BloggeRhythms

Several interesting items today, providing insight into the Republican presidential campaign, gun-control and the rising popularity of Bernie Sanders.

 

Jeb Bush got some press for once, suggesting on Thursday that more regulation is not always the correct response to a crisis.

 

Finally using his experience to his advantage, Bush commented on gun control: “I don't think more government is necessarily the answer to this. I had this challenge as governor, because, look, stuff happens, there's always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something. And it's not necessarily the right thing to do."

 

Democrats stayed true to their style. Instead of addressing the issue directly, they attacked Bush's vernacular, saying that by remarking that “stuff happens” suggested he was dismissive or perhaps insensitive over the tragedy.

 

On Friday, Obama was also asked about Bush’s comment and responded, “I don't even think I have to react to that one.” And that’s probably because, by being perfunctory and dismissive himself, he avoided further questioning on the topic. 

 

However, he did add that, “I think the American people should hear that and make their own judgments, based on the fact that every couple of months, we have a mass shooting, and in terms of -- and they can decide whether they consider that ‘stuff happening.’”

 

In that regard, the American people already do what he’s suggesting. Which is why membership in the NRA keeps growing, while politicians favoring gun control don’t get elected in most states.

 

Then, once again, readers comments expressed extremely valid points.

 

mesamax wrote: “When Cecil the lion was killed everyone blamed the dentist who shot him. The anti-gun crowd said that he aimed his gun at his target, and then killed his target.     Nobody blamed the gun.     They blamed the man.

 

When some nutcase, like the one in Oregon, kills people the anti-gun crowd says that he aimed his gun at his target, and then killed his target.      Nobody blamed the man,     They blamed the gun. 

 

So which is it?    The man or the gun? 

 

detroitguy added: “@mesamax You are expecting consistency when the objective is to use events to suit a predetermined political purpose.”

 

On another topic, the answer to the Trump phenomenon may lie in one of the most relevant articles regarding the value of presidential polls. The reason so many other Republicans still choose to stay in the race may be found here, as well.

 

Steven Yaccino, Robert Hutton and Margaret Talev @bloomberg.com, headlined their column today: “Flaws in Polling Data Exposed as U.S. Campaign Season Heats Up”

 

Presently, there’s a growing realization that a significant percentage of poll results are incorrect, and can no longer be relied upon. That’s because growing numbers of people don’t answer landlines today, while pollsters calling mobile devices is illegal. That means only certain groups of people still consistently answer ringing phones:  older citizens and the very young. As a result, pollsters are now forced to offset the lack of sufficient responders with computerized models that have been consistently wrong in recent years.  

 

According to the article’s authors: “The problem stems from a number of causes but begins with a fundamental shift in the public’s relationship with the telephone. For decades, the vast majority of people had landlines that they answered faithfully and, when asked to take part in surveys, mostly did so. Today, home landlines are dying and, when asked over mobile phones to answer questions, a big majority declines.” 

 

Charles Franklin, director of Marquette University’s survey operation, explained that: “Telemarketing, from a pollster’s point of view, poisoned the well. Then came answering machines and caller ID. Most of the time, you never get a human to pick up now."

 

Compounding the problem: “To save money, more polling is done using robocalls, Internet-based surveys, and other non-standard methods. Such alternatives may prove useful but they come with real risks. Robocalls, for example, are forbidden by law from dialing mobile phones. Online polling may oversample young people or Democratic Party voters. While such methods don’t necessarily produce inaccurate results, Franklin and others note, their newness makes it harder to predict reliability.” 

 

Much like the mistaken information amassed from computer models that present totally incorrect, slanted, results for calculating “global-warming,” as response rates have declined, the need to rely on risky mathematical maneuvers has increased. 

 

As a result: “To compensate for under-represented groups, like younger voters, some pollsters adjust their results to better reflect the population -- or their assessment of who will vote. Different firms have different models that factor in things like voter age, education, income, and historical election data to make up for the all the voters they couldn’t query.” 

 

That leads to the question: Are the polls correct? Hardly a new question, “doubts are intensifying after a series of high-profile misfires around the world in the past year. Polling in the U.K. in May suggested that Prime Minister David Cameron faced a serious risk of being ousted. His decisive victory led the British Polling Council to launch an inquiry. And in March, polls made it seem that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was at risk of losing his job. He won handily.”

 

In the U.S. in 2012, pollsters for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney didn’t believe minorities would turn out for the re-election as they had in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected. They were mistaken. Polls in the 2014 midterm elections that cost Democrats control of the Senate under-predicted how well Republicans would do. In most cases, polls did suggest thin Republican victories but in some states, including North Carolina and Alaska, the polling was flat-out wrong.”

 

Therefore, while there doesn’t seem to be an answer at present to determining valid voter preferences, polling’s unreliability certainly explains why so many candidates in both major parties are still hanging in there. Especially since basic logic dictates that front-runners like Trump and Bill Clinton’s wife, are likely unelectable regardless of what any poll indicates. 

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

 

Kristinn Taylor @thegatewaypundit.com, reports that: “Well over 20,000 people turned out for a campaign rally Saturday evening by independent socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders who is running for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

 

"Locals reports state the crowd inside the Boston Convention Center was around 20,000 with several thousand in an overflow room and thousands more outside who couldn’t get in but hoped for an appearance by Sanders–a hope Sanders later fulfilled.”

 

At the same time, “In contrast, Sanders’ chief rival Hillary Clinton is having trouble filling community college gymnasiums, as evidenced from an appearance in Davie, Florida on Friday.”

 

In this case, regardless of Sander’s audience attraction combined with the sinking popularity of Bill’s wife, it’s highly doubtful an avowed socialist can win a national presidential election. Which means the ongoing question has to be asked again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios