Gallup et al Knew They Were Putting Out Bogus Misleading Numbers

[Bret Cahill]

On the other hand maybe you believe they couldn't hire a competent
statistician . . .

As a consequence of all this wingers are running around claiming the
election was stolen.


Bret Cahill

[Nickname unavailable]

have you seen that tea party nutcase in florida. these people will
not rest till they are institutionalized.

[Tunderbar]

On Nov 19, 10:01 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Why do you hate team sports so much?

[Scum Obama Voter @ghetto.com Another Fired Union Scum Voting for Obama]

"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:0ba17cba-9338-4d11...@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

===========================

" of all this wingers are "

Another Democrap Public "Skool" Obama voter exposes it's putrid education
in grammar from the NEA Union teachers.

[Desertphile]

The fascist right doesn't "do" math. They are irate that the
conservative candidate was re-elected instead of a pathological liar.

> Bret Cahill



--
"Whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded
or revised." -- Dr. Carl Sagan

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/19/2012 1:22 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:01:15 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
> <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand maybe you believe they couldn't hire a competent
>> statistician . . .
>>
>> As a consequence of all this wingers are running around claiming the
>> election was stolen.
> The fascist right doesn't "do" math. They are irate that the
> conservative candidate was re-elected instead of a pathological liar.

Where do you get 90 -100% of a precinct?

It is places like IRAN and NORTH KOREA.... and Venezuela and Cuba and
Pennsylvania.....



--
*Welcome to Socialism*


-Kum bay ya-

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/19/2012 1:22 PM, Desertphile wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:01:15 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
> <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand maybe you believe they couldn't hire a competent
>> statistician . . .
>>
>> As a consequence of all this wingers are running around claiming the
>> election was stolen.
> The fascist right doesn't "do" math. They are irate that the
> conservative candidate was re-elected instead of a pathological liar.

Where do you get 90-104% of the votes at voting precincts for one side?

It is places like IRAN and NORTH KOREA.... and Venezuela and Cuba and

Pennsylvania and Port St. Lucie Florida.....

[Transition Zone]

SAT NOV 10, 2012 AT 03:59 PM PST
Rethinking "shellshocked" Romney
byDavid Jarman

One of Thursday's most attention-grabbing news stories was the
slightly-sensational piece from CBS's Jan Crawford, that got unnamed
campaign insiders to claim that Mitt Romney was "shellshocked" by
losing the election on Tuesday.

As a result, they believed the public/media polls were skewed - they
thought those polls oversampled Democrats and didn't reflect
Republican enthusiasm. They based their own internal polls on turnout
levels more favorable to Romney. That was a grave miscalculation, as
they would see on election night.

Those assumptions drove their campaign strategy: their internal
polling showed them leading in key states, so they decided to make a
play for a broad victory: go to places like Pennsylvania while also
playing it safe in the last two weeks.

This was a popular story in the liberal blogosphere, if only for its
schadenfreude-tastic nature, but also because it seems to confirm the
most fundamental stereotypes about Republicans: they believe their own
B.S.; they live in a closed ideological bubble; they're so anti-
science it extends to all forms of being anti-evidence, including the
polling concerning the very thing they're trying to win.
However, something doesn't smell right about the story: even with
their attempts to unskew their own polling, the Romney camp had to
have known they had no better than a bank-shot chance of winning.
Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall shared some of my skepticism when
he discussed the article, though he didn't connect the final dot. His
contention:

Just too ridiculous. I can maybe believe that the Romney camp thought
they had a fighting chance in Ohio — after all the final result was
pretty close. I simply cannot believe that they thought they were in
such a strong position that they were going to try for a decisive
electoral college win.
What's the final dot? The fact that we got a look under the hood at
the Romney camp's pre-election internals, if ever so briefly. Remember
the leaked Romney internals on Monday afternoon before the election?
To start out, set aside the lack of specificity of the internals (no
topline numbers, just vague descriptions of the margin in some
states), and the unusual place it was leaked to (the Daily Mail, one
of the UK's right-wing scandal sheets, though not a Rupert Murdoch
property); also, forget for a moment that leaked internals are leaked
selectively and leaked for a reason, and often reflect an absolute
best-case scenario rather than the most likely state of play for a
race.
What those internals said was that North Carolina, Florida, and
Virginia were already "baked." They had Romney up 3 points in New
Hampshire, 2 points in Iowa, and most importantly, 1 point in Ohio. No
specific number was given for Colorado, though they said they were
more bullish on Iowa than on Colorado. They also claimed a "tie" in
Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (although for all we know, that may have
meant a "statistical tie," the ultimate poll-reporting weasel word).
Sounds like a Romney slam-dunk, right?

Continue reading below the fold.

Well, no. Feed those numbers into an electoral vote calculator. If you
give Romney NC, FL, VA, NH, IA, OH, and CO (even though no lead for
Colorado was specifically cited), that gets him up to 285. Give him
Ohio but not Colorado, he still wins with 276. Give him Colorado but
not Ohio, though, and he only gets to 267. The entire house of cards
is premised upon winning Ohio, a state where he had only a one-point
lead. That could be compensated for by breaking the tie in Wisconsin
or Pennsylvania, though. So, in other words, the election came down to
essentially winning one out of several coin flips, presuming
everything else went as planned. It would appear to give him likelier-
than-not odds, but not the kind of advantage where a reasonably
informed person would be "shellshocked" for it not to happen -- and
that's without even taking into consideration that virtually everyone
else in the polling business was describing those coins as being
weighted against him.

And then something else happened... on Tuesday morning, some other
anonymous Romney staffer reached out to Politico's Glenn Thrush and
walked the leak back. Thrush's two tweets on the matter read:

The Romney campaign now saying internals attributed to their pollster
Neil Newhouse showing Mitt up in Ohio, tied in WI, PA "are incorrect"
Romney spox, just now in an email: "The numbers attributed to [Neil
Newhouse] are incorrect, hence, not his."

They didn't walk back the leak in order to substitute better polls --
better than the previous ones which indicated only a coin-flip chance
of winning -- which is what a confident campaign would do. They simply
withdrew the polls. Unless the subsequent walkback was a very strange
way of messing with our heads, though, it was an open admission that
they didn't have any actual polling that optimistic. The leaked polls
had been a mirage, probably whipped up for a last-minute boost of
reassurance to get their likely voters to the polls the next day. And
since the alleged polls weren't that optimistic in the first place --
merely indicating that Romney had a puncher's chance in Ohio and a
potential alternate route through Wisconsin -- to those capable of
reading between the lines, the walkback seemed like a confession that
they got nothin', and were about to lose.

In addition, factor in the stories that emerged on Thursday about the
Romney GOTV operation, based around linking volunteers' smartphones
with a centralized computer. Code-named ORCA, it spent most of
Thursday afternoon stuck on the beach, having crashed repeatedly.
Politico's Alex Burns and Maggie Haberman, in describing the level of
fail, cited multiple people calling it "flying blind." Even if you
were feeling confident going into Tuesday thanks to your polls, you
would not feel confident coming out of Tuesday while having no idea
how your GOTV operation performed -- any more than a pilot would feel
confident landing his plane with a shorted-out instrument panel
despite having had a perfectly level flight.

So why on earth would Team Romney, in CYA-mode following the election,
start flogging the story to credulous media enablers that they were
"shellshocked" by the results? It boils down to two alternatives for
Romney's camp, neither of them good, both of which would be the basis
for claims of political malpractice. Option A: admit that you were
operating in a bubble, that your pollsters were making faulty
assumptions, and that despite the fact that your pollsters were coming
up with numbers that didn't look like anyone else's, you were so
reliant on gut feelings about voter enthusiasm that you didn't bother
to seek a second opinion. (That's the CBS article, in a nutshell.)

Or Option B: admit that your data looked much like everyone else's and
that you're smart enough to know that all along that you were losing,
but that the rules of the game prevented you from publicly admitting
that. That's partially because, via the 'bandwagon effect,' it might
depress turnout, but mostly because it would depress contributions
from big money donors who don't want to waste their money -- thus
becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy because you then wouldn't have the
money you'd need to even have a shot at winning.

Team Romney might be falling on its sword here and choosing Option A
-- even though it has the effect of demolishing what remained of his
pragmatic numbers-driven wonk brand, making him look like a self-
absorbed fool selectively listening only to yes men -- because Option
B would be even more unthinkable, in terms of Republican hopes for
future races.

Do you think that the Sheldon Adelsons of the world would be willing
to open up their checkbooks for future races, to the tune of tens of
millions of dollars, when they find out that they've simply been lied
to about Republican chances in order to keep the dollars flowing?
Remember, these are guys who've been promised that they were getting
the unvarnished truth about the campaign -- the platinum-club insider
access -- and now they're finding out that they're getting grifted,
just as standard campaign operating practice. (As you no doubt know,
Karl Rove is having parallel problems with his American Crossroads
donors.)

As much as we'd like to think so, Mitt Romney isn't dumb, and he's a
good Republican soldier. He isn't running for anything else, so he can
afford to feign ignorance and act like this was a one-time convergence
of bad polling and self-delusion on his part. It's better for the
overall Republican brand for Romney to briefly make himself look
ridiculous one last time, than to admit to the billionaire donor class
that they just threw hundreds of millions of dollars down a rathole
while being kept in the dark about their actual odds, and that it's
just as likely to happen to them again in 2016.

ORIGINALLY POSTED TO DAILY KOS ELECTIONS ON SAT NOV 10, 2012 AT 03:59
PM PST.

ALSO REPUBLISHED BY DAILY KOS.

-- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/10/1160010/-Rethinking-shellshocked-Romney

[Ramon F. Herrera]

When they run around like a chicken without a head (seen it, it is
true), they are worrisome.

-Ramon

[Ramon F. Herrera]

After all is said and done, Pew is the MOST accurate electoral
pollster.

Their predictions turn out to be VERY accurate.

The WORST in every election, the one that predicted a McCain and a
Romney win, the shameless ones are: Assmusen.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

-Ramon

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Nov 19, 12:49 pm, "Another Fired Union Scum Voting for Obama"
<Union Scum Obama Voter @ Ghetto.com> wrote:
> "Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

Uh, wrong version of "its" in your post above. Oh, the irony!

[Scum Obama Voter @ghetto.com Another Fired Union Scum Voting for Obama]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e60e3c97-beba-4fb9...@4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

>=-==============

Misplacing an apostrophe is hardly the same as horrendous grammar. No wonder
you could not attempt to defend the post I criticized . Of you were too
stupid to even realize it was.

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:32:03 -0800 (PST), "Ramon F. Herrera"
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:

> Newsgroups: alt.philosophy,alt.politics,alt.politics.economics,alt.global-warming

Wrong newsgroups, Shit-for-brains.

[SpambustЯ]

On 19/11/2012 3:53 PM, Another Fired Union Scum Voting for Obama wrote:
>

--
SPAMMED TO NON-RELEVANT NEWSGROUPS - AND CUT

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:59:35 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

> On 11/19/2012 1:22 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:01:15 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
> > <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On the other hand maybe you believe they couldn't hire a competent
> >> statistician . . .
> >>
> >> As a consequence of all this wingers are running around claiming the
> >> election was stolen.
> > The fascist right doesn't "do" math. They are irate that the
> > conservative candidate was re-elected instead of a pathological liar.
>
> Where do you get 90-104% of the votes at voting precincts for one side?

No.

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:08:20 -0800 (PST), Transition Zone
<mog...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 19, 11:01 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > On the other hand maybe you believe they couldn't hire a competent
> > statistician . . .
> >
> > As a consequence of all this wingers are running around claiming the
> > election was stolen.
> >
> > Bret Cahill

> SAT NOV 10, 2012 AT 03:59 PM PST
> Rethinking "shellshocked" Romney
> byDavid Jarman
>
> One of Thursday's most attention-grabbing news stories was the
> slightly-sensational piece from CBS's Jan Crawford, that got unnamed
> campaign insiders to claim that Mitt Romney was "shellshocked" by
> losing the election on Tuesday.

*CUTS*

I see in the news that the Republican Party "talking heads" are
cruicifying Romney, blaming him for Obama being re-elected. One
Republican Party governor said the party "has become the party of
crazies," citing Romney as the proof.

It is also freaky to see some of us Republican Party members insisting
it was Obama and the Democrats who tried to suppress voting.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/20/2012 6:49 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:59:35 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/19/2012 1:22 PM, Desertphile wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:01:15 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
>>> <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On the other hand maybe you believe they couldn't hire a competent
>>>> statistician . . .
>>>>
>>>> As a consequence of all this wingers are running around claiming the
>>>> election was stolen.
>>> The fascist right doesn't "do" math. They are irate that the
>>> conservative candidate was re-elected instead of a pathological liar.
>> Where do you get 90-104% of the votes at voting precincts for one side?
> No.
>
>

YES North Korea is the kind of place you get 90-104% of the votes for
the Dear Leader.

[Clave]

"Desertphile" <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote in message
news:do5oa8hbeoof3d4cv...@4ax.com...

<...>

> I see in the news that the Republican Party "talking heads" are
> cruicifying Romney, blaming him for Obama being re-elected. One
> Republican Party governor said the party "has become the party of
> crazies," citing Romney as the proof.

One of the huge elephants in the room (ahem) that they Will Not Acknowledge
is that as much blame as belongs at Romney's feet for running what may have
been the most incompetent Presidential campaign in modern history, an even
bigger reason Obama wasn't swept out of office was George W. Bush.

Jim

[Bret Cahill]

> > I see in the news that the Republican Party "talking heads" are
> > cruicifying Romney, blaming him for Obama being re-elected. One
> > Republican Party governor said the party "has become the party of
> > crazies," citing Romney as the proof.
>
> One of the huge elephants in the room (ahem) that they Will Not Acknowledge
> is that as much blame as belongs at Romney's feet for running what may have
> been the most incompetent Presidential campaign in modern history, an even
> bigger reason Obama wasn't swept out of office was George W. Bush.

The only reason Cheney/Rove/W. Bush had to resort to short term
solutions like jingoism, the last refuge of a dying political/economic
scam, was because the high tax Clinton economic boom put Reaganomics
and GOP "market" economists on the ash heap of history. The GOP now
shuns W. Bush but the fact is BushCo played the only hand the GOP had
left.

The list of reactions goes back further:

Maybe you could blame Reagan for destroying the middle class and
recruiting the fundies, the first time in the nation's history
separation of church and state was so flagrantly violated at the
national level.

But what else could the GOP do when the majority supports tax hikes on
the rich?

Lose elections?

Some legacy media types like to blame Nixon and his bottom fishing
Southern strategy. This is a bit of a stretch as political parties
exploited racism before and survived.

The proper way to protect minority rights is run on economic issues,
get into office and then appoint federal judges who _can_ protect
minority rights.

To this day the "liberal" media tend to treat racism and
fundamentalism as the only appeals of the GOP. The 0.01% media have a
major conflict of interest discussing another major appeal which is
also the major driver of racism and fundamentalism:

The GOP's economic scams.

So, with the great exception of the Clintons and hopefully Sen.
Warren, working class whites have a choice of two. One political
party that has ideas that offer solutions to their misery -- scam
ideas are _still_ ideas -- and another that ignores working class
whites altogether and shuns _all_ new economic ideas as scams.

Like the crank case fluids that sell because they are cheap and
_might_ work, working class whites see no reason not to try the party
with economic ideas.

The internet played a big role too but Republicans unwittingly got it
correct back when they were wimpering, "it's all Clinton's fault!"

Legacy media queen Maureen Dowd agrees with Republicans on this point
and will issue a fatwah against both Clintons if Hillary runs in 2016.


Bret Cahill






.

[Desertphile]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:00:25 -0800, "Clave"
<ChrisC...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:54:43 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:08:20 -0800 (PST), Transition Zone
> > <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 19, 11:01 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > On the other hand maybe you believe they couldn't hire a competent
> > > > statistician . . .
> > > >
> > > > As a consequence of all this wingers are running around claiming the
> > > > election was stolen.
> > > >
> > > > Bret Cahill
> >
> > > SAT NOV 10, 2012 AT 03:59 PM PST
> > > Rethinking "shellshocked" Romney
> > > byDavid Jarman
> > >
> > > One of Thursday's most attention-grabbing news stories was the
> > > slightly-sensational piece from CBS's Jan Crawford, that got unnamed
> > > campaign insiders to claim that Mitt Romney was "shellshocked" by
> > > losing the election on Tuesday.
> >
> > *CUTS*
> >

> > I see in the news that the Republican Party "talking heads" are
> > cruicifying Romney, blaming him for Obama being re-elected. One
> > Republican Party governor said the party "has become the party of
> > crazies," citing Romney as the proof.
> >

> > It is also freaky to see some of us Republican Party members insisting
> > it was Obama and the Democrats who tried to suppress voting.

> One of the huge elephants in the room (ahem) that they Will Not Acknowledge
> is that as much blame as belongs at Romney's feet for running what may have
> been the most incompetent Presidential campaign in modern history, an even
> bigger reason Obama wasn't swept out of office was George W. Bush.

Clint Eastwood also helped.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

After 8 years of Obama with NO end of the depression in sight even the
Democrats will sigh in relief to see Obama hit the showers.

Obama is a useless empty suit and that will remain the central vision of
what he is. His ideology of Progressive Socialism is a failed
ideology. All we will need to do is survive another 4 years of this
failure and the progressives will be toast.

[Clave]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:ypgss.514728$iq1.1...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...

<...>

> Obama is a useless empty suit and that will remain the central vision of
> what he is. His ideology of Progressive Socialism is a failed
> ideology. All we will need to do is survive another 4 years of this
> failure and the progressives will be toast.

You whiny-ass diaper-babies have been mewling and puking that same tired set
of wingnut bumper sticker fantasies for four years already.

Obamacare is here to stay, cave man. Choke on it.

Jim

[BeamMeUpScotty]

It's 2,000 pages of ObamaCare toilet paper. It was never worth the
trees that were to be cut to print it.

I will never ever buy any health insurance under ObamaCare. It is
meaningless and a waste of paper.

[Clave]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:JMgss.514729$iq1.4...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...

> On 11/24/2012 10:48 PM, Clave wrote:
>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>> message news:ypgss.514728$iq1.1...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> Obama is a useless empty suit and that will remain the central vision of
>>> what he is. His ideology of Progressive Socialism is a failed
>>> ideology. All we will need to do is survive another 4 years of this
>>> failure and the progressives will be toast.
>> You whiny-ass diaper-babies have been mewling and puking that same tired
>> set
>> of wingnut bumper sticker fantasies for four years already.
>>
>> Obamacare is here to stay, cave man. Choke on it.
>

> It's 2,000 pages of ObamaCare toilet paper....

That you're going to live with for the rest of your life, cave man.

Jim

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/24/2012 11:09 PM, Clave wrote:
> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> message news:JMgss.514729$iq1.4...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...
>> On 11/24/2012 10:48 PM, Clave wrote:
>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>> message news:ypgss.514728$iq1.1...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>> Obama is a useless empty suit and that will remain the central vision of
>>>> what he is. His ideology of Progressive Socialism is a failed
>>>> ideology. All we will need to do is survive another 4 years of this
>>>> failure and the progressives will be toast.
>>> You whiny-ass diaper-babies have been mewling and puking that same tired
>>> set
>>> of wingnut bumper sticker fantasies for four years already.
>>>
>>> Obamacare is here to stay, cave man. Choke on it.
>> It's 2,000 pages of ObamaCare toilet paper....
> That you're going to live with for the rest of your life, cave man.
>
> Jim

Actually it's you who will live with it because I'm not having any of it.

So you pay for it and I'll do the laughing. Health Insurance is up
double digits this year.

I consider it Slavery and that's NOT within my moral code to be a party
to slavery.

Youcan join in with Obama and tell people what they "shall" do with
their own income from their hard work like slave owners did 150 years
ago to their slaves when they earned any money or when the slaves were
rented out....

I have to chuckle that you will walk willingly into the life of a
slave. Likecattle to the slaughter.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> Obamacare is here to stay, cave man.  Choke on it.
>
> > It's 2,000 pages of ObamaCare toilet paper....
>
> That you're going to live with for the rest of your life, cave man.

The "bullseye" thread of the 2011 primary season appeared when
looneytarians tried to justify Ron Paul's campaign manager dying at
age 46 from a treatable condition because libertarians believe even
private insurance is too "collectivist."

Looneytarian: "But it worked!"

Sid9: "But he's dead." [How could it have worked?]

That exchange still boggles the mind. Others might have agreed with
the looneytarian, "yup, some are too stupid to live."


Bret Cahill

[BeamMeUpScotty]

You are Liberals, with that typical Liberal belief, "It's better to rule
in hellthan to serve in heaven" Like Saul Alinskysays, what ever it
take to win.


Lie, cheat, steal, sellout your mother or your morals nothing matters
as long as you get to tell others what to do and how to live.

Of course you don't understand. How could you?