Recent polls by the mainstream skew sample towards Democrat voters

Here’s an excellent analysis from Da Tech Guy.

Excerpt:

For the last two weeks we have been treated to the narrative that Barack Obama is surging at the polls, Mitt Romney is in trouble and unless there is a massive change in direction it is all over.

Simply put this is a lie.

Of all the polls you have seen, there is one poll that has gotten no attention, it is a poll that has been taken monthly, it is a poll that Doug Ross spotted and promoted on his site. It is the Rasmussen Poll of party identification.

They have party identification results online dating back to 2004.

Here are the recent numbers:

Voter identification by party

It’s a 3-4 point advantage for Republicans.

Da Tech Guy continues:

At no time during the year do the Democrats have a registration advantage vs republicans, the gap closes in July & re-separates in August. The low point for the GOP was July for 34.9 and the high August at 37.6 For democrats the high was 34.0 in June & July the low was 32.4 in Feb

What does this mean for November? It means a lot.

The Democrats won 2 election in this period 2006 & 2008 with a 6.9 advantage in 2006 & a 7.6 advantage in 2008.

There is no example of the Democrats winning since 2004 with an advantage less that 6.9.

The GOP won two elections in this period 2004 with a -1.6 disadvantage & 2010 with a 1.3 advantage. This means the GOP has proven it can win with not only a small lead but with an actual disadvantage. Additionally with an advantage of only 1.3 they pulled off the biggest house swing in my lifetime.

Can these number change? Well the biggest 1 month swing I’ve seen is 4.2 Oct-Nov in 2010 the biggest 3 month swing was Dec 2007-Feb 2008 6.9 in favor of Democrats at the rise of Obama.

Tell me with the economy in the tank, and the new trouble in the Middle East, what is the prospect of a swing of that size to the Democrats happening again right now? Moreover even if that record registration swing repeated itself right now this would give democrats an advantage of only 2.6 points.

I’ve covered a lot of national polls on this site over the last year and all those polls ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX have one thing in common.

Not a single one of those polls had a sample with a GOP advantage.

And here’s what the mainstream media have been doing with their polls:

Mainstream media oversampling Democrat voters

Only the Rasmussen Reports poll is accurately sampling voters based on party identification.

That’s why Obama looks like he’s winning. He’s not.

Read the full analysis here.

UPDATE: CBS/NYT Poll Weights Registered Voters Dems 35%, Republicans 22%.

 

Filed under: News, Advantage, Barack Obama, Election, Election 2012, Leftism, Mainstream Media, Media Bias, Mitt Romney, Oversampling, Points, Poll, Polling, Propaganda, Sample, Sampling

Why did the pollster poll 9% more Democrats than Republicans?

From National Review, a transcript of an interaction on the Hugh Hewitt show about a new poll by Democrat pollster Quinnipiac:

HH: Do you expect Democrats, this is a different question, do you, Peter Brown, expect Democrats to have a nine point registration advantage when the polls close on November 6th in Florida?
PB: Well, first, you don’t mean registration.
HH: I mean, yeah, turnout.
PB: Do I think…I think it is probably unlikely.
HH: And so what value is this poll if in fact it doesn’t weight for the turnout that’s going to be approximated?
PB: Well, you’ll have to judge that. I mean, you know, our record is very good. You know, we do independent polling. We use random digit dial. We use human beings to make our calls. We call cell phones as well as land lines. We follow the protocol that is the professional standard.
HH: As we say, that might be the case, but I don’t know it’s responsive to my question. My question is, should we trust this as an accurate predictor of what will happen? You’ve already told me there…
PB: It’s an accurate predictor of what would happen is the election were today.
HH: But that’s, again, I don’t believe that, because today, Democrats wouldn’t turn out by a nine point advantage. I don’t think anyone believes today, if you held the election today, do you think Democrats would turn out nine percentage points higher than Republicans?
PB: If the election were today, yeah. What we found is obviously a large Democratic advantage.
HH: I mean, you really think that’s true? I mean, as a professional, you believe that Democrats have a nine point turnout advantage in Florida?
PB: Our record has been very good. You know, Hugh, I…
HH: That’s not responsive. It’s just a question. Do you personally, Peter, believe that Democrats enjoy a nine point turnout advantage right now?
PB: What I believe is what we found.
HH: Geez, I just, and an eight point in Ohio? I’m from Ohio. Democrats haven’t had an eight point advantage in Ohio since before the Civil War. I mean, that just never happens, but Peter, I appreciate your coming on. I’m not persuaded that Quinnipiac Polls haven’t hurt themselves today, but I appreciate your willingness to come on and talk about it.

I will stick with the Rasmussen Reports polls, thanks.

 

Filed under: News, Bias, Democrat, Poll, Polling, Quinnipac, Spin

Federal court: Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution

From the Washington Examiner.

First, recall the details of the incident that got the New Black Panthers into trouble:

The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day 2008 incident where two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.

Now here’s the latest:

A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.

[...]Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:

The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.
…
In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.

The Obama administration thought that this incident was nothing to be concerned about. Obama used to work for ACORN, an organization famous for voter fraud schemes.

Excerpt:

The radical activist group ACORN “works” for the Democratic Party and deliberately promotes election fraud, ACORN employees told FBI investigators, according to an FBI document dump Wednesday.

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, are FBI investigators’ reports related to the 2007 investigation and arrest of eight St. Louis, Mo., workers from ACORN’s Project Vote affiliate for violation of election laws. All eight employees involved in the scandal later pleaded guilty to voter registration fraud.

Project Vote is ACORN’s voter registration arm. Project Vote continues to operate despite the reported dissolution of the national structure of ACORN.

The handwritten reports by FBI agents show that ACORN employees reported numerous irregularities in the nonprofit group’s business practices.

Why should we be surprised that the Obama administration would turn a blind eye to this New Black Panther incident?

Related posts

• Obama administration sues Florida for purging non-citizens from voter rolls
• College student discovers election fraud in Indiana’s 2008 primary
• Is it “racial discrimination” to ask someone for a photo ID before they vote?
• Civil rights commission finds that Obama administration has racist double standard
• Homeland Security Secreary Janet Napolitano to counter global warming threat
• How many ACORN employees have been convicted of voter fraud this year?
• Democrats and pro-abortion groups target pro-lifers in FBI and DOJ training
• Is Obama’s Department of Justice enabling voter registration fraud?
• Department of Justice won’t purge dead or ineligible voters from roll
• ACORN employees, voter fraud and the Democrats
• Obama’s attorney general has his head in the sand on national security
• Obama administration investigates Wisconsin pro-lifers
• Democrats will push amnesty to give 12-20 million illegal aliens citizenship
• Has political correctness made the FBI impotent against real terrorist threats?

Filed under: News, ACORN, Barack Obama, Christopher Coates, Civil Rights, Community Organization, Dead People, Dead Voters, Democrat, Democrat Party, Department of Justice, Elected, Election Fraud, Eric Holder, Left, Lobbying, NAACP, Obama, Obama administration, Polling, Race, Racism, Racist, Robin Carnahan, Voter Fraud

Is it “racial discrimination” to ask someone for a photo ID before they vote?

Can Obama get re-elected based on these results?

From National Review.

Excerpt:

Once you get past the race-baiting, you will find that opponents of voter ID generally rely on two arguments, equally specious: 1) There is no need for photo ID, because there is no voter fraud in the United States; 2) This is a deliberate effort to suppress the turnout of minority voters, who often don’t have photo ID. Liberals keep repeating these false claims despite the fact that they have been disproved both in the courtroom and at the polling place.

[...]The claim that there is no voter fraud in the U.S. is patently ridiculous, given our rich and unfortunate history of it. As the U.S. Supreme Court said when it upheld Indiana’s photo-ID law in 2008, “Flagrant examples of such fraud . . . have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists.” The liberal groups that fought Indiana’s law didn’t have much luck with liberal justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 6–3 decision. Before being named to the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens practiced law in Chicago, a hotbed of electoral malfeasance . . .

[...]Election data in Georgia demonstrate that concern about a negative effect on the Democratic or minority vote is baseless. Turnout there increased more dramatically in 2008 — the first presidential election held after the state’s photo-ID law went into effect — than it did in states without photo ID. Georgia had a record turnout in 2008, the largest in its history — nearly 4 million voters. And Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points from the 2004 election, the fourth-largest increase of any state. The black share of the statewide vote increased from 25 percent in 2004 to 30 percent in 2008, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. According to Census Bureau surveys, 65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points.

Read the full refutations of those two arguments in the post, currently the second most popular post on National Review. This is a very, very good article, and it references the relevant studies.

If it’s not close, they can’t cheat. Remember that in 2012.

Filed under: Commentary, ACORN, Barack Obama, Cheat, Cheater, Community Organizing, Corruption, Democrat, Depress, Election, Fraud, Photo ID, Poll, Polling, Race, Racism, Turnout, Vote, Voter Fraud, Voter ID, Voters

CRISIS: Is Obama’s Department of Justice enabling voter registration fraud?

First, from The Other McCain, a 3-minute summary of the case.

To get a longer summary of the case, you really need check out this PJTV interview with several people connected to the case – Peter N. Kirsanow, who is on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, former Department of Justice attorney Hans von Spakovsky, Todd F. Gaziano who is also on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and another former Department of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams.

The smaller story is that the New Black Panther voter intimidation case was dismissed by political appointees of the Obama administration.

Excerpt:

President Barack Obama’s handpicked U.S. Justice Department officials are ignoring civil rights cases in which the alleged victims are whites and they abandoned a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party that resulted in a “travesty of justice.”

Christopher Coates, former voting chief for the department’s Civil Rights Division, testified at a hearing before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, after outcries from citizens’ groups and public-interest organization over the Justice Department’s stonewalling a full investigation.

Coates alleges that DOJ officials, for political reasons, dismissed intimidation charges against New Black Panther members who were videotaped outside a Philadelphia polling place in 2008 dressed in military-style uniforms—one was brandishing a nightstick—and allegedly hurling racial slurs.

However, the Justice Department reportedly prevented him from testifying and subsequently transferred him to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in South Carolina.

But what is the worst thing in the Coates testimony? I think it’s this thing below, which Spakovsky mentioned in the PJTV video.

From Verum Serum. (H/T Ace of Spades)

Excerpt from Coates’ testimony:

In June 2009, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) issued its bi-annual report concerning which states appeared not to be complying with Section 8′s list maintenance requirements. The report identified eight states that appeared to be the worst in terms of their non-compliance with the list maintenance requirements of Section 8 [of the Voting Rights Act]. These were states that reported that no voters had been removed from any of their voters’ list in the last two years. Obviously this is a good indication that something is not right with the list maintenance practice in that state. As Chief of the Voting Section, I assigned attorneys to work on this matter, and in September 2009, I forwarded a memorandum to the CRD Front Office asking for approval to go forward with Section 8 list maintenance investigations in these states.

During the time that I was Chief, no approval was given to this project, and my understanding that approval has never been given for that Section 8 list maintenance project to date. That means that we have entered the 2010 election cycle with eight states appearing to be in major noncompliance with the list maintenance requirements of Section 8 of the NVRA, and yet the Voting Section which has the responsibility to enforce that law has yet to take any action.

Ooops, here’s another bombshell in Coates’ testimony, from Hot Air.

Excerpt:

It contains at least one bombshell, which is that Obama appointee Loretta King ordered Coates to stop asking applicants whether they supported race-neutral enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.  The question became necessary because of resistance in the Civil Rights division from career attorneys to enforce the law when it resulted in African-American defendants rather than victims…

Coates says:

In the spring of 2009, Ms. King, who had by then been appointed Acting AAG for Civil Rights by the Obama Administration, called me to her office and specifically instructed me that I was not to ask any other applicants whether they would be willing to, in effect, race-neutrally enforce the VRA.  Ms. King took offense that I was asking such a question of job applicants and directed me not to ask it because she does not support equal enforcement of the provisions of the VRA and had been highly critical of the filing and prosecution of the Ike Brown case.

Stay tuned. And this may explain why the Democrats are able to win elections despite not being competent to govern.

And don’t forget Obama’s former employer ACORN, which is also being investigated for voter fraud. And the NAACP was also mentioned in the PJTV video.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit notes that Robin Carnahan, who is now for a Senate seat in Missouri, refused to clear dead people from voter roles. Gateway Pundit has a nice picture of Obama hugging Robin Carnahan.

Filed under: Videos, ACORN, Barack Obama, Christopher Coates, Civil Rights, Community Organization, Dead People, Dead Voters, Democrat, Democrat Party, Department of Justice, Elected, Election Fraud, Eric Holder, Left, Lobbying, NAACP, Obama, Obama administration, Polling, Race, Racism, Racist, Robin Carnahan, Voter Fraud