Jedi Master Endorses President Bush

Washington, D.C. (STN) - Jedi Master Yoda announced at a press conference this morning, the combined endorsement of the Jedi Knights and the Galactic Republic, to re-elect President George W. Bush to a second term.

"The right man, is he", explained the warrior sage. "Much confused, is his opponent. Both ways he would go, on every issue he cannot decide where he stands."

Yoda was challenged by John Edwards, who was intercepted by a bearded Jedi.

"This is not the one you seek" assured Obi wan Kenobi.

"This is not the one I seek" agreed Edwards.

"Your true enemy is another" suggested Kenobi.

"My true enemy is another" said Edwards.

"Now that you think about it, Ted Kennedy and Michael Moore are an awful lot like Jabba the Hut" said Kenobi

"Yes, they are" agreed Edwards, "I'll go sue them immediately."

"Don't forget the Dark forces of MoveOn.org" reminded Kenobi.

"I'll get them, too" promised Edwards, and he ran off to file subpeonae.

Dan Rather approached the pair with a scowl.

"Aren't you two dead?" demanded Rather.

Yoda shrugged.

"Acting, we were" he explained. "When nine centuries you have lived, well you learn to get a paycheck where you can."

National Polls - Grades

Over on Polipundit, I have published a Guide to the National Polls for the 2004 Presidental race. Since I am trying to be objective over on Polipundit, I did not grade the polls, except to make a few remarks about their more distinctive qualities. Here, I'm going to grade them, red marker pen in hand. Before I do, here's the scale:

A : Top Quality, solid work and great reports, I'd pay for this kind of information

B : Good work, good report. Not complete as I'd like, and maybe makes a few assumptions.

C : Satisfactory. Nothing to complain about, but not very impressive, either.

D : Needs Improvement. They need to show their work, and their report needs more information.

F : Failure. Such shoddy work, I wouldn't use their report if they paid me to take it.


OK, now on to the polls:

ABC News/Washington Post: Good data, cumbersome format for their report. C+


American Research Group: Methodology not explained, poor detail. D-


Associated Press/Ipsos : Good data, solid methodology. Reports need to be easier to access, and demographic voting results should be published. B-


Ayres McHenry: Poor detail, no methodology, partisan agency. F


Battleground Poll : Good methodology, details unsatisfying. C-


CBS News, and CBS News/NY Times : Excellent detail, extensive reports, convenient and consistent. A+


Democracy Corps : Partisan Propaganda, but at least there are some details in their reports. D+


Fox News/Opinion Dynamics : good detail, reasonable methodology, but could and should improve on both counts. B


Gallup: Solid data, great details. A


Harris: decent methodology, but does not release necessary details. C-


Investor’s Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor: No data, no support, all pretense. F


Investor’s Business Daily/TIPP : No data, no support. F


LA Times : Poor detail, methodology not established. D


Marist College Institute for Public Opinion: No methodology cited, no details. D


NBC News: Good data verification, reports do not have much detail. C


Newsweek : Excellent consistency, detailed reports. A


NPR-POS/GQR : Small sample base, few details, suspect firm with ties to partisan group. C-


Pew Research Center: Solid information, excellent detail. A


Quinnipiac University: Few details, no details on methodology. C-


Rasmussen: Many polls, useful for daily tracking, but no details or methodology. D


Survey USA: Lots of state data, but no demographics. Has a lot to say, but some of it doesn't stand up to inspection. B-


TIME : Tracks trends well, report a little incomplete, but consistent. C+


Wall Street Journal: Co-sponsors with other polls, has no known standards for weighting or methodology of its own. D


Zogby: A biased poll spokesman, non-random respondent pooling, no explanation of his weighting, and results which often are out of synch with other national polls. F

The September 22 ARG Poll Dissected

Yesterday, in the ‘comments’ section of an article in Polipundit, I noted ARG’s nationwide State Polling results, and wrote that ARG had ‘cheated’. That was a little bit unfair. ARG worked hard to produce a comprehensive poll for the Presidential Election in all 50 states plus D.C., and showed their demographics as well for each and every state. That is certainly worthy of praise, and attention. However, I would still have to say that ARG’s self-review before publishing, appears to be on a par with CBS News. I found what I can only call errors, unless I want to be mean and claim deliberate manipulation. Consequently, I took their numbers and adjusted them to match known and more reasonable demographics, which I will explain further as I go on. Over on Polipundit, I am publishing the overall results. Here at Stolen Thunder, I am presenting the individual states’ results.

The first table shows the states as ARG presents them:

STATE…..R/D/I.……ARG RESULT…….EV…………….RUNNING TALLY
Alabama…40/42/18…54-40 Bush…………9……………Bush 009-000
Alaska……26/18/56…57-30 Bush…………3…………..Bush 012-000
Arizona…..43/37/20…49-43 Bush…………10…………Bush 022-000
Arkansas…29/42/29…48-45 Bush…………6…………..Bush 028-000
California…36/46/18…41-52 Kerry……….55………….Kerry 055-028
Colorado….36/31/33…46-45 Bush………...8……………Kerry 055-036
Conn……...28/36/36…39-54 Kerry………..7……………Kerry 062-036
D.C……….09/74/17…11-78 Kerry………..3……………Kerry 065-036
Delaware…32/44/24…41-50 Kerry………..4……………Kerry 069-036
Florida……39/42/19…45-46 Kerry………..27…………..Kerry 096-036
Georgia…..38/42/20….53-42 Bush………..15…………..Kerry 096-051
Hawaii……25/52/23….41-51 Kerry…….….4…………..Kerry 100-051
Idaho……..44/28/28….59-30 Bush…….…..4…………..Kerry 100-055
Illinois……29/42/29….43-49 Kerry….……21…………..Kerry 121-055
Indiana……44/35/21…54-39 Bush………..11…………..Kerry 121-066
Iowa………34/35/31…48-46 Bush………...7……………Kerry 121-073
Kansas…….44/30/26…57-35 Bush………...6……………Kerry 121-079
Kentucky….34/58/08…57-39 Bush………...8……………Kerry 121-087
Louisiana….31/51/18…50-42 Bush………...9……………Kerry 121-096
Maine……...30/33/37…44-48 Kerry……….4……………Kerry 125-096
Maryland…..31/59/10…43-52 Kerry………10……………Kerry 135-096
Mass……….15/38/47…27-64 Kerry………12……………Kerry 147-096
Michigan…..37/43/20…40-48 Kerry………17……………Kerry 164-096
Minnesota…33/38/29…45-47 Kerry………10……………Kerry 174-096
Mississippi…42/42/16...51-42 Bush………..6…………….Kerry 174-102
Missouri……40/40/20…50-44 Bush………11……………Kerry 174-113
Montana……40/29/31…60-32 Bush………..3…………….Kerry 174-116
Nebraska……51/36/13…61-30 Bush……….5…………….Kerry 174-121
Nevada……..40/38/22…47-45 Bush………..5…………….Kerry 174-126
New Hamp…36/28/36…47-45 Bush……….4……………..Kerry 174-130
New Jersey…20/25/55…42-50 Kerry………15……………Kerry 189-130
New Mex…..34/48/18….44-49 Kerry………..5……………Kerry 194-130
New York….29/47/24….40-52 Kerry………31……………Kerry 225-130
N Carolina…34/50/16….49-44 Bush……….15……………Kerry 225-145
N Dakota…..40/29/31….62-33 Bush…………3…………..Kerry 225-148
Ohio……….38/38/24….48-46 Bush………...20…………..Kerry 225-168
Oklahoma….37/54/9…..55-38 Bush………….7…………..Kerry 225-175
Oregon……..38/40/22…45-47 Kerry…………7………….Kerry 232-175
Penn………..42/48/10…46-47 Kerry………..21………….Kerry 253-175
Rhode Isl…..21/41/38….30-58 Kerry…………4………….Kerry 257-175
S Carolina…41/35/24….52-40 Bush………….8…………..Kerry 257-183
S Dakota…..51/37/12…..58-39 Bush………….3………….Kerry 257-186
Tennessee…39/39/22…..50-43 Bush…………11…………Kerry 257-197
Texas………41/39/20…..58-36 Bush…………34…………Kerry 257-231
Utah………..52/23/25….64-27 Bush…………..5…………Kerry 257-236
Vermont……30/35/35…40-50 Kerry………….3…………Kerry 260-236
Virginia…….37/37/26….49-43 Bush…………13…………Kerry 260-249
Washington…30/39/31…44-51 Kerry…………11……..…Kerry 271-249
W Virginia….33/58/9…..46-46 tie……………...5…..…….Kerry 271-249 (5 und)
Wisconsin….32/36/32….46-46 tie……………..10………..Kerry 271-249 (15 und)
Wyoming…..61/30/9……65-29 Bush…………...3…..……Kerry 271-252 (15 und)

So ARG says Kerry would win with 271 to 286 EV right now, which I don’t buy at all.
Over in Polipundit, I noted that the ARG poll does not balance Men and Women voters by the historical measures, and race was not mentioned in the poll’s demographics. I expect that with a base response of 30,600 adults, race was discarded as a factor, but this further complicates a valid review of the stated results. Also, there is no statement about whether the respondents are Adults, Registered Voters, or Likely Voters, so from the size of the base and the lack of specific comment, I presume we are discussing Adults only. This is significant, because almost every poll has shown Bush collecting higher support as you move from Adults to Likely Voters.

Then there is the matter of the party alignment. When all 50 states and D.C. are tallied, ARG counted 41.4% Democrats, 35.5% Republicans, and 23.1% Independents, which is an unreasonable makeup, and clearly biased in favor of Democrats. I went to my own table to Voter Registration (compiled by contacting the Secretary of State for each state keeping such records and noting their alignment as of December 2003, and for states which do not keep registration records by party, noting the party split in Federal Elections from 1994 through 2002), and plugged in those alignments, which balanced things a little better. Using the same party-vote numbers ARG presented, the new tally favors President Bush by 3.5 points, 47.9% to 44.4%, over John Kerry. Here are the results for each state in the new breakdown:

STATE…..R/D/I.……RESULT…….....EV………….RUNNING TALLY
Alabama…39/41/20…54-40 Bush…………9……………Bush 009-000
Alaska……27/17/56…58-29 Bush…………3…………..Bush 012-000
Arizona…..43/36/21…50-42 Bush…………10…………Bush 022-000
Arkansas…34/41/25…50-43 Bush…………6…………..Bush 028-000
California…36/45/19…42-52 Kerry……….55………….Kerry 055-028
Colorado….40/38/22…45-46 Kerry………...8…………..Kerry 063-028
Conn……...26/35/39…38-55 Kerry………..7……………Kerry 070-028
D.C……….08/75/17…11-79 Kerry………..3……………Kerry 073-028
Delaware…33/44/23…42-50 Kerry………..4……………Kerry 077-028
Florida……40/42/18…45.7-45.9 Kerry…...27…………..Kerry 104-028
Georgia…..38/42/20….53-42 Bush………..15…………..Kerry 104-043
Hawaii……23/56/21….39-54 Kerry…….….4…………..Kerry 108-043
Idaho……..42/26/32….60-30 Bush…….…..4…………..Kerry 108-047
Illinois……39/48/13….46-47 Kerry….……21…………..Kerry 129-047
Indiana……52/40/8..…56-38 Bush………..11…………..Kerry 129-058
Iowa………31/36/33…46-47 Kerry..……...7……………Kerry 136-058
Kansas…….46/29/25…58-34 Bush………...6……………Kerry 136-064
Kentucky….38/42/20…62-34 Bush………...8……………Kerry 136-072
Louisiana….28/54/18…48-44 Bush………...9……………Kerry 136-081
Maine……...30/32/38…45-47 Kerry……….4……………Kerry 140-081
Maryland…..31/58/11…43-52 Kerry………10……………Kerry 150-081
Mass……….14/37/49…27-64 Kerry………12……………Kerry 162-081
Michigan…..42/48/10…40-49 Kerry………17……………Kerry 179-081
Minnesota…39/45/16…45-47 Kerry………10……………Kerry 189-081
Mississippi…40/40/20...52-41 Bush………..6…………….Kerry 189-087
Missouri……37/37/26…50-44 Bush………11……………Kerry 189-098
Montana……37/31/32…58-34 Bush………..3…………….Kerry 189-101
Nebraska……50/28/22…63-27 Bush……….5…………….Kerry 189-106
Nevada……..42/39/19…48-45 Bush………..5…………….Kerry 189-111
New Hamp…38/27/35…48-44 Bush……….4……………..Kerry 189-115
New Jersey…20/25/55…42-50 Kerry………15……………Kerry 204-115
New Mex…..33/50/17….43-50 Kerry………..5……………Kerry 209-115
New York….29/47/24….40-52 Kerry………31……………Kerry 240-115
N Carolina…35/47/18….51-42 Bush……….15……………Kerry 240-130
N Dakota…..44/42/14….57-39 Bush…………3…………..Kerry 240-133
Ohio……….37/35/28….48-45 Bush………...20…………..Kerry 240-153
Oklahoma….38/54/8…..55-37 Bush………….7…………..Kerry 240-160
Oregon……..37/40/23…44-47 Kerry…………7………….Kerry 247-160
Penn………..42/48/10…46-47 Kerry………..21………….Kerry 268-160
Rhode Isl…..20/44/36….29-59 Kerry…………4………….Kerry 272-160
S Carolina…39/38/23….50-42 Bush………….8…………..Kerry 272-168
S Dakota…..56/40/4..…..58-38 Bush………….3………….Kerry 272-171
Tennessee…39/35/26…..51-42 Bush…………11…………Kerry 272-182
Texas………39/50/11…..53-40 Bush…………34…………Kerry 272-216
Utah………..50/31/19….59-31 Bush…………..5…………Kerry 272-221
Vermont……26/24/50…40-47 Kerry………….3…………Kerry 275-221
Virginia…….46/36/18….53-40 Bush…………13…………Kerry 275-234
Washington…29/38/33…44-51 Kerry…………11……..…Kerry 286-234
W Virginia….32/59/9…..45-47 Kerry..………...5…..…….Kerry 291-234
Wisconsin…44/41/15….49-43 Bush.…………..10………..Kerry 291-244
Wyoming…..63/29/8……66-28 Bush…………...3…..……Kerry 291-247

With the registration correction, Kerry improves to 291 EV. But there is still a problem with those numbers, not only because they were counting Adults overall instead of Registered or Likely Voters, but because I noticed their strength-of-support numbers seemed very low for what I had seen in internals. I attributed that to the respondent base, and tweaked the numbers to match more conventional strength-of-support numbers, as I have seen since July in every major poll citing that data (Pew, Gallup, IBD, CBS, Fox, Newsweek, Zogby), and with those punched in, President Bush leads John Kerry by 4.7%, 49.1% to 44.4%.

I punched in the consensus numbers for strength of support, averaging them against ARG’s numbers which raised Bush’s support to a point more consistent with the consensus (2/3 consensus, 1/3 ARG), which resulted in the following breakdown:

STATE…....RESULT……......EV………RUNNING TALLY
Alabama……55-40 Bush…………9 EV……Bush 009-000
Alaska………59-29 Bush…………3 EV.…..Bush 012-000
Arizona……..51-42 Bush…………10 EV.…Bush 022-000
Arkansas……51-43 Bush…………6 EV…...Bush 028-000
California…...43-52 Kerry………...55 EV….Kerry 055-028
Colorado……47-46 Bush……….....8 EV…..Kerry 055-036
Conn…….….40-55 Kerry………....7 EV..…Kerry 062-036
D.C…………11-79 Kerry……..…..3 EV…..Kerry 065-036
Delaware……43-50 Kerry…………4 EV.….Kerry 069-036
Florida………47-46 Bush………...27 EV…..Kerry 069-063
Georgia……..54-42 Bush…………15 EV…..Bush 078-069
Hawaii………39-54 Kerry………….4 EV….Bush 078-073
Idaho………..62-30 Bush…….…….4 EV…..Bush 082-073
Illinois………49-46 Bush……….…21 EV….Bush 103-073
Indiana………57-38 Bush…….…...11 EV…..Bush 114-073
Iowa…………48-47 Bush………...7 EV…...Bush 121-073
Kansas………59-34 Bush…….…...6 EV…...Bush 127-073
Kentucky…….63-34 Bush………...8 EV…...Bush 135-073
Louisiana…….49-44 Bush………...9 EV…..Bush 144-073
Maine…….…..45-47 Kerry……….4 EV……Bush 144-077
Maryland……..43-52 Kerry……..…10 EV….Bush 144-087
Mass………….28-64 Kerry……..…12 EV….Bush 144-099
Michigan……..45-49 Kerry………..17 EV….Bush 144-116
Minnesota……47.4-47.3 Bush…..…10 EV.…Bush 154-116
Mississippi……54-41 Bush………....6 EV…..Bush 160-116
Missouri……….51-44 Bush…….…11 EV.…Bush 171-116
Montana……….58-34 Bush………..3 EV.….Bush 174-116
Nebraska………64-27 Bush……..….5 EV…..Bush 179-116
Nevada…………49-44 Bush…….…..5 EV...Bush 184-116
New Hamp……..49-44 Bush…….….4 EV....Bush 188-116
New Jersey……..42-50 Kerry………15 EV….Bush 188-131
New Mexico…..47-50 Kerry.………..5 EV…..Bush 188-136
New York……..41-52 Kerry……..…31 EV.…Bush 188-167
N Carolina…….52-42 Bush……..….15 EV….Bush 203-167
N Dakota………58-39 Bush…………3 EV….Bush 206-167
Ohio……………49-45 Bush…….…..20 EV…Bush 226-167
Oklahoma………56-37 Bush……..….7 EV…..Bush 233-167
Oregon…………45-48 Kerry……..…7 EV……Bush 233-174
Pennsylvania……46.8-46.9 Kerry…..21 EV…..Bush 233-195
Rhode Island……30-60 Kerry…….…4 EV……Bush 233-199
S Carolina……….51-42 Bush…..…….8 EV…..Bush 241-199
S Dakota…………58-38 Bush……..….3 EV…..Bush 244-199
Tennessee………..53-42 Bush…..……11 EV…..Bush 255-199
Texas…………….54-40 Bush………..34 EV…..Bush 289-199
Utah………………60-31 Bush………..5 EV……Bush 294-199
Vermont…………..40-47 Kerry……….3 EV……Bush 294-202
Virginia……………54-40 Bush….……13 EV…..Bush 307-202
Washington………..44-51 Kerry………11 EV…..Bush 307-213
W Virginia…………46.4-46.8 Kerry…...5 EV……Bush 307-218
Wisconsin………….51-43 Bush.…..…..10 EV……Bush 317-218
Wyoming…………..69-28 Bush………...3 EV……Bush 320-218

In the Popular Vote, this adjustment only puts Bush up by 4.7%, but he completely takes control on the EV level, President Bush now winning 320-218 EV.

So we see, the biggest factor in controlling the results, is strength of support. Note further, that I have not adjusted for turnout, which will ( I think) make Bush’s lead even larger.

UPDATE: Rocketman helped me correct my math.

Scoreboard September 22

Polls, so many polls!

A lot of people are sick of them, but not me, so here we go, looking at the polls I consider relevant.

“Relevant” is not cherry-picking, exactly. That is, I decided to accept the results of any polls which was released in September, includes a breakdown of at least two categories between adults, registered voters, and likely voters, has head-to-head numbers, and shows at least three demographic details. This list includes Fox News, Pew, ABC News, Newsweek magazine, The Battleground Poll, The CBS/NY Times Poll, IBD/CSM, Zogby, and CNN/USA Today/Gallup. Rasmussen, TIME, ARG, AP/Ipsos, and Harris were excluded because they did not include sufficient internal data to support their headline claims.

On the average of these polls, President Bush leads John Kerry 48.8-44.3%. But the real story is in the internal data:

• Among Republicans, Bush is preferred 92.8% to 03.8%
• Among Democrats, Kerry is preferred 82.6% to 10.4%
• Among Independents, Kerry is preferred 44.7% to 41.5%
  
  So, the turnout for each party remains critical.
  
• Men prefer Bush 51.8% to 41.0%
• Women prefer Kerry 46.3% to 45.8%
  
  Unless women far outvote men in this election, that works to Bush’s advantage.
  
• Whites prefer Bush 54.5% to 40.0%
• Non-Whites prefer Kerry 64.7% to 27.0%
  
  Remember that whites are usually 80% of the turnout, and Bush’s non-White numbers are improved from 2000.
  
  Bush’s Job Approval averages 51.2% right now.
  
  58.0% of those polled, said they expect President Bush to be re-elected. Only 22.8% say they expect John Kerry to be elected. This could be an important clue about who will actually go vote in November.

American Mythology 2004

I originally wrote this for Polipundit in July, but I thought it was too important to leave stranded in an archive...

As the election heats up again, so does the rhetoric. June 30, the scheduled handover of Sovereignty back to an Interim Government in Iraq, always held special significance for the War in Iraq, as well as the War on Terrorism. Naturally, it has occurred to players and pundits no both sides of the fence, that because the War in Iraq (WI) is a campaign issue, the handover is a point of great value. Or rather, if you have a certain political flavor, it is a point which value must be diluted, diminished, or thwarted as much as possible.

There are two main topics which have risen from the handover of Sovereignty back to Iraq; the return of the Liberal Myth Chant, and the political impact of this tactic. Here, I am discussing the political impact I see from these claims. There are many myths flying around, but for here, I will simply address the top 12 I have heard, or the Dirty Dozen as I see them:

Liberal Myths About Iraq

1. "George W. Bush did not really win the Presidency"
Well over 90% of voters (including Democrats) believe Bush won the 2000 election. This argument cannot win even a single swing voter for Kerry. But if Kerry lets this argument (and its inherent bitterness) get started again, this claim can drive some in the middle to Bush.

2. "Iraq is a country with several racial and religious groups. Giving them their freedom will just lead to civil war, it will just collapse back into another dictatorship"
This claim walks a very thin tightrope. On the one hand, it is true that many people, including Republicans, are wary about assuming the war in Iraq is won or will be stable anytime soon. After all, the first Gulf War to free Kuwait started very well, but did not ultimately resolve the Iraqi question. On the other hand, there are a lot of military people in the United States as well as pro-military supporters, who will see this sort of claim as a tactic used to play on people's fears. Kerry already has a reputation for a negative perspective on the military side of things, and a sour look here could hurt Kerry in a number of key states.

3. "The handover was only symbolic, Iraq is just a puppet of the US"
A growing number of Bush's critics are pushing this argument now, but it's not a good thing for Kerry. First off, it's clearly a negative attack, and Kerry has made a big point of accusing the GOP of using negative tactics, so he can't afford to get connected to this attack, or he'll just look like a hypocrite. Next, it is defeatist-sounding, and the closer the election comes, the more vital it will be to Kerry to appear Presidential.

4. "There were no WMD, and Bush lied to get us into Iraq"
As more WMD evidence is found, and Kerry tries to focus on his image as a positive leader, it will become impossible for Kerry to use these sorts of tactics, except through surrogates like Michael Moore, et al. But even the use of stand-in attacks will likely drop off by the middle of the summer, because the last thing Kerry wants, is to call attention to a policy where people may revisit their decision and decide President Bush was right after all.

5. "The US just wants to rape Iraq's resources"
This one's already D.O.A., folks. Yes, we're starting to see it again, but it's a sign of desperation more than anything else. While gas prices are high, anyone trying to claim that the Bush Administration went into this war to keep oil flowing is going to look like the tinfoil-hat merchant of your choice. And as gas prices come back down, there is still zero chance that this claim could gain traction.

6. "Iraqis are not celebrating the handover, they know nothing has changed"
You'll read and hear this a lot this week, but not for very long. Already, the average Iraqi is beginning to sense the changes taking place. Saddam is in Iraqi custody now, scheduled elections for the National Assembly are already in the works, and the last two polls from Iraq show a growing optimism. Kerry would be well-advised to leave this topic alone, as it can only benefit President Bush.

7. "The Interim government is no more legitimate than Saddam Hussein was"
Saddam Hussein is quickly becoming as absurd a model for comparison, as Hitler was a few months back. It's actually fun to see that claim in print, because (as before), it really shows the level of desperation some have shown as the news in Iraq gets better and better.

8. "Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Iran are much greater threats than Iraq ever was"
Most people are able to understand the difference between these countries, and the threat each presented. More, most of us are well enough aware of Saddam Hussein, to understand that if Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Iran are to be considered unstable, then we would have to coin a completely new word, to properly describe the level of danger and hostility that Hussein's regime posed to the region, and to the United States. Anyone who wants to discount the threat posed by Iraq, is likely to face a skeptical audience. Politically, expect Kerry to carefully rephrase this attack, to suggest that there are additional countries of concern, while backing away from this assertion. It may well be, however, that his supporters will be slower to catch the drift.

9. "Conservatives are unfairly attacking Liberals, just for not agreeing with them"
At first blush, my response would be that we seem to have struck a nerve, if the Left reacts so hotly to a few selected ads, pointing out , well, deficiencies in Kerry's performance as a Senator. Not at all a personal attack, and certainly nothing in the league of the absolute vitriol one can find at the Democratic Underground , or say, the CBS Nightly News with Dan Rather. It has its political value, of course, especially if your counterpart obliges with an uncivil response. This is one reason why in the past, the incumbent has generally waited until mid-summer to make any sort of response to the challenger; don't give the opposition any ammunition. However, a review of past elections also shows that the challenger can set the stage by making charges which are not answered early on, which in recent days has forced both sides to reply to the other, and to raise the stakes. That, I think, has had the effect of turning the public away from much of the debate, producing results which sometimes benefits neither side. In this case, the claims by the Left are unlikely to gain any traction on their own, but if the President can be made to seem defensive on controversial policies, the Left can present his responses as negative. Of course, it is also true that when the President can present himself as optimistic and positive, such tactics by the Left will likely backfire, which recent polls support.

10. "Fundamentalist Islam is to blame, not some state or leader"
Ahh, the 'religion is evil' card. Not at all surprising, but I really don't see that as working to sway undecideds in favor of Kerry. That is, I understand that the Left is trying to play a subtle game on two levels: To imply that Bush and his Administration do not really understand the nature of the threat they are facing, and also to suggest that religious faith, in a politician, is often changed to something less noble in actual practice. The reasons I don't think that will work are these:
a. First off, the Left marginalizes many Muslims by implying the faith is connected directly to the violence.
b. The Left also fails to grasp that attacking people for their faith is an ill-chosen road. Even when they do not share the particulars of a certain belief, there are a great many people whose personal faith includes dedication to the idea, that everyone else is entitled to their faith, as well. Trying to blame a belief system, rather than the people doing bad things, is likely to result in resistance.
c. Kerry has presented himself, basically, as a secular humanist. Attacking a faith, however foreign, is going to seem to be part of a general assault on religious freedom.

The message is powerful enough, that its effect will be undeniable. It is also subtle enough, that Kerry might not understand what is happening before the damage is done.

11. "Instead of being in Iraq at all, we should first finish the job in Afghanistan"
All that statement really does, is try to divert attention from Iraq. With all Kerry has said in the past about Iraq, if he lets his supporters press this argument, he will merely remind people of how wrong he was in Iraq, and will come across as a man unwilling to admit where he was wrong.

12. "Bush is changing his defense about why we went into Iraq"
Unfortunately, this one has already gotten some traction, ironically because the Democrats have been successful in confusing people about what President Bush said, and what Democrats have said.President Bush and his Administration have always presented a multi-level argument for the War in Iraq. However, because so much controversy was drummed up by the Democrats about WMD, there was an unbalanced presentation of the debate to the public, and many Americans were left with the impression that WMD was the only issue. The facts, available for anyone willing to look them up, show that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, early on, reminded Americans about the torture and murder of dissidents, including children, about the treatment of minorities and women in Iraq, about the abuse of the UN Oil-for-Food program, and everything which has been discussed since Baghdad fell to the Coalition. Fortunately, the Left has bungled this opportunity, as well as others they have had. In Michael Moore's slanderama, ‘Fahrenheit 9/11', for example, none of the other valid reasons presented by the Bush Administration is discussed, and the existing presentations are done in such a sneering tone, that unbiased viewers are likely to be disgusted by the attacks, whose slant and malice are clear. No one will be impressed by Moore's film, who did not already hold beliefs to match Moore's own before they saw the film. The same thing happens with MoveOn.org, and so many other groups dedicated to rabid hatred against the President; how many reasonable people will make their decision to vote for the Presidency, on the basis of an argument presented by someone who appears to have overdosed on steroids? The short answer for President Bush, even after enduring so many months of abuse from Kerry's slimier allies, might well be to simply maintain the course, to do as he has done, and let the record speak for itself.

While the success of the Bush Administration will undoubtedly drive many more Liberals to scream even more obscenities, it will also convince many people to stay with a winner. Before concluding, I would like to note the results from some recent polls, especially where the answers from voters have remained consistent. First off, let's review the most recent poll of Iraqis, about Iraq, presented by The Washington Post:

- 68 percent of Iraqis have confidence in their new leaders.
- 73 percent of Iraqis polled approved of Allawi to lead the new government,
- 84 percent approved of President Ghazi Yawar
- almost two-thirds backed the new Cabinet
- Four out of every five Iraqis expected that the new government will “make things better” for Iraq after the handover
- two-thirds of Iraqis believed the first democratic elections for a new national assembly will be free and fair
The last Fox poll shows 75% of Bush's supporters support him 'strongly', only 53% of Kerry's supporters are 'strong'. Bush continues to lead on key questions about who will protect America better from Terrorism (49-28), who is more trustworthy (42-31), and who is expected to win in November (50-30); Bush has always led in these questions, regardless of opponent.

The latest Battleground Poll notes that more respondents are likely to vote against Kerry (42% 'strongly likely') because of what they?ve learned about him, than for him (31% 'strongly likely'). Like Fox, Battleground finds voters trust Bush more to protect against Terrorism (55-36), more likely to say what he really believes (57-34), and more likely to act as a strong leader (54-38).

Gallup also agrees that Bush remains well ahead of Kerry on the issue of the War against Terrorism (54-40). What's worse for Kerry, Gallup observes "despite everything that has happened in American politics over the last five months, the public’s views of the president have remained remarkably consistent".

The CBS/NY Times Poll (you know, the guys whose ratings for Bush are lower than anyone else?s) note 56% of Bush's supporters are 'strong', but only 31% of Kerry's supporters are 'strong', that 58% of the voters say Bush says what he really believes, while only 34% for Kerry. This from a group which admits Democrats were polled more heavily than Republicans, by a 5-to-4 margin! (page 31 of the pdf detail)

NBC notes that although 68% of voters said they knew a lot about Kerry in March, now only 57% say they know a lot about Kerry, showing that some have begun to doubt what they initially heard from Kerry, enough to back away substantially from the man.

The total effect of these myths, when considered, is that the liberals are running scared, apparently scared to death about what Americans will conclude when they find out the facts. Here you see my estimates of the effects of these claims.


UPDATE: Now that it's late September, it's interesting to look at how the race has changed in the less than three months. With six weeks to go, the ride is getting to be real fun, and it looks like the people will make the right choice again.

Letter to CBS News

I sent a letter to CBS News via their website:

Good afternoon, gentlemen:

To begin, I should note, in the interest of full disclosure, that I am a blogger. Yes, one of those “guys in pajamas” who work at their home computer, and for whom you doubtless hold little fondness at the moment. In reality, of course, I don’t wear pajamas much, and often prepare my pieces with the same editorial standards you would expect of anyone serious about their work. And that brings me, to the matter of Dan Rather’s deceit and complicity in an attempt to manipulate a Presidential election.

Frankly, I am stunned, that you would fail so miserably, in recalling even the basic tenets of Edward R. Murrow, but enough of that. The task at hand, is to stop the fall, and to repair the damage. Some many people are amused at the collapse of CBS’ credibility, but I am not. I am fully aware, that as a blogger, I am able to analyze the work of numerous news sources, compare and test the claims made by all the various spokesmen, but I do not produce a great deal of the news on my own. And so, it is essential for all of us, to be able to trust and cooperate with the major news networks, provided a feasible arrangement can be had. You see, it should have occurred to you, or will soon, that CBS, if it is to survive, needs the blogger community as much as we need you. Or to put it more bluntly, if CBS fails, we still have ABC, NBC, CNN, and Fox, just as if any one or number of bloggers were to stop publishing, there would be many to take their place. But I think it is better for all concerned, to find a means of cooperation, where all gain a better position from the moment.

You will decide for yourself where things went wrong on the Guard Memo Forgery story, so I will not presume to tell you what should be obvious. However, it should be abundantly clear, that you need at least one more level of check and balance to prevent the sort of error so painfully difficult to repair. And to that, I would make four suggestions:

1. Admit you screwed up. Be specific, and make sure Rather personally apologizes to the Killian family. Until they forgive you, this won’t go away. Don’t put your buddies on any commission, either. If you’re going to find out what happened, cooperate fully in telling the whole truth. Anything else, is just digging deeper.

2. Do not let a news anchor play at investigative reporter. It blurs the line between news and commentary to begin with, and as you see in the present mire, it removes some much-needed safeguards.

3. Get a broader perspective, than the New York office. America is also made up of people in Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, Detroit, and many small towns and remote locations, as well. Test your opinion where you won’t get the automatic response.

4. Hire bloggers! I would strongly recommend, that CBS start a network blog, where you can get immediate and direct feedback from viewers, and to do that, you will need people able to post CBS stories with the blog flavor and, frankly, the sort of honesty that is not found on broadcast news. Yeah, I know, this isn’t going to be popular with men who think in terms of how they did things in 1980, but take a close look at how the bloggers broke the Rathergate story, and you have to see that only by having bloggers of your own, can you avoid becoming irrelevant. Besides, the trend towards online news and real-time feedback is not only happening, it’s here. Evolve or be left behind, gentlemen.

5. Last but not least, remember who you used to be. There was a time, when CBS stood for a standard better than the other networks. For a lot of people, it matters.

If you are still reading by this point, thanks, and congratulations – like the saying, the first step to getting better, is admitting you have a problem. I send this message not to taunt, but to make suggestions that really will help.

Respectfully,

“DJ Drummond”
http://www.polipundit.com
http://stolenthunder.blogspot.com

Who knows, maybe it will do some good!

The Morality of War - Part 4

So, here we are in 21st Century America, a land where our Constitution still dictates the boundaries of Law, yet we must take off our belts and watches before entering many public buildings. There is a clear difference between the type of War President Bush has waged, and the type of War Senator Kerry says he would wage.

First, Senator Kerry: The Democrat's nominee for President is a combat veteran from Vietnam, who opposed the war then, and now says we should not have invaded the way President Bush proceeded. Senator Kerry, however, has never gone into specifics about his plan. He seems to believe that the United States needs the support of the United Nations in order to go to war, their abysmal record in protecting innocents notwithstanding. Kerry also seems to disrespect the committment of nations like Great Britain and Pakistan, preferring instead to curry favor with the old continental powers of Europe long past, such as France and Germany. He has said he would respond if America is attacked again, yet seems oblivious to the fact that America was already attacked in 2001. Kerry favors response after the fact, to proactive measures in advance. He seems also, to believe that unless America is directly attacked by a nation or group, we should not use force against them, even where there is cause and provocation. HIs entire history in the Senate, has been on eof cutting Defense budgets and opposing the needs of our military. The sole conclusion I can reach, is that a Kerry Presidency would be hesitant, slow, indecisive and weak, Carter with higher stakes. Whatever one thinks of War, under Kerry it would not be prevented, only bloodier and conducted at our enemy's whim. I can only call such a worldview immoral, as it puts the blood of men at smaller value than political image.

As for President Bush, he has his failings. More than a thousand servicemen have died fighting the present conflict, and because there is reason to believe the President underestimated the cost, he bears fault for that. Further, until Iraq is secure and stable, there is the risk that the war was fought for a cause which has not been accomplished. However, against that, we must measure the fact that Bush's actions prevented a follow-up attack on U.S. soil by al Qaeda, and he has freed two nations from tyrannical regimes, both known to suport and promote terrorist groups. He has demonstrated resolve in a noble cause, and has trusted his generals and cabinet to know and perform their responsibilities. He has recognized and met the strategic threat from Global Terrorism, and has balanced the limits of his office with a bold initiative to lead the offensive to remove this threat from American territories and allies. President Bush has invested the force and authority of the United States, to lead the world to greater security and freedom, by creating the opportunity for the Middle East to choose its own path, rather than be goaded by tyrants and madmen, and despite the lies of his enemies, has put duty ahead of politics, and the good of the nation ahead of present comfort.

The future is uncertain, but it was always so. President Wilson dared to believe that the First World War made the world safe for Democracy. Though he failed to anticipate Hitler and Tojo, it was nonetheless well for the world, that American Marines entered France in 1917, and setlled a war which otherwise might have been even worse in cost and misery. President Roosevelt dared to believe that we might treat with Stalin, though he knew the man was a monster. Though FDR failed to foresee the Iron Curtain or the rise of Communist China, it was well for the world that American forces ended the wars in Berlin and Tokyo, or it might, again, have been even worse for those who could not ignore the bombs and the tanks. Ronald Reagan dared to believe that America would lead the nations out of Communism. Though he failed to foresee the rise of Islamofascism, or corporate terrorism, or the global alliance between murderers, it is well for the world that Reagan faced down the Politburo, or we might not have the means to take on the terrorists.

And so, we come now to the present danger, a crisis one candidate thinks we can hide from, but which our President has resolved to face and defeat. The battles will be of both common and new appearance, some obvious and som ehidden, some easy and some at ghastly cost, but the morality of the moment is to defend our land and children, by taking out the enemy where he bases, and changing the landscape which bred such monsters. By ending these enemies, we may give their nations hope for their own future, and so better insure our own, and if War has any morality, surely this is where it is found.

The Morality of War - Part 3

(Continued)

This brings us to about two generations ago. The introduction of Nuclear weapons brought a term into use, which we are now well-familiar with: Weapons of Mass Destruction. Chemical Weapons appalled the world in World War I, leading to a number of conventions banning them, even in all-out war. The threat of Nuclear Winter leads many people to demand their outright ban. And the threat of Biological Weapons also moved nations to agree to their ban. The reasoning is easily understood; these weapons had little practical value in warfare, and all were the sort of weapon that killed thousands, even millions of innocents. The problem was, nations held these weapons for essentially two reasons - because they feared their enemies had them, and held WMD as a protection against their enemies’ use of those weapons. Or, they wanted these weapons out of a belief that it gave them an advantage with their neighbors. The United States and the Soviet Union, the world’s leading hegemonies for most of the 20th Century, had good reason to want to prevent the proliferation of these weapons, and on occasion would even cooperate unoffically, as the Osirak raid demonstrates. The world began to separate into classes of nations; "Superpowers", meaning the United States, the Soviet Union, and possibly Communist China; "First World" nations like England, Japan, and Canada, "Second World" nations like Iran (under the Shah), Argentina, or Pakistan; and "Third World" nations like Cuba, Somalia, or Vietnam. The lines were not always clear, but there was a distinct sense of envy in many nations which suffered lower standards of living, and who often tried to compel the richer nations to agree to wealth redistribution. Against this situation, the United States found itself in an untenable moral position: In Korea, the U.S. could not simply invade North Korea, as they would normally do in a war, because the Chinese had sent more than three hundred thousand men to North Korea, and in so doing continued to support North Korea’s threat to invade South Korea again. The threat of escalation to nuclear exchanges prevented any substantial resolution of the conflict by either side. In Vietnam, the politization of the war made military victory all but impossible, and that small remaining possibility was removed by the treasonous decision by Walter Cronkite and other leading media elites, to side with the Communists and declare the American effort lost. Sound familiar?

"Vietnam Syndrome" is a phrase used in many contexts, but in this case, I mean the loss of confidence by the American military, the loss of trust in the military by the American citizen, the loss of trust in the American government by most of the world (which was not helped by Nixon’s intransigence in the Watergate scandal), and the emergence of Terrorism as a tactic by the Soviets to disrupt governments and incite revolution. By 1975, there were more than a few supposed ‘experts’ suggesting that the USA needed to find an arrangement with the USSR while we were still relevant. Enter Ronald Reagan.

In 1979, the United States bungled the decaying situation in Iran, managing to anger both the forces of the Shah, and the revolutionary Islamists under the Ayatollah Khomeini. Carter’s reward for trying to mediate a peaceful transition for the new regime, was angry protests and the takeover of the American Embassy in Teheran. To make matters worse, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, a move for which Carter held no response. The American military was underpaid, understaffed, underequipped, and demoralized. For a President to take a strategic offensive seemed sheer madness, and when President Reagan proposed his improvements to American readiness, more than a few of the media elite quickly suggested he was not in posession of his faculties. Or that he did not understand the new realities of Realpolitik, as so many high-brow critics dictated.

But if Ronald Reagan was anything, he was a man who understood the fundamentals, of both American Identity and the history of the United States. Reagan chose his battles, using diplomats and Marines where each would be most effective. He energized our military, rebuilt our alliances, and spoke decisively in every action. Reagan was also careful to keep close contacts with the Soviets, avoiding the feeling of confrontation or deliberate slight. The USA which faced the end of its relevancy in 1979, was by 1989 confident of its leadership in the world.
George H.W. Bush, whatever his faults, understood this worldview, and in 1990 stepped up to the task in the first Gulf War. Historians and veterans will debate whether the first President Bush should have stopped short of overthrowing Saddam’s regime, but a clear message was sent, nonetheless. Sources within the Kremlin reported that Mikhail Gorbachev, referencing the impressive power and accuracy of American military might, told the Politburo flatly "we have nothing to fight that kind of power". The Cold War was over, and the United States won.
I won’t waste time discussing the "Peace Dividend", because there never was one. An intelligent foreign policy during the 1990s, would have understood that as the sole remaining Superpower, America was a very big target, especially considering that all those terrorist groups born and bred by the Soviets, were now on their own, hungry, angry, and aggressive. A canny President would have realized that the media remained leftist, unwilling to provide more than token support for our military, and prejudiced against the success of American policy. A leader with a good education in History, would have realized that our success made other nations jealous and envious. An honest leader would have noted, that the "Peace Dividend" was an artificial construct, based on equally fallacious beliefs that the USA would spend less after the Cold War, and would somehow produce more money. And a concientious leader would have noted the rise of a new and serious threat to the safety and welfare of American citizens, the Nation’s interests, and our security.

(To be Continued in Part 4)

The Morality of War - Part 2

(continued)

This brings us to a reasonable picture of the 20th Century; Wars and rumors of wars, to quote the Lord Jesus Christ. And humans all familiar with their leaders hip deep in warfare. This is true of America, as anywhere else. Who was our best President? Common nominees would be Washington, who fought the Revolutionary War against England as a General, or Lincoln, who was President during the American Civil War, or Franklin Roosevelt, who led our nation as President in World War 2. The American School of War was, for the longest time, a simple one: We will win. We always win. And because we win, we are right.

It is commonly thought that the U.S. had never lost a war before Vietnam. That is simply not true. The U.S. lost a war against Chief Red Cloud of the Lakota Tribe (1866-1868), and settled on the Lakota's terms. The U.S. then simply ignored the inconvenient treaty, and eventually forced the Lakota to accept a smaller reservation in present-day South Dakota. I bring this up, because it shows an unfortunate absence of chivalry and honor in American Strategic thinking of the time, and this contributed to creating a weakness of excessive hubris in the American psyche, which was shown a number of times before it finally cost us a war. We jumped to conclusions when the Maine was sunk in Cuba, because we were ready for a war against Spain (the media of that day had a bit to do with the provocation as well). We proclaimed ourselves neutral in World War I, then proceeded to sell arms to nations we favored. That does not, of course, justify the sinking of the Lusitania, but the Germans may, perhaps, be forgiven for thinking us a bit duplicitous. Then again, the Zimmerman Telegram was just stupid; Germany must have known that they were standing in a pool of gasoline, so striking a match by that act was amazingly fooolish. And of course, there was Pearl Harbor, the most announced surprise attack in history. General Billy Mitchell warned it would happen - in 1924. Naval officers from allied nations warned that the harbor waterways were too narrow. Japanese observers were known to be studying the Taranto raid in 1940. And with the 'Purple' intercepts, America knew Japan was preparing to attack the United States. And yet, we never believed they would dare to strike at our fleet... until they did just that.

The United States always brought their leaders up, to believe that American might would always be used for noble causes, and in the main, they were. The Monroe Doctrine banished European nations from the Caribbean. The U.S., working with England, rid the world of open sea piracy in the 19th Century. Our Navy opened the ports of Japan by threat of force. But for the first 165 years of our history, we were always a rising power, with our rivals almost always static or in decline. By the end of World War 2, there was no nation which could hope to face us in War and win. But the rules changed, when the Soviet Union stole the secrets to our Atomic bomb.

The morality of War changed again. What had been the necessity of defending home and family from potential invaders, had become the crusade of spreading Democracy, and then had become the advance of American power and influence against any opponent. Suddenly, then, we were back to survival . Never mind that the use of every nuclear weapon in 1950, would have been insufficient to destroy either the USA or the USSR, never mind that every military thinker believed the weapons to be monstrous, unacceptable as a battle tool (consider a weapon which would not only kill innocents as an unfortunate effect of its use, but which was impossible to use without killing innocents, and match that against the warrior's code of honor), the fact that they existed required all the strategy and tactics to be reconsidered. And that discovery made the possession of such weapons all the more desirable. China, India, England, France, Pakistan and Israel all joined the 'Nuclear Club', and it seemed the madness of Nuclear Proliferation ws going to sweep the word, then - it stopped. The door, by consent of the members inside (I suspect) was closed and barred, and anyone interested in joining was made to understand they were opposed. Perhaps the clearest example of this strange new cooperation between blood enemies, was the Osirak raid in 1981. Iraq was building a bomb, and planned to use Plutonium from the Osirak nuclear power plant. It wasn't disguised very well; the plant was supposed to be producing electricity, but in fact did not have any transmission lines going out to the rest of the country. So, Israel bombed the place. Simple enough, except for nagging stories about the US supplying satellite imagery, and the USSR warning neighboring countries not to interfere with the Israeli rading group. For a time, 'Mutual Assured Destruction' and 'Detente' actually seemed to be working. But good things never last.

(to be continued)

The Morality of War - Part 1

It should be clear to many people, that this election has come down to essentially two basic issues, Money and War. Money is acknowledged to be largely out of the President's control, as far as guaranteeing jobs and a certain level of wages and working conditions is concerned, so that returns the focus this year to War. And certainly there are abundant reminders to consider War.

9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Terrorism, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Saddam Hussein, Vietnam, Swift Boats, Air National Guard, and other stories and debates remind us daily that War is an essential element in deciding the White House for the next four years. There is a clear and important difference between the style of National Security presented by President George W. Bush, and the type offered by Senator John Kerry. Leaving aside the tactics of the campaign, and the standings in the polls at this time, it seems meet to me, that the morality of War should be considered, as each man would practice it.

No sane being is happy with warfare. By definition, War means deliberate killing, much destruction, and no matter how precise the technology, innocents die and suffer. However, War is also a fact of History, and there is no question, that there are occasions where not to fight is to choose to bring death and suffering to innocents, where War, however horrible, may be less unjust. It is an accepted assumption that humans have fought since before the first record in history. Small wonder, given that control of water and arable land meant the difference between living and dying for early tribes and nations. It is believed that the first wars were for vital foods and water and territory, with the losers being driven away. In some situations, however, there was nowhere left to go, and so in those situations, war was to the death.

Long before Clausewitz coined the term, 'total war' was a fact of the world. This was because tribes feared letting the loser survive, as he would have motive to come back for revenge. But there were three problems with total war. First, killing all of an enemy meant your own army would be more tired and exhausted than was wise to allow, which would provide an opportunity for an enemy canny enough to wait for you to weaken. Next, killing all of your enemies would make your new neighbors mistrustful of you, and might drive them to form alliances with each other against you, to destroy you lest you kill him. And third, warriors trained for battle, and there was a sense that it was not correct to kill people who did not fight. I don't doubt that even in primitive tribes, it would have become distasteful to kill women and children, no matter what reasons were presented.

Ironically, Slavery began as an option of mercy. To our sensibilities it sounds cruel, but it provided armies with three advantages. First, it was a way to remove enemies from the land the victors took, with little chance they could come back later and take it back. Second, it was a means by which the victors could make peace through commerce with their new neighbors; a cunning leader would know who his defeated slaves' enemies were in nearby lands, and could sell or give them to that nation to gain good relations. And third, it meant money, a way to pay the army, which was always important to a king.

Fast forward to the empires of ancient Egypt, China, and Rome. Without going too deep into their histories, it becomes obvious that a warrior class emerges, and the king/pharoah/emporer was expected to lead the armies, often by example. The Bible notes that many kings rode into the thick of battle, trusting their armor and superior chariots to win. The Chinese are less clear about what a king was expected to do, but they certainly expected their kings to be good generals ( a la Sun Tzu), and to be able to fight. So, the culture of warrior leaders is a long one, running all the way through at least the 19th Century. Check the portraits of the European kings, for example, and they all are shown with uniforms and swords, even the ones who never once mounted a horse. Even American Presidents are known for their military service, and it is considered an important attribute in leadership, a lens for their measure as men.

All this history is presented here to make two points: War is a fact of history through civilization, and the leaders of nations are judged by their martial abilities. It now makes sense to address the different schools of thought in War.

In many nations of the past, there was a warrior class. Japan comes to mind as the most obvious example, but it also applies to pretty much every nation which came to a degree of power, whether they were merely secure in their borders, or enjoyed a level of regional hegemony. The military academies of many countries not only bred their cadets to be leaders in the field, but to be social and civic leaders, as well. This required a code of honor, flexible enough to meet any situation, yet rigid enough to set a high standard. As a note, this first became obvious in the Meritocracies of Babylon and the Song Dynasty in China.

(to be continued in Part 2)

Groundhog Day for Senator Kerry

As things go from bad to worse in the Kerry "Wannabe" Presidential campaign, it struck me that there is a small ray of sunshine off on his distance, but one he may reach only by slogging through the storms.

The Kerry campaign had a lead back in mid-July, as he prepared for the Democratic National Convention. From there, however, the fall has been steady and depressing. First, John Kerry's own acceptance speech on Thursday at the DNC, was singularly dull and stilted. John promised America would get to know him, and the real John Kerry showed up on nomination night. He now knows this was a bad idea.

Then, the Swift Boat Vets got started. Three ads so far, along with their book, and Kerry has not even begun to respond effectively. Apparently, Kerry does a much better job or pretending to be a war hero, than facing them on the facts. Before the GOP Convention even got started, Kerry's lead was gone.

Kerry hoped for a dull, arrogant GOP Convention in New York, but what happened was anything but that. Kerry's own pal John McCain spoke to support the President, and Arnold rocked the house. When Zell Miller, from Kerry's own party, explained to the crowds how he could not support the Democrats who shared nothing but the name with their illustrious forbears, Kerry must have winced. Presuming the Botox let him do that.

Bush left New York with a healthy lead, and Kerry hoped for his allies to open fire for him. But now, three straight misfires from the Vapid Old Media Conspiracy have left the S.S. PurpleHearts dead in the water.

Of course, it could be worse, and sure enough, Dan Rather seems determined to prove that maxim true. As the scandal widens, more and more people are becoming aware that somebody was trying to influence a Presidential Election with forged documents. The obvious culprit, the campaign staff of John Kerry, have been deer-in-the-headlights frozen, just like Dan Rather. This could have been a minor bump, handled with a quick assurance that they were shocked to have to consider that they might have been tricked, and there will be a full investigation right away, etc. But they did not. Instead, Dan Rather played a take on the foolish side of "The Emporer's New Clothes", and refused to admit even the possibility that the documents were not genuine. The resulting well-earned derision, as evidence pours in to prove the documents false, is showing Rather and the CBS Network for the arrogant fools they are. And somewhere, the leading Democrats are looking at the flaming wreckage of Kerry's campaign, well aware that derision for Rather will certainly be extended to their man, as well.

So, what now? For the foreseeable future, Rather seems determined to embarrass his network and allies even more, and Kerry must bear the weight of his lowly position in the polls. In about two weeks, the first of three debates between Senator Kerry and President Bush will be held. Unfortunately for John, since he has been ducking Swift Boat questions, and now forgery questions also, he can't be looking forward to open inquisition in front of a national audience. Bush will, no doubt, have to practice keeping a straight face. If the debates go as I expect they will, we will enter mid-October with a strong lead for the President.

It is here, however, where Kerry's golden hope remains available. There will be two or three weeks where John Kerry can remain to passive mode, campaigning yet not answering questions, which has always been his most effective tactic. Whatever momentum Kerry can build, it looks like that is where he will find it.

So, the man who once revived a hamster is copying the strategy of Pauxatauny Phil. Although Kerry hopes to pop up out of his hole in November, not waiting for February. Although, with all the other miscues his campaign has had, I could see John forgetting, and starting his last-lap campaign in late January 2005. It would be in line with the success he's had in everything else the past month.

The War Against Exasperation

Over on another site which discusses religion, morality, and politics, I have been a member for more than four years, and have enjoyed the debates with many people. The difference in cultures and religion has not hindered the development of many great conversations and discussions. Even when the dialogue can become intense, it is usually possible for people of goodwill to reach common ground, even when sharply divided in personal faith. That is, however, not so in the case of politics.

Beliefnet is a great site for discussing religion and faith issues, but the visitor should be warned, the majority of people there are well Left of center, politically. This can be an interesting journey into the mind of the Liberal voter, but it bears warning, that to support the President is to invite attack on your person, and ridicule for your beliefs. As an example, today I was discussing the latest round of attacks on the President by the Left. There was a member in attendance, who is known for a gentle way of addressing concerns members have, but when I explained the problems in the Democrat's claims, she blew up:

"I used to think you were a devout Christian who realized that no human being is without error or mistake and that no human being should ever be elevated to the status of an idol to worship. But now I see that you have changed the spelling of GOD to GWB, and he has become your deity in a vile religion of hatred that brooks no opposition."

That is, by the way, a clear violation of the Rules of Conduct posted by Beliefnet, but when Conservatives are attacked, it is seldom enforced. Much like DU, to be Conservative is to be judged guilty and wrong, ab initio. It strikes me, from this exchange and others like it, that there is a tone of desperation and bitterness present in these voices. Rather than face the Reality of 21st-Century America, these Liberals scream all the louder, hoping to drown it out.

It is becoming increasingly clear, that President George W. Bush will be re-elected to a second term. There is reason to believe, as well, that the GOP will gain in both the House and Senate. Ironically, the shrill hatred from the Left is feeding this trend, as more and more Americans believe the only reasonable response to their rhetoric of hate, is to make sure Republicans are elected. As much as I am pleased by the wave of support for the President and the GOP, I am concerned, for three reasons:

First, there is a serious hatred by the Left, of the core values held by most Americans. I expect that the canyon between Liberal and Majority opinions will become even more pronounced, and there is no telling what form the reaction to the knowledge that the Conservatives are winning,will take in Liberal circles.

Second, the GOP is far from perfect. The deficit needs to be addressed, the borders must be secured, and we need to address a great many issues, better than we have so far. Also, there is the warning from history, that the party which enjoys dominance is in greater peril of corruption.

Third, there can be no question that we need a valid 2-party system in the USA. That implies that the Democratic Party must either reform, or we will see the rise of something to replace it. We must do everything possible, to make sure that the new party to stand opposite the GOP is as committed to the Constitution and the American role, as the parties before it were. Right now, the Democratic Party is not strong enough to really present a fit candidate for President, and offers no vision compatible with the Constitution or our nation's history.

So, I and other Conservative voices, will just have to put up with being the targets of angry Liberals. I have already seen the results of hacker visits, the anonymous threatening e-mails from people who think threatening violence constitutes valid political discourse. And of course, in some places, I can expect to be shouted down, simply for defending the President. In the end, the world will change, and in many ways we cannot see from here and now. But the vitriolic hatred from the Left, at least confirms we are on the Right road.

This Hamster is DEAD

In an interview with TIME magazine recently, Senator Kerry pretended not to be aware that President Bush had gained a healthy bounce from his convention.

"I don't know what you're talking about in terms of the Bush bounce. This is a very close race, and I'm not somebody that runs around worried about polls" insisted the Man Who Once Revived The Family Hamster, to assure the MainStream Media that he remains relevant to the race.

But the good Senator mentioned polls, and to that I always take interest. John Kerry may or may not care what the polls say, but I note them all, whether I agree or not, especially the ones diligent enough to show the internal demographics, because therein lies a deeper tale. Over on Polipundit, I have reviewed the bounce and overall poll status.

Over recent years of politicking, there has come to be a useful phenomenon called Exit Polling. Basically, people who have voted are asked to tell how they voted. Assuming their responses are correct, they not only show the final comparison between poll predictions and actual election results, but also the nuts and bolts of how the election played out.

I am particularly interested in the question of turnout, but I will save that part for another day, since it involves, at this time, a great deal of speculation, albeit rational and indicated by established trends. For here, I will simply address the key demographics which have affected elections, and show how the two major candidates stand in those aspects.

There are a number of demographic indicators of interest, but the information is not always critical to election, and in some cases, relevant information is not readily available. For this review, I took demographic data from Democracy Corps, TIME, Fox News, ABC News/Washington Post, CNN/Gallup/USA Today, CBS News, and Newsweek.

The largest group of note are Male voters. Since 1936, a Democrat can win with as little as 41% of the Male vote (Clinton, 1992), and a Republican can win with as little as 43% of the Male vote (Nixon, 1968). No Democrat has ever lost, who took at least 48% of the Male vote, and no Republican has ever lost, who took at least 46% of the Male vote. At this time, President Bush polls 53.0% of the Male vote, to 42.0% for Kerry.

Another important group, of course, Female voters. A Democrat can win with as little as 46% of the Female vote (Clinton, 1992), and a Republican can win with as little as 43% of the Female vote (Nixon, 1968). No Democrat has ever lost, who took at least 54% of the Female vote, and no Republican has ever lost, who took at least 52% of the Female vote. At this time, President Bush polls 48.0% of the Female vote, to 46.5% for Kerry.

The next group to examine is the Minority vote. Exit polls do not always break down by race, but all include a "non-White" sub-total or column. A Democrat can win with as little as 77% of the Non-White vote (Clinton, 1992), while a Republican can win with as little as 10% of the Non-White Vote (Reagan, 1980). No Democrat has ever lost, who took at least 88% of the Non-White Vote, and no Republican has ever lost, who took at least 16% of the Non-White vote. At this time, John Kerry polls 62.5% of the Non-White vote, to 29.5% for President Bush, so again, this key stands for the President.

The remaining groups of note here, are the political parties and their loyalty to their own nominee.

A Democrat can win with as little as 5% of the Republican vote (Kennedy, 1960), and a Republican can win with as little as 86% of the Republican vote (Reagan, 1980, and Nixon, 1968). No Democrat has ever lost, who took at least 10% of the Republican vote, and no Republican has ever lost, who took at least 96% of the Republican vote. At this time, President Bush polls 91.4% of the Republican vote, to 5.4% for John Kerry.

A Democrat can win with as little as 82% of the Democrat vote (Clinton, 1992, and Carter, 1976), and a Republican can win with as little as 10% of the Democrat vote (Bush, 2000). No Democrat has ever lost, who took at least 90% of the Democrat vote, and no Republican has ever lost, who took at least 19% of the Democrat vote. At this time, John Kerry polls 82.6% of the Democrat vote, to 10.0% for President Bush.

A Democrat can win with as little as 38% of the Independent vote (Carter, 1976), and a Republican can win with as little as 44% of the Independent vote (Nixon, 1968). No Democrat has ever lost, who took at least 45% of the Independent vote, and no Republican has ever lost, who took at least 58% of the Independent vote. At this time, President Bush is polling 44.6% of the Independent vote, to 42.0% for John Kerry.

It's well worth noting, that while Kerry leads in Non-White voter support and Democrat support, he does not enjoy the kind of numbers he needs to overcome the deficits in the other areas. Across the board, George Bush enjoys the kind of improvements that indicate a true groundswell of support and excitement.

It remains possible, at least mathematically, for John Kerry to come back and win the election. But to do so, he must address his losses in all categories, and frankly, bringing things back from the dead, whether they are family pets or political hopes, are difficult and exhausting, and require more than a good story and the assistance of a major network.

Maybe Dan Rather can write the hamster's obituary.

Just a Thought

Maybe someone from the Left can explain this:

If our War in Iraq is doing nothing but breed terrorists, then why is it, that since the murderous atrocity of September 11, there has not been another successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil?

Also, if it is so important to make our enemies happy, then why did al Qaeda terrorists assist in murdering hundreds of Russian children, even though President Putin opposed the invasion of Iraq? Why did terrorists seize those French journalists as hostages, even though France opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein and his thuggish regime?

Terrorists hate President Bush. To me, that's a good thing. A very good thing. Because I think it really means they fear him. And us.

Remember

Sometimes it has to be repeated, and repeated, and repeated...

Back in the late 1980s, a small group of terrorists decided they wanted to kill Americans, and to do it in the most visible and costly way. Years later, on February 26, 1993, a van exploded in the parking garage of the World Trade Center, damaging the buildings and killing six people.

In 1994, four defendants were each found guilty in federal court, and four years after that, a man in Pakistan was arrested for connection to planning the bombing. Bill Clinton's Justice Department believed they had handled this "crime" effectively.

But while the trial for the WTC bombers was being planned, Osama bin Laden was already planning a greater retaliation against America, whcih came to pass on September 11, 2001.

Al-Qaeda bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing hundreds of people. They also had connections to the deaths of U.S. military personnel serving in Somalia in October 1993 and several attempted terrorist operations, including the failed assassination of the Pope when visiting Manila in 1994, bombings of the United States and Israeli embassies in Asian countries in 1994, the mid-air bombing of a dozen U.S. international flights in 1995, and a plan to kill President Clinton in 1995.

President Clinton had no response to any of these events.

President Bush has taken a lot of flak for responding to these attacks as he has. Many on the Left would like to believe that there was no threat to the United States, that somehow the 9/11 attacks were our own fault. Senator Kerry promises a more "sensitive war", as if that would resonate with murderers. Senator Kerry chided President Bush for taking three-year old information seriously, even though the attacks for September 11 were discussed five years before the event. Kerry claims he supports the troops, even though he voted to deny them vital equipment and funding.

ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001:

2,657 killed at the World Trade Center,
125 killed at the Pentagon,
92 killed on American Airlines Flight 11,
65 killed on United Airlines Flight 175,
64 killed on American Airlines Flight 77,
and 45 killed on United Airlines Flight 93.


For comparison, 2,403 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which began a war we fought for the next four years, including the use of Atomic weapons, and the occupation of two major nations for the better part of a decade, and troop bases which are still active in both countries. Nobody calls World War 2 "the wrong war in the wrong place", however.

We're not supposed to talk politics on the third anniversary of 9/11, so I will talk about Life and Death.

John Kerry may have fought well in Vietnam, but ever since he came back, he has been a disgrace to our troops and to the United States of America. George W. Bush may have been an embarassment thirty years ago, but these days, he is a resourceful and bold leader, at a crucial point in U.S. History.

Between now and the Election in November, remember the nation depends on winning the War on Terror, not on 'nuance.'

About Middle Initials...

Earlier this week, John "Wannabe" Kerry amused himself by playing on possible meanings for the "W" in George W. Bush's name. Sure, it was childish, irrelevant to the election, and spoke to none of the pressing issues of the moment, but then, egotistical petulance is the one constant in the Kerry campaign.

Trying to find a way, somehow, to stop the free-fall of his support, Senator Kerry sent out his attack dogs this week, as well. Since McCain-Feingold went into effect on September 4, he could not attack directly, nor has direct attention been John's style anyway, but no matter, John has plenty of '527' groups at hand, to work to his advantage and the President's misery. There is George Soros, a mega-rich foreigner who has donated $15.5 million dollars to Kerry in hopes of defeating President Bush (and that's only the 'official' amount), there is Michael Moore, whose hit piece so redolent of bile and propaganda has gained the love of psychotic malcontents and students of character assassination, and of course, there are legions of willing syncophants, if your politics are sufficiently left-of-center... and reality.

But there is a point, at which, as the British like to say, someone gets a case of "the clevers". Like the classic cartoons of 'Spy vs. Spy' in Mad Magazine, intricate and devilish plans can come back and blow up in your face. It looks like not one, but three of them, have exploded this week in the vicinity of the DNC character terrorists' hideouts.

First, the obvious one: CBS used forged documents to attack President Bush in Wednesday's edition of "60 Minutes II". The proportional spacing, the curved quotation marks, and the superscript 'th' in "187th" are hard evidence that the document was prepared by a word processor at least 20 years after the alleged date.

What's more, the man who supposedly wrote the memos, Lt. Col. Killian, died in 1984 and so cannot speak to this issue, but his wife and son say the writing is not his style, that personal memos were not his habit, and his son, Gary, went on to note that his father did not like to type, and was far more likely to write longhand, but in any case did not keep any sort of private files, or make the sort of comments the documents purport.

CBS continues to insist the documents are genuine, in much the same way O.J. Simpson reminds us he is searching for his wife's "real" killers.

Next, we turn to Kitty Kelley, whose new book attack on the President is based largely on a claim supported only by an interview with Sharon Bush. Unfortunately for Kitty, Sharon denies Kitty's claims, and notes that Kelley is writing about comments from 2003, when a messy divorce led to a lot of ill-chosen words and false accusations.

Then, there is the claim from Sunday's edition of "60 Minutes" by Ben Barnes, who claimed he helped young George W. Bush get into the Texas Air National Guard, and gee, he feels badly about that now. Problem is, a little look shows a lot more problems for Mr. Barnes, than for Mr. Bush. First, Barnes is a Kerry supporter. Big-time. Like, he has given more than a half-million dollars to the Kerry campaign, and is identified by CBS News as a Kerry "lobbyist". It's also interesting that he claims "I got a young man named George W. Bush into the National Guard when I was lieutenant governor of Texas". Problem is, George W. Bush entered the TANG in mid-1968, and Barnes did not become Lt. Governor until 1969. So, that's not even a smart lie, it's just an obvious one. Also, Barnes' daughter, Amy, says she overheard her dad promise Democrats he was willing to fabricate his story, in order to hurt the President. Amy said "he's doing it for purely political, opportunistic reasons". I guess Barnes never figured he might have an honest kid.

So, what we have here are three false charges against the President. And what's funny is, they're stupid, they don't address any of the known issues the voters say they care about, and they look desperate. Really desperate. The 'F' might stand for 'Foolish'.

Add to this the "Adventures of Lieutenant John", such as his 'Christmas in Cambodia', which has been disproved, his claims to have participated in officially-sanctioned War Crimes, his rice-inflicted Purple Heart, his 'valor' in returning after running away from a firefight where there was no enemy fire, and his in-field film-making farcical exploits , and we have an image for John Kerry, though not the one he would choose. Maybe that 'F' stands for 'Fraud'.

Consider that John Kerry has been in the U.S. Senate for twenty years, and has never sponsored even one signature piece of legislation. Could be, that 'F' means 'Failure'.

Consider that John Kerry attacks President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, but also admits that in the same situation, he too would have invaded, although he still insists he would have done better. Perhaps the 'F' means 'Flummoxed'.

Consider that John Kerry has promised that he, personally, would somehow make sure 10 million new jobs were created in four years if he were elected, although he has not, ever, explained how he would make this happen, or shown any history of raising employment in Masschusetts. Maybe the 'F' stands for 'Fabrication'.

John Kerry compared President Bush yesterday, to the man in the 'Good Samaritan' parable who just walked on by the man who was beaten and robbed, although a comparison between the two leading candidates' personal acts, shows that for the tax years 1991 through 1993 (the only time when tax data and charitable contributions are on record for both men), Kerry gave 0.3% of his income to Charity, while Dubya gave 9.1% of his income to help others. Ahhh, maybe the 'F' is phoentic, and really stands for 'Pharisee'.

Well, whatever it means, I'm pretty sure the voters aren't Fooled.

Poll Accuracy (National)

The question has come up on another site, about who is the most reliable poll. That’s a good question, so I decided to look into it. The National Council on Public Polls had a nice site up, where they have reviewed the poll results for Presidential elections since 1936, and they have posted their results. I have a slightly different methodology for counting accuracy, so my results are slightly different, but all in all the information produced useful trends.

OK, for this review, I am only going to count polls still in operation, since there’s already quite a few to check. For each election, I take the actual election result, and tick off a point for each point of deviation in the prediction in any direction on the final poll from each group.

With that plan, here’s the history:

2000: Actual election results, Bush 48%, Gore 48%

Zogby: Predicted 48-46 Gore, off by 2.
Gallup: Predicted 46-48 Bush, off by 2.
USA Today: Predicted 46-48 Bush, off by 2.
IBD/CSM/Tipp: Predicted 46-48 Bush, off by 2.
Pew: Predicted 47-49 Bush, off by 2.
Harris: Predicted 47-47 tie, off by 2 (same results for Harris Interactive),
ABC/WP: Predicted 45-48 Bush, off by 3.
NBC/WSJ: Predicted 44-47 Bush, off by 5.
Battleground: Predicted 45-50 Bush, off by 5.
ICR: Predicted 44-46 Bush, off by 6.
CBS: Predicted 45-44 Gore, off by 7.
Rasmussen: Predicted 49-40 Gore, off by 9.

(I notice I mis-remembered, Rasmussen was actually too low for Bush in his final poll!)


1996: Actual election results, Clinton 49%, Dole 41%

Zogby: 49-41 Clinton, off by 0.
Gallup: 52-41 Clinton, off by 3.
USA Today: 52-41 Clinton, off by 3.
CNN: 52-41 Clinton, off by 3.
NBC/WSJ: 49-37 Clinton, off by 4.
Harris: 51-39 Clinton, off by 4.
ABC News: 51-39 Clinton, off by 4.
ICR: 51-38 Clinton, off by 5.
Pew: 52-38 Clinton, off by 6.
Battleground: 45-36 Clinton, off by 9.
CBS/NYT: 53-35 Clinton, off by 10.


1992: Actual election results, Clinton 43%, Bush 37%

ABC News: 44-37 Clinton, off b y1.
NBC/WSJ: 44-36 Clinton, off by 2.
CBS/NYT: 45-37 Clinton, off by 2.
Harris: 44-38 Clinton, off by 2.
Gallup: 49-37 Clinton, off by 6.
USA Today: 49-37 Clinton, off by 6.


1988: Actual election results, Bush 53%, Dukakis 46%

Harris: 50-46 Bush, off by 3.
ABC News: 54-44 Bush, off by 3.
CBS/NYT: 52-43 Bush, off by 4.
Gallup: 56-44 Bush, off by 5.
USA Today: 52-42 Bush, off by 5.


1984: Actual election results, Reagan 59%, Mondale 41%

Gallup: 59-41 Reagan off by 0.
ABC News: 57-39, off by 4.
CBS/NYT: 58-37 Reagan, off by 5.
Harris: 56-44 Reagan, off by 6.
USA Today: 61-34 Reagan, off by 9.


1980: Actual election results, Reagan 51%, Carter 41%

ABC News: 46-41 Reagan, off by 5.
Harris: 46-41 Reagan, off by 5.
Gallup: 47-44 Reagan, off by 7.
CBS/NYT: 44-43 Reagan, off by 9.
NBC News: 42-36 Reagan, off by 14.


1976: Actual election results, Carter 50%, Ford 48%

Gallup: 49-48 Ford, off by 3.
ABC News: 48-47 Carter, off by 3.
Harris: 48-47 Carter, off by 3.
CBS News: 45-41 Carter, off by 12.


1972: Actual election results, Nixon 61%, McGovern 38%

Gallup: 62-38 Nixon, off by 1.
Harris: 61-39 Nixon, off by 1.


1968: Actual election results: Nixon 43%, Humphrey 43%

Gallup: 43-42 Nixon, off by 1.
Harris: 45-41 Humphrey, off by 4.


1964: Actual election results, Johnson 61%, Goldwater 39%

Gallup: 64-36 Johnson, off by 7.
Harris: 64-36 Johnson, off by 7.


1960: Actual election results, Kennedy 50%, Nixon 50%

Gallup: 51-49 Kennedy, off by 2.


1956: Actual election results, Eisenhower 58%, Stevenson 42%

Gallup: 60-41 Eisenhower, off by 3.


1952: Actual election results: Eisenhower 55%, Stevenson 44%

Gallup: 51-49 Eisenhower, off by 9.


1948: Actual election results; Truman 50%, Dewey 45%

Gallup: 50-45 Dewey, off by 10.


1944: Actual election results, Roosevelt 54%, Dewey 46%

Gallup: 52-49 Roosevelt, off by 5.


1940: Actual election results, Roosevelt 55%, Willkie 45%

Gallup: 52-48 Roosevelt, off by 6.


1936: Actual election results, Roosevelt 61%, Landon 37%

Gallup: 56-44 Roosevelt, off by 12.




OK, here’s how they stack up, for length of record and aggregate accuracy:

1. Zogby: 2 elections, 1.00% error average.
2. IBD/CSM/Tipp: 1 election, 2.00% error average.
3. ABC News: 7 elections, 3.29% error average.
4. Harris: 10 elections, average 3.70% error average.
5. Gallup: 17 elections, average 4.82% error average.
6. USA Today: 5 elections, 5.00% error average.
7. ICR: 2 elections, 5.50% error average.
8. NBC News/Wall Street Journal: 4 elections, 6.25% error average.
9. CBS News/New York Times: 7 elections, 7.00% error average.
10. Battleground: 2 elections, 7.00% error average.
11. Rasmussen: 1 election, 9.00% error average.

Zogby, IBD, Harris, ICR, NBC News, and Rasmussen provide no demographic data.

ABC News, CBS News provide limited demographic data.

Gallup, USA Today, and the Battleground polls provide extensive demographic data.

This provides a background for reviewing poll releases. Note that there are eleven national polls out this year, which do not have a known track record, including TIME and Newsweek magazines, the American Research Group, NPR, the LA Times, Quinnipiac University, and Marist University.