Showing posts with label Election 2006. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2006. Show all posts
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Newsflash!! Elections decided by votes not by pre-election random polls, Democrats perplexed, Republicans respond: Duh
Trolling through political chat rooms, talking with liberals at school/work, or reading the Opinion Journal (third story), it becomes apparent that the left is yet again calling the election in their favor 3-4 weeks out (in some cases in a major way, 40 House and 7 Senate pickups!! update: now some saying 60 House and 8 Senate, if it keeps growing like this the Dems will be up to 232 House and, I think, 14 Senate by the election). I know, I know, they claim they are going to win every election years in advance, but it’s not until a few weeks out that they really really believe it. This causes the post-election meltdowns that we see every two years. This time is a little different in that lefties are beginning to talk more openly about civil disturbances if they don’t win this election. I don’t think it will actually materialize to any great extent, but violence does begin with talk. Also, it’s what leftist are doing elsewhere as can be seen in Mexico.
They believe they should win every election since the media produced countless polls showing the Democrats winning, and since they know the American people agree with them (why they don't know anyone at their San Fransico latte club who votes Republican). Therefore, the only answer for their loss must be that the Republicans stole the election and their victory. The fact that, as I’ve known since kindergarten, elections are not decided until Election Day still hasn’t been learned by some on the left. It also only took me one election (2000) to learn to not fall for the inevitability trap. Like most Republicans I thought Bush was a shoe in. Then Election Day came, and despite the fact that it was still a Bush victory, I learned to never again take victory for granted. It would be nice if the left would learn this and other electoral lessons like sometimes you lose, no amount of random sampling will ever be able to reliably predict a vote, and its not a dirty political trick for Republicans to tell the people what Democrats believe (Heaven knows the Democrats and the media won’t do it).
They believe they should win every election since the media produced countless polls showing the Democrats winning, and since they know the American people agree with them (why they don't know anyone at their San Fransico latte club who votes Republican). Therefore, the only answer for their loss must be that the Republicans stole the election and their victory. The fact that, as I’ve known since kindergarten, elections are not decided until Election Day still hasn’t been learned by some on the left. It also only took me one election (2000) to learn to not fall for the inevitability trap. Like most Republicans I thought Bush was a shoe in. Then Election Day came, and despite the fact that it was still a Bush victory, I learned to never again take victory for granted. It would be nice if the left would learn this and other electoral lessons like sometimes you lose, no amount of random sampling will ever be able to reliably predict a vote, and its not a dirty political trick for Republicans to tell the people what Democrats believe (Heaven knows the Democrats and the media won’t do it).
Monday, October 23, 2006
Why I Oppose the "Cut Off the Nose to Spite the Face" Republicans 2: Illegal Immigrant Amnesty
This follows my last post about why I will vote Republican (even for Republican moderates like DeWine and Pryce) this election despite not being entirely enthralled with the Party’s performance. The last post covered defense spending and this one will cover illegal immigration. The reality is that just as the Democrats can do lasting damage to our country and the world by not providing the military with a sufficient budget, they can also cause permanent damage with illegal immigration. It's, of course, not 100% certain that this will happen, but it is devestating and likely enough to be very concerned.
Within the government, the only check on the liberal-Bush illegal immigrant amnesty plan was the House Republican caucus. The notion that amnesty will not move forward despite the elimination of this sole check is lunacy. The prospect of another “immigration reform” bill is very real and worrisome following a Democrat win in November. Again, the Republicans are not perfect on the issue but they are far far better than the Democrats. So much so that I really do not understand why some Conservatives who say this is their number one issue are so willing to throw out the Republicans and see their worst nightmare happen.
The basic premise behind this is that a Democrat House/Congress will not “accomplish” much over the next 2 years beside raising the minimum wage and limiting defense spending. Similarly, President Bush will also be unable to get anything done in his last two years. About the only major issue that both the Democrats and the President agree is illegal immigrant amnesty. Is there any doubt that if they don’t instantly recognize this that they will by the end of the session? They both will have the desire, interest, and power to see that an amnesty happens; what more do they need?
The Democrats in particular will like the results of an amnesty. True the natives may not like it so much, but as the Republicans who think it’s a good idea to cut off the Republican nose to spite the Republican face plan to show, all that will happen is they won’t vote so as to teach the country a lesson. As far as the Democrats are concerned it’s win-win. The Democrats understand that native demographics are working against them. Birth rates in blue states are at European level deathbed levels compared with reasonable rates in the red states. Simply put, basing your political power on DINK’s, single women, Episcopalians (along with other so called Christians) and homosexuals is not a recipe for long term success. The Democrats need new blood and the 10-15 million illegals are just what the doctor ordered in their eyes.
This would be nothing surprising for a leftwing party. Leftists are the same the world over so it is instructive to see how other leftwing parties are dealing with similar situations. In the Low Countries the socialists reacted to the increasingly rightwing voting habits of the natives by allowing immigrants to vote. The effect was to allow them to hold onto power in the recent elections that they would have lost without the immigrant votes. The downside for the country is that the Muslims are demanding Islamic government policies. But the Leftists keep their power a little longer and that’s all they care about.
Fortunately we have not allowed our immigration problem to get as out of hand as Europe’s, but a similar policy could still lock in a permanent Democrat majority. The country is, at best for conservatives, broken about 53-47 (right-left). In total votes all it would take to swing that is around 7 million. I think the Dems will be able to manage that at some point out of the 10-15 million illegals to which they granted citizenship and welfare. Even should the natives revolt at such a policy, the best we can expect is we will get a small conservative majority. It won’t take long for enough new illegals to arrive, and cut off the nose to spite the face Republicans not voting, for the Dems to eventually become a permanent majority. While this won’t move our politics in an Islamist manner as is happening in Belgium and Holland, it will move it in a Latin Socialist manner.
Admittedly, it will be a constant fight to prevent this outcome. Big business, a faction of the Republican Party, and the entire Democrat Party are too in bed with illegal immigration to make amnesty go away. All it will take to see one occurs is for Democrats and/or the pro-illegal faction of the Republican Party to control the Presidency, House, and Senate. Right now the pro-illegal Republicans control the Presidency and the Senate. Republicans who oppose an amnesty will simply turn over the only one of the three opposed to an amnesty to the pro-amnesty Democrats by not voting. This will cause the issue, and by extension the country, that these Republicans care so much about to be permanently lost. Quite a price to pay for a temper tantrum.
Within the government, the only check on the liberal-Bush illegal immigrant amnesty plan was the House Republican caucus. The notion that amnesty will not move forward despite the elimination of this sole check is lunacy. The prospect of another “immigration reform” bill is very real and worrisome following a Democrat win in November. Again, the Republicans are not perfect on the issue but they are far far better than the Democrats. So much so that I really do not understand why some Conservatives who say this is their number one issue are so willing to throw out the Republicans and see their worst nightmare happen.
The basic premise behind this is that a Democrat House/Congress will not “accomplish” much over the next 2 years beside raising the minimum wage and limiting defense spending. Similarly, President Bush will also be unable to get anything done in his last two years. About the only major issue that both the Democrats and the President agree is illegal immigrant amnesty. Is there any doubt that if they don’t instantly recognize this that they will by the end of the session? They both will have the desire, interest, and power to see that an amnesty happens; what more do they need?
The Democrats in particular will like the results of an amnesty. True the natives may not like it so much, but as the Republicans who think it’s a good idea to cut off the Republican nose to spite the Republican face plan to show, all that will happen is they won’t vote so as to teach the country a lesson. As far as the Democrats are concerned it’s win-win. The Democrats understand that native demographics are working against them. Birth rates in blue states are at European level deathbed levels compared with reasonable rates in the red states. Simply put, basing your political power on DINK’s, single women, Episcopalians (along with other so called Christians) and homosexuals is not a recipe for long term success. The Democrats need new blood and the 10-15 million illegals are just what the doctor ordered in their eyes.
This would be nothing surprising for a leftwing party. Leftists are the same the world over so it is instructive to see how other leftwing parties are dealing with similar situations. In the Low Countries the socialists reacted to the increasingly rightwing voting habits of the natives by allowing immigrants to vote. The effect was to allow them to hold onto power in the recent elections that they would have lost without the immigrant votes. The downside for the country is that the Muslims are demanding Islamic government policies. But the Leftists keep their power a little longer and that’s all they care about.
Fortunately we have not allowed our immigration problem to get as out of hand as Europe’s, but a similar policy could still lock in a permanent Democrat majority. The country is, at best for conservatives, broken about 53-47 (right-left). In total votes all it would take to swing that is around 7 million. I think the Dems will be able to manage that at some point out of the 10-15 million illegals to which they granted citizenship and welfare. Even should the natives revolt at such a policy, the best we can expect is we will get a small conservative majority. It won’t take long for enough new illegals to arrive, and cut off the nose to spite the face Republicans not voting, for the Dems to eventually become a permanent majority. While this won’t move our politics in an Islamist manner as is happening in Belgium and Holland, it will move it in a Latin Socialist manner.
Admittedly, it will be a constant fight to prevent this outcome. Big business, a faction of the Republican Party, and the entire Democrat Party are too in bed with illegal immigration to make amnesty go away. All it will take to see one occurs is for Democrats and/or the pro-illegal faction of the Republican Party to control the Presidency, House, and Senate. Right now the pro-illegal Republicans control the Presidency and the Senate. Republicans who oppose an amnesty will simply turn over the only one of the three opposed to an amnesty to the pro-amnesty Democrats by not voting. This will cause the issue, and by extension the country, that these Republicans care so much about to be permanently lost. Quite a price to pay for a temper tantrum.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Why I Oppose the "Burn the Village to Save It" Republicans 1: Defense Spending
Like most conservatives, I have more than a few gripes with the Republican Congress. However, I refuse to join those conservatives who think that the best way to save the Republican village is to burn it down for several reasons (they are more commonly known as cut-and-run conservatives). Everyone is, or should be, aware of the Democrat’s plans with taxes, spending, regulation, illegal immigrant amnesty, etc. Those certainly motivate me to do my part in keeping them out of power (the last one much more than the other three) but there is another major reason that hasn’t been discussed, what Pelosi-Reid et al will do to the defense budget.
Even now we are not spending what we should on the military during peacetime much less during war. Peacetime base military spending should be around 4.5% of GDP or about $630 billion in 2007. Next year we will only spend $440 billion or 3.1%. This would be one of my complaints about the Republicans. Given how important military spending is to me (it’s one of my top issues) I should stay home to teach the Republicans and America a lesson according to the burn-the-village-to-save-it Republicans. I will not since doing so will cause the penny-wise pound-foolish Democrats to gain the spending power over the military which is far worse than a repeat of the last Congress.
This is a dangerous possibility as the bills come due from the Clinton procurement holiday of the 90’s at the same time procurement costs escalate rapidly to purchase the new advanced weapons our military needs to stay on top. These expenses can be seen from the future estimated spending in the 2007 defense budget. (in billions of 2007 $)
2007- 84,197
2008- 97,688
2009- 104,148
2010- 104,870
2011- 108,167
In all likelihood this will not be enough to properly equip our military but it is most definitely better than allowing the Democrats to have any influence over the nation’s purse strings. Also, the Republicans have shown that when it becomes more obvious that it isn't enough, they will increase the spending to compensate.
We can be certain that the Democrats will not for two reasons; first it’s what they’ve done in the past, and second their planned policies will leave them no choice. The only two times that the American people were foolish enough to give the modern Democrats control of the government was in 1977-1980 and 1993-1994. In 1993-1994 the Democrats slashed the procurement budget a whopping 24% to only half its 1990 level. The defense budget would go on to shrink every year under Clinton until the Republicans realized the damage being done and began to trade some domestic spending for increased military spending in 1998-2000. No the Republicans weren’t perfect but they sure did a better job than Clinton or the Dems at ensuring our military had proper funding. That was during peacetime, surely the Dems wouldn’t do that during a conflict? From 1977-1980 they did. During four years of power by the Watergate Democrats the military budget increased a mere 1% (I’m excluding 1981 even though it should be included because if I recall Reagan forced through extra spending for the year and if not then Carter no doubt only allowed higher spending to head off Reagan, not because he wanted to). Again, only the Republicans caused military spending to remain at least near proper levels.
It is not only the Democrats’ past that points to their future, but also the Democrats themselves. The Democrats' raise taxes, raise domestic spending, and pay as you go budgeting will prevent the above procurement increases and may even require reductions. This is all the more so since the Democrats have said they oppose many new weapons programs (again as they have in the past). The primary target would most likely be the F-22 Raptor program. We have already paid for about half of this $62 billion program. The rest will be paid out over the next 6-10 years for production of the fighter barring any unfortunate elections. Some Democrats have called for the purchase of F-15’s instead of the F-22. Now the F-15 is a great fighter, but it is over 30 years old. The Europeans and Russians have more advanced fighters that they are selling to anyone with the money to buy them. We cannot allow a situation where Venezuela has better fighters than we do. Our Navy needs to increase its number of warships to counter the growth of navies around the world. Even the modest increase asked for by the Navy will cost an extra $20 billion over the next 5 years. However, some of the biggest supporters of this are in close elections and would be replaced by far less interested Democrats. It also goes without saying that the roughly $9 billion a year National Missile Defense budget would not remain at such levels. These are only three programs, but they total nearly $20 billion a year. When the Dems find out that their tax increases aren’t enough to support their new domestic spending (which will happen almost immediately), it won’t be long before they cast an eye towards these programs.
It is true that President Bush would at least be in office for the next 2 years so the Democrats won’t be completely free to take an axe to the military budget as they would like. The damage they could do is bad enough though. Since the Republicans are spending the bare minimum as it is, any reduction resulting from budget negotiations would severly compromise our military's future. Military procurement programs require years of stable funding. They cannot simply be turned on and off like a light switch. It is very expensive to restart a program after it has been cancelled or downsized. As such it will cost us dearly to correct the Democrats defense spending and program cuts. If the Democrats do not cut new programs then they will have to cut procurement for new equipment to replace equipment worn out or lost in Afghanistan and Iraq. Either way our military will not receive the amount of funding it needs to deal with the present and the future. We will also lose the time that these weapons could have been available to our soldiers. Even if Republicans do retake Congress and restore funding, if trouble flairs over Taiwan in 2010 our soldiers will desperately miss, and be killed by the absence of, the F-22’s, NMD, and more capable warships Democrats refused to fund 3 years earlier.
As can be seen by a short read of history, military underfunding can be a direct cause of war. World War I was started because the Germans believed they could defeat Britain, France, and Russia at the same time. Part of this was because the British only spent about 2.25% of their economy on defense, compared with 3-6% in Europe. Had the British, like the Germans, spent 4% on defense then the Germans would likely not have calculated that they could knock off France before Britain was prepared for war. It is a similar story in 1939 when the British again badly underfunded their military while the Germans spent like crazy in preparation for the coming war. Admittedly, the left-wing British government did increase military spending in 1938 but to their dismay, military spending takes time to translate into actual ships, planes, weapons, and soldiers. As I’ve written before the British certainly had the capacity to stop Hitler had they not been so parsimonious with defense spending in the 1930’s (yes they had good reasons to not be gun-ho but given the price of their mistake we don’t have an excuse to copy them). Lastly, it was not a coincidence that the biggest period of post World War II Soviet expansionism occurred during Carter’s military spending freeze. The great game of global power politics continues unabated whether we like it or not. The more margin that our weaker military leaves other powers, the more likely they are to take advantage of it to our detriment.
Despite the Republicans not spending to the level I think necessary on defense, they are at least spending more than the Democrats would. I also trust the Republicans to not force the military to choose between the present and future when the cost of the procurement holiday comes up against the cost of new weapon programs. The Democrats have shown by their past and their present statements that they are not trustworthy on military spending. The British paid the price twice for undercutting military spending, we paid the price in the 1980’s to defeat the rejuvenated Soviet Union, and we will soon pay the price for the “peace dividend” of the 1990’s. We cannot allow ourselves to make that mistake again. Even though Republicans are not perfect on the issue, they are good, and I will not help the perfect become the enemy of the good by helping to elect a party who is terrible on one of the most important issues to myself and my country.
Even now we are not spending what we should on the military during peacetime much less during war. Peacetime base military spending should be around 4.5% of GDP or about $630 billion in 2007. Next year we will only spend $440 billion or 3.1%. This would be one of my complaints about the Republicans. Given how important military spending is to me (it’s one of my top issues) I should stay home to teach the Republicans and America a lesson according to the burn-the-village-to-save-it Republicans. I will not since doing so will cause the penny-wise pound-foolish Democrats to gain the spending power over the military which is far worse than a repeat of the last Congress.
This is a dangerous possibility as the bills come due from the Clinton procurement holiday of the 90’s at the same time procurement costs escalate rapidly to purchase the new advanced weapons our military needs to stay on top. These expenses can be seen from the future estimated spending in the 2007 defense budget. (in billions of 2007 $)
2007- 84,197
2008- 97,688
2009- 104,148
2010- 104,870
2011- 108,167
In all likelihood this will not be enough to properly equip our military but it is most definitely better than allowing the Democrats to have any influence over the nation’s purse strings. Also, the Republicans have shown that when it becomes more obvious that it isn't enough, they will increase the spending to compensate.
We can be certain that the Democrats will not for two reasons; first it’s what they’ve done in the past, and second their planned policies will leave them no choice. The only two times that the American people were foolish enough to give the modern Democrats control of the government was in 1977-1980 and 1993-1994. In 1993-1994 the Democrats slashed the procurement budget a whopping 24% to only half its 1990 level. The defense budget would go on to shrink every year under Clinton until the Republicans realized the damage being done and began to trade some domestic spending for increased military spending in 1998-2000. No the Republicans weren’t perfect but they sure did a better job than Clinton or the Dems at ensuring our military had proper funding. That was during peacetime, surely the Dems wouldn’t do that during a conflict? From 1977-1980 they did. During four years of power by the Watergate Democrats the military budget increased a mere 1% (I’m excluding 1981 even though it should be included because if I recall Reagan forced through extra spending for the year and if not then Carter no doubt only allowed higher spending to head off Reagan, not because he wanted to). Again, only the Republicans caused military spending to remain at least near proper levels.
It is not only the Democrats’ past that points to their future, but also the Democrats themselves. The Democrats' raise taxes, raise domestic spending, and pay as you go budgeting will prevent the above procurement increases and may even require reductions. This is all the more so since the Democrats have said they oppose many new weapons programs (again as they have in the past). The primary target would most likely be the F-22 Raptor program. We have already paid for about half of this $62 billion program. The rest will be paid out over the next 6-10 years for production of the fighter barring any unfortunate elections. Some Democrats have called for the purchase of F-15’s instead of the F-22. Now the F-15 is a great fighter, but it is over 30 years old. The Europeans and Russians have more advanced fighters that they are selling to anyone with the money to buy them. We cannot allow a situation where Venezuela has better fighters than we do. Our Navy needs to increase its number of warships to counter the growth of navies around the world. Even the modest increase asked for by the Navy will cost an extra $20 billion over the next 5 years. However, some of the biggest supporters of this are in close elections and would be replaced by far less interested Democrats. It also goes without saying that the roughly $9 billion a year National Missile Defense budget would not remain at such levels. These are only three programs, but they total nearly $20 billion a year. When the Dems find out that their tax increases aren’t enough to support their new domestic spending (which will happen almost immediately), it won’t be long before they cast an eye towards these programs.
It is true that President Bush would at least be in office for the next 2 years so the Democrats won’t be completely free to take an axe to the military budget as they would like. The damage they could do is bad enough though. Since the Republicans are spending the bare minimum as it is, any reduction resulting from budget negotiations would severly compromise our military's future. Military procurement programs require years of stable funding. They cannot simply be turned on and off like a light switch. It is very expensive to restart a program after it has been cancelled or downsized. As such it will cost us dearly to correct the Democrats defense spending and program cuts. If the Democrats do not cut new programs then they will have to cut procurement for new equipment to replace equipment worn out or lost in Afghanistan and Iraq. Either way our military will not receive the amount of funding it needs to deal with the present and the future. We will also lose the time that these weapons could have been available to our soldiers. Even if Republicans do retake Congress and restore funding, if trouble flairs over Taiwan in 2010 our soldiers will desperately miss, and be killed by the absence of, the F-22’s, NMD, and more capable warships Democrats refused to fund 3 years earlier.
As can be seen by a short read of history, military underfunding can be a direct cause of war. World War I was started because the Germans believed they could defeat Britain, France, and Russia at the same time. Part of this was because the British only spent about 2.25% of their economy on defense, compared with 3-6% in Europe. Had the British, like the Germans, spent 4% on defense then the Germans would likely not have calculated that they could knock off France before Britain was prepared for war. It is a similar story in 1939 when the British again badly underfunded their military while the Germans spent like crazy in preparation for the coming war. Admittedly, the left-wing British government did increase military spending in 1938 but to their dismay, military spending takes time to translate into actual ships, planes, weapons, and soldiers. As I’ve written before the British certainly had the capacity to stop Hitler had they not been so parsimonious with defense spending in the 1930’s (yes they had good reasons to not be gun-ho but given the price of their mistake we don’t have an excuse to copy them). Lastly, it was not a coincidence that the biggest period of post World War II Soviet expansionism occurred during Carter’s military spending freeze. The great game of global power politics continues unabated whether we like it or not. The more margin that our weaker military leaves other powers, the more likely they are to take advantage of it to our detriment.
Despite the Republicans not spending to the level I think necessary on defense, they are at least spending more than the Democrats would. I also trust the Republicans to not force the military to choose between the present and future when the cost of the procurement holiday comes up against the cost of new weapon programs. The Democrats have shown by their past and their present statements that they are not trustworthy on military spending. The British paid the price twice for undercutting military spending, we paid the price in the 1980’s to defeat the rejuvenated Soviet Union, and we will soon pay the price for the “peace dividend” of the 1990’s. We cannot allow ourselves to make that mistake again. Even though Republicans are not perfect on the issue, they are good, and I will not help the perfect become the enemy of the good by helping to elect a party who is terrible on one of the most important issues to myself and my country.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Taxing Polls
Just a disclaimer, there's some boring math and so forth in this post so read at your own risk.
As the election draws nearer I will be a bit more political than usual (well actually anything is more political than usual since I haven’t posted in 5 weeks, but anyways). So with the campaign season comes the usual festivities. Pollsters and pundits can find work again, producing wildly offbase polls for the former and using those absurd polls to predict the death of the Republican Party for the latter. Lefties believe said polls and pundits along with other fever swamp theories about the Bushitler personally supplying and testing North Korea’s nuke, then personally cutting Corey Lidle’s gas line so he would crash into a New York building, and finally rushing back to the White House to send emails to the NFL threatening dirty bomb attacks on football stadiums. Sigh, if only he would use his genius for good. The Democrats are on their usual no holds bar quest for power. When not outing gay Republicans they are busily trying to divine whether a GOP senator used the “N-word” some 40 years ago and hiring Nazi genealogists to determine if this senator also has the blood of the Juden in his veins. If you think that would be the limit you'd be wrong, they are also throwing oreo’s at a black GOP senate candidate while having Nazi ethnologists decide if his contributors have features of the Juden. Ahhh, makes you feel like a kid Christmas time, you just wish it could go on all year.
The key to all this election year behavior is the polls. I know, it seems like every election we go through the same routine. Polls predict GOP rout, lefties get irrationally exuberant, election happens, their bubble pops, and then we get to listen to them cry about it and come up with dark conspiracy theories about stolen elections, questioned patriotism, created terrorism, and such until the next election season when we start the cycle all over. So in the spirit of trying to help some lefties become rationally exuberant, and some conservatives to not be so irrationally depressed, I’ll analyze a recent poll and point to some other analyses of polls that support my theory that polls are becoming more and more useless.
This is a recent New York Times-CBS poll for the Ohio Senate race. I picked it not only because it is at the high end for Sherrod Brown but also because it is the only one of the five recent polls to include internals. It has DeWine losing by 14 points. The first thing to note is that the poll has almost 100 questions and fills up 30 pages! As is one of the oldest complaints about these polls, obviously the middle aged middle income couple with kids who make up the bulk of voters and the bulk of the Republican Party do not have the time to answer these things. Nevertheless, delving down to the bottom of the report they have the poll's weighting. Of all respondents the Rep/Dem breakdown is 30/34. Not too unreasonable, the 2004 exit poll had the party breakdown in Ohio at 40/36 so it’s sort of close. Then they weight it to a 27/34 breakdown without saying how or why they did it.
They then further adjust the poll for “likely voters”. They only show the likely voter total (693 out of 1164) and like the weighted total they do not say how this number was calculated. It seems to have been done by simply multiplying the weighted respondents by the number who said they will “definitely vote” (page 15, question 2) since I arrive at 684 “likely voters” and also the same Brown by 14 result doing that. I thought pollsters had some elaborate method of foretelling who would vote and who wouldn’t, but I guess I was wrong. So after correcting for “likely voters” the poll sample is (R/D) 27/37. Again, this is compared to 2004’s 40/36. The change per party (with independents tossed in) is -13/+1/+14. Anyone who has followed politics for more than just this year would recognize this result is ridiculous.
It is possible this year will have lower Republican turnout, but 33% lower? We can also compare these weights to historical turnout (state election website). In 1998 and 2002 (picked since they followed motor voter and such laws that caused a major increase in registration and corresponding drop off in turnout) turnout was 49% in Ohio. In the 2002 primary turnout was 19.4% with 586,000 Dems and 659,000 Reps voting. In 1998 primary turnout was 28% with no partisan breakdown. This year’s primary turnout was 24% with 872,000 Dems and 870,000 Reps voting. So yes this indicates higher Dem turnout but not a 27/37 advantage. It also means that if turnout is 49% or thereabouts again and Republicans are only 27% of voters then Republicans will only increase their turnout 12% over the primary. Further, the poll has likely voters at 70% of registered voters which means a full 30% of them are lying and shouldn’t count. This causes the poll to be worthless, are those 30% DeWine voters, or Brown voters? Or they could be equally both, no one knows. My own guess, for what little it is worth, is that the turnout will be (R/D) 36-37/38-39.
Others have picked up on this line of reasoning as they do before each election. Rich Lowry at the National Review has a good review of the partisan weighting of the “Generic Ballot” polls (which are even more useless than Senate polls). In short, they are also grossly over-weighted in favor of the Democrats. Also at the National Review, Jim Geraghty reviews a lot of House polls from across the country. He looks at polls from the same district released during the same time. Despite being the same district and the same time frame the polls have radically different results. For example, in Iowa-1 a poll has the Democrat up 11 points while another has the Republican up 13 points. So either it’s a major win for the Dems or it’s a major loss for them. You can see this in the DeWine-Brown race. Looking at the Real Clear Politics list of polls, Brown is either up 4 (Zogby) or 14 (NYT-CBS). Overall, it’s the same as it is every election. Media polls show Democrat victory, election reveals Republican victory (though certainly less of one this year than most), sun rises, sun sets.
Update: Looks like every leftie's favorite pollster (Zogby for those who didn't know) has a series of good Senate polls for the Republicans. I swore off Zogdby long ago (Kerry winning Florida and Ohio my, ahem) and put no credance in any of his polls but since lefties love him there you have it.
As the election draws nearer I will be a bit more political than usual (well actually anything is more political than usual since I haven’t posted in 5 weeks, but anyways). So with the campaign season comes the usual festivities. Pollsters and pundits can find work again, producing wildly offbase polls for the former and using those absurd polls to predict the death of the Republican Party for the latter. Lefties believe said polls and pundits along with other fever swamp theories about the Bushitler personally supplying and testing North Korea’s nuke, then personally cutting Corey Lidle’s gas line so he would crash into a New York building, and finally rushing back to the White House to send emails to the NFL threatening dirty bomb attacks on football stadiums. Sigh, if only he would use his genius for good. The Democrats are on their usual no holds bar quest for power. When not outing gay Republicans they are busily trying to divine whether a GOP senator used the “N-word” some 40 years ago and hiring Nazi genealogists to determine if this senator also has the blood of the Juden in his veins. If you think that would be the limit you'd be wrong, they are also throwing oreo’s at a black GOP senate candidate while having Nazi ethnologists decide if his contributors have features of the Juden. Ahhh, makes you feel like a kid Christmas time, you just wish it could go on all year.
The key to all this election year behavior is the polls. I know, it seems like every election we go through the same routine. Polls predict GOP rout, lefties get irrationally exuberant, election happens, their bubble pops, and then we get to listen to them cry about it and come up with dark conspiracy theories about stolen elections, questioned patriotism, created terrorism, and such until the next election season when we start the cycle all over. So in the spirit of trying to help some lefties become rationally exuberant, and some conservatives to not be so irrationally depressed, I’ll analyze a recent poll and point to some other analyses of polls that support my theory that polls are becoming more and more useless.
This is a recent New York Times-CBS poll for the Ohio Senate race. I picked it not only because it is at the high end for Sherrod Brown but also because it is the only one of the five recent polls to include internals. It has DeWine losing by 14 points. The first thing to note is that the poll has almost 100 questions and fills up 30 pages! As is one of the oldest complaints about these polls, obviously the middle aged middle income couple with kids who make up the bulk of voters and the bulk of the Republican Party do not have the time to answer these things. Nevertheless, delving down to the bottom of the report they have the poll's weighting. Of all respondents the Rep/Dem breakdown is 30/34. Not too unreasonable, the 2004 exit poll had the party breakdown in Ohio at 40/36 so it’s sort of close. Then they weight it to a 27/34 breakdown without saying how or why they did it.
They then further adjust the poll for “likely voters”. They only show the likely voter total (693 out of 1164) and like the weighted total they do not say how this number was calculated. It seems to have been done by simply multiplying the weighted respondents by the number who said they will “definitely vote” (page 15, question 2) since I arrive at 684 “likely voters” and also the same Brown by 14 result doing that. I thought pollsters had some elaborate method of foretelling who would vote and who wouldn’t, but I guess I was wrong. So after correcting for “likely voters” the poll sample is (R/D) 27/37. Again, this is compared to 2004’s 40/36. The change per party (with independents tossed in) is -13/+1/+14. Anyone who has followed politics for more than just this year would recognize this result is ridiculous.
It is possible this year will have lower Republican turnout, but 33% lower? We can also compare these weights to historical turnout (state election website). In 1998 and 2002 (picked since they followed motor voter and such laws that caused a major increase in registration and corresponding drop off in turnout) turnout was 49% in Ohio. In the 2002 primary turnout was 19.4% with 586,000 Dems and 659,000 Reps voting. In 1998 primary turnout was 28% with no partisan breakdown. This year’s primary turnout was 24% with 872,000 Dems and 870,000 Reps voting. So yes this indicates higher Dem turnout but not a 27/37 advantage. It also means that if turnout is 49% or thereabouts again and Republicans are only 27% of voters then Republicans will only increase their turnout 12% over the primary. Further, the poll has likely voters at 70% of registered voters which means a full 30% of them are lying and shouldn’t count. This causes the poll to be worthless, are those 30% DeWine voters, or Brown voters? Or they could be equally both, no one knows. My own guess, for what little it is worth, is that the turnout will be (R/D) 36-37/38-39.
Others have picked up on this line of reasoning as they do before each election. Rich Lowry at the National Review has a good review of the partisan weighting of the “Generic Ballot” polls (which are even more useless than Senate polls). In short, they are also grossly over-weighted in favor of the Democrats. Also at the National Review, Jim Geraghty reviews a lot of House polls from across the country. He looks at polls from the same district released during the same time. Despite being the same district and the same time frame the polls have radically different results. For example, in Iowa-1 a poll has the Democrat up 11 points while another has the Republican up 13 points. So either it’s a major win for the Dems or it’s a major loss for them. You can see this in the DeWine-Brown race. Looking at the Real Clear Politics list of polls, Brown is either up 4 (Zogby) or 14 (NYT-CBS). Overall, it’s the same as it is every election. Media polls show Democrat victory, election reveals Republican victory (though certainly less of one this year than most), sun rises, sun sets.
Update: Looks like every leftie's favorite pollster (Zogby for those who didn't know) has a series of good Senate polls for the Republicans. I swore off Zogdby long ago (Kerry winning Florida and Ohio my, ahem) and put no credance in any of his polls but since lefties love him there you have it.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
The Democrats go the Full Lamonty
The primary defeat of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman to Ned Lamont is bigger I think than just the usual Republican angst/jubilation over the Democrats continuing their long slide into complete irrelevance on foreign policy in general and national security in particular. Lieberman broached the bigger issue that I think is at play in his concession speech last night. The problem is not so much that the anti-war left is taking over the party, it’s that the anti-civility (or angry) left is taking over.
The reason I don’t think it’s much of a problem that the anti-war left is taking over is because where the anti-war left does have an influence, they have already turned those Democrats who were not for a vigorous War on Terror from the start. Lieberman and Clinton are the only deep blue state Senators who have bucked it. Lieberman paid the price yesterday and Clinton will in the 2008 presidential primaries. However, where the angry left doesn’t have as much influence the Democrats are more able to behave somewhat responsibly and should largely continue doing so. It is somewhat silly for Republicans to claim that Lieberman losing is the end of the old Truman or Scoop Jackson Democrats. Lieberman is not the only Democrat, for example, to have supported the war in Iraq, supported it’s funding, and supports it to this day. These Democrats are no where near a majority of the Democratic Party but neither is Lieberman the last of them. Longer term this is also beneficial for the Republicans since the more the angry left shows its true colors the more independents are likely to vote against the Democrats and the more likely Republicans are to turn out to vote.
Rather, the major problem is that we are seeing civility in Washington disappear. The angry left is a movement that sees its political opponents as evil criminals and has no inhibition against saying it. A perfect example of this was on display last night during Hannity & Colmes’ coverage of the primary results. Hannity is the conservative of the duo and would thus be disliked by anyone of the liberal persuasion. Colmes was at the headquarters of Ned Lamont when one of Lamont’s supporters in the background held up a sign that read “Hannity sucks ass”. Why on earth would anyone do something like that on national TV? I very much disagree with Colmes on virtually everything but I would never say anything like that about him, especially not on national TV where everyone could see what an out of control idiot I was being. Lieberman mentioned this in his concession speech when he said,
“I expect that my opponent will continue to do in the general election what he has done in the primary, partisan polarizing instead of talking about how we can solve people's problems, insults instead of ideas… I'll never hesitate to work with members of the other party if it helps to achieve solutions to build better life for people of Connecticut. I will always do what I believe is right for my state and country regardless of what the political consequences may be.”
The main focus of most, including the nutroots themselves, may be the anti-war part but I think the overarching issue is that Lieberman played nice with Republicans even if he voted as an almost perfect liberal. You can see that in the complaints that are made about Lieberman saying adultery is wrong (imagine that) during the Monica scandal and the infamous “Judas kiss” from Bush.
Again, I do not think this outcome is necessary bad for the Republicans. Lamont represents everything that is wrong with the Democrat Party today. Karl Rove will no doubt take full advantage of yet another such perfect example come November. However, having one party so debase itself in such a way is not good for the country in any respect. If the said party wins then the country will be run by people fully capable of coming up with Bushitler and "Hannity sucks ass" but bereft of any real ideas or common sense. If they do not win (as is more likely) then the country will be run by a party that isn’t challenged and is thus not as ideologically prepared for running the country as it could be.
What we are seeing then is the end of the days when at least some Democrats didn’t think the answer to Republican electoral success is lawsuits, the reply to any compromise from the Republicans is to take it and then immediately decry the evil heartless Republicans and demand more, who do not believe that every funeral, tragedy, hearing is a political event to be exploited, and who love their country more than they hate their political opponents.
The reason I don’t think it’s much of a problem that the anti-war left is taking over is because where the anti-war left does have an influence, they have already turned those Democrats who were not for a vigorous War on Terror from the start. Lieberman and Clinton are the only deep blue state Senators who have bucked it. Lieberman paid the price yesterday and Clinton will in the 2008 presidential primaries. However, where the angry left doesn’t have as much influence the Democrats are more able to behave somewhat responsibly and should largely continue doing so. It is somewhat silly for Republicans to claim that Lieberman losing is the end of the old Truman or Scoop Jackson Democrats. Lieberman is not the only Democrat, for example, to have supported the war in Iraq, supported it’s funding, and supports it to this day. These Democrats are no where near a majority of the Democratic Party but neither is Lieberman the last of them. Longer term this is also beneficial for the Republicans since the more the angry left shows its true colors the more independents are likely to vote against the Democrats and the more likely Republicans are to turn out to vote.
Rather, the major problem is that we are seeing civility in Washington disappear. The angry left is a movement that sees its political opponents as evil criminals and has no inhibition against saying it. A perfect example of this was on display last night during Hannity & Colmes’ coverage of the primary results. Hannity is the conservative of the duo and would thus be disliked by anyone of the liberal persuasion. Colmes was at the headquarters of Ned Lamont when one of Lamont’s supporters in the background held up a sign that read “Hannity sucks ass”. Why on earth would anyone do something like that on national TV? I very much disagree with Colmes on virtually everything but I would never say anything like that about him, especially not on national TV where everyone could see what an out of control idiot I was being. Lieberman mentioned this in his concession speech when he said,
“I expect that my opponent will continue to do in the general election what he has done in the primary, partisan polarizing instead of talking about how we can solve people's problems, insults instead of ideas… I'll never hesitate to work with members of the other party if it helps to achieve solutions to build better life for people of Connecticut. I will always do what I believe is right for my state and country regardless of what the political consequences may be.”
The main focus of most, including the nutroots themselves, may be the anti-war part but I think the overarching issue is that Lieberman played nice with Republicans even if he voted as an almost perfect liberal. You can see that in the complaints that are made about Lieberman saying adultery is wrong (imagine that) during the Monica scandal and the infamous “Judas kiss” from Bush.
Again, I do not think this outcome is necessary bad for the Republicans. Lamont represents everything that is wrong with the Democrat Party today. Karl Rove will no doubt take full advantage of yet another such perfect example come November. However, having one party so debase itself in such a way is not good for the country in any respect. If the said party wins then the country will be run by people fully capable of coming up with Bushitler and "Hannity sucks ass" but bereft of any real ideas or common sense. If they do not win (as is more likely) then the country will be run by a party that isn’t challenged and is thus not as ideologically prepared for running the country as it could be.
What we are seeing then is the end of the days when at least some Democrats didn’t think the answer to Republican electoral success is lawsuits, the reply to any compromise from the Republicans is to take it and then immediately decry the evil heartless Republicans and demand more, who do not believe that every funeral, tragedy, hearing is a political event to be exploited, and who love their country more than they hate their political opponents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
