SITE NOTICE | MORE..WordPress Widget v1.6! New, CSS-friendly version of the Sermon Browser is now available with further customization. Please note that updating from the previous version will reset all of the saved widget settings. .. click for more info!
A plurality of Americans and more than seven in 10 Republicans say pollsters are intentionally skewing results to benefit President Obama, according to a new poll released Tuesday.
Some 42 percent of voters surveyed by Daily Kos and SEIU believe pollsters are manipulating their sample sizes to benefit the incumbent president, while 40 percent do not. An additional 18 percent said they were not sure. That's evidence that Republican claims that Democrats and minority voters are being oversampled in national polls could be resonating — and potentially undermining the momentum of the president's early lead.
Some Republicans — most prominently among them strategist Dick Morris — began questioning the sampling of some polls last week when surveys showed President Obama opening up a sizable lead in swing states, including Ohio and Florida. Republicans have charged that the polls oversample minority...
Neil wrote: Remember, Reagan was probably the most conservative President in the past half century, yet even under him, the government continued to expand.
Yes, so talking a good game does not a conservative make.
"Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase."
"During Reagan's presidency the annual deficits averaged 4.2% of GDP after inheriting an annual deficit of 2.7% of GDP in 1980 under president Carter."
And a plurality of Americans think the polls are biased? Probably just a couple of reformed baptist pastors - they are fixated on plurality.
Politics Chicago Style, I've got to agree with you. There are many who want a cohnl gov. Its a huge movement and diverse, and never makes the tv news, but still exists. Doesn't make sense to reward the lowest common denominator.
And the msm is owned by the interests that own the candidates, so they will always say a third party cannot exist.
The nation watched the rep convention in which they twisted the regulations to keep five plus states from nominating Ron Paul and kicked the Maine delegation out of the convention and replaced them with picks from the national convention (states no longer have right to send delegates??).. while the democratic convention clearly did not have the 2/3rds approval but said they did to add bilaws......that was entertaining. The church vote is essential to repugs ever getting in. They know that and use lingo that will please the ears (in general, there are some very decent ones as well)
If the church actually voted morally and was involved from grassroots up (as many in the younger generation are now doing), they could quit being reactionary victims.
But it is in the Lord's hands, and looks most like with our propensity to building economies on death (ie abortion, etc), He will have to purify the church and humble the west.
San Jose John wrote: I'm still hoping much of his base won't turn out. Otherwise I agree with you.
I hope so too, yet I expect a Romney presidency to be more of what Nixon, Ford, Dole, the Bushes, & McCain were about: creeping pragmatic Progressivism along with a more militant (in effect, imperialistic) foreign policy, a Progressive idea embraced by mainstream conservatives since WW2. Progressives are all about changing people from the outside, a good fit with popular anti-Calvinistic theologies.
Remember, Reagan was probably the most conservative President in the past half century, yet even under him, the government continued to expand.
Neil wrote: John, I think any new party would be even worse than the existing two. Why? Because the public is so unprincipled, at both supposed "ends" of the spectrum. Dennis Prager's analysis seems accurate to me. He shares my view that official Catholicism is politically Democratic.
I think he's spot on (the article). I know several friends, family, and acquaintances who no longer identify with the religion of their youths, but are now thoroughly secular. They feel it's more enlightened to be non-religious--and they don't want to look dumb/backward in the eyes of other modern-minded people like themselves.
Neil wrote: I think Obama will win the election, because he promises the mob more free goodies.
I'm still hoping much of his base won't turn out. Otherwise I agree with you.
Why, Wilyham, back at you! For both countries it would be great if common sense, i.e., wisdom, was a requirement and not an overweening attachment to a country's plutocracy that would be a highly welcomed change for both countries.
Ah, SermonAudio should have pointed the Presidential Debates start at 8:00 p.m. CDT on this side of the pond.
San Jose John wrote: Dems and Repubs are so entrenched in our political culture that it'll likely take the dissolution of one of these to create enough force (vacuum?) to form a new and viable party. Such a dissolution would likely require a huge crisis (slavery issue killed the Whigs but boosted the Republicans). It'll be interesting (and likely both scary and painful) to see if the unfolding world-wide financial crisis might be enough to make this happen.
John, I think any new party would be even worse than the existing two. Why? Because the public is so unprincipled, at both supposed "ends" of the spectrum. Dennis Prager's analysis seems accurate to me. He shares my view that official Catholicism is politically Democratic.
Personal wealth isn't the issue, Wilyam. As the life of Abraham (a very wealthy man) exemplifies, integrity & practical righteousness is, & these are not a function of money. Montesquieu wrote that republics rely on virtue, & that's in short supply everywhere I look, including churches.
I think Obama will win the election, because he promises the mob more free goodies.
San Jose John wrote: Dems and Repubs are so entrenched in our political culture that it'll likely take the dissolution of one of these to create enough force (vacuum?) to form a new and viable party
As an outsider looking in to American politics and presidential election, I must say that it appears to be to much financially based.
Wealth seems to be the main criterion of the new president. But wealth doesn't necessarily demonstrate a good political leader. Perhaps it is time that a different criterion was applied, eg experience, erudition or even leadership?
Barry from KY wrote: Over-sampling is a common problem in most of these polls. However, with as little progress that the country has made in the last four years, this should be a slam-dunk for the repubs. They didn't do such a fantastic job while they were in charge either. I'm wondering if the country isn't ready for that third party...
Dems and Repubs are so entrenched in our political culture that it'll likely take the dissolution of one of these to create enough force (vacuum?) to form a new and viable party. Such a dissolution would likely require a huge crisis (slavery issue killed the Whigs but boosted the Republicans). It'll be interesting (and likely both scary and painful) to see if the unfolding world-wide financial crisis might be enough to make this happen.
Over-sampling is a common problem in most of these polls. However, with as little progress that the country has made in the last four years, this should be a slam-dunk for the repubs. They didn't do such a fantastic job while they were in charge either.
I'm wondering if the country isn't ready for that third party...
1
There are a total of 10 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Dr. Joel Beeke | 11/11/2012
COMMENTS | 
For both countries it would be great if common sense, i.e., wisdom, was a requirement and not an overweening attachment to a country's plutocracy that would be a highly welcomed change for both countries.
leadership?
