Archive for the ‘Polls’ Category

Why are women much more likely to think that we are in a recession and also believe that Democrats have the solution

by John Lott on Thursday, August 7th, 2014

After almost six years of Obamanomics, why is such an overwhelming majority of want more Democrat solutions.  What I would like to see is how these percentage compare to 2008, 2010, and 2012.  From the Wall Street Journal:

. . . This week’s Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that women are more in sync with Democrats on a range of economic issues, including minimum wages and concerns about growing income inequality. With Republicans holding substantial advantages this year, the Democrats’ appeal among women could provide a bulwark against a political drubbing. 

As members of the party that doesn’t hold the White House, Republicans might ordinarily stand to gain most from the broad pessimism in the new poll that the nation is on the wrong track. But the poll found that women would prefer this fall’s elections to produce a Democratic-controlled Congress, by a 51% to 37% margin—a 14-point gap. The reverse is true for men, who preferred a Republican Congress by 52% to 35%—a 17-point lead for the GOP. . . . .

Go straight to Post

"Is It Murder Or Suicide?"

by Burt Prelutsky on Saturday, June 28th, 2014

This is article 985 of 1001 in the topic Obama

There are times when I suspect that people like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Boxer and Durbin, should have their photos on the wall of the post office as suspects in the killing of America. Other times, I remember that all of these people, along with the likes of Elijah Cummings, Brad Sherman, Henry Waxman, Sheila Jackson Lee and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, have all been elected numerous times, so perhaps it’s America that’s chosen to commit suicide.

As many of you recall, a doctor named Jack Kevorkian was generally reviled for assisting the terminally ill achieve a painless death. Some people called him a vulture. I was not one of them. It seems to me that if a person chooses to end his pain and suffering by ending his life, he shouldn’t be denied that which we bestow, ironically, on both our beloved pets and the vilest serial killers.

But some of us aren’t yet ready to go, and we certainly aren’t complacent about the homicidal impulses of the so-called Progressives. Everywhere we turn, we see them actively attempting to destroy America. We see them weakening our military, alienating our traditional allies, destroying the economy and erasing our borders. And none of these things are happening accidentally or as the result of unfortunate circumstances.

A friend of mine, Dr. Harry Maller, suggested that because Obama attended Columbia, perhaps he got his agenda from Cloward and Piven, two Columbia professors, rather than from Chicago’s Saul Alinsky. My own guess is that all three of them influenced young Obama.

Those of you who only know the names of Richard Cloward (1926-2001) and his wife, Frances Fox Piven, born in 1932 but still alive, from Glenn Beck might not know that their claim to fame was an article written in 1966, titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty,” that appeared in The Nation. At the time they were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work.

Basically, the plan they proposed called for overloading the U.S. welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that they believed would inevitably lead to replacing it with a guaranteed annual income. As they saw it, the bonus is that it would shore up support for the Democratic Party.

In recent years, we’ve seen signs of this strategy all around us. It is no accident, after all, that there are 48 million Americans now receiving free food through SNAP, that millions more are receiving extended unemployment benefits, that Medicaid is ballooning to the bursting point thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and that disability checks are being mailed out every month to a legion of shameless liars and cheats.

To see the strategy at work before your very eyes, you need only look to the southern border, where every day hundreds of illegal aliens, many of them children, are throwing themselves on the mercy of our welfare system. And the reason they keep coming is because this administration keeps inviting them, and because, like every other previous administration, it refuses to build a wall.

But it’s not the politicians alone who are guilty of this outrage to our sovereignty. They are aided and abetted by the Catholic and Evangelical churches.

Click to continue reading “"Is It Murder Or Suicide?"”
Go straight to Post

Only 37 percent of Americans trust the federal government

by John Lott on Monday, May 19th, 2014

government

These results are from a new Fox News poll.  One thing that should be explained is that Democrats trust in government goes up when there is a Democratic president and Republican trust is up when there is a Republican.  That explains the different results for Republicans and Democrats.  Interestingly, despite all the scandals with the IRS, NSA, EPA, AP, State Department, Benghazi, VA, and others, the level of trust in the federal government is actually higher now than last year or in 2010.

Go straight to Post

The calm before the storm: polls moving in the right direction on guns, but the battle is about to get fierce

by John Lott on Monday, May 5th, 2014

This is article 524 of 558 in the topic Gun Rights

From Danny Franklin in the Washington Post has this piece of good news:

In 2000, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 51 percent of those surveyed believed having a gun in the house made it a more dangerous place to be, while only 35 percent believed it made a house safer. In a poll of 800 voters I conducted recently, opinions were almost perfectly reversed: Fifty-three percent now believe a gun makes a house safer and 35 percent more dangerous. . . .

He also argues:

The problem is that supporters of new gun restrictions have traditionally approached the issue of gun violence as a political problem to be answered by changing laws. Instead, we need to start looking at guns as a public health problem to be answered by changing minds and habits. . . .

I interpret this as confirming what I already knew: gun control advocates are planning a big push to control the facts used in the gun control debate.  With literally hundreds of millions of dollars coming from the likes of Bloomberg, Soros, the Obama administration, and others, this battle is far from over.

Go straight to Post

"READING THE POLLS" and "ANOTHER JOB FOR CLARENCE ODBODY"

by Burt Prelutsky on Monday, March 31st, 2014

by Burt Prelutsky

Burt’s Webcast is every Wednesday at 1 PM Pacific Time.
Tune in at K4HD.com His Call-in Number is: (818) 570-5443

I don’t recall a time when it was so profitable to be in the polling industry. It seems as if there’s a new one every five minutes, and most of them, you’ve probably noticed, show Obama cratering at the speed of light. As a result, Republicans can hardly conceal their glee. I, on the other hand, look at the numbers and I feel like tearing my hair out. That is, I would if I had hair. Instead, I’d settle for tearing out someone else’s; perhaps Chuck Hagel’s or Harry Reid’s.

I know I should celebrate the fact that 59% of the electorate think Obama is doing a lousy job, but that means that 41% don’t see it that way. How can I feel good as an American knowing that 83% of the people believe that our country is weaker and less powerful than it was six years ago? For one thing, that’s not a situation in which I ever want America to find herself, but for another, it means 17% think we’re stronger and more powerful since Obama took office, and they can’t all be smoking pot in Colorado.

There are even 9% of our friends and neighbors who think Obama has been too tough with the Russkies! One of those nincompoops, I’m happy to say, is neither a friend nor a relative of mine; he is, however, Rand Paul’s old man.

Speaking of Rand Paul, I am happy to see him peaking in 2014 because I’m hoping that by 2016, he’ll be “Rand Who?” during the GOP primaries. I don’t think he’s a bad fellow, and I wouldn’t want to misjudge him because his father is an anti-Semitic nincompoop. But I do believe his crusade against the NSA is a cheap and dangerous political stunt. I think that anyone who actually believes the government is eavesdropping on several billion monotonous phone calls every day or monitoring tens of billions of email messages every 24 hours is either a paranoid schizophrenic or is addicted to pornography and is terrified that the NSA is going to snitch him out to his wife.

Even Paul’s receiving 31% of the votes cast at the annual CPAC convention isn’t all that great when you actually break down the numbers. I mean, when your platform involves legalizing pot and other illegal substances; accepting same-sex marriages as the norm; opposing a military draft; and turning a blind eye to any evil taking place outside our borders; and you realize that a totally disproportional 46% of the CPAC voters were very young, garnering a mere 31% of the vote has to be regarded as a massive underachievement.

While listening to radio host Dennis Prager the other day, I heard him mention that at Harvard, they have come up with a notion that anything that is said about a specific group, even if it’s positive in nature, should be regarded as bigotry. So if someone assumes that an Asian got a high-paying job as a computer programmer because Asians are widely assumed to be technically proficient, that’s racism.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Stu Rothenberg explains why people are misreading the polls on the relative popularity of Republicans and Democrats

by John Lott on Sunday, March 16th, 2014

Stu Rothenberg has a very convincing explanation that the polls that people have been pointing to don’t mean what they think that they mean.  From Roll Call:

. . . But the survey showed that while 31 percent of independents had a favorable view of the GOP, 30 percent had a favorable view of the Democratic Party. And while 60 percent of independents had an unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party, 61 percent had an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party.

How could independents have the same view of the two parties and yet the Republican brand be about 10 points worse among all respondents?

The answer is clear in the data: Republican respondents had a much more negative view of their own party than Democrats had of their party.

A stunning 29 percent of Republicans had an unfavorable view of the GOP, while only 14 percent of Democrats had an unfavorable view of their party. Only 67 percent of Republicans had a favorable view of the GOP, while 85 percent of Democrats had a favorable view of the Democratic Party. . . .

Unfortunately for Democrats, from a strategic point of view, Republicans’ battered image of their own party isn’t likely going to be a serious problem for the GOP in the fall elections. That’s because, when the midterms roll around in November, Republican voters will vote for Republican nominees, and Democrats will vote for Democratic nominees. That’s what almost always happens. . . .

Go straight to Post

Voter’s Remorse Over Obama

by Alan Caruba on Wednesday, February 26th, 2014

This is article 963 of 1001 in the topic Obama

I don’t recall when I first wrote about Obama telling lies, but it surely must have been early in his first term, if not even earlier in the 2008 campaign. So much of the information about his life was subject to question that it raised my concern.

The way Obamacare was reamed through a Congress that hadn’t even read the bill put me on full alert. No Republican voted for it.

When you have spent your early years as a journalist as I did you tend to develop a healthy skepticism regarding politicians. There are some very good people who go into politics, but they are vastly outnumbered by those who see it as an easy way to line their pockets. They are the “Eddie Haskell’s” if you are old enough to remember the unctuous character from “Leave It To Beaver.” Glad-handers, back-slappers, and generally smooth talkers.

I was not surprised to read a February 19 article in the Washington Examiner by Paul Paulard. “Poll: Only 79% of Obama voters would vote for him again” was the title and my first response was surprise that that many would still vote for him. Only???

In the poll 71% of the Obama voters now inclined to vote for someone else if they had the chance said they ‘regret’ their vote to reelect the President. So a majority of those taking The Economist/YouGov.com poll would vote for him again, but nearly all regret having done so.

This is a definition of stupidity. I think Obama and his cohorts counted on this high level of indifference to the facts about his first term.

Among the sample of those who would vote for someone else if they could, 100% of the Hispanics said they would and 80% of the whites said they would. However 61% of the blacks said they would still vote for Obama. It strikes me that many in the African-American community are quick to speak out against any perceived prejudice, but when it comes to electing Obama, skin color was a major factor. I suspect that many are unaware of how Obama’s policies have left the black community with soaring numbers of unemployed, far in excess of other racial groups.

Among women 84% said they would vote for someone else, but just 61% men agreed. The most surprising element of the poll was that 55% of Democrats—yes Democrats—wished they had not pulled the lever for Obama and 71% of independents agreed.

All second term Presidents achieve lame duck status at some point when their power to influence the Congress to support their programs kicks in. Arguably, Obama achieved that in 2010 when voters returned power in the House of Representatives to Republicans. The Senate’s response—mostly Majority Leader Harry Reid’s—was to deny any but a few of the many bills generated in the House an opportunity to be debated and voted upon.

The gridlock that resulted and which Obama endlessly decries was created by the Democrats in the Senate.

Efforts by Republicans were rebuffed along with all manner of charges that they were anti-women and anti-immigrant, among other absurdities. When the Republicans tried to get the insane borrowing and spending under control by shutting down the federal government as a response to raising the credit limits, they were portrayed as political cavemen.

Click to continue reading “Voter’s Remorse Over Obama”
Go straight to Post

One Speech Too Many

by Alan Caruba on Thursday, January 30th, 2014

This is article 37 of 40 in the topic State of the Union

I didn’t take notes while President Obama gave his State of the Union speech. There was no need to.

There was a time when the SOTU was a just a letter sent to Congress, but in the era of radio and television, Presidents took advantage of the opportunity to be seen and heard laying out their priorities and asking Congress to fulfill them. Since then they have become little more than laundry lists and rarely memorable.

More people will watch a sporting event than tuned in to listen to Obama. In five years he has probably given more speeches than several previous Presidents combined. His first term felt like an extension of his election campaign with one speech following another and soon enough his reliance on a Tele-Prompter became a joke.

Suffice to say that Obama has given one speech too many. Or is that one hundred speeches too many?

A second term, according to the political pundits, is usually a more subdued time as a President seeks to get a few “legacy” pieces of legislation passed and, by then, most people have taken their measure of the President, either liking or disliking him. A President’s popularity or approval ratings usually decline.

Obama’s refusal and failure to work with Congress, combined with the disaster of Obamacare that was passed with only Democratic Party votes and, even then, required Chicago-style bribery and pressure, has seen not just his approval begin to slip away, but it includes the whole of Congress.

Obama’s assertion that he will use executive orders to get his way is simply an admission that he has failed to work with Congress and intends to continue as his second term shapes up to be one of increased resistance. Earlier presidents faced with a Congress whose power was held by another party used persuasion and compromise, but Obama uses neither.

In late January a Gallup poll revealed that “The enduring unpopularity of Congress appears to have seeped into the nation’s 435 congressional districts, as a record-low percentage of registered voters, 46%, now say that the U.S. representative in their own congressional district deserves re-election. Equally historic, the share of voters saying most members of Congress deserve re-election has fallen to 17%, a new nadir.”

It’s worth noting that the 17% who say most of Congress deserves re-election is well below the roughly 40% that has been around for decades and Gallup says “Typically, results like these have presaged significant turnover in Congress, as in 1994, 2006, and 2010. So Congress could be headed for a major shake-up in its membership this fall.”

There’s a history lesson in the 1994 election which occurred when Bill Clinton was President. It marked the greatest victory of the Republican Party since 1980. The GOP picked up 54 seats in the House of Representatives and 8 seats in the Senate. The issue that drove this change was Clinton’s advocacy of a change in the nation’s healthcare system. The Democrats did not learn anything from that defeat and Obama doubled-down on it.

While the media naturally focuses on the President, many Americans appear to have made a shift to Republicans because, at present, there are 30 Republican governors in America. Since Obama took office, Republicans have picked up a net nine governorships.

Click to continue reading “One Speech Too Many”
Go straight to Post

Women Voters This Year and Beyond

by Alan Caruba on Friday, January 17th, 2014

This is article 88 of 94 in the topic Republican Party

Men when in the company of other men have no hesitancy to admit they have no idea why women are so different in so many ways.

Well, viva the difference, but one does have to wonder why so many women of the present era feel no need for a man as a husband or father.

In May, the Census Bureau released a report noting that more than six out of ten women who gave birth in their early 20s were unmarried. “Overall,” a Washington Post article reported, “36 percent of all births in the United States were to unmarried mothers in 2011, the year that the census analyzed from answered in the American Community Survey.” Among whites, it was 29 percent. Among blacks, it was 68 percent.

For the second year in a row, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 40.7% of the babies born in the United States were born to unmarried mothers. That is very bad news.

It is an enormous commitment when a man asks “Will you marry me?”, but are we in an era when the answer is “No, thanks” or “Why?” This is happening when women in general still earn less than men, encounter more problems borrowing for a car or a mortgage, and, if the Internet match-up services ads are true, are still are looking for Mr. Right. Their problem often is that he has done a Google search and learned she would involve a big investment. Many men choose to remain single these days or as the divorce rate indicates, to opt out of marriage.

None of this has anything to do with the 2014 midterm elections or the ones in 2016…or does it?

Well, yes it does. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, columnist Gerald F. Seib said “The gender gap is alive and well in American politics. Indeed, it may be the defining characteristic of our political system as next year’s midterm elections beckon.”

“We are not talking here just about the well-established pattern in which women are more likely to vote Democratic and men Republican in presidential elections. That’s true, but it appears to be only the tip of a gender-gap iceberg.” And here’s where it gets scary for conservatives of both sexes, a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that 52% of men want Congress under Republican control “while just 38% of women feel that way.”

The poll reported that 49% of women say they approve of the job (Obama) is doing; just 37% of men approve. In either case, the numbers are too high because he has done the worst job of any President of the modern era or earlier.

Seib reported that “women are more likely to give the President high grades on leadership qualities, overall competence, and improving America’s image abroad.” This is so absurd it defies any explanation.

Click to continue reading “Women Voters This Year and Beyond”
Go straight to Post

Heh: Obama’s pollster suggests reporters avoid citing polling data in 2014

by Doug Powers on Wednesday, January 1st, 2014

This is article 522 of 568 in the topic Media
null

Do not report that. It lacks context.

This year-end has featured some pretty funny New Year’s resolutions. First Debbie Wasserman Schultz resolved to convince Republicans to stop disagreeing with her, and now President Obama’s pollster is resolving to try and get reporters to avoid citing polling data leading up to the 2014 election:

After a year of seeing President Obama’s approval ratings plummet, the president’s pollster is offering a strikingly candid and pessimistic New Year’s resolution.

Reporters should go the next “year without reporting any public polling data,” Joel Benenson, president and CEO of Benenson Strategy Group, said.

His comments were made to reporter Mike Allen, who published them in his daily “Politico Playbook” morning newsletter on Tuesday.

Benenson explained that he thinks the polling often reported by news organizations lacks the proper context.

Asked his New Year’s resolution: “Here’s one — with a variation, if mine is too extreme: Go one year without reporting any public polling data.”

Funny how, when the Dems were polling higher, there didn’t seem to be a context problem with the reported data.

In related news, the DNC is challenging news outlets to refer to the ACA as “Republi-Care” in 2014.

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin