Spinning Economy in the works

Just freaking incredible.

Okay, now that is about right, not so bad.

Say what? Welcome to that strange place that Twilight Zone never found.

Advertisements

Media disapproval

How about that news media. What happened to media approval numbers? As much as they are critiquing Trump’s approval numbers, look at theirs.

But one message I took the liberty of interpreting was, those Democrats are even dumber than we thought.

To Gallup | August 25, 2017

First, the number,

Story Highlights

  • 14% of Republicans believe news media get the facts straight
  • 62% of Democrats agree
  • College-educated are most likely to find news media credible

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Just over a third of Americans (37%) in 2017 say news organizations generally get the facts straight, unchanged from the last time Gallup asked this question in 2003. But despite the apparent stability in U.S. adults’ perceptions of news media accuracy, major partisan shifts in beliefs on this topic have emerged over the past 14 years. Republicans’ trust in the media’s accuracy has fallen considerably, while Democrats’

The most recent findings come from two Gallup polls, conducted in March and July of this year and consisting of interviews with 1,810 adult Americans.

More http://news.gallup.com/poll/216320/republicans-democrats-views-media-accuracy-diverge.aspx

Compare that to 1998 when ” over half of both Republicans (52%) and Democrats (53%) believed news organizations generally got the facts straight.” And so college-educated are more likely to trust the news media.  Another whopper surprise. Democrats and college-educated, what’s that say for media cred? Pardon me, I smell swamp gas oozing.

Will pollsters also show me where we are supposed to believe media, after their reports on last election, while our approval for congress is in the basement? Nah, probably not.

After the polls and media coverage last year, it’s surprising anyone believes either. Right, Dems want to believe media, and the polls. That must be it. Just look at everything else they want to believe in. How are these polls stable from 2003 to now?

Doesn’t add up, except that there is even more overwhelming evidence of liberal media bias now, and how far they’ll go. They even admit taking a pass on criticizing Obama. All the more reasons for Dems to want to believe them. Democrats wanted to believe in everything Obama said too. So I think this is more about faith.

CNN had a navel-gazing moment

A moment of ironic revelation? You decide.

Something remotely interesting happened last night on CNN’s Anderson Cooper. Stars must have been allighned in just the right way.

Anderson had Dana Loesh and posed this question to her:

That was a great setup for Dana to put her foot in the door and push it open.

She did a good job telling him how people don’t share media’s obsession with the Russia story. Dana said they don’t care about it the way the media cares. People care about other things, she said: the jobs agenda, taxes, healthcare. “Show me something actionable…show me some evidence!” They want to know, where are the other stories?

Of course he tried to challenge that but the important thing is he asked the question. Do you think they suddenly decided to entertain the question do Americans care? They didn’t care this far. They thrust it on us as if there were no other news to cover.

Now they wonder if Americans care? Something must have happened in their poll machine interpreter in the backroom. CNN has gotten a lot of push back from the Trump people about other news and other stories about Trump. But they pooh-poohed those complaints. Now, suddenly they pose the question and have a discussion about it.

Turns out that CNN has a a poll and only 27% are very concerned about Russia story.
And 33% are not at all concerned. (between is mixed) Yep, they’ve been polling.

My brief reply to their question is to ask a few questions: (since they asked)

1) Tell us why it is supposed to be so important? Media haven’t made the case yet. Then where is the substance or evidence? What collaboration?

2) Then why it is more important than everything else that I care about? Why is Russia more important than election results? In 8 months they haven’t told us.

3) People are practical and rational. They just want to know why the Russia story is so 5-alarm important? They don’t see it. Is it too much to explain why this is important enough to jeopardize a brand new presidency? Why does Russia trump that?

Funny it was not that long ago, just last year in fact, that Dems said they didn’t care about the 30 thousand emails. They told us people don’t care about that. Even the Media repeatedly told us, at the time, that people care about issues that effect them. Much of the time mainstream media refused to talk about it claiming “there are so many other news stories to cover.” “We only have so much time,” they said.

But stop the presses and news cycle now because no other stories matter or deserve coverage that interrupts their Trumpathon bash about Russia. 24/7 They even claim to know what is important and to hell with what people think, we decide what to cover.

Now vs. then is night and day. People just want a good reason to care about Russia.

RightRing | Bullright

Media doesn’t like On Line polls

Fox News threw out this disclaimer denouncing online polls. In part:

Politico reports on Fox memo.

“As most of the publications themselves clearly state, the sample obviously can’t be representative of the electorate because they only reflect the views of those Internet users who have chosen to participate,” Dana Blanton, Fox News’s vice president of public-opinion research, wrote in the memo to the channel’s politics team.”

But then it is filled with irony. The MSM (which Fox is now flirting with) cannot fairly represent or reflect the electorate’s opinion on anything, because they are so far removed from public opinion. The self-serving media echo chamber thinks it supposedly represents public opinion.(same as politicians) It’s a non-stop editorial page.

It went on to say:

“News networks and other organizations go to great effort and rigor to conduct scientific polls — for good reason.”

“They know quick vote items posted on the web are nonsense, not true measures of public opinion.”

But there are no disclaimers about it. They assert that their news is unbiased when nothing is further from the truth. They don’t care and are quite proud of their bias. In other words, they substitute their editorial bias for public opinion and claim to speak for it.

Still, they all love to pick on and bash on line polls for their participation. Yet their own polls are hardly better. And their coverage is far from scientific method. The message, then, is “trust our certified bullshit. We work very hard at distorting and slanting the news.

The numbers game

If it is just a numbers game, as people keep repeating these polls, then take a look at them. My comments are a few thoughts that jump out at me. Some things just bug me.

There is a Real Clear Politics page and then there is an AOL article I saw, on the current landscape — a matchup with Hillary.

Questions arise every time I keep hearing these same things repeated. So then why do they keep making a fuss over the details? Some of the polls mentioned are months old.

Cruz likes to point out they show he beats Hillary, by 1 point, in a matchup. But he loses according to the NBC/WSJ poll by 2 points.

News just came out that, according to WSJ , one third or 33% of Sanders’ supporters will not support Hillary. Isn’t that just delicious? His poll number now, with Hillary, is about 40% which means one third of that will not go to Hillary. So that is about 13% voter loss of their electorate for Hillary. Maybe she can write that off?

So Trump loses, by their polls and Cruz can win, albeit by 0.8& But its already a given that some of those Trump supporters will not support Cruz. Isn’t it funny how we’re only told many Cruz Supporters won’t support Trump– “Never Trump.” Back to the point, if Trump loses to Hillary, and DT voters won’t vote for Cruz, then what effect does that have? So if Trump loses against Hillary, then there must be more Cruz voters who will not support Trump. Does that make sense? And if Hillary is down say 13% with her voters(former Bernie voters), then what’s wrong? Plus we know that Trump did bring in more voters. I’d say some things here don’t make sense or add up.

In a matchup against Sanders, Bernie wins by wider margins. He beats Cruz handily, in double digits, and beats Trump by even more. Funny that neither Cruz or Sanders did well in Florida or Ohio — two huge states in the general. Why does Bernie win by that much more? Maybe there are number geniuses out there that make sense of all this.

Of course if you want my unprofessional opinion, both sides may want Cruz to be the nominee to go against Clinton. And I smell a little slant to the left in it all.

Then there is the states problem. It’s expected Hillary is favored in Michigan, Ohio and Florida. They say she does well there. But Cruz has not done well in any of them. Trump took Florida in double digits and didn’t do too badly in Ohio against its popular incumbent governor. Yet they give the advantage to Cruz against Hillary.

My exhaustive conclusion:
So according to my estimates, using all this info and a computer, I safely predict the only thing that can consistently beat Heir Hillary is the Dep of Justice or an indictment.

RightRing | Bullright

Interesting election dichotomy

With another win safely tucked under Trump’s belt, the message is becoming clearer. Trump seems poised to take the nomination, surprising some and pissing off others.

However, there is one interesting thing I find. The estabos are mad of course, but they seem powerless against the up and comer. Well now, when you parse it down it reveals something else. With Cruz and Trump relying on conservatives — frustrated ones that is — they tend to split up that vote. The various ways don’t mean much except that a split should work to the favor of the establishment, RNC types. But then when you see Rubio barely tying Cruz now for the second time, it reveals how weak the establishment is.

If I read it my way, that implies establishment support is less than a third. That would be bad news for establishment. Then when you parse down how much of that candidate vote really is by and for the establishment, it looks worse and worse. Not all Rubio’s vote is establishment support. No, I don’t know the particular numbers and don’t have to to make some generalizations on how weak that establishment support really is. So it is not just a year of the outsider but also the year of the shrinking establishment.

Then there is the strange desire that estabos want either Cruz or preferably Trump out of the race. But that would only further consolidate conservatives, except for the ones who swear they won’t vote for Trump. So their strategy would tend to work against them.

There is the other problem: the ‘sworn-off’ vote. When it comes to the general, they will have to support the nominee or nothing. How many times have we conservatives been told we have to hold our noses? So that part of the vote seems to be irrelevant in the end.

Then there is the problem, so they say, of the high negatives of Trump. Really? Have you seen Hillary’s negatives? But how meaningful are those high negatives in the general election between two candidates? Now with an outsider, insurgent, anti-establishment election, I would expect some high negatives to surface. …Just my observations.

RightRing | Bullright

Clinton’s Black Firewall

Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, penned a memo in which he emphasized the large, March-voting states with significant minority populations. He alluded to Hillary’s strong support among African American and Hispanic voters.

“Many of the most delegate-rich states also have some of the largest minority and urban populations — states like Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Illinois and Florida” — says Mook.

“It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for a Democrat to win the nomination without strong levels of support among African American and Hispanic voters … Hillary’s high levels of support in the African American and Hispanic communities are well known. She has maintained a wide double digit lead over Sen. Sanders among minority voters in national surveys.”

So “African Americans,” how do you feel about being Hillary Clintons firewall? Now that sounds overtly racist to me no matter how you look at it.

The only next thing she could do to secure her “firewall” black vote is get Obama to campaign for her to hand off the black vote — the way they do things on the progressive Left. After all, some black activists are already agitated at Hillary’s assertions and, declaring their independence, are saying “We are not your “firewall.””

How do blacks feel about being Hillary’s “firewall”? I guess it must mean Sanders has a lock on the White cracker vote?

Meanwhile, Hillary now says she never tried to lie to the American people — “I’ve always tried” to tell the truth. Right. What a big fat pregnant lie. She tries to lie about everything. Benghazi to emails to promises before being Sec of State. It’s what she does.

But she isn’t lying about counting on that black firewall.

In other news, astronomers discovered a huge black hole 300 million light years away. But we don’t have to look light years away, there’s one right here where Hillary’s and Obama’s statements go — and it keeps expanding.

The year of the Outsider

I know who should have been the generic ‘person of the year for 2015. It should be “the Outsider”. Score one for the non-politico, non beltway-sized person from the private sector who is fed up with the same mealymouthed politicians we’ve come to expect, especially in our presidential elections.

If there was a huge loser, it would be Jeb Bush for much of the above reasons, and being the poster-child for ruling class elite. But I know, the real poster of the insider should go to Hillary and Obama for being the stereotype of elite politicos, who are only limited by their own political ambitions and greed.

Since outsider was the real person of the year, IMO, then who was the most effective at being an outsider? Was it Carson, Cruz, Trump, Fiorina, or who? I have to say it was Donald Trump. In any future contest DT would be tough to beat as the ultimate outsider. Some people may disagree with that. But even besides Trump, and how you feel about him or don’t, the pure momentum was behind the outsider. That seemed like a history changing thing. But Jeb does fit the estabo qualifiers for losers.

Just for the sake of being a real outsider, one was granted leeway simply for not being connected to the political elites — or for being disconnected. Sort of a real twist from the usual reality. It would not be hard to make a good case for the outsider.

When you think about it, it could have been the year of anything but the outsider reigned supreme at every turn, even in the media. And it was kicked, punched, prodded, ridiculed, and mocked. Still, the unpredictable nature just drove up popular interest and curiosity. Finally, something that broke that conventional model of the politics-media alliance. Something that would break the conventional wisdom of the media and pundit-class.

My prediction for 2016 is a strong push, by estabos, to make it the year of the insider.
Do they win?

RightRing | Bullright

Are you ready for Jeb 2.0?

You might be ready for the newest technology or the latest Iphone or gadget, but I doubt you are ready for the newest Jeb. That’s if you are like most people polled who show less than room temperature for him.

Way before he announced his run I said if he’s in it then I’m loaded for bear. I wasn’t alone. But up until now the critics have been pretty quiet, almost as quiet as his supporters. There just is not any enthusiasm for him and those that dislike him as a nominee are everywhere.

Still Jeb puts forth this line that he is not in it for the short run but the long run. He also muttered something before announcing about not wanting to get dragged into current debates. (read relevant issues)(1) No, he was above that. Then he said he doesn’t want to be lumped in with his brother and father that he’s his own man. (2)

Now he makes this call it the state of his campaign speech(3)

Politico reports that Bush was meeting with family and wealthy, big donors. So it was originally supposed to be a pep rally for the third heir in the dynasty, like sort of a send off into securing the nomination, at least by best guesstimates. Only now on skid row, the same meeting looks more like he is bringing up the rear with no sign of gaining traction, he is forced to cut back on his campaign’s expenses.

“The patient is either in intensive care and in need of some good doctors who can save him or being put into hospice and we’re going to see a slow death,” said one K Street lobbyist supporting Bush.

Now infamous line

Then came the line from Bush that did make it to front page news, from same article. Sounding angry himself he says:

“I’ve got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around, being miserable, listening to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke,” he said in South Carolina. “Elect Trump if you want that.”

Whoa, let’s stop right there. He has a lot better things to do. I guess managing director in Bloomberg’s fund was really cool compared to this, even if it was engulfed in a global abortion agenda. He can always return to that. No one forced him to do that either.

We didn’t exactly force or draft you to run. It’s all your decision. (2)The family thing you didn’t want to be known for is exactly who you are. Nothing will change you being a Bush, Jeb. America does not like dynasties. But you knew all that before you plunged into what you expected to be a rocket climb only to be burned out on the launch pad.

Now you can blame Trump or whomever you want. You won’t blame 43 or the Bush dynasty syndrome. So maybe it is a good thing, for your sake, Trump is there to blame? And you wouldn’t dare blame the establishment or RNC Party for sabotaging your run with its questionable reputation.

How bad is the dislike for Jeb Bush? Its so bad that it is just a symptom of a greater problem that doesn’t even deserve the specter of the press to cover it in detail. Yet it is emblematic of the whole establishment problem.

(1)He didn’t want to get drawn into current issue debates like all other candidates. He shouldn’t have to, he’s a governor and a Bush. We don’t play that. Other candidates should have to go through that not a favorite son. It sounded elitist and arrogant.

He didn’t want to be labeled a Bush, which is why he used only the Jeb name. Buried in hypocrisy and contradiction he keeps saying he’s his own man but proves himself a Bush at every turn. His donor list looks typical and probably a hand-me-down like everything else. He’s been planning this run for years. But don’t play the Bush card against him. More elitist arrogance, he relies on the Bush Dynasty to seal the deal.

It doesn’t seem to matter that people have moved on and said no dynasty. Establishment, dynasty, elite, insiders are not in vogue. He’s still a Bush with all the baggage. He doesn’t seem to understand the word no — so typical. We aren’t smitten any more with you for the long run than we are for the short run. Evolve away it won’t pay. 3 big strikes….

Common Core word games coming soon

We probably cannot expect much change in Common Core policies, but it seems we can expect them to play word games about Common Core. This new poll survey was released describing different nuances in results depending on the wording of the questions. The wording was regarding varied substitutions that replaced Common Core like “standards”.

And guess what they found? Yes, they could fool some people into supporting it. A small amount, but hey. So what do you think they are going to do? You guessed it. I guess it was not a very tough question, or answer. And it’s not a tough decision for big-government elitists.

Republicans hate the words ‘Common Core’ more than they hate education standards

By Jason Russell • 8/18/15 | Washington Examiner

How much do Republicans hate Common Core? It depends how you ask them.

The results of the 2015 Education Next Poll were released Tuesday, with three groups of respondents answering questions about Common Core.

One group of respondents was asked simply whether they support or oppose Common Core. Half of the Republicans in the group opposed Common Core, with 30 percent in favor. Before asking if respondents support or oppose Common Core, the question explained, “In the last few years states have been deciding whether or not to use the Common Core, which are standards for reading and math that are the same across the states.”

Continue reading

Actually the emphasis seemed to be not in winning people over to it, which is practically impossible, but in toning down the fierce opposition to it. So they know we don’t like it but can they make us not like it less, based on careful wording they use? They’ll be going for the gold on that, I’m sure. You can bank on that change until Common Core is hardly recognizable, in speech at least, dumbing down the name They didn’t poll it for nothing.

What I’d like to know is just who are these 30% of people who always seem to support or sympathize with this stuff, no matter how bad it is? If it were a disease we would have mapped the dna of it by now — and probably had some treatment for it. We are already used to our politicians playing word games with us. I guess anything Federal Government related just naturally follows suit. As the article said, they cannot reverse the opposition to it based on removal of the word. But if your thing is bureaucracy, get what support you can and let progressives do the rest. Sounds like their plan.