HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » grantcart » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21 Next »

grantcart

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jan 5, 2008, 07:45 PM
Number of posts: 41,349

Journal Archives

Question submitted by grantcart

The text of this question will be publicly available after it has been reviewed and answered by a DU Administrator. Please be aware that sometimes messages are not answered immediately. Thank you for your patience. --The DU Administrators

A comment about META topics.


I have noticed a lot of confusion about whether or not META topics and their place at DU.

A general, but incorrect, assumption has become common that META-like topics, i.e. topics that discuss the over arching nature of DU, face a strict prohibition at DU because the META forum was eliminated.

I suggest that this is not true.

META topics are not prohibited by the GD SOP which is reprinted here:



Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.



To test this theory I offered this entirely META thread in GD that was not locked:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022724269

I suggest that if someone wanted to post, a purely hypothetical example, a thread titled "A statistical analysis of how DU is obsessed about domestic issues and ignores foreign policy" and that OP went on to document with objective statistics and then discuss how this is a harmful trend, that this would not be contrary to the SOP because while it would be both META and critical of DU it would not be whining.

On the other hand the much more ubiquitous DU meta expression along the lines of "DU sucks" would, quite clearly, be whining and against the SOP.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Miranda Exception: "Voluntariness is the linchpin of the admissibility".

Got up and saw that the Miranda exception was still a hot topic at DU.

I Googled the subject and was surprised that the FBI page was at the top of the list.

Further surprised to find that their page on the exception was so good

It includes detailed information about Miranda like this:

The strength of the Miranda decision is its clarity in its nearly unwavering protection of a suspect's Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has recognized only one exception to the Miranda rule—the "public safety" exception—which permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence.


It then details the reason for the exception and how and why it should be used, and this important detail about how it cannot be used. I think most people at DU will find the entire article one of today's best "Good Reads".


http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest

Voluntariness

Voluntariness is the linchpin of the admissibility of any statement obtained as a result of government conduct.43 Thus, statements obtained by the government under the public safety exception cannot be coerced or obtained through tactics that violate fundamental notions of due process.44 Here, it is worth mentioning that prior to the Miranda decision, the only test used to determine the admissibility of statements in federal court was whether the statement was voluntarily made within the requirements of the due process clause.45 This test requires that a court review the "totality of the circumstances" to determine whether the subject's will was overborne by police conduct. If a court finds that the questioning of a subject, even in the presence of a situation involving public safety, violated due process standards, the statement will be suppressed.46

Tomorrow AFGE Border Patrol Union Expected to detail how Sequestering will decimate border security

Starting tomorrow expect to see a constant stream of Press Releases from the Border Patrol Union AFGE detailing how Sequestering will decimate the Border Patrol's effectiveness.

The key is to get the public to understand that beyond the 14 furloughed days (roughly a 10% salary cut) overtime is also being eliminated. Union representatives estimate, and management generally confirms, that this will result in about a 40% reduction in take home pay for Border Patrol Agents.

Forceful reaction from the Border Patrol Union representatives were only delayed because, coincidentally, today was their national election

AFGE Local 2544 posted this announcement on their website



Local 2544 officers have met with Congressman Ron Barber, Senator John McCain, Governor Jan Brewer and Delaware Senator Tom Carper in the last two weeks to express our views and concerns. We recently met with NBPC officers, and we have continued to relay the concerns presented to us by our Local members, but there is an NBPC election on Sunday and we don’t know what changes in leadership will take place after that election. We will know by late Sunday afternoon who the new NBPC officers will be.



There are numerous issues that are involved here but there is little question that Border Patrol agents will be carrying an unfair burden of the cuts and that there absolutely will be an impact on border security.

Border Security

To understand the improvement in San Diego/Rio Grande border with Mexico it is necessary to understand the cat and mouse back and forth that is part of the strategic calculations that the DHS and Mexican Cartel go through on a daily and hourly basis. Most Americans think that the border will be secured with a simple fence. The fence is the Cartel's best friend. While the fence is needed and effective in urban areas where there are lots of activity on the American side of the border (San Diego, Calexico, Yuma, El Paso and Laredo) it's effectiveness outside of those areas is limited and becomes non existent in the more remote areas altogether.

The reasons that the Cartel loves the fence and would love to see it expanded is that they have effective methods of mitigating a stationary structure while amateur drug and human smugglers don't have.

In addition to significant increases in Border Patrol Agent manpower in populated sectors (San Diego, El Centro, Yuma, Tucson and El Paso) during both the Bush and Obama administration there has not been any increases in the Laredo area in the vast underpopulated area stretching hundreds of miles from Del Rio, Eagles Pass, Laredo and south of Laredo (this will become more significant as explained later).

Changes in the nature of border crossers

The single most significant change in the whole border security matrix under the Obama administration is the radical change in utilizing ICE enforcement to people that are here illegally. Under the Bush administration ICE branches became independent franchises where local managers launched vast blind sweeps trying to catch large numbers of non criminal undocumented workers. This disrupted tens of thousands of ordinary hard working employees and their families and created a climate of fear through out Hispanic neighborhoods. Here is an example of one sweep in San Bernardino CA



http://revcom.us/a/104/ice-raids-en.html

At 5:15 a.m. on August 30, Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents converged at a supermarket parking lot in Maywood, California. Armed and wearing bulletproof vests, they looked through a list of the names and addresses of targeted people before descending upon homes and apartment complexes in the neighborhoods where so-called “criminal aliens” live. This was one of many raids that have taken place throughout Southern California in the past two weeks.

In total 1,200 people have been detained in these massive raids, and at least 600 of those arrested have already been deported. ICE boasts that this is the largest operation they have conducted in the U.S. so far. Most of the arrests took place in Los Angeles—with many people also being picked up in Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura County.



Such raids were very popular among reactionary sectors of the Republican Party but were not only damaging to the innocent families involved but drained law enforcement resources from real criminal enforcement.

The Obama administration quickly restructured ICE investigation and eliminated sweeps for ordinary undocumented workers and directed ICE to target violent criminal felons instead. Here is an example of an Obama sweep in San Bernardino:



http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/04/02/ice-arrests-206-los-angeles-area-illegal-immigrants-in-nationwide-immigration-sweep/

LOS ANGELES (CBS) — More than 200 illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area were arrested in a national immigration sweep, the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement said Monday.

ICE had more than 1,900 officers bring in a total of 3,100 people described as convicted criminal aliens, immigration fugitives and immigration violators as part of a six-day national “Cross Check” enforcement operation.

. . .

Those arrested in the Los Angeles area include Veasna Uy, 34, a Cambodia national immigration fugitive living in Long Beach, who was convicted in April 2000 of manslaughter, attempted murder and assault of a deadly weapon. ICE agents also arrested a twice deported Mexican National living in Bell with two prior convictions of narcotics for sale and a Salvadoran national living in North Hollywood who was convicted of arson in 1994.



In addition to ICE investigations and sweeps ICE has positioned officers at prisons and jails to identify felons who are illegal immigrants and deport them. As a result there has been a sharp increase in gang and violent criminals being returned to Mexico, and Central America.

This has changed the mix of the kind of people that the Border Patrol catches. A decade ago the ratio of violent criminal predator to normal economic migrant might have been 1 to 12, meaning that if they caught 12 border crossers one could have been classified as a certifiable bad guy that was involved in criminal activity. As the border has gotten harder to cross there has been a drop in migrants here going home and risking a trip back, a decline in people willing to chance a dangerous trip and an increase of those violent criminals who have been deported trying to get back.

The result is that the ratio (admittedly unscientific but generally accepted by Border Patrol Agents I talk with in different sectors) has dropped from 1 in 12 to something like 1 in 4.

How eliminating overtime affects Border Patrol effectiveness

By eliminating (or technically 'de certifying' AUO- Automatic Unauthorized Overtime) it means that Border Patrol Agents cannot get paid when they are involved in pursuits that exceed their authorized 8 hour shift.

Currently Border Patrol Agents work 10 hour shifts that include 2 hours automatic overtime. Overtime allows the Border Patrol operational flexibility to respond to movements by the Cartel. Once the fence was established the Cartel could simply find isolated areas and throw contraband over the fence, or in human trafficking, jump the fence. By expanding sensors the Border Patrol would respond to movements. The Cartel responds by putting across alto of foot traffic in one part of the sector to draw attention (and then have the decoys jump back to Mexico) and then put across the real load in a remote part on the other side of the sector.

Once the elimination of overtime is instituted this flexibility will be lost. This will open easy to decipher holes for the Cartels to exploit.

The situation is exacerbated in remote areas. Currently if you are in a remote area you may travel one hour from your home to your report in station. After attending a 20 minute muster you might drive 70 minutes to a remote post. This means that in a 10 hour shift only about 7 hours are spent in the field (1 1/2 hours lost each way). By limiting the Border Patrol to 8 hours that reduces field time to only 5 hours.

This will create significant gaps between shifts. Cartel operations are able to monitor shift changes and traffic by simple observation posts in residential areas near by stations.

There is no question that elimination of the AUO overtime will have a significant impact on Border Patrol effectiveness. This comes at a time when the volume of migrants has dropped significantly the efforts of violent felons who have already been deported and attempt to return have increased.

Exploiting Border Patrol Agents

Border Patrol Agents have the most dangerous law enforcement job in the Federal Government. In 2012 5 agents died in Arizona alone, 2 killed in a collision with a train, 1 shot by friendly fire, 1 committed suicide, 1 natural causes. Since I have begun interviewing BP agents in large numbers (over 500) since 2009 I have found almost none fit the 'Chuck Norris' image that I, and I think that most people have. Given that 40% of new hires are from Hispanic backgrounds I have found the bulk to be much closer to a George Lopez type.

For those that are recruited from the area the furlough days and loss of overtime will mean about a 40% loss of pay. There will be agents who, if this is prolonged, will go deeply in debt and in some cases lose their homes.

I think of the single father in El Centro who is raising 3 children and whose income will fall from about $ 52,000 to $ 38,000. That will mean that his take home pay will be around $ 2,500 a month.

For those that have been recruited from other areas like New York or Ohio and have relocated the impact will be much greater. The only reason that they have agreed to live in such inhospitable areas (and many of the areas are extremely inhospitable) is that the total package could reach about $ 80,000 after 5 years. For many couples that has not turned out to be as good a deal as they thought because they did not calculate that the spouse would be unable to get a job in those areas. So they have gone from a two income family making around $ 100,000 to a single income family making $ 80,000 (after 5 years) to a single income family making $ 55,000.

Elimination of AUO for the Border Patrol will not only impact Border Patrol effectiveness but is also a betrayal to those who have one of the most dangerous law enforcement jobs in the US.

For these reasons you should expect, starting tomorrow, a well organized effort by the newly elected leaders of the AFGE Border Patrol union to educate the American public on how sequestering is going to effect border security and Border Patrol Agents.

Effects on Customs

The elimination of AUO will also have an impact on busy Ports of Entry and Customs Agents.

The most obvious result will be that busy ports like San Ysidro (San Diego - busiest POE in the world) will likely have wait times stretch to 4 hours.

It will mean that there are fewer officers to conduct secondary inspections so less interdictions should be expected.

The unfairness issue is the same as explained to Border Patrol agents above.

For ICE the impact will not be as great in most cases but there may be some areas, like gang surveillance in urban areas that will be impacted.


Why we need Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense at this point in time.

I agree with the general feeling that we should stop nominating Republicans for Secretary of Defense.

At this particular time there is a particular reason why Chuck Hagel is needed.

The number one job of the next SOD is to push through deep cuts in the defense and intelligence bureaucracies. If it took Liz Cheney to do it I would take her.

The next SOD is going to have to take on deeply rooted interests in the Pentagon and in Congress. Hagel is the guy that can get the biggest cuts passed. Hagel is also a non interventionist at heart.

Before you pass judgment on Hagel have a read:



The Secretary of Defense Cuts

Potential Obama nominee favors massive defense reductions


http://freebeacon.com/the-secretary-of-defense-cuts/

Potential secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel has expressed support for massive budget cuts that could cripple the Pentagon’s ability to ensure America’s national security, sparking concern among proponents of a robust national defense.

. . .

The likely selection of Hagel has led Democrats and Republicans to express anxiety about what they say are the former senator’s troubling foreign policy views. These positions should disqualify him as a candidate for the nation’s top defense post, they say.

Concerns include his statement that the United States should stay out of war-torn Syria and his support for a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Hagel has also been knocked by the pro-Israel community for his sharp criticism of Israel as well as for advocating direct unconditional talks with Iran.

“If Chuck Hagel has his way, Iran will get nuclear weapons and Israel will be thrown under the bus,” said William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a board member of the Center for American Freedom, which publishes the WFB.

. . .

During his 12-year tenure in the Senate, Hagel adopted foreign policy positions that placed him in the minority of both political parties. His views on a number of critical matters have become even more troubling since that time, sources said.

. . .

Hagel also has taken a tough stance against job creation at the Pentagon.

“Our Defense Department budget, it is not a jobs program,” he stated last year. “It’s not an economic development program for my state or any district.”






The fact is that while other aspects of Hagel's political background might be far right when it comes to defense issues he is to the left of many Democrats.

More importantly he is going to be able to get more cuts through than anyone else.

Finally consider this: This rightwing site quoted above is absolutely terrified of Hagel. They don't think he will get the 60 votes. It may be that they let the Rice proposed nomination hang in the air a longer period than was necessary in order to use up McCain and other's political credit and undermine a certain attack on Hagel.

The case for Hagel boils down to this: He will be the Secretary of Defense Cuts.


Because of a busy work schedule I am unlikely to be able to respond to folks on the thread. Thanks in advance for responses from all different points of view.

The President just gave them more paint and paint brushes.

?

Mssrs, Boehner, McConnell, and Norquist did the rest.

The President offerred them a sweet heart deal last year but they preferred to pass and use it against him in the election, charging that he couldn't get big things done.

They blew their wad and now all the President has to do is wait for the markets to pummel these idiots into sawdust.

The President has many outstanding qualities.

The Republicans are about to realize that they may have way underestimated one of them:

Patience.

Tik Tock, tick tock the minutes are ticking down and you three guys are going to end up giving all Americans a huge tax increase. Since we all know what would happen if that actually happened and that you will eventually fold the longer you wait the less you will get.

Tick tock, tick tock.

DU Exclusive: Paleologos' bizarre behavior at Suffolk U: Incompetent or part of the Gravis Con?

We all have seen the gritty 50's drama about the good hearted fighter who has to raise money to pay for his sister's operation (or some other soap opera twist) and takes a dive for a few bucks.

In the post Citizen's United era the spigots were opened at hundreds of millions of dollars started flowing into SuperPacs and we now know that not all of the money was used to buy ads. Where did some of that money go? Some of it went, as we all know, into a well orchestrated voter suppression campaign. Contractors were caught, voter registration applications were found destroyed but strangely no investigative reporters have gone after the larger question, what was the larger strategy? Who was behind it, who funded it and who implemented it. These are the questions that started with a few burglars at the Watergate apartments and unveiled the vast operations of wide ranging activities headed by Liddy in illegal campaign activities. Will today's reporters live up to the tenacity and courage of those in the 70s?

Among the questionable trends that were detected in the 2012 campaign was the sudden surge of right wing pollsters who came out of nowhere and were providing 30% of the polls in key swing states. In fact one of the pollsters' behavior was so odd that we took an in depth look at the people behind the polls and under the glare of exposure moved the pollster from his position in January to proclaiming that he had been a "manager of national campaigns" to conceding in October that "I am a robo caller, not a pollster".

But that wasn't the only strange behavior of a pollster during the campaign.

In fact another pollster, David Paleologos' (the president of Suffolk University Political Research Center and bearer of the surname of the family that, in this context is extremely fitting, is the last ruling dynasty of the Byzantine Empire) behavior is so strange that questions have to be raised as to his motivation and conduct. These are questions that Suffolk University must address.



First the facts


Suffolk University Polling Results in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida and the actual results;

Virginia

September 26 SUP finds President Obama leading by 2%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/Suffolk_VA_0927.pdf

On November 6 Virginia votes for Obama +3%

North Carolina

No SUP polls, however there are these polls:

Survey USA on October 2nd has the President up by 2.
http://www.wral.com/wral-news-poll--presidential-race-still-tight-in-nc/11615486/

PPP on September 27th has it a tie
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_9301.pdf

On November 6 Romney wins North Carolina by 2.2%

Floria

SUP runs a poll May 6 Showing President Obama +1
http://www.suffolk.edu/images/content/FINAL_WED_FL_Marginals_May_9_2012.pdf

SUP runs a poll September 27th showing President Obama +3
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/Suffolk_FL_1002.pdf

It appears that President Obama is going to win Florida by .5 of the vote



So we have a situation at the end of September where Suffolk University polling is showing the President ahead in Virginia and Florida and other reputable pollsters have NC tied (or Obama slightly ahead).

And then we have this on October 10th



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/suffolk-poll_n_1956115.html

With a little less than a month until the election, one pollster says the race in three battleground states is over for President Barack Obama.

“I think in places like North Carolina, Virginia and Florida, we’ve already painted those red," David Paleologos, the president of Suffolk University Political Research Center told Fox host Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday. "We’re not polling any of those states again. We're focusing on the remaining states.”



Paleologos is clearly lying because his own latest polls showed Obama ahead and where he didn't poll it was basically tied.




In light of this bizarre behavior there was an immediate reaction of astonished disbelief and then laughter at the lunacy of the claims by Suffolk University Pollster.





A sampling

Tampa Bay Times calls Paleologos "Loser of the Week"

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/winner-and-loser-week-fla-politics-110

Loser of the week: Suffolk University pollster David Paleologos. Suffolk is relatively new to Florida polling, and Paleologos bizarrely declared on the Fox News Channel that it would no longer poll in Florida, North Carolina or Virginia, because he is convinced President Barack Obama will lose those states. He clearly has little understanding of Florida, which nobody with a political brain can take for granted.


And this from the New York Magazine

Pollsters Puzzle Over Suffolk’s Decision to Call Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina for Romney


Even Bill O'Reilly couldn't believe what he was hearing: David Paleologos, pollster for Suffolk University, was announcing on Fox News that he was pulling out of Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina for good. Romney, it seems, has them in the bag. "We’ve already painted those red, we’re not polling any of those states again,” Paleologos said.

This is an absolutely bizarre decision on its face. The Real Clear Politics polling average currently shows a tie in Florida, Obama up 0.3 percent in Virginia, and Romney up three in North Carolina. There's still nearly a month left until Election Day. How could a pollster possibly call those states for Romney?

. . .


So Paleologos called Florida for Romney because their most recent poll showed Obama with a shaky lead. We're ... even more confused now.


Looking for some answers, we asked some of Paleologos's fellow pollsters what they thought of the decision. None of them had very flattering things to say.


"I think all three of those states are still toss-ups," Public Policy Polling's Tom Jensen told us. "We’ve already polled Virginia since the debate and Obama was up by 3. I don’t agree with his assessment, and I don’t know why he would have made it without even conducting any polling after the debates."


Gary Langer, who runs the ABC News/Washington Post poll, quipped tartly, "With that kind of foresight, we should find out who he likes in the fifth at Aqueduct."


SurveyUSA CEO Jay Leve was harsher. "This guy from Suffolk is obviously a jackass," he said.




David Paleologos extremely bizarre behavior and attempt to throw three swing states into the Romney camp didn't just happen. Here is the context. Please note from above the last polls done in VA, NC and FL:


On September 12th we predicted that the Romney Campaign (as opposed to the SupePACs) was likely to experience cash problems. Eight days later the New York Times confirmed that the official campaign funds were going dry and the Romney campaign would borrow $ 20 million to make it throught the end of the month:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251102606

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251100097

Things are looking bad for the Romney campaign's finances. It must be frustrating to look over to the SuperPACs that are awash with an ocean of money and not have enough money to pay for the expensive infrastructure of the campaign. Overhead, Rent, Polling, Transportation, Staff and so on, cost tens of millions a month and cannot be subcontracted outside the campaign. Ironically campaign funds are well regulated and transparent. If you don't believe that just ask John Edwards who ran into massive legal problems on a technical question of misusing campaign funds.

Somehow something has to be done to get more direct donations into the Romney campaign, or they will have to take out more loans which like the first one, will be reported.

Now we have the Gravis miracle.

After 7 non Rasmussen polls in a row show Obama ahead in North Carolina. A brand new pollster comes out with a radically different result.

On October 6th Douglas Kaplan presents the Romney campaign with a magicial result North Carolina is now almost double digits for Romney, he's up 9. As the first highligted link shows we have released a number of articles showing that Kaplan has no academic or professional experience in polling and a checkered (to be kind) past. Under scrutiny he admits that he is not a pollster and that some of his polls "are not very good".

But on October 6th these are the numbers that the right wing media has been thirsting for. The media eats it up and the RW blogosphere explodes and Gravis becomes the most quoted pollster on the internet and becomes a production line of favorable state polls. On October 24th Gravis will anoint the Romney campaign with another blessing of a +8 showing. Along with a few happy Rasmussen polls North Carolina is moved to a lock for Romney.

North Carolina is critical because Romney has to switch 4-5 states from Obama 2008. He has Indiana and Missouri and the next one should be North Carolina which the President won by a hair. If he cannot win North Carolina by a large margin he is not going to be able to flip ANY other state.

So the October 6th poll showing a huge swing for Romney will be great news if it can be believed.

Enter David Paleologos' absolutely incomprehensible statement on October 10th in which he disregards his own and other polling and states that NC, VA and FL are not only going for Romney by large margins (which none did) but that the margins are so wide that no other polling is even necessary.

My, my what a wonderful set of circumstances that show a complete reversal of fortunes for Romney (and which we know by the election day results are completely untrue) that triggers a flow of new contributions back to the campaign.

Just as Kaplan has been discredited it is now appears that David Paleologos was part of a larger con.

Of course we 'could' be wrong and that David Paleologos is, like Kaplan, just an incompetent pollster that happens to produce statements that save Romney's ass.

Part of a conspiracy to create a false meme to help a campaign or utterly incompetent, in the words of another pollster, a jackass, which do you think fits, David?

This is the question that we will be addressing to Suffolk University, the trustees, the administration, the faculty and the students.

Why would you keep a professor that is either corrupt or incompetent.

When James Keefe III pulled his fast one on ACORN we weren't fooled but we were slow.

Fool us once shame on us. Fool us twice and we organize.

We will be following up to bring the bright light of DU onto the incompetent and/or corrupt pollster David Paleologos in our next article. In this case the offense is on many levels. We have an academic using his position to spread false information on the behalf of a campaign and go on partisan media to promote it. But it goes even more than that because David Paleologos didn't just work with bad data he tried to shut down lines of inquiry. This is absolutely unacceptable in any self respecting academic institution and violates everything that a University stands for. It must be held accountable.

Last time we had a number of people join DU and provide us confidential material. We checked it against numerous sources and when verified released it. To date none of the essential facts have been disputed. If anyone reading this has inside information and would like to share it you can join DU and send me DUmail and maintain your confidentiality. We had numerous members of the Gravis Working Group who we only identified by a number and whose real names I never learned.

For the record: The New York Times and Nate Silver have not responded to any of the facts that we have brought forth about Douglas Kaplan and his own admission that "(he) is not a pollster" hopefully by painting a larger context they will see the significance and do their duty.

The time has come to take the (D) off of PPP Polling.

One of the frustrations of the last campaign season was the designation of various polling. Gravis was never identified as R even when it issued polls which gave Romney huge leads in the swing states of CO, VA and NC.

PPP on the other hand seemed to have the most accurate polling. It labeled NC as a tie when Gravis was giving Romney an 8+ advantage. PPP is always identified as a Democratic polling firm because they are frequently hired by Democrats. And yet in 2010 they went against the pack in predicting first that Brown would take Kennedy's seat.

Fordham University examined and ranked the various polling. The most accurate pollster was PPP. PPP therefore has to be considered the baseline and from that point all other pollsters you would either fall in the range of error or show a consistent R or D bias. The pollster who is identified as the most accurate cannot be categorized as having a bias, by definition. PPP is the only pollster that cannot be given either a D or R.

The fact that the most accurate pollster is usually hired by Democrats, or that they are run by Democrats, or that they make the most sense to Democrats doesn't mean that PPP leans Democratic it means that Democrats lean to objectivity.

The media should stop attaching 'D' to PPP, they are only embarrassing themselves.





http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll_accuracy_2012_presidential_election_110712.pdf


Fordham Ranks the accuracy of various pollsters.


1. PPP (D)*
1. Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP*
3. YouGov*
4. Ipsos/Reuters*
5. Purple Strategies
6. NBC/WSJ
6. CBS/NYT
6. YouGov/Economist
9. UPI/CVOTER
10. IBD/TIPP
11. Angus-Reid*
12. ABC/WP*
13. Pew Research*
13. Hartford Courant/UConn*
15. CNN/ORC
15. Monmouth/SurveyUSA
15. Politico/GWU/Battleground
15. FOX News
15. Washington Times/JZ Analytics
15. Newsmax/JZ Analytics
15. American Research Group
15. Gravis Marketing
23. Democracy Corps (D)*
24. Rasmussen
24. Gallup
26. NPR
27. National Journal*

Magic Presto How DU moved a pollster 5 points to the left.

Don't have a lot of time but quickly two general points on the polling and prediction results. DU group wisdom was better than most of the punditry. North Carolina was largely written off as either a solid Romney or Lean Romney State. It was not. It was, until late in the night, a tossup state. It was the only toss up state that the President didn't win.

Here are the percents of difference in the 6 closest races (from CNN totals)

Florida .56 %
Ohio 1.92%
North Carolina 2.17 %
Virginia 2.96%
Colorado 4.3 %
New Hampshire 5.4%

We were right that North Carolina should have been ruled a toss up, within the MOE and not a lean Romney state, even though he did take it, the only swing state that went his way.

How DU Moved a pollster 5 points to the left

At a time when Romney was looking like he was going to lose every single swing state, and major media is recording that there is a sudden down turn in money coming into the Romney campaign a new pollster emerges and gives encouraging numbers showing Romney walking away in North Carolina, Virginia and Colorado. His numbers go into the averages, right wing bloggers rejoice and, apparently the money starts flowing into the Romney campaign again.

But many DUers call bullshit. And some ripples go out across the web. Astonishingly the owner, Douglas Kaplan (later to be known as Douglas "I am not a pollster" Kaplan) joins DU to defend his company. His responses are uninformed, weak and, remarkably, Kaplan is tossed off the site as an uninformed troll, not even meeting the admittedly low bar we have for trolls here.

Curiosity is raised and I launch an intensive long drawn out 27 minute investigation of Gravis while I am watching Matt Damon try to figure out for the 8th time why he was in Germany killing someone and why does everyone keep calling him Jason Bourne. Using the advanced investigative techniques that escape the New York Times and the rest of the media I take the extraordinary steps of clicking on Gravis Marketing. I then use the seldom used "Google" feature (if you are not familiar with it "Google" google and it will tell you more). This brings up a radio interview and I leave Matt Damon in his confused state and listen while doing paper work. When they get to the heart of the interview Kaplan remarks that the South Carolina's significance in the Republican Primary was because South Carolina "was the first state to leave the Union" and that's when I knew that this guy who presents himself as someone who has managed "national presidential and state campaigns" was in fact a buffoon of limited education or self awareness.

More investigation followed and on October 7th DU ran this thread to the head of the class stating, perhaps still a little too restrained and subtle for Major Media "DU Exclusive: Gravis Marketing exposed as a fraud" http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021489250

It goes out over the internet and various other sites pick it up.

And then a miracle happens.

Those states where Gravis Marketing shows Romney walking away before the DU expose suddenly jump back to the left by 5 points.

In fact Colorado jumps back in just a few days.

Let's look at the "DU Effect" on Gravis results (as sourced by polls listed with Silver)

North Carolina before DU (10/6) Gravis had North Carolina at 8.7% for Romney after DU expose Gravis pulled it down to 4.0 and the final result showed that the Pre DU Gravis was off by 6.7%

Virginia before DU (9/9) had Romney +5.3 and after DU expose Virginia was a tie (10/26) and the final result showed that the Pre DU Gravis was off by 8.2%

Colorado before DU (10/4) had Romney up 3.5% and AA supporting Romney over Obama and just one week later PRESTO (10/11) Gravis found a massive move to Obama who was now up 2.4% and the AA community had changed their minds back to supporting the President. Gravis' pre DU expose poll would be 8.8% the final result.

So to all of those FReepers, Cave Dwellers and Right Wing nut jobs that just rushed over and gave Kaplan a big embrace, we caught him red handed in the act and everything that we have said about Kaplan, and his past has been proven true. You can hire as many schmucks as you want to put lipstick on a pig but it is still just lipstick on a pig.

So while we got the pollster to jump back 5 points it should be noted that his pre DU expose numbers were 6.7 to 8.8% off the final result (Human events how do you like those numbers. Do you still consider that 'bullying'?)

Oh yeah and all of those toss up swing states that you reached in and got your hard earned money and threw it at the incredibly rich Romney so that he could appear to be competitive in for absolutely no effect?

He lost them all except NC, which was a cliff hanger.

We were right and you were duped.

Oh and one more thing, FOUR MORE YEARS.


Full index on Gravis Polls here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021568200

Toasting the person most responsible for taking Romney and his money down:



The unknown man or woman who taped Romney with his fundraisers.

Whoever you are we are very grateful.

If you ever reveal yourself you will never be able to buy yourself another drink or meal in public for the rest of your life.

Mitt you could have been a contender but you opened your mouth at the wrong time and
let everyone see what you are really all about, so close, so sad.



Good summary by ABC news.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/recorded-mitt-romney/story?id=17266676



Before a May 17 fundraising dinner at a Florida mansion, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told the reporters who'd been tailing him on the campaign trail that he was sorry they couldn't follow him inside.

"Too bad you can't come to the fundraisers," Romney told reporters.

While the journalists were left outside, however, someone inside the lavishly catered dinner decided to do a little freelance reporting, creating the latest viral recording to jar a national political campaign.

A camera secretly recorded Romney from a serving table at the edge of the room as he addressed an audience of 40 or 50 at the $50,000-a-plate event, delivering remarks that would make headlines four months later. Romney dismissed Obama supporters as entitled "victims."

"There are 47 percent who are with him," said Romney, "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21 Next »