Tuesday, February 2, 2016

BloggeRhythms

As reported here last October, Gallup had been the country's gold standard for election polling ever since its legendary founder, George Gallup, predicted Franklin Roosevelt's landslide reelection in 1936.

“But after a bruising 2012 cycle, in which its polls were farther off than most of its competitors, Gallup told POLITICO it isn't planning any polls for the presidential primary horse race this cycle. And, even following an internal probe into what went wrong last time around, Gallup won't commit to tracking the general election next year.” 

And then, yesterday, Iowa voters proved Gallup to be precisely correct. Because no pollster in the nation came anywhere near being accurate in their predictions, most showing Trump as the far ahead leader. 

Regarding Trump's Iowa performance, FoxNews.com’s Chris Stirewalt put it this way: “He underperformed the average of pre-election polls by more than 5 points, losing despite having led in the final 13 polls.” 

And then, Mr. Stirewalt continued: “How [Trump] responds to this adversity will tell us a great deal. He holds an astonishing 21-point lead in the Real Clear Politics average of New Hampshire polls and can fairly well bank on a win there on Feb. 9. That’s the kind of comeback he needs. It certainly worked for Mitt Romney.” 

Which leads to the question: Mitt who?

A Facebook friend put it this way: 



Statistically speaking, the results show that Cruz won with 23.75% of the vote. Also meaning that 72.35% preferred someone else. In second place finisher, Trump’s case, more than 3/4’s of voters (75.69%) chose another. While in lagging Rubio’s case, 76.1% didn’t select him either. All of which suggests that this race is still as open as a barn door.   

As for myself, I’d love to play poker with any of those gullible enough to pay an iota of attention to a political poll. I could retire all over again.

On another, more important issue, Anthony B. Kim writes about what happens when American voters believe campaign speeches, instead of doing their homework to research candidates true credentials and goals.  

Mr. Kim researches international economic issues at The Heritage Foundation and is research manager of the Index of Economic Freedom, the flagship product of the Heritage Foundation in partnership with The Wall Street Journal

Mr. Kim writes: “Millions of people around the world are emerging from poverty thanks to rising economic freedom. But by sharp contrast, America’s economic freedom has been on a declining path over the past decade.

“According to the 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, an annual publication by The Heritage Foundation, America’s economic freedom has tumbled. With losses of economic freedom in eight of the past nine years, the U.S. has tied its worst score ever, wiping out a decade of progress.

“The U.S. has fallen from the 6th freest economy in the world, when President Barack Obama took office, to 11th place in 2016. America’s declining score in the index is closely related to rapidly rising government spending, subsidies, and bailouts.

Since early 2009:
  • Government spending has exploded, amounting to $29,867 per household in 2015.
  • The national debt has risen to $125,000 for every tax-filing household in America—a total over $18 trillion.
  • The government takeover of health care is raising prices and disrupting markets.
  • Bailouts and new government regulations have increased uncertainty, stifling investment and job creation.
And then, while the POTUS clearly has the nation moving backward in every major category measurable, Michael Bastasch @dailycaller.com reports as follows:

“A YouGov poll of 18,000 people in 17 countries found only 9.2 percent of Americans rank global warming as their biggest concern. Only Saudi Arabians were less concerned about global warming at 5.7 percent. The biggest concern for Americans was global terrorism — 28 percent of Americans polled listed this as their top issue.

“Despite a big PR push by President Barack Obama to tout his administration’s global warming agenda, most Americans have been unconvinced it’s the country’s most pressing issue. A Fox News poll from November found only 3 percent of Americans list global warming as their top concern. 

“A Gallup poll from March 2015 found Americans’ concern about global warming fell to the same level it was in 1989. Global warming ranked at the bottom of a list of Americans’ environmental concerns — only 32 percent said they worried about it a “great deal.” 

“Meanwhile, only 50 percent of Americans believe global warming is caused by man-made emissions, while 23 percent say it’s caused by natural changes and 26 percent say it isn’t a proven fact,” CNN reported. 

Yet, despite the unimportance of the subject to the populace, and the significantly questionable validity that global-warming even exists, Andrew Follett, Energy and Environmental Reporter @dailycaller.com, presented some truly astounding data today. 

“The United Nations Paris agreement to stop dangerous global warming could cost $12.1 trillion over the next 25 years, according to calculations performed by environmental activists. 

“The required expenditure averages about $484 billion a year over the period,” calculated Bloomberg New Energy Finance with the assistance of the environmentalist nonprofit Ceres. 

“That’s almost as much money the U.S. federal government spent on defense in 2015, according to 2015 spending numbers from the bipartisan Committee For Responsible Federal Budget. The required annual spending is almost 3.7 times more than the $131.57 billion China spent on its military in 2014.” 

At the same time, it’s ironic that, “solar and wind power have not done much to reduce America’s carbon dioxide emissions. Studies show solar power is responsible for one percent of the decline in U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions, while natural gas is responsible for almost 20 percent. For every ton of carbon dioxide cut by solar power, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas cut 13 tons.” 

And therefore, not only isn’t all the misspent funding not assuaging the problem, natural gas is twenty times more effective as a cure.

Bring us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

Yesterday's caucus in Iowa ended in a virtual tie between Bill’s wife (696) and Sanders (692.) Leading John Whitesides @Reuters via yahoo.com, to write: “Hillary Clinton's struggle in Iowa to fend off underdog Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, reignited questions about her ability to close the deal with Democratic voters and turned up the pressure on her high-profile White House campaign.

“The Democratic presidential front-runner, whose campaign ran off the rails in Iowa in 2008 against Barack Obama, was dealt another setback on Monday in the Midwestern state that begins the 2016 race for the presidency.” 

While the results indicate problems for Bill’s wife overall, some very telling details underlie the most recent statistics: 

Mr. Whitesides writes that: “Fundraising figures reported on Sunday by Sanders underscored the extent to which his campaign has grown into a popular movement. 

“Clinton has raised more than Sanders - her campaign brought in $109 million last year compared to his $73.5 million. But 75 percent of his haul came from donations of $200 or less, in contrast to only 18 percent of Clinton's, and far more of Clinton's donors have hit the $2,700 donation limit.” 

Which means that, he’s caught her while raising almost 33% less than she has, and doing so across a far broader cross-section of voters. Appearing to be, as Mr. Whitesides has suggested above, very much like what happened to her last time around.  

As far as the Democrat presidential race itself goes, it’s like watching a movie that could be called ”Geriatric Park.” Where two prehistoric Neanderthals from the stone-age bang at each other with huge wooden clubs. Until at the end they clash in wheelchairs, sliding over sideways with their tongues hanging out. Both exhausted and out of gas altogether, as they fade into the sunset in the background. 

And although they’re all also old has-been retreads, the daily question still comes up: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?   

That’s it for today folks.       

Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment