Posted on 10/30/2014 1:18:58 PM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: To the election. The New York Times is all over the place today. The New York Times is a good place to start because it's the house organ for the Democrat Party. In one story in the New York Times you find, unbelievably, why polls tend to undercount Democrats. You heard me right. "Polls show that the Republicans have an advantage in the fight for control of the Senate.
"They lead in enough states to win control, and they have additional opportunities in North Carolina and New Hampshire to make up for potential upsets. As Election Day nears, Democratic hopes increasingly hinge on the possibility that the polls will simply prove wrong. But that possibility is not far-fetched. The polls have generally underestimated Democrats in recent years, and there are reasons to think it could happen again.
"In 2010, the polls underestimated the Democrats in every competitive Senate race by an average of 3.1 percentage points, based on data from The Huffington Post’s Pollster model. In 2012, pre-election polls underestimated President Obama in nine of the 10 battleground states by an average of 2 percentage points."
Now, 2010 was a massive Republican landslide, and the New York Times is claiming Democrats were undercounted in the polls. When's the last time you ever heard that? When is the last time? When was the first time -- maybe this is the first time -- that you have ever heard somebody claim that the Democrat sample in any public opinion poll was underweighted? I've never heard this before.
This is a 47-paragraph-long story in the New York Times, and it is a typical absurdity. Now, the headline and the lede that I just read to you is telling you practically everything you need to know about this story. Let me summarize what I just read for you: Democrats might not lose in the upcoming elections after all. They might not lose. And why is that? Well, because the source for this proposition that the Democrats are underrepresented in polls comes from Pew.
A pollster from the Pew Center for the People and the Press claims that Democrats have been uncounted in polls for years. In fact, it turns out that every poll except the Pew poll doesn't skew their polls enough for Democrats. Never mind that in the 2012 elections Pew was usually ranked in the middle of the list of pollsters for accuracy. They were not the leaders.
The New York Times and the Pew Center claim that the polls do not weigh heavy enough for young voters and Hispanics, and even though they admit the trend is not to turn out this year in those groups. So if you read all 47 paragraphs, the New York Times is saying here that no matter what the outcome, the Democrats should win every election because they are not properly represented in the polls.
They're undercounted in the polls, and they're undercounted in the vote totals 'cause they just don't turn out, but there are more Democrats everywhere. They don't show up, but they're there. They don't properly represent in the polls, and some of them don't show up on Election Day, but the Democrats ought to win every election. That's what this story is saying.
So the bottom line for you Democrats: You have no reason to be depressed about the latest polls. No reason whatsoever. These polls are rigged against you. These polls have a stacked deck against you. The polls, taken by your own polling units, are undercounting and undersampling Democrats. And you know what that means? It means you need to get out there!
You Democrats, you need to get out there and vote Democrat early and often. That's what this piece is. It's a get-out-the-vote piece disguised as news in the New York Times, with this absurd proposition that Democrats are cheated against, that Democrats are undersampled in polls, undercounted, and basically mistreated, disrespected, and taken for granted.
They should win every election just by the numbers alone. So that's one New York Times story. Now let's go to another one. Let's see here. (muttering) "Latino support for Democrats Falls, But Democrat Advantage Remains." This happens to be a Pew poll. (laughing) It's just amazing. These people are so convoluted, disorganized, and panicked that they don't know what to do.
So they're trying to get their vote out, they're trying to keep everybody's spirits up, and now they're trying to claim that they are the victims of improper polling and vote fraud and voter turnout missteps that shouldn't happen because Democrat voters get depressed when they ought not be depressed because there are enough of them to win every election every time no matter what.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Anyway, New York Times. "Latino Support for Democrats Falls, but Democratic Advantage Remains." Now, remember we just had the story in the New York Times about the belief that the Democrats are not sampled properly in polling data. It's just so unfair. The polls never sample enough Democrats. And of course the bottom line of the story was, you can win Democrats, you can win everything. You should win every election if you would just get out and vote.
Why polls tend to undercount Democrats. That's what this story of 47 paragraphs, New York Times, is basically a get-out-the-vote effort. But this story is Latino support for Democrats falls, but the Democrat advantage remains with Latinos nevertheless. And this Latino story and Democrats is all over the place. The numbers here, 57 to 28% Latinos favor Democrats, but that's down from 65 to 26%. Thirty-five percent in this poll say there is no difference in the parties.
Washington Post: "The Hispanic Vote is Completely Misunderstood. Here's Proof -- President Obama and the Democrats are losing ground with Hispanics, just a couple months after Obama delayed a planned executive action that would potentially legalize millions of illegal immigrants -- the vast majority of whom are Latinos. Ipso facto, that delay is causing Hispanics to ditch the Democrats. Right? Well, not exactly. A new Pew Hispanic Center survey shows, contrary to popular belief, that Hispanics are relatively evenly split on Obama's decision to delay the executive action until after the election."
And then they go through the vote count that I just gave you.
It's amazing the efforts that are being -- well, it's not amazing. It's fun to chronicle the efforts being made in the Drive-By Media today to mitigate and downplay the danger that is posed to Democrats in this election cycle.
Here it is from TheHill.com: "As Dems Lose Latinos, Senate Could Follow." With Hispanic voters not showing up, it's looking bad for the Democrats. "Democrats have lost their grip on Hispanic voters heading into Election Day -- and could lose the Senate because of them." So this is three groups now that we have been told in the last three or four days will be responsible for Democrats losing if they lose.
In the first instance, the blacks vote wasn't gonna show up. And if the black vote didn't show up, the Democrats were gonna lose. And then it was the single female vote, not just in Colorado, but nationwide. The single women female vote wasn't jazzed. And, in fact, in women overall the Democrats had lost their advantage. And the Republicans had picked up a slight majority in women and maintain a huge majority in men. So today we're told that if they lose Hispanics it's sayonara, adios. If they lose the Hispanic vote.
Now, so three, four days in a row here we've been treated to stories about how the black vote is not excited, not turning out spells doom for the Democrats. The next day, women, and now today it's Hispanics. And the Hispanics story, it's everywhere, and they're trying to say it's not as bad as it looks. And then over here back in the New York Times, don't forget, all of these polls are undercounting the Democrats, all these polls are undersampling the Democrats.
So you Democrats, when you hear that the black vote isn't showing up, and when you hear that the female vote is changing, orienting itself toward Republicans, the Hispanic vote not as excited for Democrats, don't believe it because the polls are wrong. The polls are not accurately, properly weighting and counting Democrats and all these groups. So don't sweat it. You should win every election. You will win every election if you just get out and vote, early and often.
This period of time, we're now the last week, this is when you can -- well, I was gonna say "trust." But you can never trust what's in the media. But this period of time we're in now with so little time left before the election, this is where you get the best indication of the real opinions, the real thoughts, the fears, in this case, of the Drive-By Media, which is just the Democrat Party.
The Drive-By Media's just a branch of the Democrat Party. So it's in these news stories, if you know how to read the stitches on the fastball, if you know how to read between the lines, you find out what they're really afraid of. You find out what's really keeping them up at night. You find out what's really got them nervous. And they're losing all of these groups. Now, when I say "losing," they're losing their advantage. All of these constituency groups are trending away from Democrats. But that's not unprecedented. That happens.
We've had six years of the country in the dumps. There's no reason for anybody to be happy with the status quo, or very few people. There's no reason for people to want more of this. It's only common sense that even low-information voters would want a change from what's going on now, and that's what these polls all show is going to happen. People just want a change. These guys had their time. They got six years here. Things aren't going well.
The problem with this is that these anti-Democrat votes, sadly, I'm not yet convinced are anti-liberalism votes. And that's what really is needed. What's needed here is these people to understand why they're voting against Democrats, what they're upset about, why this isn't working. They need to be voting against the policies, not just voting because it's time to give somebody else a chance 'cause these guys have had their turn.
Now, we'll take it, don't misunderstand. I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth here. We'll clearly, clearly take it. But I keep harping on this opportunity that exists here. Because these constituency groups in the Democrat Party are clearly unhappy. They are not jazzed. They're not motivated. It shouldn't take much to tell them why. It doesn't seem like it would require a lot to tell them why they're unhappy. And you're right to be unhappy. Nobody is.
Nobody wants a country like this. Nobody wants this much disarray, disorganization. Nobody wants this kind of a cloudy future. This is not the promise of America. Nobody wants this kind of downsizing that's taking place. There isn't any inspiration. There's no leadership. There's no upbeat, positive message coming from anybody out there. People naturally can do pessimism on their own. Everybody knows pessimism. Everyone knows how to be pessimistic. Everybody knows how to be depressed. Everybody knows how to be fatalistic.
And people are. And they're gonna take it out next Tuesday. They're gonna take it out against incumbents in more cases than not. So it makes total sense that all this is happening. And I watched the Democrats' efforts to mitigate it and try to limit the damage and maybe even reverse some of it. The one thing that I don't see in any of these news stories is anybody touting the Obama agenda. I don't see one story reminding people, "Hey, you know, Obama has been pretty good. Hey, don't believe what you hear. Obama has been great."
I got a couple of sound bites with some people saying this -- and we'll get to those, I promise. But I don't see, in the Drive-By Media at large, these voters being told, "Hey, don't buy what you're feeling. We got a great president! We got great policies. We're on the cusp of greatness." I don't see one story telling people to vote for more of this. What I see is the kind of stuff, frankly, that Republicans tell themselves before they're gonna lose big.
"I don't trust the polls. I don't believe the polls." That's what the Democrats are doing now. I'll find that sound bite. It's how great Obama... No. No. Wait a minute. Maybe I got it wrong. Yeah. I got it wrong. It's Aaron David Miller, the Middle East scholar/expert at the think tank for scholarship experts in the Middle East, whatever it is, saying no president could be great anymore.
Greatness is impossible. Reagan wasn't even great. It's just he knew how to make people think he was. Reagan wasn't great. It's not possible to have great presidents in America because of all of the news media that's out there, and all of the criticism, and all of the catcalls and naysayers. It's impossible to create greatness 'cause there's just too much criticism all the time and not enough getting along out there.
END TRANSCRIPT
Meanwhile Democrats dirty tricks to depress Republican voter turnout never makes headlines.
“The polls have generally underestimated Democrats in recent years...” - NYT
Because dead people and multiple voters are underrepresented in polling. - Genoa
Groundwork for fraud.
And illegal aliens.
Do people still remember the New Hampshire primary election where Hillary began her campaign fior the Democrat nomination in 2008?
That was the year that New Hampshire enacted same day registration with no real proof of residency. The Clinton machine flooded New Hampshire with voters from New York, Vermont and Massachusetts, brought them in on buses. It was also memorable for the career ending arrest of Hillary’s top aide Sidney Blumental for drunk driving after getting sloshed, celebrating the success of his voter fraud effort.
Aaron David Miller built his career as an apologist for terrorists, aiding and abetting them all the way and dissing those who called him on his dismissiveness of hard facts.
and now they are hoping that someone will read the New York Times
The only poll that is dependable is if likely voters are polled
Exactly. This helps them explain away the difference between polls and the results of fraudulent voting machines, car trunks full of “discovered” ballots, etc.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but my gut tells me that this happens right here on FR.
YMMV
Jesus Christ: You can’t impeach Him and He ain’t going to resign.
Not that the press is biased or anything... right?
/s
Hint: compared to mid-1960s subscription levels....less than a quarter of of those same people read most daily newspapers today. At best, across the entire nation...this message of getting out the vote might get to a total of 100,000 people of 300 million, who didn’t intend to vote. It has marginal consequences.
Within twenty years...it’ll be less than five percent of the population that reads newspapers. You can see it coming, and accurately predict the demise of most papers in existence today.
Good points. Newspapers are dying. I doubt the 'five percent' left will be the people advertisers want anyhow
... If newspapers had been smart they would have grabbed onto the Internet as soon as it hit. Reminds me of classic story about railroads successfully keeping airports at the fringe of cities. Attempting to drive them out of business. Had railroads played it right every airport would have had a train connection from the start. Transportation company - not 'railroad'. Big mistake. Then again hind-sights are twenty twenty...
Your railway example is excellent....like in Germany. The Frankfurt airport has four lines which come in and out. They transport people onto smaller towns. These smaller regional airports are a total waste and the railway could have eliminated half the airports in the nation today.
The NYT is just getting the voting rolls all modernistical, by rolling in 1/3rd of the populations of Northern Mexico and Central America, to make America “real” again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.