We, as the voting public, have demands as well, and we put them in video form, so our friends in the Entertainment Community can understand.
- 7 in 10 (69%) voters do not believe the news media are honest and truthful.
- 8 in 10 (78%) of voters believe the news coverage of the presidential campaign was biased, with nearly a 3-to-1 majority believing the media were for Clinton (59%) vs. for Trump (21%).
- Even 1/3 (32%) of Clinton voters believe the media were “pro-Clinton.”
- 8% of Trump voters said they would have voted for Clinton if they had believed what the media were saying about Trump.
- 97% of voters said they did not let the media’s bias influence their vote.
It was the only major public survey that consistently showed Donald Trump winning.
“When you look at pundits and their predictions, the correlation is zero. You have to trust the numbers. Don’t get distracted by all the things you think about plausibility.”
“It was an odd experience,” Arie Kapteyn said Wednesday morning.
The same might be said of the furor that surrounded the Daybreak poll during the campaign. It was the only major public survey that consistently showed Donald Trump winning. As a result, it drew frequent and loud denunciations from many Democrats, especially as election day neared and passions rose.
“What you think personally doesn’t matter. I thought Clinton would win. But that shouldn’t change the numbers.”
But on Wednesday, as many other pollsters struggled to explain why their surveys seemed blind to Trump’s support, Kapteyn and his colleagues were among the few who could say their work got the basic issue right.
“To be honest, I was surprised.”
“To be honest, I was surprised,” said Kapteyn, a USC economist and expert on public opinion. Read the rest of this entry »
Authorities said they did not believe the shooting was related to the polling place but did not reveal a motive.
After a standoff at a home that lasted several hours, police announced that the alleged gunman was found dead in the residence. Officials said they didn’t know if the man — who was described as heavily armed — was killed by police or from a self-inflected gunshot wound.
Authorities said they did not believe the shooting was related to the polling place but did not reveal a motive.
“We don’t know what the motive is and why this person starting shooting,” said Homicide Lt. John Corina of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
At least one of the victims was headed to the polling station to vote, a law enforcement source told The Times.
Los Angeles County Fire Capt. Ron Singleton said two people were airlifted to an area hospital. The third victim, a man in his 70s, was dead at the scene, he said.
The shooting began about 2 p.m. after a report of gunfire in the 300 block of North Orange Avenue, Hunt said.
Officers arrived to find multiple victims and a suspect with a rifle, he said.
The suspect was armed with an assault rifle with “a rapid-fire capability,” Hunt said. Police don’t know whether the rifle is fully or semiautomatic.
The shooter immediately fired at least 20 shots at police, the source said.
Under a hail of gunfire, officers took cover and returned shots at the assailant, who retreated into a home in the 500 block of Fourth Street, said the source, who requested anonymity because the case was ongoing. No officers were injured in the shooting. Read the rest of this entry »
Democrats like to pretend voter fraud isn’t a problem — but it is. This video proves it.
[VIDEO] Challenged By National Review Reporter, Mark Halperin Can’t Offer Single Policy Solution To Gun ViolencePosted: October 2, 2015
“Joe Biden doesn’t know how to fix this problem. I don’t know how to fix this problem. I think it’s fair to say you don’t know how to fix this problem. It’s a very complex question in a country with 300 to 350 million guns on the street.”
Daniel Bassali writes: National Review reporter Charles C. W. Cooke challenged Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin to offer his solutions to gun violence in America Friday morning on Morning Joe. After he insisted lawmakers must act to prevent further mass shooting in America, agreeing with President Obama, Halperin failed to deliver a single solution.
“Well, I think that the finding solutions are short-term in terms of legislation, state and federal,” Halperin said. “Then also, coming up with ideas.”
Halperin did not, however, ever manage to come up with an idea. The co-host of With All Due Respect’s idea was to have lawmakers come up with ideas of their own.
Cooke took issue with the president’s angry words at Washington’s refusal to pass gun control laws so soon after the mass shooting at Umpqua Comminuty College in Roseburg, Oregon. The reporter claimed liberals talk tough as if they have the solutions, but they do not offer specific ideas that could begin a dialogue. Halperin was his case in point.
“The way they talk is as if they have the answer and there are these recalcitrant forces in the country that say ‘no, no, no,’ even though deep down they know their legislation will work. That’s simply not the case. It’s far more complicated than that.”
“Joe Biden doesn’t know how to fix this problem. I don’t know how to fix this problem. I think it’s fair to say you don’t know how to fix this problem. It’s a very complex question in a country with 300 to 350 million guns on the street,” Cooke said….(read more)
Source: Washington Free Beacon
In a Web posting, Gawker Media writers said they voted 75 percent to 25 percent to join the Guild. The union said 90 percent of eligible voters cast ballots.
Gawker first said it was planning to unionize in April. The employees said in the post Thursday that the next step will be determining what they want to bargain for and forming a bargaining committee.
Carl R. Trueman writes: I spent the first half of last week at a seminar at an Ivy League divinity school, where a friend and I gave a presentation on ministry and media. I had resolved before speaking that I would refer early on in my presentation to the fact that I belong to a denomination which does not ordain women. My discussion of ministry would be incomplete if I didn’t mention this subject, though I knew my comment would draw fire at a seminar with ordained women present.
“If we no longer have a university system which models ways of civil engagement on such matters, then the kind of civic virtues upon which a healthy democracy depends are truly a thing of the past.”
Sure enough, one of the women ministers present challenged me with some vigor on my position. For a few minutes we exchanged trenchant but civil remarks on the subject.We each spoke our minds, neither persuaded the other, and then we moved on to the larger matter in hand: The use of modern media in the church. The matter of my opposition to women’s ordination never came up again in the remaining two days of the seminar.
Later that evening, a young research student commented to me that it was amazing to see such a trenchant but respectful disagreement on an issue that typically arouses visceral passions. He added that he and those of his generation had “no idea” (his phrase, if I recall) how such things should be done. Later in the week, my youngest son confirmed that he too had never seen civil disagreement on a matter of importance in the university classroom. This is an ominous, if fascinating, indictment, for I had simply done what I had seen modeled when I was an undergraduate: Vigorous disagreement in the classroom followed by friendly conversation in the pub. Read the rest of this entry »
— Bloomberg Politics (@bpolitics) February 12, 2015
2014: The Lady Parts Election Cycle
For The Federalist, Rich Cromwell writes:
Robin Williams joked that “God gave men both a penis and a brain, but unfortunately not enough blood supply to run both at the same time.” When it comes to politics, the Lena Dunhams, Cosmopolitans, and ladypartsjustice.coms want to overlook the humor of that joke and make the female equivalent the focal point of their politicized lives. Lady Parts Justice lays out the skinny:
5 REASONS TO JOIN LADY PARTS JUSTICE
- Because women decide elections and if we get together, blow this shit up in a smart and funny way, we just may be able to get folks to sit up, take action and reverse this erosion of rights.
- Because neanderthal politicians are spending all their time making laws that put YOUR body squarely into THEIR hands.
- Because extremist goon squads exist in EVERY statehouse in America and are sneaking in tons of creepy legislation. We’re staying on top of this shit so you can stay on top this shit.
- Because you use birth control.
- Because you like sex and it’s not all about having babies. Think about it, if it were there would be no room to stand.
“[Voting] is how you keep sexist health care policies from happening.” What is sexist health care? It’s comparable to pornography—difficult to define, but they know it when they see it. Dunham also took to Instagram, with the help of friends, to talk about Planned Parenthood. Cosmo, meanwhile, is less focused on lady parts and more focused on Latinas and how sexist policies affect their lady parts. They also have a party bus, which is somehow related. No word on whether it will offer alcohol and affirmative consent forms.
“As a man, I’m probably not supposed to have an opinion on this, but I totally do. As a father of daughters, I’m actually quite opinionated on the matter. Whereas I get to make decisions based on a whole raft of factors, apparently I’m supposed to teach my daughters to ask only one question: How will this affect your vagina?”
When we mash all these things together, I’m reminded of a useful literary tool.
Synecdoche—noun \sə-ˈnek-də-(ˌ)kē\: a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (as society for high society), the species for the genus (as cutthroat for assassin), the genus for the species (as a creature for a man), or the name of the material for the thing made (as boards for stage).
Despite its uses in writing and storytelling, though, it’s no way to live life. And that’s why the Robin Williams’ joke came to mind. Sure, it’s all about rallying female voters, but it seems women have forgotten they have other organs; that the only one that matters is the vagina and how they get to use it. Don’t get me wrong—I love the vagina, too. It’s definitely high on my unwritten list of favorite organs.
Derek Hunter reports: Polls show the Maryland Gubernatorial race between Democrat Anthony Brown and Republican Larry Hogan is extremely close, with the most recent poll showing a 2-point race, well within the margin of error. With the race so tight, every vote counts. But there is growing concern that every vote counted might not be how every vote was cast.
“Curiously, there hasn’t been a single report of votes being switched from Democrat to Republican in the heavily blue state, so ‘calibration issues’ seem to only go in one direction.”
Early voting is underway across Maryland, and issues with the voting machines are being reported from throughout the state.
So far 20 complaints have been registered of instances where voters using touchscreen machines say their vote for a Republican was automatically switched to the Democrat. Of the 20 complaints, election officials report, “Twelve of those machines were thoroughly tested and the issue could not be replicated. The remaining eight units were taken out of service.”
One voting official referred to the machines automatically switching votes as a “calibration issue.” Curiously, there hasn’t been a single report of votes being switched from Democrat to Republican in the heavily blue state, so “calibration issues” seem to only go in one direction. Read the rest of this entry »
“It will take a lot of work to turn the country around and ensure a different type of horrible future, but I believe there are candidates out there who have the awful principles and ideologies to march into Washington and do it.”
WASHINGTON—Expressing dissatisfaction with the current course the country is taking, voters across the nation told reporters Monday that they are eager to use next month’s midterm elections to help put the United States back on a different wrong track. “We’ve been going down the wrong path for the past few years, and now it’s time to get some new people in there who can lead our country astray in a different direction,” said North Carolina voter Lisa Berkland, adding that Washington D.C. needed an influx of new misguided politicians with their own terrible visions for the country to change the manner in which the nation is veering off course. Read the rest of this entry »
The hidden message of Thad Cochran’s big win is that politicians can always get reelected by bringing home the bacon. This must end.
By 2010, that had jacked up further still to $2.47. That same year, the Tax Foundation calculates that fully 49 percent of Mississippi’s state general revenue comes from federal taxpayers who will never step foot in Morgan Freeman’s and William Faulkner’s beloved stamping grounds. Read the rest of this entry »
Geneva (AFP) – Swiss voters on Sunday rejected a proposal to introduce the world’s highest minimum wage, which would have guaranteed every worker in one of the world’s priciest nations at least $25 an hour.
…the initiative flopped as voters heeded warnings from government and other opponents that it would deal a death blow to many businesses and would weaken Switzerland’s healthy economy…
A proposal to introduce a minimum wage so high it could pass for mid-management pay elsewhere, was rejected by 76,3 percent of Swiss voters.
…Swiss voters also overwhelmingly voted in favour of harsh laws against convicted paedophiles, with 63.5 percent supporting a lifelong ban on them working with children, regardless of the gravity or nature of their crime.
A series of referendums in Switzerland also saw voters nix a multi-billion-dollar deal to buy fighter jets from Sweden and massively support a lifelong ban on convicted paedophiles working with children.
The massive rejection of the “Decent Salary” initiative was widely seen as a slap in the face to its union backers, who insist at least 22 Swiss francs ($25, 18 euros) an hour, or 4,000 francs ($4,515, 3,280 euros) a month, is needed to get by in Switzerland. Read the rest of this entry »
Undercover agents were able to vote as dead people, but election officials are attacking the agents
John Fund writes: Liberals who oppose efforts to prevent voter fraud claim that there is no fraud — or at least not any that involves voting in person at the polls.
But New York City’s watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a “John Test” so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city’s Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.
The Board of Elections, which has a $750 million annual budget and a work force of 350 people, reacted in classic bureaucratic fashion, which prompted one city paper to deride it as “a 21st-century survivor of Boss Tweed–style politics.” The Board approved a resolution referring the DOI’s investigators for prosecution. It also asked the state’s attorney general to determine whether DOI had violated the civil rights of voters who had moved or are felons, and it sent a letter of complaint to Mayor Bill de Blasio. Normally, I wouldn’t think de Blasio would give the BOE the time of day, but New York’s new mayor has long been a close ally of former leaders of ACORN, the now-disgraced “community organizing” group that saw its employees convicted of voter-registration fraud all over the country during and after the 2008 election.
Ilya Somen writes: An informed electorate is a prerequisite for democracy. If voters do not know what is going on in politics, they cannot rationally exercise control over government policy. Large-scale voter ignorance poses a serious danger to American democracy in the 2004 election and beyond. It is particularly troubling at a time when we face a close wartime election with major policy decisions at stake.
Inadequate voter knowledge has two major negative implications for democracy. First, it prevents democratic government from reflecting the will of the people in any meaningful sense, undercutting the “intrinsicist” defense of democracy as a government that reflects the voluntary decisions of the populace. Likewise, voter ignorance imperils the instrumental case for democracy as a regime that serves the interests of the majority, since ignorance potentially opens the door for both elite manipulation of the public and gross policy errors caused by politicians’ need to appeal to an ignorant electorate in order to win office.
In this paper I review the overwhelming evidence that the American electorate fails to meet even minimal criteria for adequate voter knowledge. I then examine the implications for American politics. Part I lays out minimal knowledge prerequisites for voter control of public policy, summarizes the massive evidence of voter ignorance that students of the subject have accumulated over the years, and highlights some of the most disturbing implications of those studies. Part II examines more recent evidence of widespread political ignorance. It shows that extensive voter ignorance plagued the 2000 presidential election and apparently continues during the current election cycle. These data are significant because the extremely close and controversial nature of those two elections might have been expected to cause an increase in voter knowledge. In Part III, I review and criticize theories that claim that “information shortcuts” enable voters to control government in spite of pervasive ignorance. Those mechanisms for dealing with voter ignorance are unable to overcome it and sometimes even exacerbate the problem. Part IV restates the argument that ignorance is largely “rational,” rooted in the very low likelihood of a single vote being able to influence electoral outcomes.
Fraud in PA: Obama Got Over 99% of Vote at Polls Where GOP Inspectors were Removed; Turnout Somehow “30%” Above Govt NumbersPosted: November 9, 2012
Is it odd that a county that expelled GOP inspectors and had people openly campaigning for Obama ended with 99.5% for Obama and 9955 votes for him? It’s up to you to decide.
Another problem: “Voter turnout in Philadelphia was around 60 percent, according to state election figures.” In these precincts it was well over 90% according to House Speaker Sam Smith of Pennsylvania. Considering all of the other “coincidences” going on, it doesn’t seem kosher.
Clear fraud, odd percentages, and numbers that don’t add up? Congratulations on your re-election, Mr. Obama.
Update: Obama also won 99.8% of the vote in 44 Cleveland districts.
- Sounds Racist… Obama Received 99% of Vote in Inner-City Philly Precincts (thegatewaypundit.com)
- TWO DISTURBING REPORTS: Philly GOP: Poll inspectors being ousted for Dems. (And of course there are … (pjmedia.com)
- Two Early Vote Analyses Point to Romney Win in #Ohio (Updated) (pjmedia.com)
- 25 million self-described “evangelicals” voted for Obama. Why & what else do the exit polls tell us about how Christians voted? (lynleahz.com)
…by suppressing their own voter turnout
Thankfully, armies of dedicated investigative reporters, prime-time anchors at news divisions of mainstream networks and cable news organizations, progressive activists groups, and voting rights advocacy groups will be working tirelessly to uncover this corruption, report on how it distorted 2012 election results, and valiantly seek justice…
Oh. Wait. It worked out well for their candidate, so it’s not news. Never mind.
The fact that the presidential vote matters so much is a sign not of national health but of dysfunction
By Jonah Goldberg
The seemingly eternal contest between President Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney ends today (though the battle of the recounts might be just beginning). And, whichever way you want the election to go, only the masochists and the political consultants are sorry it’s coming to an end.
It’s funny. There’s a disconnect between the way we talk about democracy and the way we actually feel about it. We’re told elections are a glorious thing. Anyone feel glorious?
We’re constantly informed that high voter turnout is a good thing because, well, it is! But what if the reason more people are engaged in the process is that they’re terrified by what the other guy might do? Obama has invested heavily in scaring the stuffing out of his Democratic base, in the hope that fear rather than idealism will get the job done.
As the challenger, Romney has relied on scare tactics less. Some would argue this has been mostly out of necessity. Romney needs Obama supporters to switch their loyalties, and demonizing the president turns off such voters. Also, Romney has Obama’s actual record to work with, making hypothetical scare tactics less necessary. Even so, Romney has hardly gone out of his way to distance himself from, say, Donald Trump and others eager to turn Obama into some sort of Manchurian candidate.
It should surprise no one who’s read this column for the past eight years that I hope Romney defeats Obama decisively when the votes are tallied. But the truth is that from a conservative perspective, a Romney victory would simply be making the best of a bad situation.
The mere fact that presidential elections matter this much is not a sign of national health but of national dysfunction. The more the federal government gets involved in every aspect of our lives — for good or ill — the more people will feel that their livelihoods, lifestyles, even their actual lives are at stake in a presidential election. If the federal government didn’t have so much leverage over your life, politicians wouldn’t be able to scare you into the voting booths.
For instance, beneath the partisan distortions and hyperbole, Obama’s “war on women” rhetoric is the idea that the federal government should be the guarantor of “reproductive freedom” — a malleable term that includes everything from the right to abortion on demand to subsidized birth control pills. Whatever the merits of that argument, the simple fact is that a government that has the power to give you everything you want has the power to take it away, as well.
That’s one reason Supreme Court appointments have become such ridiculous spectacles. The justices have acquired powers historically belonging to democratically elected politicians, in the executive and legislative branches. With so much at stake, and with so little accountability once confirmed, it’s no wonder the confirmation process has become an inside-the-beltway version of a presidential campaign. Given the power of the Supreme Court, it’s only rational to fight hammer and tongs over every appointment.
President George W. Bush adopted a number of policies liberals once decried as dangerous expansions of the imperial presidency. With a few exceptions, few complain about those powers now that Obama is the president. The rule seems to be runaway executive power is good, so long as my guy is in power.
That’s a dangerous principle. “Those who tried to warn us back at the beginning of the New Deal of the dangers of one-man rule that lay ahead on the path we were taking toward strong, centralized government may not have been so wrong,” then-California Sen. Alan Cranston conceded at the height of the Watergate hearings in 1973.
In his brilliant new book, I Am the Change: Barack Obama and the Crisis of Liberalism, Charles Kesler argues that it was Woodrow Wilson who introduced the idea that American presidents must have a “vision” for where they should take the country.
In other words, everyone’s life and lifestyle somehow needed to conform to the priorities of a politician in Washington. The 19th century notion that presidents should be “statesmen” who guarded the Constitution gave way to the 20th century fetish for “leaders” who mold the public to their vision.
Unfortunately, since Wilson, this has become something of a bipartisan idea. Republicans are just as likely to talk about the “vision thing” as Democrats. As a conservative, I certainly prefer the Republican vision to the Democratic. Republicans, for instance, rarely vow to “fundamentally transform America.”
But the libertarian in me aches for a time when the president’s vision was irrelevant and national elections just didn’t matter that much.
Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of National Review Online and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is also a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
…In the video, an undercover Obama “volunteer” tells Organizing for America’s Stephanie Caballero that she wanted to vote twice to help reelect President Obama.
The undercover “volunteer” tells Caballero, “I’m going to vote by ballot and then I have mine here too.”
After the volunteer tells Caballero her plan, Caballero volunteers to help the double voter get the forms to request an absentee ballot in Florida. “I’ll print that out and you just have to mail it back,” Caballero says.
The undercover “volunteer” says, “I don’t want to get in any trouble, but like I said, if no one’s gonna know.”
The paid Obama Organizing for America director’s response: [Laughter] “Oh my God this is so funny! It’s cool though!”
A new report in the Tampa Bay Times suggests that Obama campaign staffers are impersonating election officials. The broader allegation is that Obama staffers are misleading voters.
The report states: “This issue arose a day after Corley took a complaint from a voter about an OFA volunteer who initially said he worked for the elections office. The man told the voter there was a problem with her voter registration status, though officials confirmed her registration is fine.”
Obama campaign officials tell the paper “the call refers to a program where voters can request an absentee ballot at the elections office and fill it out on the spot,” the paper paraphrases.
via >> Weekly Standard
- Obama campaign’s robocall about early voting called misleading (tampabay.com)
- Mass Confusion in Florida: OFA robocalls give wrong early vote dates (electionjournal.org)
- Election officials look into possible voter fraud (clearwater.wtsp.com)
- Pasco audit finds voter registration fraud (tbo.com)
- Incorrect robocalls confuse voters (tbo.com)
- Voter registration slumps amid lack of enthusiasm for Obama and Romney (guardian.co.uk)