Free The Likely Voters! Vol III

OK, so here we are...Oct 8, 2012, and Gallup is still holding Likely Voters hostage. Here we are, 29 days from the Presidential election and one of the most respected polling outfits for some reason seems fit to put forth "Registered Voters" as a reasonable prediction of the outcome of said election...

Here are today's "unlikely" results....

Now, Gallup did put out a video today where their Editor-in-Chief says that they will soon be putting out their LV screen results. Not a moment too soon. And surprise!  Gallup says they will "tighten the race."

 In 2008, by this point on the calendar, Gallup had been giving us LV numbers for two solid weeks. And in 2004, 6 months! Well, it should be interesting to see the results when they do finally release the hostages....

UPDATE:  Based on a post over at the invaluable Battleground Watch blog, Gallup will start posting their LV screens tomorrow.

Hunting Season

EJ Hill over at Ricochet has a great Photoshop:

Flipping PBS the Big Bird

Free the Likely Voters! VOL II

A few days ago I posted my observation that the esteemed Gallup organization for some reason had yet to "unleash" their Presidential poll results for "Likely Voters". After today's poll release, there is still no joy. Now, I had heard that Gallup would start their "Likely" screen on Oct 1. So, it could well be that since the Gallup poll is a 7-day running average, we might not see results posted until tomorrow. But in looking at their interactive webpage, you will the following graph:

The one thing that caught my eye, was the statement at the bottom of the page.

"From 1952 to 1988, only Gallup's final pre-election survey was among likely voters. Starting in 1992, Gallup reported likely voter percentages more frequently."

We are within 30 days of the election, so it seems ever more likely that "more frequently" may mean "never" in 2012. And why is that??

UPDATE:  Hot Air's Ed Morrissey has added some smaller sample Gallup analysis that shows Romney has pulled even with the President (47%-47%, Registered Voters!) in the three days following Thursday night's smackdown Debate, down from an Obama 5-point lead (50-45%).  More to follow later on the continuing hostage drama playing out over at Gallup....

Coexist with my Intolerance!

Prof. Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection has posted another in his collection of absurd liberal bumpersticker displays:

My only question to this young lady is...

Hey missy, how does your "Coexist" sticker...err, coexist, with your "Livingwithoutreligion" sticker??   Or better yet (and this is a common problem with those who display 'Coexist'), how does your "Coexist" sticker coexist with the hate and intolerance you display on some of your other stickers?

Get back with me when you figure it out....

Who Will Raise Taxes?

Obama, silly!

We Can't Afford Four More Years

#hhrs #tcot #sgp

First Presidential Debate - Word Cloud

Once I finally got a complete transcript, I put together a couple of word clouds.

First, a look at the words spoken by Mitt Romney:

Second, the words that came out of President Obama's mouth:

Lastly, here is a combination, along with Jim Lehrer:

CBS News Memory Holes Most of Romney's Debate Opening

I noticed an interesting omission from CBS News' "transcript" of last night's smackdown Presidential debate....Mitt Romney's entire opening statement, along with his whole 5-Point Economic Plan.

Here is what CBS shows:

[Obama] I think we've got to invest in education and training. I think it's important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America, that we change our tax code to make sure that we're helping small businesses and companies that are investing here in the United States, that we take some of the money that we're saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America and that we reduce our deficit in a balanced way that allows us to make these critical investments.

ROMNEY: Now, I'm concerned that the path that we're on has just been unsuccessful. The president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years, that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more -- if you will, trickle-down government -- would work.

That's not the right answer for America. I'll restore the vitality that gets America working again. Thank you.

LEHRER: Mr. President, please respond directly to what the governor just said about trickle-down -- his trick-down approach, as he said yours is.

Now here is what they left out (courtesy of CNN)...

[Obama] I think we've got to invest in education and training. I think it's important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America, that we change our tax code to make sure that we're helping small businesses and companies that are investing here in the United States, that we take some of the money that we're saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America and that we reduce our deficit in a balanced way that allows us to make these critical investments.

Now, it ultimately is going to be up to the voters -- to you -- which path we should take. Are we going to double on top-down economic policies that helped to get us into this mess or do we embrace a new economic patriotism that says America does best when the middle class does best? And I'm looking forward to having that debate.

21: 06:31: LEHRER: Governor Romney, two minutes.

21:06:32: FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY: Thank you, Jim. It's an honor to be here with you, and I appreciate the chance to be with the president. I'm pleased to be at the University of Denver, appreciate their welcome, and also the Presidential Commission on these debates.

And congratulations to you, Mr. President, on your anniversary. I'm sure this was the most romantic place you could imagine, here -- here with me. So I...

(LAUGHTER)
 

Congratulations.
 

This is obviously a very tender topic. I've had the occasion over the last couple of years of meeting people across the country. I was in Dayton, Ohio, and a woman grabbed my arm and she said, "I've been out of work since May. Can you help me?"
 

Ann yesterday was at a rally in Denver and a woman came up to her with a baby in her arms and said, "Ann, my husband has had four jobs in three years, part-time jobs. He's lost his most recent job and we've now just lost our home. Can you help us?"
 

And the answer is, yes, we can help, but it's going to take a different path. Not the one we've been on, not the one the president describes as a top-down, cut taxes for the rich. That's not what I'm going to do.
 

My plan has five basic parts. One, get us energy independent, North American energy independent. 

That creates about 4 million jobs.
 

Number two, open up more trade, particularly in Latin America. Crack down on China, if and when they cheat.
 

Number three, make sure our people have the skills they need to succeed and the best schools in the world. We're far away from that now.
 

Number four, get to us a balanced budget.
 

Number five, champion small business. It's small business that creates the jobs in America, and over the last four years, small business people have decided that America may not be the place to open a new business because new business startups are down to a 30-year low.

Now, I'm concerned that the path that we're on has just been unsuccessful. The president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years, that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more -- if you will, trickle-down government -- would work.

That's not the right answer for America. I'll restore the vitality that gets America working again. Thank you.

21:08:40: LEHRER: Mr. President, please respond directly to what the governor just said about trickle-down -- his trick-down approach, as he said yours is.

Given that CBS cut out the end of Obama's opening, it is more than likely to be an editing error.  But this is still sitting out there on the web, inaccurate, and at least on my search, the top Google search hit for debate transcripts.

Not a good thing for a major news organization to be missing almost 2 full minutes of transcript....

Free the Likely Voters! No Justice, No Peace!

It is well documented that polls of 'Likely Voters' are more likely to be more accurate, while polls of 'Registered Voters' and 'Adults' tend to produce results less accurate and more favorable to the Democrats.

So for a while now many have been waiting for one of the most respected poll outlets, the long running Gallup survey, to switch over from a 'Registered Voter' sample, to one showing the more accurate 'Likely Voter' result.  Alas, for some reason, it has not happened yet.

This is fairly strange, given the fact that here is it early October, and the Presidential election is fast approaching.  I hate to have conspiracy theories bouncing around my skull, but could it be that there is a result hiding in those LVs that somebody doesn't want let out?  It is obvious that many other polls are in the tank for a desired result, but one might hope that Gallup would be above that.

Take a look at Gallup's Presidential Election Center, where they show Obama leading Romney 49-45 among RVs:

Not a Likely Voter in site!

But as you can see below, in 2008 and 2004 respectively, according to their interactive website Gallup started publishing their LV screens in September 2008 (or as Jay Cost points out - June), and March(!).

So what is the deal, Gallup?  Have you been forgetting to ask that delicate question that identifies 'Likely Voters'?  If so, why can't they come out and play?  Are they locked up in an LA Times safe along with Obama's Rashid Khalidi video??

FREE THE LV'S!  FREE THE LV'S!  FREE THE LV'S!

The Value of Quality Opposition Research

Bwahahahahaha!

So AFSCME, one of the major Democrat Party enforcement arms, decided they could put out an ad that would tug at the heart-strings of middle-class and undecided voters, and convince them that Mitt Romney is sooooo out of touch with regular America.

Unfortunately, they failed to do even the basic amount of opposition research. And not the low-down, dirty kind. But the kind that simply requires a library card.

Here is the ad:

 "We’re kind of like the invisible people. He doesn’t realize that the service we provide – if it wasn’t for us, it would be a big health issue, us not picking up trash."

That sounds great.  Rich, white guy who hasn't a clue about me or what I do for him.

But here is the paragraph that could have saved them a lot of time:

"During my campaign for governor, I decided to spend a day every few weeks doing the jobs of other people in Massachusetts. Among other jobs, I cooked sausages at Fenway Park, worked on asphalt paving crew, stacked bales of hay on a farm, volunteered in an emergency room, served food at a nursing home, and worked as a child-care assistant. I’m often asked which was the hardest job – it’s child care, by a mile.

One day I gathered trash as a garbage collector. I stood on that little platform at the back of the truck, holding on as the driver navigated his way through the narrow streets of Boston. As we pulled up to traffic lights, I noticed that the shoppers and businesspeople who were standing only a few feet from me didn’t even see me. It was as if I was invisible. Perhaps it was because a lot of us don’t think garbage men are worthy of notice; I disagree – anyone who works that hard deserves our respect. – I wasn’t a particularly good garbage collector: at one point, after filling the trough at the back of the truck, I pulled the wrong hydraulic lever. Instead of pushing the load into the truck, I dumped it onto the street. Maybe the suits didn’t notice me, but the guys at the construction site sure did: “Nice job, Mitt,” they called. “Why don’t you find an easier job?” And then they good-naturedly came down and helped me pick up my mess."

Yep, he hasn't a clue.

Sounds like he did a whole season of Undercover Boss on his own....