over 2004, while the Black vote (mainly going to Obama) was DOWN. Caution: Exit polls taken during the day (remember 2004 when the exit polls suggested a President John Kerry?) are sometimes misleading. For example, Democrats (and liberal) tend to vote early, while Republicans (hey, somebody has to be at work!) tend to vote later. But if the CBS results hold throughout the day, Barack Obama is not going to win the majority of the Democratic primary vote in Texas. CNN is announcing that the vote in Texas is "competitive." Trust me, Hillary Clinton will win a majority of the vote in Ohio. She will also win a majority in Rhode Island.

Above: Obama's soaring rhetoric puts pastor (in Red State garb) to sleep . . .

Even though I expect Hillary Clinton to do well in today's voting in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont, it's nearly impossible for her to do well enough to reduce substantially Obama's 150-vote lead in "pledged" delegates. So, as far as "whither," her campaign -- an ill-conceived one -- may go, it will continue to "wither."

The wild card is this: She may have some damaging information on Barack Obama, perhaps regarding his relationship with Chicago political "fixer" and fundraiser Tony Rezko. The big question is: will she release the material to the media? Her problem is that some Democratic voters regard any criticism of Obama as somehow "unfair."

Today, it looks as if Mrs. Clinton will have a big win in Ohio and a narrow win in Texas, as well as a solid win in Rhode Island. When it comes to "The People's Republic of Vermont," who knows?

Mrs. Clinton has an extremely narrow window leading to the nomination, and if she doesn't have substantial wins in both Ohio and Texas, that window will slam shut. People in the main-stream-media (MSM) still have a hard time grasping that fact, because they're the ones who long ago proclaimed Hillary The Inevitable Winner. So much for inevitability.

Obama would be the most under-qualified presidential candidate since Ohio's Warren Gamaliel Harding, also a silver-tongued orator but an exemplar of cluelessness when it came to being President. He was, however, wise enough to die during his first (and last) term, thereby enabling a better man to become President: "Silent" Calvin Coolidge of Vermont.

If Mrs. Clinton wins both Ohio and Texas tonight, it probably won't help her much in the delegate count. Obama should remain approximately 135-140 votes ahead in pledged delegates. However, if Mrs. Clinton wins three-of-the-four states that vote today, it's unlikely she will withdraw from the race (or "suspend" her campaign). Like Mike Huckabee in the Republican race, she will be hoping for a miracle.

The Pennsylvania Primary is on April 22. If the race between Obama and Clinton continues into the Keystone State, there will be a lot of breathless coverage by the MSM. However, in Pennsylvania the Democratic vote will likely mirror the contest in Ohio. In other words, one of the candidates may pick up 4-5 "extra" delegates. For Mrs. Clinton, that would not be enough. To have a real impact, she would have to win PA by something like 90% to 10%, and there's no chance of that happening.

Look for Hillary Clinton to make a fierce effort to gain an advantage in the "Super Delegates." But it's probable such delegates will vote their own self-interest, which increasingly appears to mean a majority will cast their votes for Barack Obama.

It's hard to see Mrs. Clinton winning the Democratic nomination. Will she get the V-P nod? Not unless Barack Obama has lost his mind. As the V-P choice, she would end up costing him more votes than she would attract.

________________________________

Why America Would be Headed for Disaster Without John McCain
By Yomin Postelnik
Canada Free Press
Sunday, March 2, 2008

For the past 25 years one voice has fought tirelessly to reduce congressional spending, often fighting members of his own party to do so. This is no small feat. Opposing the spending projects of your fellow members does not generally win you any friends.

It touches on the issues most important to them and their individual records, bringing money to their district or their state. Only someone who can put the good of the nation as a whole ahead of the interests of his friends and colleagues, colleagues he needs in order to pass any legislation that he or she wishes to enact, will care to enter this fight. Few will win and even those who do win a few rounds will be easily tempted to back down in the long run. Yet in spite of the consequences, John McCain has fought spending with a remarkable consistency.

The issue is of primary importance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if we do not curb the level of spending immediately, the only alternatives in 20 years will be to either double taxation while slashing spending by at least a half (and those projections assume a sustained level of economic growth) or to watch our dollar become worthless abroad and soon after at home, as few will want to save, trade and invest in a currency considered to be of little value worldwide.

The Director of the Congressional Budget Office is equally open about the fact that no member of Congress will do anything about this matter until people realize the necessity to act. Few politicians want to embrace unpopular positions like huge rollbacks and caps on spending.

That’s the difference between them and leaders. Leaders work for five, ten, twenty years to alert the public to important realities and awaken their hearts and minds to problems and propose solutions that have little support before the public realizes their need. When it comes to the all important issue of wasteful spending, an issue that can mean the difference between continued growth and expansion or economic collapse,

John McCain is such a leader. Remarkably, his battles against pork and pork’s favorite barbeque chefs on both sides of the congressional aisle, haven’t tarnished his ability to work with members of congress. Though a lesser man would have alienated himself from members of both sides with his steadfast campaign against their habits, John McCain’s sincere devotion to this cause, his steadfastness and his reasoned approach to all other issues have earned him a level of respect and cooperation from members of both parties than most senators can ever hope to achieve.

The fight against spending is simply another battle the scars of which John McCain wears well. Even more than the need to cut spending is how we go about doing so. John McCain deserves much praise for the way he’s gone about this as well.

McCain recognizes the need to invest in education, that every dollar spent on it is of immeasurable benefit to society. From a purely economic standpoint, in the long run funding education saves much more on fighting crime and a whole host of societal problems that correlate with low education. Educational funding also gives our nation’s children the ability to harness opportunity and develop new products and services that will both better society and keep us economically strong.

John McCain favors a reasoned approach to spending. While he wholeheartedly supports funding education, the military and our intelligence community that are absolutely crucial to our safety in dangerous times, with equal passion he opposes wasteful spending and unnecessary projects that favor a particular region or special interest. It is these projects that have the potential to cripple the economy and eventually lead to funds being drying up, even for needed projects.

To protect our education, economy, safety and security, we need to act now. The national debt is out of hand and we cannot continue to borrow money forever. We are closer than almost anyone realizes to losing our current credit rating and to having our debt turn to junk bond status. The United States has maintained a triple A bond score since 1917, but this year Moody’s attached an asterisk to the rating, a note of caution. The Congressional Budget Office worries about a real decline in rating. This is all thanks to the reckless spending of both parties.

There’s one candidate who’s willing to do something about it. His name is John McCain and he’s been fighting ruinous pork barrel spending for over 25 years. This is one of the reasons I suggest that entrepreneurs and all who care for the nation’s economy support John McCain for President. He understands the need to invest in education, defense and technology and brings concrete solutions to the table as opposed to empty platitudes. But most of all, his career-long battle against reckless spending shows him for the man of integrity, sound judgment and leadership that he is.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2106