Little-Acorn
01-05-2010, 01:52 PM
An excellent summary of recent Democrat tactics.
Republicans have taken a drubbing in recent national elections, and their response has been to re-evaluate their policies and attitudes. Whether they will actually change any of those policies, such as becoming more conservative and/or fiscally responsible, remains to be seen.
But Democrats, faced with poll number falling like flies and a few local elections with ominous results, have chosen a different response: The people taking the polls are at fault, and must be destroyed. It's similar to their response to actual critics: People asking awkward questions during campaign stops (see Joe the Plumber, etc.) must be vilified and destroyed. People attending Tea Parties who refuse to shut up must be vilified and destroyed. People who dare to run against their chosen idols (see McCain, Palin, most Republican congressmen up for election etc.) must be vilified and destroyed. People who trick Democrat organizations into revealing their criminal activities and mindset (see ACORN videotapers), must be vilified and destroyed.
Now, when a pollster asks people questions and the people return a response Democrats don't like, the response is apparently the same: The people taking the poll are at fault, and must be vilified and destroyed.
It's an interesting way to produce a unanimous vote: destroy anyone who disagrees. Attila the Hun used this technique to great effect, as did the KGB in more recent days. And in the U.S., the Democrat party seems to be adopting it as their solution du jour.
Is this the "Change" they promised us?
------------------------
from http://opinionjournal.com
It's All Rasmussen's Fault
Look, a messenger! Somebody shoot him!
by John Fund
Confronted with their gloomy poll numbers, Democrats have decided the solution is to discredit the pollsters they blame for dragging down their standing with the public. Politico.com reports that the No. 1 target is the proprietor of Rasmussen Reports, source of widely reported polls tracking the declining popularity of President Obama and his legislative initiatives.
"Democrats are turning their fire on Scott Rasmussen, the prolific independent pollster whose surveys on elections, President Obama's popularity and a host of other issues are surfacing in the media with increasing frequency," reports Politico.com. Democratic pollster Mark Mellman complains that Mr. Rasmussen phrases polling "questions in a way that supports a conservative interpretation of the world." That's why Rasmussen's approval numbers for President Obama tend to be about five points lower than those of other pollsters, he says.
Mr. Rasmussen responds that any differences can be accounted for in large part because he screens for only those voters whom he determines are most likely to vote. This group, he says, is trending more conservative these days because they are highly motivated in opposition to Obama policies. Other firms poll adults without screening for likely voters, he told Politico, a procedure that's "always going to yield a better result for Democrats."
Most of us pay attention to polls because we want to know how upcoming elections are likely to play out and how the distribution of political power will change. On that score, Mr. Rasmussen seems to get solid results. FiveThirtyEight.com, a liberal Web site run by Nate Silver, found that Mr. Rasmussen had the third-highest mark for accuracy of any pollster in last year's elections. He predicted a six-point Obama victory; the final margin was seven points.
In 2009, Rasmussen did it again. His final survey in New Jersey had Republican Chris Christie beating Democrat Jon Corzine by three points, exactly the margin of Mr. Christie's victory. Says Mr. Silver: "Rasmussen's election polling has tended to be quite accurate in the past." He explains that "Rasmussen has a different model of what the 2010 election is going to look like, one which will feature a more conservative electorate. But that model isn't necessarily wrong, nor does it necessarily reflect bias."
Indeed, Mr. Rasmussen was in step with other pollsters charting the collapse of President Bush's approval rating. In November, 2008 it topped out at 62% disapproval in Rasmussen surveys, with a full 43% registering strong disapproval. Those numbers correctly anticipated the Democratic resurgence in that month's elections. Now that President Obama's numbers are trending downward, however, Democrats are lashing out rather than rethinking their policies. Democratic pollster Tom Jensen acknowledged as much to Politico, saying: "I don't think that what's happening with Rasmussen is unusual. It's just that sometimes when people are unhappy, sometimes you shoot the messenger."
That messenger is clearly becoming a force in politics, partly by polling more regularly and intensively than other companies such as Gallup. Pollster and blogger Mark Blumenthal says that in 2009 Rasmussen became the most searched-for polling firm on the Internet. It also apparently has become the No. 1 target for people who don't like its findings.
-- John Fund
Republicans have taken a drubbing in recent national elections, and their response has been to re-evaluate their policies and attitudes. Whether they will actually change any of those policies, such as becoming more conservative and/or fiscally responsible, remains to be seen.
But Democrats, faced with poll number falling like flies and a few local elections with ominous results, have chosen a different response: The people taking the polls are at fault, and must be destroyed. It's similar to their response to actual critics: People asking awkward questions during campaign stops (see Joe the Plumber, etc.) must be vilified and destroyed. People attending Tea Parties who refuse to shut up must be vilified and destroyed. People who dare to run against their chosen idols (see McCain, Palin, most Republican congressmen up for election etc.) must be vilified and destroyed. People who trick Democrat organizations into revealing their criminal activities and mindset (see ACORN videotapers), must be vilified and destroyed.
Now, when a pollster asks people questions and the people return a response Democrats don't like, the response is apparently the same: The people taking the poll are at fault, and must be vilified and destroyed.
It's an interesting way to produce a unanimous vote: destroy anyone who disagrees. Attila the Hun used this technique to great effect, as did the KGB in more recent days. And in the U.S., the Democrat party seems to be adopting it as their solution du jour.
Is this the "Change" they promised us?
------------------------
from http://opinionjournal.com
It's All Rasmussen's Fault
Look, a messenger! Somebody shoot him!
by John Fund
Confronted with their gloomy poll numbers, Democrats have decided the solution is to discredit the pollsters they blame for dragging down their standing with the public. Politico.com reports that the No. 1 target is the proprietor of Rasmussen Reports, source of widely reported polls tracking the declining popularity of President Obama and his legislative initiatives.
"Democrats are turning their fire on Scott Rasmussen, the prolific independent pollster whose surveys on elections, President Obama's popularity and a host of other issues are surfacing in the media with increasing frequency," reports Politico.com. Democratic pollster Mark Mellman complains that Mr. Rasmussen phrases polling "questions in a way that supports a conservative interpretation of the world." That's why Rasmussen's approval numbers for President Obama tend to be about five points lower than those of other pollsters, he says.
Mr. Rasmussen responds that any differences can be accounted for in large part because he screens for only those voters whom he determines are most likely to vote. This group, he says, is trending more conservative these days because they are highly motivated in opposition to Obama policies. Other firms poll adults without screening for likely voters, he told Politico, a procedure that's "always going to yield a better result for Democrats."
Most of us pay attention to polls because we want to know how upcoming elections are likely to play out and how the distribution of political power will change. On that score, Mr. Rasmussen seems to get solid results. FiveThirtyEight.com, a liberal Web site run by Nate Silver, found that Mr. Rasmussen had the third-highest mark for accuracy of any pollster in last year's elections. He predicted a six-point Obama victory; the final margin was seven points.
In 2009, Rasmussen did it again. His final survey in New Jersey had Republican Chris Christie beating Democrat Jon Corzine by three points, exactly the margin of Mr. Christie's victory. Says Mr. Silver: "Rasmussen's election polling has tended to be quite accurate in the past." He explains that "Rasmussen has a different model of what the 2010 election is going to look like, one which will feature a more conservative electorate. But that model isn't necessarily wrong, nor does it necessarily reflect bias."
Indeed, Mr. Rasmussen was in step with other pollsters charting the collapse of President Bush's approval rating. In November, 2008 it topped out at 62% disapproval in Rasmussen surveys, with a full 43% registering strong disapproval. Those numbers correctly anticipated the Democratic resurgence in that month's elections. Now that President Obama's numbers are trending downward, however, Democrats are lashing out rather than rethinking their policies. Democratic pollster Tom Jensen acknowledged as much to Politico, saying: "I don't think that what's happening with Rasmussen is unusual. It's just that sometimes when people are unhappy, sometimes you shoot the messenger."
That messenger is clearly becoming a force in politics, partly by polling more regularly and intensively than other companies such as Gallup. Pollster and blogger Mark Blumenthal says that in 2009 Rasmussen became the most searched-for polling firm on the Internet. It also apparently has become the No. 1 target for people who don't like its findings.
-- John Fund