Obama's advantage, bigger in this poll than in most other national surveys, appears to stem in large part from his positions on domestic issues. Both Democrats and independent voters say Obama would do a better job than McCain at handling the nation's economic problems, the public's top concern.

In contrast, many voters give McCain credit as the more experienced candidate and the one best equipped to protect the nation against terrorism -- but they rank those concerns below their worries about the economy

The only place McCain really has any traction on Obama is on the question of National Security. Once more people clue into wot an absolute nightmare McNasty would be as CiC his numbers can only go lower.

Be Well.

RCP's latest aggregate poll includes this latest Times/ Bloomberg poll and has Obama up by 7.5 points.

Time for the swiftboating to begin!

Gotta play the race/muslim/fear cards in earnest.

The question is will Skeletor Chertoff allow the Dept of Homeland Security to lie to the American public like Tommy Ridge did in 2004?

Does this mean we can stop crucifying Ralph Nader?

For some reason, I doubt it. peace.

"Does this mean we can stop crucifying Ralph Nader?"

Not if he keeps climbing up on that cross with a hammer and nails.

He dies a little of you.

Okay. I gotta admit, as if it's any mystery, I got really pissed at Nader in 2004.

"For some reason, I doubt it. peace."

You're probably right. One of the most principled and incorruptile political figures in American politics will be forever trashed by Democratic party hacks.

incorruptible

Yes--And I emailed Doyle McManus and asked him to tell me the breakdown of the number of Democrats, number of Republicans, and number of Independents, and Men and Women, polled for the interview.

I'll let you know--you can ask him yourself--at the bottom of the article is his email.

They didn't bother to link their PDF doc to show the breakdown of the people they polled.

They very likely did the same thing done for the Newsweek poll.

They polled almost a 100 more Dems than Repubs for the poll to skew the results.

It's a sham and they should be ashamed. But the media is in the tank for Obama--so lie lie lie!

Murphy, I thought you were against affirmative action. They should have also found the same number of Whigs, Green Party Members, and Satanists. (I don't think that's a word)

Murph, one more thing. Were you being serious or sarcastic with your last post?

"It's a sham and they should be ashamed. But the media is in the tank for Obama--so lie lie lie!"

Delicious irony.

But back to the poll issue.

Can you explain to us your understanding of the science of statistics as it applies to opinion polling, and why you seem to believe that the number and nature of respondents is not mathematically factored into the equation?

Bwahahahahaha

They polled almost a 100 more Dems than Repubs for the poll to skew the results.

To skew the results? Somebody keep Murph away from sharp objects.

They did write this, in the article:

In this national poll's random sample of voters, 39% identified themselves as Democrats, 22% as Republicans, and 27% as independents. In a similar poll a year ago, 33% identified themselves as Democrats, 28% as Republicans, and 30% as independents.

San--you just know I am right on this issue.

The Newsweek poll skewed the results by polling almost a 100 more Dems than Repubs.

Not very honest.

And you want to know the true kicker here?

Newsweek did the same exact shit in 2004 with Kerry and Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Too mush fun!!

Actually, I think he posted the same thing somewhere the other day. It is amazing the stupidity on this site sometimes. Murph, last chance. Please tell me you were just joking.

so can anyone remember so many polls so long before the conventions have even finished?

"Can you explain to us your understanding of the science of statistics as it applies to opinion polling..."

So your answer is no.

And here's a clue for you... saying "just so you know I am right" does not make it so.

What I have been trying to get across to you is that there is a science statistics as applies to poll data. Unless you understand that science and methodology, there is no way anyone, you included, can just look at raw data and interpret it vis-a-vis the outcome.

Thanks YAV!!

So they appear to have polled 17% more Dems than Repubs for the poll!

Don't you see that if they polled the same--like they do at Gallup and Real Clear and other repudible organizations the gap would be much closer.

What do you think the result would be if they polled 17% more Repubs than Dems for the poll????

And what would you guys say if that kind of poll came out with McCain up 13 points ahead of Obama?

So they appear to have polled 17% more Dems than Repubs for the poll!

In case you hadn't noticed dems voted 3to1 or 2to1 over the republicans.

Dummy.

San--I took Stats in college--Yes!

The thing with numbers is that they speak for themselves.

I checked your source Murph. Why don't you read below the article and see everyone making fun of it. In a statistical poll, you select votes at random. Its not a football game where you have the same amount of players on each team.

"San--I took Stats in college--Yes!"

Refresher course needed desperately.

Alex--that doesn't cut it--

And if you want to get really picky here--they should be polling likely voters.

They will get to that at some point.

So Alex--what was the voting patterns of Dems and Repubs in 2004 when Newsweek did the same damn thing--polling more Dems than Repubs in 2004 poll???

Hmmmmmmmmm????

This is painful.

There is no way you took statistics. If so, where did you go to college. Maybe it was one of those evangelical schools where math and science are a bunch of "fooey".

So Ben--why are all the other polls so close?

Why are they not showing 15 point leads?

Newsweek and LA Times do the same thing every cycle--

Hey Obama is actually behind--They had Dukakis and Kerry ahead by 19 points at this time ...

Polls mean squat

So Alex--what was the voting patterns of Dems and Repubs in 2004 when Newsweek did the same damn thing--polling more Dems than Repubs in 2004 poll???

Hmmmmmmmmm????

Way smaller than it is now. Your Boy, W, has really fucked your ideological party up.

And don't give me this "im a dem" crap. You look, sound, and smell like a W republican in every thread. Right down to the ignorant reasoning and apathy towards your own ass getting kicked 24/7.

I took statistics in college, and I'm fairly certain you did too.

About 20 years ago.

Its a friggin random poll. Good God man. Do you really not get it.

There are more Ds than Rs. More Ds than Rs will vote. Almost all Ds will vote for Obama. It's that simple.

"So Ben--why are all the other polls so close?"

They're not. Newsweek has him up by 15, and the average is 7.5.

Please look at the number of Dems in the country to the number of Repubes. The Dems have a very large advantage. If random samples were taken and the Dem to Thug numbers didn't come out this way there would be a problem.

Extreme Example: Lets say you want to see who would get more votes in November between McCain and whoever the Green Party candidate is. Would you go out and find 100 Repubes and 100 G party voters?

If you did, do you think it would be a correct example of the nation's views?

Its a friggin random poll. Good God man. Do you really not get it.

There are more Ds than Rs. More Ds than Rs will vote. Almost all Ds will vote for Obama. It's that simple.

Posted by tigerbalm at 2008-06-25 12:03 AM | Reply | Flag

No shit.

If it wasn't a random poll McBush's #'s would be even worse. yet somehow, murphy is spinning this as an inevitable obama loss.

She might be right for a totally different reason. If people are, on average, this fucking stupid...McCain is our next president.

I am perplexed. I keep on hearing GOP pundits saying the republican party is best equiped to defend this country. Well who was in power when 911 took place, thats right the Republicans. Any ideas here?

Damn, now I am starting to feel bad for Murph. That bleeding heart is starting to act up again.

I swear to god...what happened to the educated, intelligent, and well reasoned conservatives in this country?

Did they all commit mass suicide at some point

All of the intelligent ones changed their mind.

" If people are, on average, this fucking stupid..."

I believe it was the late, great George Carlin who said

"Ya know how stupid the average person is? Well, half the population is dumber than him!"

Most of the intelligent conservatives went into hiding, because of embarrassment. With people like Murphy and Nanc speaking for them, what else could they do?

Danforth- Always disagreed with Carlin on that point in the past. He was more negative than I, which was part of the appeal for me. Most cynics have no sense of humor, let alone one as good as his.

Anyway...after 8 years of W, and 4 years HERE reading "ideas" from the some of the stupidest, bigoted, sexist, elitist-wannabee right wingers on this site...not only do I think Carlin was probably right, but he didn't go far enough.

We're into Mencken territory now.

If you want to skew the result you mess with the numbers--you mess with the individuals being polled.

Is that not correct? If you oversample a demographic you can skew the results.

And we all know that Newsweek and LA Times are so objective.

Alex--go ahead with the name calling --it is so you!

And you can't answer the question--so keep on deflecting.

They did the same crap in 2004 and the demographics were not supported to poll a 100 more Dems than Repubs.

Elecoral-vote.com

It looks like McCain will need to win 3 out of 4 of WI, PA, OH and FL to take the nomination. He could also win by one vote if he landed PA, FL and VA.

With people like Murphy and Nanc speaking for them, what else could they do?

I dunno -- the left has celery, bbob and redneckville and they don't seem to scare the rest of their ilk away.

If you oversample a demographic you can skew the results.

Which they didn't. And it has been explained to you repeatedly in several different ways.

There are more dems than repubs now in quite large numbers, because W destroyed his party. Any random sample is going to reflect that, whether you like it or not.

LEARN, GOD DAMN YOU! OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES AND READ!

celery, bbob and redneckville

All of whom are about 50 times smarter than the right wing list. Bob is just crazy, and frankly, he's had more libbies take the piss outta him over the years than righties.

We generally ignore him now, since we've all had a turn with him.

Alex--I hear what you guys are saying and I am pointing out that the poll is suspect and skewed--on purpose to get the result they want.

And what about the thousands of folks who signed up as Dems because of Operation Chaos--I know you hate to hear that one!

This country was split in 2004 and it is the same this time around except with machinations from Rush Limbaugh.

And why would they poll the same number of Independents --if your statement was correct?

There certainly are not the same number or percentage of Independents as Republicans in the populace.

Just asking??

LEARN, GOD DAMN YOU! OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES AND READ!

I almost spit up root beer when I read this. It reminded me of Adam Sandler for some reason. Or, maybe some demented "The more you know" education commercial on NBC.

Nov 5 will be a bunch of fun !

All of whom are about 50 times smarter than the right wing list

Typical knee jerk reaction (and expected of you, of course) but there are some very intelligent people on both ends of teh political spectrum here.

I never judged the lefties here by the likes of redneckville and celery, but if you tell me they are indicative of the party, all I can do is wipe my brow, say *whew*, and be glad I am not a member.

And I am not trying to put down how many Dems there are who were voting in the primary. It was way over the Repubs in just about every state.

It usually is fo rthe party out of power. But the Dems are fired up.

Soooo--why would they poll the same number of Independents --if your statement was correct?

There certainly are not the same number or percentage of Independents as Republicans in the populace.

And I am not trying to put down how many Dems there are who were voting in the primary. It was way over the Repubs in just about every state.

It usually is for the party out of power. But the Dems are fired up.

Soooo--why would they poll the same number of Independents --if your statement was correct?

There certainly are not the same number or percentage of Independents as Republicans in the populace.

Sorry for the double post.

Nov 5 will be a bunch of fun !

BUt until then, this place will be a mind-numbing arena of meaningless polls, statistics, he said/he saids, and worst of all -- race baiting.

And then when Obama loses the country will be called racist.

"and 4 years HERE reading "ideas" from the some of the stupidest, bigoted, sexist, elitist-wannabee right wingers on this site..."

I'm not a fan of the nutzoids on either side, but some of the statements from the righties makes me wonder how I ever even leaned that way. A few on the left are that way, too, but nothing comes close to the abject stupidity, bigotry, and/or racism of some of our right-wing resident Village Idiots.

Well who was in power when 911 took place, thats right the Republicans. Any ideas here?

Posted by JoeLabey at 2008

okay lets go through this again.

september 11, 2001......lets see now....thats about 7 or 8 months after bush took over....and during clintons 8 years of harrasing interns and destroying the military AND the intelligence units, we had all sorts of attacks INCLUDING the first attack on the WTC......and all that did was to show them that america would not respond....UNTIL we elected a man with the courage to show them otherwise......terrorists that is....of any nationality or stripe whether they were in on 9/11 or not......
AND even with all of that, we on the right have said countless times that the ball was dropped by both....and the left convienently forgets clintons part in all of this......

but there are some very intelligent people on both ends of teh political spectrum here.

Of course there are, but once again, you read what you wish to read.

I said the left wing crackpots are 50 times smarter than the right wing crackpots. But you always read the worst in what people write, then end up apologizing for it later.

Personally, I think it's because you spend too much time conversing with Bob. That would fuck my viewpoint up too.

That said, most of the uber intelligent and honest righties that were members here before you came along..left in what I can guess was embarrassment. All I hear now is the same debunked talking points over and over again. I miss the old right wingers.

"There certainly are not the same number or percentage of Independents as Republicans in the populace."

There are more Independents than Republicans.

Pew - March 2008

Democrat = 36%
Republican = 27%
Independent = 37%

Of 37% Independents 15% leaning Democrat, 10% leaning Republican.

Whoops, my poll was from June 1, 2007. I'll update my info.

A few on the left are that way, too, but nothing comes close to the abject stupidity, bigotry, and/or racism of some of our right-wing resident Village Idiots.

Posted by Danforth at 2008-06-25 12:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

I know. It's really amazing. For every "prisonplanet" lefty moron, we get 10 "world net daily" righties. It's gotten worse as time has passed.

The conservatives in my family are good honest people. I wish they'd post here.

I never judged the lefties here by the likes of redneckville and celery, but if you tell me they are indicative of the party, all I can do is wipe my brow, say *whew*, and be glad I am not a member.

Yep! I never judge the righties here by the likes of Goatman because I certainly know that there are by far more righties with better founded understanding of the issues who are actually able to converse in a willing open minded crossing of words way.

"And then when Obama loses the country will be called racist."

Fortunately, we won't have the opportunity to test your theory.

???

Sorry, Alex:

I said the left wing crackpots are 50 times smarter than the right wing crackpots.

=/=

All of whom are about 50 times smarter than the right wing list.

If you made the "crackpot" statement elsewhere, I missed it and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Thank you Ben--but with a 6 point over for the Dems--why does the poll include 17% more Dems over Repubs polled?

And for the Newsweek poll--assuming they did the same kind of thinking--how does 6 points equate to almost 100 Dem voters being polled than Repubs?

Both polls oversampled the Dems.

"There certainly are not the same number or percentage of Independents as Republicans in the populace."

The obvious answer is there are folks who used to call themselves Republicans, can't do that now due to Bush&Co, and don't want to call themselves Democrats.

"I took Stats in college"

I hope next time you pass it.

Murphy- 3 in 10 people ADMIT to being racist.

Admit.

But you always read the worst in what people write, then end up apologizing for it later.

Actually, I read what is written, then you come back, completely change the words (and meaning) and accuse me of "reading what I want to read" just as happened above.

Whatever, alex.

However, unlike me, you don't apologize.

That said, most of the uber intelligent and honest righties that were members here before you came along..left in what I can guess was embarrassment

Usually people leave because they are bored. I can see how the uber intelligent would be bored here.

My word Murphy, do you understand the definition of RANDOM?

It would not be random if they tried to equal the party affiliation.

Yep! I never judge the righties here by the likes of Goatman...

Once in a rare while you actully get it correct.

Looking at San's data, and including the independent leanings, it looks like the breakdown should be 51 to 37.

Thats a 14 percentage point margin. Pretty close to the poll.

Usually people leave because they are bored. I can see how the uber intelligent would be bored here.

Yes, so can I and apparently you are not one of them.

"Thank you Ben--but with a 6 point over for the Dems--why does the poll include 17% more Dems over Repubs polled?"

If you take the more recent Pew figures, and add the Independent leaners to each party, you have about a 15 pt. difference. Maybe not so skewed afterall.

Alex--that is awful--I guess the bright side is that it used to be much worse--and we are moving in the right direction.

Yes Dan--I passed with a B...

And I said I recognized what you guys are pointing out.

And for the questions I posted above--these two polls have oversampled Dems. Even by your own percentage to sample.

I gotta go--

Early day tomorrow--later..

Oops - Ben's right. 14 pts.

I have apologized to many people, goat. No one apologizes to you...because you unfairly antagonize the shit out of them, and treat them like they're buffalo bob. We're not all Bob, goatman.

I was talking about the right wing loony list and comparing it to the left wing loony list. Danforth got it. Is he a genius compared to you?

Yes, so can I and apparently you are not one of them.

That's true. I've never claimed to be intelligent, have I, einstein? I'll be the first to admit that there are many, many people far smarter than I.

Sorry if your little attempt at an insult didn't work as planned

Is he a genius compared to you?

Apparently. That and $4 will get him coffee at Starbucks.

Congrats, danforth!

Murphy- And I said I recognized what you guys are pointing out.

And didn't change your "the poll is unfair because..." talking points. Recognizing the other viewpoint would mean changing your own to fit reality.

Goatman is nothing but an intentional ass who purposely tries to antagonize even when understanding the meanings behind the posts.

Nothing but a grumpy old prick at the finest.

Alex, if you are so far above stupid ole me, you would have figured out having read a year of my postings that I am a literalist. I'll bet Danforth has that figured out, too. Why don't you?

So next time you don't have to be so surprised when you try to compare two different statements and I challenge it

"Goatman is nothing but an intentional ass who purposely tries to antagonize even when understanding the meanings behind the posts."

That sums up the Whobbster as well.

I can see how the uber intelligent would be bored here.

I can understand that too.

Goat, I want to make it clear that I do not think you are as bad as Whobby.

OK, I feel better.

Goatman is nothing but an intentional ass who purposely tries to antagonize even when understanding the meanings behind the posts.

So are you condescendingly saying your DR friends are too stupid to figure that and it takes a big brain like you to point it out to them? Or are you being boringly redundant by pointing out the obvious because you can't think of any other thing to say?

Either way, you look like a loser.

Sorry if your little attempt at an insult didn't work as planned

Work? Planned?

I was just stating the facts.

No you are not intelligent, just an average gumpy guy, and your prickish attitude just makes that all the more difficult in actually giving you any type of credit.

So next time you don't have to be so surprised when you try to compare two different statements and I challenge it

Posted by goatman at 2008-06-25 12:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's your dishonesty and pettiness that surprises me, really.

Go fuck with bob. He's an easy mark if you're bored and looking for a fight.

No you are not intelligent, just an average gumpy guy, and your prickish attitude just makes that all the more difficult in actually giving you any type of credit.

Thank you for telling me everything I already know about myself, runnysore.

Keep on stating the obvious. It is amusing as per my 1:01

Go fuck with bob. He's an easy mark if you're bored and looking for a fight.

Gotta admit, every once in a while, it's fun tapping on the glass at the zoo.

Alex misses Horace for that very purpose.

It's your dishonesty and pettiness that surrises me, really.

I've rarely -- if ever -- have been dishonest on this blog. However stooping to the level of the likes of you and runnysore is indeed an excellent example of how petty I can be.

1 outta 2 ain't bad for you, Alex. .500 is a lot better than runnysore is batting at this point.

Alex misses Horace for that very purpose.

And Tadowe.

I miss Tadowe. Is he ever coming back on here?
Late nights aren't the same without him.

... makes that all the more difficult in actually giving you any type of credit.

To receive credit from you would be the insult you have been trying to dish out to me tonight. I mean, what is more insulting: To receive a compliment from a cretin or from someone who actually has a brain?

Thank you for not blessing me with your accolades, runnysore.

"Congrats, danforth!"

Well, not really a fair fight, but...I'm flattered nonetheless.

Alex misses Horace for that very purpose.

Posted by Whatsleft at 2008-06-25 01:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hilarious. I actually found some old horace threads, and I can't believe you guys ever worshipped that little drama queen.

He would post to himself about 15 times in a row attacking Bill or I then claim victory and leave. Tad is a lunatic.

Goat- Bob misses you. Go play with him.

I miss a lot of people who don't come around anymore. Along with all the tripe, a lot more good honest discourse used to go on here.

will admit...

I miss tadowe. I actually thought about him in the real world the other day, which is unusual for me. (but he compared me to the nazis, so it sticks in your head)

I honestly feel really badly for the guy. When the republicans picked mccain, and the dems only had obama and hillary, it must have hit him SO incredibly hard...

He thought obama and hillary were marxists, and mccain was a traitor! Not only did he likely jump out a window, but probably crawled up the stairs to do it again. Poor guy.

Also missing:

The Perfect storm.
FDR Democrat.
Fastman.
(and that guy that was MENSA. Boxitch used to follow him around and go crazy)
Dr. Know it all.

(and that guy that was MENSA. Forgot his name. Boxitch used to follow him around and go crazy)

I can't believe you guys ever worshipped that little drama queen.

I don't know who you're referring to. He actually nauseated me, but I know you enjoyed messing with his sanity (or lack there-of).

Sorry, whatsleft. Misread your post.

Bill O Nullifidian screwed with horace more than I ever did.

Goat- Bob misses you. Go play with him.

Bob is getting too boring. You aren't quite there yet, Alex.

Runnysore is far beyond that point, however. Like a train (and montecore, btw) he is appallingly predictible.

I never thought about it until now: Montecore, Moneywar. Each 3 syllables, first syllable starting with "mon", phonetically identical middle syllable, rhyming last syllable, each with the IQ of an artichoke, and each one pops up without provocation to hurl lame insults at me.

Maybe you are right, Alex. I better go find bbob. Only he would be able to get to the real story here.

Sorry I won't play your little game, goat.

Do you remember someone that called himself Swift? That guy was the absolute king of economic debate. I wish he'd come back for this election year.

He would post to himself about 15 times in a row attacking Bill or I then claim victory and leave.

Horace's most successful debates were actually with himself.

Sorry I won't play your little game, goat.

???

I better go find bbob. Only he would be able to get to the real story here.

LOL

was there a game? Horace was a pretty good debater

Horace was a pretty good debater

Posted by messiah at 2008-06-25 01:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

ROFL...

Horace was a pretty good debater

Sure he was JA. (rolls eyes) Do you still correspond with him?

Messiah -- you said you did 7/7 on a land rig. I always wondered how those worked. Was there a "tent city" (not literally tents of course) at a remote drilling site?

"Horace's most successful debates were actually with himself."

In that realm, a master debater.

At least...that's what I heard.

there was what a structure set up like an aluminum shed. we each had a cot and wooden chest with a lock to store our crap. Only did it 4 months and joined the military.

BTW Horace told me he had never lost a debate. who else can say that?

Horace is long gone probably honing young legal minds.

BTW Horace told me he had never lost a debate. who else can say that?

Posted by messiah at 2008-06-25 01:58 AM | Reply

Anyone can SAY anything.

these two polls have oversampled Dems

~Murphy.

Did Murphy totally miss out noticing the MASSIVE Dem turnout in the Primaries especially in comparison to the GOPhers?

Really?

* Tee Hee *

"Voters are showing up at Democratic primaries and caucuses in record numbers, doubling, tripling or even quadrupling the turnout totals recorded in the last fully contested two-party election in 2000. Overall, Democrats have so far outnumbered Republicans at primary polling places by a rate of about 7 to 5.

Horace lost as least two debates Messiah.

Hahahahahaha, you saw both.

But he was far above this average riff raff.

Horace is long gone probably honing young legal minds.

I don't know whether to flag that funny or newsworthy.

I think I'll sleep on it.

Oh look 2/3's of the founding members of the PWZ.

Good night.

Horace is long gone probably honing young legal minds.

So alberto gonzales finally found a job, eh?

Horace worked as a law prof for a university. I verified it.

Horace worked as a law prof for a university. I verified it.

Posted by messiah at 2008-06-25 02:16 AM | Reply | Flag

If a new generation of lawyers comes out that all screech like 10 year olds on a sugar high, then I'll know you're right.

Fuck...now I'm not gonna be sleeping tonight.

"Horace is long gone probably boning young legal hinds.

~Messy

Fixed That Fer Ya.

Be Well.

The Newsweek poll skewed the results by polling almost a 100 more Dems than Repubs.

Not very honest.

And you want to know the true kicker here?

Newsweek did the same exact shit in 2004 with Kerry and Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Too mush fun!!

www.libertypost.org

Posted by MURPHY a

Murphy you really are an dolt, plain and simple. Can you not grasp the concept that if there are MORE democrats in a population, then a RANDOM sample would have MORE dmeocrats in it. Making it 50-50 would be "skwing" the results, since it would give repubs more representation in the POLL than they have in the POPULATION.

You really should go for a little more depth in your undersatnding of concepts.

Like I really believe this poll. Give me a break.

murphy is too stupid to understand random sampling

Well that was a quick return JimmyMacaroon.

FACT!

By the way, James Dean seems an appropriate moniker for you since he was a bisexual masochist.

Good on ya, son!

"...the poll is a sham by the MSM that is in bed with B Hussein O."

I don't know why I keep considering it my sacred duty to set shit like this straight. The poll is scientifically and statistically valid. The MSM is owned by corporations who are hardly in bed with Democrats. The MSM is no longer the mere stenographer for the problem, it IS the problem. And B Hussein O? Well, I suppose Barney O'Bama's middle name will ever be a Big Deal for the Great Unwashed, along with the canard that this Congregationalist is a Muslim and the worst they can find on his, that his grannie once attended a "left-leaning" Unitarian church. herm

"The MSM is owned by corporations who are hardly in bed with Democrats."

Posted by herm

MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

The facts seem at odds with your opinion.

Freddy - how many newspaper owners (you know, the bosses) are either Republicans or corporations? For instance, do you honestly believe that GE is liberal?

I always get so close to winning arguments then someone says something and put FACT!! at the end of it and I automatically lose.

Cause, if it says FACT it must be true. Foiled again.

Doyle McManus replied to my email--

Dear Murphy:

Thanks for your question.

Our sample was 57% female, 43% male. (The electorate includes more women than men.)

In this national poll's random sample of voters, 39% identified themselves as Democrats, 22% as Republicans and 27% as independents. In a similar poll a year ago, 33% identified themselves as Democrats, 28% as Republicans and 30% as independents.

Please note that this question is not about how people are registered. It's about how voters identify themselves when asked:"Regardless of your party registration or how you have voted in the past, do you think of yourself today as a Democrat, or a Republican, or an independent, or as something else?"

The answers to that question often ebb and flow depending on the popularity of each political party. After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, for example, when President Bush's popularity soared, the number of voters who described themselves as Republicans rose as well. During the last three years, as Bush's popularity has slumped, the number of voters who describe themselves as Republicans has also dropped.

There's a long-running debate among pollsters on how to handle the ebbs and flows. In one camp, you go out and poll a random sample, and report whatever number you get. (We're in that purist camp.) In the other camp, you "adjust" the sample to bring it closer to whatever number you think is the right one -- but that means the pollster is inserting his/her judgment into the process.

And there's a margin of error -- in this case, plus or minus three. So our 2007 poll with 28% Republicans and our 2008 poll with 22% Republicans could reflect "real" numbers that were constant at 25%. Again, those aren't registration numbers; they are "how do you think of yourself" numbers.

Thanks again for writing. Best wishes,

Doyle McManus

Since he did not provide the answer to the actual numbers, I sent another email with the questions again.

In case anyone is wondering--I took out my first name on the email reply.

Don't want crazies here on the DR to know me. Sorry...

Here is the reply--no numbers have to figure from the percentages

FreddyK: Yes, surely working journalists, people who deal with the events of the day would tend to be progressives. How could they not look at the human side?

But their views mean nothing - sorry, "don't mean shit" - when those who sign their paychecks are rigid righties. The corporations that run the paper will always have the last word. herm

Wow. Just wow. I admire all of you who tried so hard to get through Murphy's thick skull on this. You are saints to try to help the helpless among us.

Murphy - did you hear about the latest poll? 9 out of 10 people said that they were not in favor of eating Iraqi babies in order to save future American lives. But the poll was obviously invalid, because they polled 90% more people who were opposed to eating Iraqi babies than they polled those in favor of eating Iraqi babies.

How come the AOL poll of 300,000 plus votes put McCain ahead of Obama 53% to 40%. How many people were polled by the LA times, 800?

"How come the AOL poll of 300,000 plus votes put McCain ahead of Obama 53% to 40%."

Simple. It's an unscientific poll.

Not that I expect you to understand what that means.

Unscien-what, Danforth?

Could you spell it again for me, but slower this time?

Ozzie

DANIFORD: There is nothing that the LA Times does that is scientific. It is all political bais. PS for your information a new press release indicates Obama is NOT a natualized US citizen. What are you libs going to do now. Nominate Fat Ass?

"PS for your information a new press release indicates Obama is NOT a natualized US citizen. "

Oh shit!!! What is Obama going to do now!?!

"PS for your information a new press release indicates Obama is NOT a natualized US citizen. "

Fer yer information John McCain is really a Panamanian.

Be Well.

PS for your information a new press release indicates Obama is NOT a natualized US citizen.

The obama haters are getting really desperate.

Oh shit!!! What is Obama going to do now!?!

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-06-25 10:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Beat McCain like he owes him money.

This poll and the Newsweek poll are outlier polls.

And they are spelling it wrong--

It should be OutLIAR polls..

There needs to be more polls that have these results to have validity.

They're on the way, you can bet on it.

The ObamaRama Rocks On.

I wonder what Murphy thinks of the polls that predicted the Democrats would win congress back in 2006? That they were wrong?

Here's the poll I like.

Obama 328 McCain 183 Ties 27

It's called the electoral college. Ever heard of it? I hear that it's fairly important.

Obama is winning 61% to 34%

What do you call that? Asswhoopin'? Yeah that's is, asswoopin'.

H8rT8r is a canuckian...so wot? it's not like anything he has to say is of any import, anyhoo...fuck that taterhead....

Stoopid Neocommie....

Well then is must be true, Jimmy James MacDean.

FACT!

Posted by James_Dean

What's more annoying, ending a incoherent post with a FACT!, or .... wait for it.....

... Larry Mohr?

PS for your information a new press release indicates Obama is NOT a natualized US citizen.

And in another press release a Nigerian man will send me a check for $25,000 if I wire $1200 to his bank account.

BREAKING NEWS: apparently I've won a british lottery that I didn't even play.

Man, what a day.