Republican House speaker John Boehner is resigning. This comes as something of a surprise, and after years of conservative discontent with the direction of Boehner’s Establishment Republican speakership.
Boehner became speaker in January 2011 after the Republican romp in the 2010 midterms. He had become leader of House Republicans in 2007 after Democrats took over the House.
Let us hope that we get a conservative speaker with a spine to stand up to Obama and the Democrats. America is trending strongly to the Republican side now, with 31 governors, two-thirds of all state legislative chambers, and an iron grip on the US House that is not expected to ease for decades. We need a leader who will carry on that strength in Congress like Louie Gohmert of Texas or Tim Huelskamp of Kansas or any one of the other great conservatives in Washington. Now here is today’s commentary:
The 2016 election is coming up fast and this means many things, including another year of fake media polls to make Democrats and liberals look good and Republicans and conservatives look bad.
Who can forget decades of biased polls – 2014 was the worst year ever. Remember when 2014 polls showed that Mitch McConnell, a long-serving Republican member of the US Senate from Kentucky, was in ‘the fight of his political life’. Yet McConnell won re-election easily. Remember when 2014 polls showed that the long-serving Republican US senator from Kansas Pat Roberts was in danger of losing, yet he coasted to re-election.
Remember when 2014 polls said that Republican Joni Ernst was in a tight race in her bid to become a US senator from Iowa, yet she won handily. Remember when 2014 polls showed Republican Wisconsin governor Scott Walker in a dead heat with his opponent, but then he breezed to re-election by 5 points.
Notice that all the polls were biased against Republicans and conservatives. This is standard operating procedure. So expect every poll to show Hillary winning.
Recently CNN was touting a new poll showing Hillary with a growing lead over her primary challenger Bernie Sanders of Vermont while other polls showed the opposite. After all, if a media company like CNN does not like a poll it will just fabricate its own.
Friends, here is my advice: Ignore these media polls like CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS etc., and most others; they have been proven to be somewhat wrong to spectacularly wrong over and over, yet they just keep coming back election after election as if nothing is amiss. But they lose no credibility since they and their media cronies simply ignore their past record and start another season of bias.
Then remember that a poll can show anything that the pollster wants. Polls can be biased in many ways, even by the time of day that citizens are contacted. After all certain types of people are generally home during the day (retirees, mothers with kids, unemployed people, elderly, welfare recipients, sick people etc.), while working folks are generally home in the evening, and you will usually get somewhat different to very different responses from each group. If you call urban voters the poll will be biased to the Democrats. If you poll in liberal areas you can always get a good result for the liberal candidate.
However, there is one aspect to polls that is sometimes inscrutable. For instance if you publicize polls favoring the Democrat then that can dispirit Republicans and give the election to the Democrat. Then again such polls can sometimes make Democrats complacent and cause them to stay home and lose a close election. Still most American pollsters are liberal and they go with the former approach. It is just in their characters to always tout the Democrat, which they do in spades.
The questions that a poll asks can easily determine the outcome of the poll, and even the order that the questions are asked can do so. Every word can and does affect the result. There are many methods that pollsters use to get the result that they want. Even the tone and inflection of the voice of a pollster can influence the poll (i.e., a negative tone of voice talking about Republicans, a positive tone talking about Democrats).
There are a few polls that are not media-driven or candidate-driven, that actually want to find the truth. One of the most accurate polls in the last decade has been the Zogby poll.
Here are some excerpts from an article on Politico.com from Spring 2015 about polling. It shows that the problem is not just American:
Politico.com reports: (American election statistician) Nate Silver fared terribly in Thursday’s British election: In his pre-election forecast, he gave 278 seats to Conservatives and 267 to Labour. Shortly after midnight, he was forecasting 272 seats for Conservatives and 271 for Labour. But when the sun rose in London on Friday, Conservatives had an expected 329 seats, against Labour’s 233. Nikitas3.com comment: Yup, even in Jolly Old England these gurus are wrong. So ignore them… everywhere.
Politico.com reports: The fault, Silver claimed, was with the polling: “It’s becoming increasingly clear that pre-election polls underestimated how well Conservatives would do and overestimated Labour’s result,” the statistician guru wrote in the wee hours of the morning. (He also overestimated the Liberal Democrats’ result by roughly 20 seats). Nikitas3.com comment: No surprise since Silver is a member in good standing of the American liberal/media establishment, and even British polls are biased.
Politico.com reports: But the problem went beyond the UK. “The World May Have A Polling Problem,” Silver asserted. “In fact, it’s become harder to find an election in which the polls did all that well.” Silver went on to cite …examples where the polls had failed to provide an accurate forecast of the election outcome: the Scottish independence referendum, the 2014 U.S. midterms, the Israeli legislative elections… Nikitas3.com comment: Sure thing. All wrong.
Politico.com reports: “[T]here are lots of reasons to worry about the state of the polling industry,” Silver concluded, citing a range of factors. “There may be more difficult times ahead for the polling industry.” This is quite a notable statement. The former New York Times statistician gained national fame for correctly anticipating the outcome of the 2008, 2010 and 2012 U.S. elections. He did this largely by understanding how to read the polls, and by knowing which polls were worth reading. (Never mind that he wasn’t the only one. In fact, in 2012, the Daily Kos blogger Markos Moulitsas was more accurate than Silver in predicting the outcome of the 2012 electoral college.) Nikitas3.com comment: So a radical blogger like Moulitsas can predict an election better than a trained statistician can. This shows how absurd this whole system is.
Politico.com reports: If Silver is declaring that the world has a polling problem, and that there may be more difficult times ahead for the polling industry, what is Silver’s added value in an election cycle? His ability to forecast elections is largely dependent on the accuracy of polling. Without that, what is his raison d’etre — other than to point out how bad polling caused him to make inaccurate forecasts? Nikitas3.com comment: So let’s just ignore polling and stop listening to charlatans. There. Much better.
(Please bookmark this website. And please recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)