This presidential election, unlike any other in recent history, defies conventional political calculations. For that reason, Americans are advised to ignore the polls, pundit predictions and electoral math. The truth is there are too many variables to accurately forecast the election outcome.
The latest stunning twist in this bizarre election was the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announcement last week that it was reopening its probe into Hillary Clinton's email scandal. Never in American history has a candidate for the presidency been investigated twice by the FBI.
This development and unproven allegations of Donald Trump's sexual misconduct have thrust the election into unchartered waters. For the first time in recent memory, surveys show voters are decidedly despondent and disgusted. Some Americans say they plan to vote for neither candidate.
An ABC News tracking poll identified enthusiasm gaps for both candidates. "As a percentage of voting age population, it (turnout) will be low, probably lower than the past four or five presidential elections," according to Matthew Dowd, an ABC News political analyst.
There are other variables that are even harder to quantify. Both candidates have corpulent negative favorability numbers that have never been seen in a presidential race. Will that be enough to motivate Americans to vote against one candidate or the other?
Questions also have been raised about turnout among African-Americans and Hispanics. In the 2012 presidential election, turnout among blacks topped 66 percent, eclipsing 2008's 65.2 percent. Hispanic turnout in 2008 reached a historic 49.9 percent, but slid to 48% in 2012.
These two demographics groups voted overwhelming for Barrack Obama. Ninety-five percent of African-Americans voted for the president in 2012. The president won 82 percent of the Hispanic vote that year. He racked up similar margins in 2008.
Will the record turnout and lopsided margin for Mr. Obama be the same for Ms. Clinton? Especially in swing states, African-Americans and Hispanics will hold the key to victory. Any slippage in turnout or margin will open the door for the Republican Donald Trump.
Right behind minorities in importance are young people aged 18-29. These adults turned out in record numbers in 2008 and 2012. More than half (51%) of young voters flocked to the polls in 2008, the highest since the election of 1964. Will these fickle voters remain engaged this year?
In both elections where Mr. Obama was on the ballot, young adults gave him comfortable margins. He collected 61 and 62 percent, respectively, in the elections of 2008 and 2012. Will young voters support the Democrat nominee at those same levels this year?
Answers to those questions will go a long way in deciding this presidential election. However, there is one group that has escaped media attention that likely will be the most influential in determining the next president. They are unmarried women.
According to the Voter Participation Data Center, unmarried women are the country's fastest growing demographic. More than 58 million single women are eligible to vote this year. The is the first time in American history that voting-age single women outnumber married women in an election.
In nine of the battleground states, including Colorado, Florida and Virginia, the number of unmarried women eligible to vote this election exceeds married women. That is significant because these singles have been among the most reliable Democrat Party supporters in past presidential elections.
In 2008, Mr. Obama carried unmarried women by a thirty-point margin, 66 to 34 percent. The vote for the president in 2012 was even more out of balance. Mr. Obama received 71 percent of the votes recorded by unmarried women, a 42 point margin over his Republican challenger.
Although it is never fair to generalize about an entire group, most single women have been at odds with Republican positions on abortion, contraception and female health issues. The charges against Donald Trump involving alleged sexual misconduct won't help him with these women either.
If single women turn out in droves, it will be a good sign for Hillary Clinton, if past voting patterns hold. Those are big IF's, considering Ms. Clinton's own trust issues with voters. It is just another unknown in an election sprinkled with question marks.
For that reason, the only accurate prediction about this election is that it is unpredictable.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Monday, October 24, 2016
The Russians Are Coming!
Campaign 2016 officially has descended into insanity. Both candidates are hurling serious charges of election rigging. No wonder a recent poll found that 41 percent of registered voters believe there is at least a "possibility" of voter fraud in the presidential election.
Allegations of election tampering are nothing new. Who can forget the 2000 presidential election when Democrat Al Gore blamed voter irregularities for his defeat? But the new wrinkle is the claim that a foreign government is surreptitiously undermining the election.
Democrats and their nominee Hillary Clinton are alleging Russian President Vladimir Putin is behind an stealth effort to rig the outcome in favor of Republican Donald Trump. Putin, the cunning former KGB intelligence officer, has used the furor to cast an ominous shadow over the election.
This is a classic KGB disinformation campaign that the Democrat accomplices in the American media have regurgitated in an effort to help Ms. Clinton, who has repeatedly charged that Putin would like nothing better than to see Mr. Trump lounging in the Oval Office.
Ms. Clinton has huffed there is "credible evidence" from intelligence sources to "pursue an investigation into Russia's efforts to interfere with our election." She went on to assert at a rally that it was no accident the Russian scheme started "about the time Mr. Trump became the nominee."
Of course, Ms. Clinton offered no proof. No U.S. intelligence source has produced public evidence that the Russians are hacking their way into voting machines. Ms. Clinton's unsubstantiated claims have played right into the hands of Putin's effort to undermine public trust in the election process.
For Russia to tinker with the results, rogue agents of Putin would have to infiltrate more than 9,000 precincts to arrange to jigger with voting machines and paper ballots. They would literally have to gain access to every device and ballot without anyone noticing. It is simply mission impossible.
But that hasn't stopped Ms. Clinton and the Democratic Party from making the allegations.
Not one media outlet has challenged Ms. Clinton's screwball assertion. Her "proof" is her familiar refrain that Putin does not want her to be president because she would be tough on Russia. It matters little to the media that Ms. Clinton has a history of a cozy relationship with the Russians.
It was Secretary of State Clinton who famously presented her counterpart in Russia with the sophomoric "reset button" to signal a new era of cooperation between the two countries. What followed was Russian aggression in the Ukraine and the incursion into the Syrian conflict.
Under Ms. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, President Putin was able to resurrect Russian ambitions to become a dominant force in both Europe and the Middle East. America made it clear that it had no intention of confronting the Russian military. Diplomacy was the only option.
Putin only needs to look at recent history with the former Secretary of State to recognize future interventions in foreign countries will go unchecked by an America led by Hillary Clinton.
There are other reasons Putin and the Russian oligarchs would be comfortable with a Clinton presidency. As Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian company called Uranium One to acquire significant holdings in the United States.
Prior to the Uranium One deal, former President Bill Clinton became entangled in a Canadian mining firm that eventually sold off its assets to the Russians. A Canadian businessman gave $31 million to the Clinton Foundation after Mr. Clinton aided in an effort to obtain uranium mines in Kazakhstan.
As the Russians were gradually gaining control of the Canadian firm, Uranium One's chairman also took an interest in the Clinton Foundation.
The chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. The contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clinton's, despite an agreement with the White House designed to ensure transparency.
For Democrats reading about Uranium One's shady dealings for the first time, this description of the transactions between the Russians and the Clinton Foundation was first printed in The New York Times on April 23, 2015. The charges of a shadowy quid-pro-quid were not concocted by the GOP.
While the deal with Uranium One was under consideration by Ms. Clinton, former president Clinton received a $500,000 speech fee from another connected Russian firm, according to The Wall Street Journal. Democrat apologists contend none of this influenced Hillary's decision.
As a result of Uranium One's wheeling and dealing, they now control one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the U.S. What difference at this point does it make? Uranium is a strategic component used in nuclear weapons. It is a matter of national security to protect the U.S. supply.
Uranium One now has uranium mining stakes in operations stretching from Canada to Central Asia to the American West. Without the approval of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton's influence, the Russian firm would never have been able to assemble such a stash of uranium assets.
Yet American voters are supposed to be believe that the Russians and Putin prefer Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. It is sheer lunacy to even make that assertion based on the Clinton's record of kowtowing to the Russians.
Meanwhile, a smug Vladimir Putin must be laughing as he gulps another shot of vodka. Without lifting a finger, he has managed to corrupt the expectation of a democratic election in the country of his arch enemy. He couldn't have done it without accomplices Hillary Clinton and a corrupt media.
Allegations of election tampering are nothing new. Who can forget the 2000 presidential election when Democrat Al Gore blamed voter irregularities for his defeat? But the new wrinkle is the claim that a foreign government is surreptitiously undermining the election.
Democrats and their nominee Hillary Clinton are alleging Russian President Vladimir Putin is behind an stealth effort to rig the outcome in favor of Republican Donald Trump. Putin, the cunning former KGB intelligence officer, has used the furor to cast an ominous shadow over the election.
This is a classic KGB disinformation campaign that the Democrat accomplices in the American media have regurgitated in an effort to help Ms. Clinton, who has repeatedly charged that Putin would like nothing better than to see Mr. Trump lounging in the Oval Office.
Ms. Clinton has huffed there is "credible evidence" from intelligence sources to "pursue an investigation into Russia's efforts to interfere with our election." She went on to assert at a rally that it was no accident the Russian scheme started "about the time Mr. Trump became the nominee."
Of course, Ms. Clinton offered no proof. No U.S. intelligence source has produced public evidence that the Russians are hacking their way into voting machines. Ms. Clinton's unsubstantiated claims have played right into the hands of Putin's effort to undermine public trust in the election process.
For Russia to tinker with the results, rogue agents of Putin would have to infiltrate more than 9,000 precincts to arrange to jigger with voting machines and paper ballots. They would literally have to gain access to every device and ballot without anyone noticing. It is simply mission impossible.
But that hasn't stopped Ms. Clinton and the Democratic Party from making the allegations.
Not one media outlet has challenged Ms. Clinton's screwball assertion. Her "proof" is her familiar refrain that Putin does not want her to be president because she would be tough on Russia. It matters little to the media that Ms. Clinton has a history of a cozy relationship with the Russians.
It was Secretary of State Clinton who famously presented her counterpart in Russia with the sophomoric "reset button" to signal a new era of cooperation between the two countries. What followed was Russian aggression in the Ukraine and the incursion into the Syrian conflict.
Under Ms. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, President Putin was able to resurrect Russian ambitions to become a dominant force in both Europe and the Middle East. America made it clear that it had no intention of confronting the Russian military. Diplomacy was the only option.
Putin only needs to look at recent history with the former Secretary of State to recognize future interventions in foreign countries will go unchecked by an America led by Hillary Clinton.
There are other reasons Putin and the Russian oligarchs would be comfortable with a Clinton presidency. As Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian company called Uranium One to acquire significant holdings in the United States.
Prior to the Uranium One deal, former President Bill Clinton became entangled in a Canadian mining firm that eventually sold off its assets to the Russians. A Canadian businessman gave $31 million to the Clinton Foundation after Mr. Clinton aided in an effort to obtain uranium mines in Kazakhstan.
As the Russians were gradually gaining control of the Canadian firm, Uranium One's chairman also took an interest in the Clinton Foundation.
The chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. The contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clinton's, despite an agreement with the White House designed to ensure transparency.
For Democrats reading about Uranium One's shady dealings for the first time, this description of the transactions between the Russians and the Clinton Foundation was first printed in The New York Times on April 23, 2015. The charges of a shadowy quid-pro-quid were not concocted by the GOP.
While the deal with Uranium One was under consideration by Ms. Clinton, former president Clinton received a $500,000 speech fee from another connected Russian firm, according to The Wall Street Journal. Democrat apologists contend none of this influenced Hillary's decision.
As a result of Uranium One's wheeling and dealing, they now control one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the U.S. What difference at this point does it make? Uranium is a strategic component used in nuclear weapons. It is a matter of national security to protect the U.S. supply.
Uranium One now has uranium mining stakes in operations stretching from Canada to Central Asia to the American West. Without the approval of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton's influence, the Russian firm would never have been able to assemble such a stash of uranium assets.
Yet American voters are supposed to be believe that the Russians and Putin prefer Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. It is sheer lunacy to even make that assertion based on the Clinton's record of kowtowing to the Russians.
Meanwhile, a smug Vladimir Putin must be laughing as he gulps another shot of vodka. Without lifting a finger, he has managed to corrupt the expectation of a democratic election in the country of his arch enemy. He couldn't have done it without accomplices Hillary Clinton and a corrupt media.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Moderators Muck Up Presidential Debates
The first two presidential debates have been raucous brawls, marked by verbal bolts of lightning crackling across the stage. Media critics have been quick to blame the candidates for the sparring matches, but much of the guilt rests squarely on the shifty shoulders of the moderators.
In the first debate, NBC's Lester Holt seemed to disappear for long periods while the candidates rambled without answering the questions. Did he take a potty break while the cameras locked on the candidates? His performance became the butt of numerous jokes on social media.
No one knows why the Commission on Presidential Debates selected Holt. He appears to be a nice fellow, but his credentials to moderate a presidential debate are skimpy at best. Holt was clearly out of his comfort zone and he lost total control of the debate.
During the opening of the debate, Holt mentioned how "honored" he was to serve in the capacity as moderator. Perhaps, he was overwhelmed by his lofty position under the klieg lights with more than 80 million Americans eyeballing the proceedings. He wilted under the stifling pressure.
Then in last week's melee, moderators Anderson Cooper from CNN and ABC's Martha Raddatz fumbled the town-hall style debate. These two self-important members of the TV news glitterati intruded, interrupted and provoked what became a verbal rumble in the jungle.
Right from the start, Cooper tried to burnish his journalistic chops by quizzing Donald Trump about a leaked "Access Hollywood" tape featuring lurid comments about women. After Trump addressed the question, he attempted to move on and was interrupted three times.
This sparked a Trump tirade about Bill Clinton's sexual assault history, while a stern-faced Hillary Clinton simmered in the background. When he was finished, Ms. Clinton launched her counter attack. This back-and-forth consumed nearly 30 minutes of the town hall.
Although most Americans wanted the "tape" issue addressed, why did it have to be the opening volley? It could have been teed up later in the event. By leading with the tawdry tape, Cooper deliberately set the tone for the spectacle and buried interest in obvious issues in the campaign.
As a result, only a handful of real voters in the room were allowed to ask questions. Even that scanty portion was ruined by pompous pests Cooper and Raddatz, who insisted on inserting themselves into the discussion with a series of follow-up questions.
Town halls are supposed to be about the audience, not the moderators. Cooper and Raddatz, who view themselves as A-list media celebrities, were intent on keeping the camera's eye on them not the voters. As a result of their shoddy performance, they made a mockery of the town hall format.
Who selects these moderators anyway? Glad you asked. That job belongs to the Commission on Presidential Debates, an allegedly non-partisan, non-profit organization established in 1987. The commission is comprised of mostly political hacks.
The co-chairs of the current commission are Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry. Fahrenkopf served as the Republican National Committee chairman from 1983 to l989. McCurry was press secretary for former president Bill Clinton.
Does anyone believe either man is non-partisan?
Therein lies the problem with selection of the moderators and the debate format. The only way to fix the situation is to have an independent commission filled with people who have not served in any political capacity. How about ordinary citizens with an interest in an honest debate?
Heaping all the blame on the moderators for the first two skirmishes would not be fair either. Both Trump and Ms. Clinton have allowed their rhetoric to degenerate into verbal fisticuffs with each hoping to land a knockout punch to the other's candidacy. Decorum and decency be damned.
The final round on the three-debate card is scheduled October 19. Chris Wallace of Fox News has been tabbed to moderate the donnybrook. Don't expect any change in performance. Wallace, like the other conceited TV bigwigs, has a reputation to polish as a serious journalist.
The moderator's job is to make the debates about the candidates. That won't happen until the Commission on Presidential Debates stops trotting out TV news celebrities to be moderators. The time has come to let real debate moderators run the show.
In the first debate, NBC's Lester Holt seemed to disappear for long periods while the candidates rambled without answering the questions. Did he take a potty break while the cameras locked on the candidates? His performance became the butt of numerous jokes on social media.
No one knows why the Commission on Presidential Debates selected Holt. He appears to be a nice fellow, but his credentials to moderate a presidential debate are skimpy at best. Holt was clearly out of his comfort zone and he lost total control of the debate.
During the opening of the debate, Holt mentioned how "honored" he was to serve in the capacity as moderator. Perhaps, he was overwhelmed by his lofty position under the klieg lights with more than 80 million Americans eyeballing the proceedings. He wilted under the stifling pressure.
Then in last week's melee, moderators Anderson Cooper from CNN and ABC's Martha Raddatz fumbled the town-hall style debate. These two self-important members of the TV news glitterati intruded, interrupted and provoked what became a verbal rumble in the jungle.
Right from the start, Cooper tried to burnish his journalistic chops by quizzing Donald Trump about a leaked "Access Hollywood" tape featuring lurid comments about women. After Trump addressed the question, he attempted to move on and was interrupted three times.
This sparked a Trump tirade about Bill Clinton's sexual assault history, while a stern-faced Hillary Clinton simmered in the background. When he was finished, Ms. Clinton launched her counter attack. This back-and-forth consumed nearly 30 minutes of the town hall.
Although most Americans wanted the "tape" issue addressed, why did it have to be the opening volley? It could have been teed up later in the event. By leading with the tawdry tape, Cooper deliberately set the tone for the spectacle and buried interest in obvious issues in the campaign.
As a result, only a handful of real voters in the room were allowed to ask questions. Even that scanty portion was ruined by pompous pests Cooper and Raddatz, who insisted on inserting themselves into the discussion with a series of follow-up questions.
Town halls are supposed to be about the audience, not the moderators. Cooper and Raddatz, who view themselves as A-list media celebrities, were intent on keeping the camera's eye on them not the voters. As a result of their shoddy performance, they made a mockery of the town hall format.
Who selects these moderators anyway? Glad you asked. That job belongs to the Commission on Presidential Debates, an allegedly non-partisan, non-profit organization established in 1987. The commission is comprised of mostly political hacks.
The co-chairs of the current commission are Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry. Fahrenkopf served as the Republican National Committee chairman from 1983 to l989. McCurry was press secretary for former president Bill Clinton.
Does anyone believe either man is non-partisan?
Therein lies the problem with selection of the moderators and the debate format. The only way to fix the situation is to have an independent commission filled with people who have not served in any political capacity. How about ordinary citizens with an interest in an honest debate?
Heaping all the blame on the moderators for the first two skirmishes would not be fair either. Both Trump and Ms. Clinton have allowed their rhetoric to degenerate into verbal fisticuffs with each hoping to land a knockout punch to the other's candidacy. Decorum and decency be damned.
The final round on the three-debate card is scheduled October 19. Chris Wallace of Fox News has been tabbed to moderate the donnybrook. Don't expect any change in performance. Wallace, like the other conceited TV bigwigs, has a reputation to polish as a serious journalist.
The moderator's job is to make the debates about the candidates. That won't happen until the Commission on Presidential Debates stops trotting out TV news celebrities to be moderators. The time has come to let real debate moderators run the show.
Monday, October 10, 2016
An Open Letter To Colin Kaepernick
Dear Mr. Kaepernick:
Your refusal to stand during the playing of the national anthem, is a classless gesture that underscores your ignorance. Despite my personal feelings, I will defend your right to air your grievances, even though I disagree with your methods.
You claim you are protesting the oppression of African-Americans. That is a noble cause, but you are an odd spokesperson, considering your enormous personal forture. Although you are only 28 years old, you are playing professional football for an annual salary of $19 million.
When you entered the National Football League, you signed a six-year deal worth $114 million. You pocketed a signing bonus of $12,328,766. Your generous contract guarantees you $61 million, even if you never toss another pass for the San Francisco Forty-Niners.
Don't get me wrong. I applaud your financial bonanza. But I wonder how wealth qualifies you to speak on behalf of an African-American, living in the slums, hand-to-mouth, afraid to walk the mean streets. Can you really identify with the struggles of the average black person?
Let me make it clear. Just because you are wealthy doesn't mean you forfeit your right to speak for the less fortunate. There are many wealthy people making a difference in healing the racial divide. But none of them, as far as I know, take a knee during the playing of the national anthem.
Perhaps, you are feeling a little guilty. After all, your enormous wealth makes you immune to the sufferings of someone chained to the ghetto by failed government programs. If you truly want to fix the problem, there are many things you could do to help.
That's why it seems strange that you elected to show your disapproval by thumbing your nose at our national anthem. Do you even know the background of the "Star Spangled Banner"? What does it have to do with racial oppression?
An American lawyer named Francis Scott Key penned a poem in 1814 during the Battle of Baltimore, which eventually became known as the "Star Spangled Banner." President Herbert Hoover led the effort to declare the song our nation's anthem in 1931.
The anthem was written during the War of 1812 against the British, who burned down the White House in an act of gratuitous aggression. The war had nothing to do with slavery, although there were slaves in the country at that time. The anthem celebrates the American spirit, not slavery.
I would have more respect for you if you had announced you were funding a foundation to aid African-Americans who lack the financial resources to go to college. Or if you vowed to create after-school programs for inner city youth. Or you worked to end black-on-black crime.
Those are the actions of someone who wants to fix the problem. Kneeling during the national anthem doesn't help black people one iota. It does, however, put a glaring spotlight on you. If that's what you wanted, you have succeeded. But you have failed to do a darn thing about oppression.
That's why I disagree with President Obama and others who claim it takes courage to refuse to stand for the national anthem. Nonsense. Anyone can do that. It requires commitment to take a stand and back it up with actions that will make a difference. That's real courage.
President John F. Kennedy said it best. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." You are a beneficiary of American freedom, but what are you willing to do in return? Kneel. Really? That's it. That's your answer?
Unfortunately, your protest has done more to widen the chasm between the races. To many of us, your refusal feels like a giant middle finger against patriotism. Now that other black players have followed your lead, this has done nothing but escalate tension between the races.
You have made this a black versus white issue, since the charge of racism by its nature smears all whites as haters. There is no question racism exists in America and worldwide. But so does anti-Semitism. You can add to that list people who dislike Christians, atheists, Asians and Hispanics.
But the haters are in the minority. The vast majority of Americans pursue harmony with their neighbors, regardless of color, creed or religion. Still, we can agree that racism, sexism and all the other ism's need to be eradicated. You will get no argument from me or most Americans.
That's why dishonoring the national anthem is an senseless gesture that angers many. Do you recall September 11, 2001? After the terrorist attacks, all Americans, black and white, rallied behind their country. The playing of the "Star Spangled Banner" united all Americans.
Apparently, many Americans are offended by your actions. Ratings for NFL games are down for the first time in decades. Some research suggests fans are turning off their televisions to send a message to the players and the owners. They want to watch football without the racial bellyaching.
I ask you to please reconsider your form of protest, not your principles. Because when your 15 minutes of fame fades and your football skills erode, you will just be another unhappy, unemployed multi-millionaire. Still, not a bad life for someone concerned about oppression.
Sincerely,
Drew A. Roy
Your refusal to stand during the playing of the national anthem, is a classless gesture that underscores your ignorance. Despite my personal feelings, I will defend your right to air your grievances, even though I disagree with your methods.
You claim you are protesting the oppression of African-Americans. That is a noble cause, but you are an odd spokesperson, considering your enormous personal forture. Although you are only 28 years old, you are playing professional football for an annual salary of $19 million.
When you entered the National Football League, you signed a six-year deal worth $114 million. You pocketed a signing bonus of $12,328,766. Your generous contract guarantees you $61 million, even if you never toss another pass for the San Francisco Forty-Niners.
Don't get me wrong. I applaud your financial bonanza. But I wonder how wealth qualifies you to speak on behalf of an African-American, living in the slums, hand-to-mouth, afraid to walk the mean streets. Can you really identify with the struggles of the average black person?
Let me make it clear. Just because you are wealthy doesn't mean you forfeit your right to speak for the less fortunate. There are many wealthy people making a difference in healing the racial divide. But none of them, as far as I know, take a knee during the playing of the national anthem.
Perhaps, you are feeling a little guilty. After all, your enormous wealth makes you immune to the sufferings of someone chained to the ghetto by failed government programs. If you truly want to fix the problem, there are many things you could do to help.
That's why it seems strange that you elected to show your disapproval by thumbing your nose at our national anthem. Do you even know the background of the "Star Spangled Banner"? What does it have to do with racial oppression?
An American lawyer named Francis Scott Key penned a poem in 1814 during the Battle of Baltimore, which eventually became known as the "Star Spangled Banner." President Herbert Hoover led the effort to declare the song our nation's anthem in 1931.
The anthem was written during the War of 1812 against the British, who burned down the White House in an act of gratuitous aggression. The war had nothing to do with slavery, although there were slaves in the country at that time. The anthem celebrates the American spirit, not slavery.
I would have more respect for you if you had announced you were funding a foundation to aid African-Americans who lack the financial resources to go to college. Or if you vowed to create after-school programs for inner city youth. Or you worked to end black-on-black crime.
Those are the actions of someone who wants to fix the problem. Kneeling during the national anthem doesn't help black people one iota. It does, however, put a glaring spotlight on you. If that's what you wanted, you have succeeded. But you have failed to do a darn thing about oppression.
That's why I disagree with President Obama and others who claim it takes courage to refuse to stand for the national anthem. Nonsense. Anyone can do that. It requires commitment to take a stand and back it up with actions that will make a difference. That's real courage.
President John F. Kennedy said it best. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." You are a beneficiary of American freedom, but what are you willing to do in return? Kneel. Really? That's it. That's your answer?
Unfortunately, your protest has done more to widen the chasm between the races. To many of us, your refusal feels like a giant middle finger against patriotism. Now that other black players have followed your lead, this has done nothing but escalate tension between the races.
You have made this a black versus white issue, since the charge of racism by its nature smears all whites as haters. There is no question racism exists in America and worldwide. But so does anti-Semitism. You can add to that list people who dislike Christians, atheists, Asians and Hispanics.
But the haters are in the minority. The vast majority of Americans pursue harmony with their neighbors, regardless of color, creed or religion. Still, we can agree that racism, sexism and all the other ism's need to be eradicated. You will get no argument from me or most Americans.
That's why dishonoring the national anthem is an senseless gesture that angers many. Do you recall September 11, 2001? After the terrorist attacks, all Americans, black and white, rallied behind their country. The playing of the "Star Spangled Banner" united all Americans.
Apparently, many Americans are offended by your actions. Ratings for NFL games are down for the first time in decades. Some research suggests fans are turning off their televisions to send a message to the players and the owners. They want to watch football without the racial bellyaching.
I ask you to please reconsider your form of protest, not your principles. Because when your 15 minutes of fame fades and your football skills erode, you will just be another unhappy, unemployed multi-millionaire. Still, not a bad life for someone concerned about oppression.
Sincerely,
Drew A. Roy
Monday, October 3, 2016
Media Hiding The Truth About Polls
Polls. Polls. Polls. Every day a new poll surfaces on the presidential race. The mainstream media report the poll results as if the data is factual information. Reporters and editors make no attempt to warn the public of the errors inherent in the methodology of most political polls.
First, let's dismiss the idea that polling results represent facts. They do not. Polls are a snapshot in time of the sentiment of a narrow slice of Americans. Most polling organizations interview 1,000 or fewer people and then extrapolate the results to produce a purported representative sample of adults.
To put that into perspective, there are about 200 million adults in the United States, according to the latest U.S. Census. That means the typical poll of 1,000 adults is representative of .0005 percent of the adult population. The media never mention that fact in reporting on polls.
The Roper Polling organization estimates that an adult's odds of being called in any given year for a political survey are more than 100 to one. How many friends and family do you know who have participated in a telephone poll in any presidential election? Crickets.
Secondly, the vast majority of presidential polls are conducted by land line telephone. Ask yourself: How many people with caller ID even answer a call from a polling organization? How many adults accept the call then refuse to answer the questions?
Pollsters have tried other methods, including online surveys and text messages to elicit opinions about politics. However, both political parties have learned how to influence the results by encouraging their supporters to cast votes to sway the poll. That renders the data worthless.
It is a disservice and dishonest for news organizations to keep the public in the dark about all the variables implicit in the polls. Don't take our word for it. The ex-chairman of one of the most-respected polling organizations in America has scolded the media for misleading the public.
"But they (the media) would be better off assuming--as most of the readers surely do--that all surveys and all opinion polls are estimates, which may be wrong," warned Humphrey Taylor, the former chairman of Louis Harris And Associates, Inc., writing in an article in 1998.
Taylor pointed out that the wording of questions, the order of questions, the refusal rate, the non-availability of people and inadequate weighting are factors that make polling results subject to "substantial error."
For that reason, Harris included a "strong warning" in all its polls. "It is difficult or impossible to quantify the errors that may result from these factors (cited above)." So-called journalists are not the least bit interested in these caveats, concluded Harris.
Despite all the admonitions, the media persist in deceitful reporting of results. Unfortunately, too few Americans understand political polling, thus many continue to put stock in the results.
Although political polls enjoy public trust, these samples have a checkered past. In the 1948 presidential race, the Gallup poll had Thomas Dewey ahead of Harry Truman, 45 to 41 percent. Truman won the White House with 50 percent of the vote to Dewey's 45 percent.
In 2008, a consensus of seven polls taken just before the New Hampshire Democratic primary showed Barrack Obama had an eight-point margin over Hillary Clinton. Instead, Ms. Clinton won by three-percentage-points, leaving pollsters red-faced.
American pollsters could learn a few things from the British. After opinion polls were grossly wrong in predicting the outcome of May's general elections in Britain, some smart folks decided to do a face-to-face survey of voters by going door-to-door.
The sample included 3,000 people who fit the profile of those who regularly showed up and voted at the polls, instead of just surveying adults in general. The results were eyeopening. The voters' preferences in the poll accurately reflected the actual vote in the general election.
That begs the question: Why don't more polling outfits employ that same methodology if it is more accurate? The simple answer is money. Telephone surveys are infinitely less costly than door-to-door polling, especially when the research is conducted monthly or even weekly in the U.S.
The big media cabal understands the flaws with U.S. presidential polling. That's why their reporting is a deliberate deception. There is never an attempt to explain the limitations and fallacies of research. Reports on the latest polls are presented as unassailable truth.
Shawn Parry-Giles, a political communications professor at the University of Maryland, argues the media should stop treating polls as if they are authentic. "This is about what the voters say and do, and the media has to be very careful about how they frame the polls," she notes.
In other words, what voters tell researchers often may not be the same as their decision in the voting booth.
Her advice has gone unheeded by a mainstream media intent on using polls to advance their narrative about the race. When polls showed Hillary Clinton leading, it was front page news. Now that Donald Trump has narrowed the gap, there is less media enthusiasm for showcasing the results.
With Ms. Clinton sliding in the polls, the media use data to strengthen the case for Ms. Clinton. When Trump began climbing in the polls, the media quickly noted that he was losing with women, Hispanics and African-Americans. The media snickered that Trump was winning only with white men.
Of course, these conclusions were drawn from polls, too, subject to the same distortions as the presidential samples. In general, people trust polls way too much. The only thing that matters is the actual votes cast on November 8. Everything else is political chatter.
First, let's dismiss the idea that polling results represent facts. They do not. Polls are a snapshot in time of the sentiment of a narrow slice of Americans. Most polling organizations interview 1,000 or fewer people and then extrapolate the results to produce a purported representative sample of adults.
To put that into perspective, there are about 200 million adults in the United States, according to the latest U.S. Census. That means the typical poll of 1,000 adults is representative of .0005 percent of the adult population. The media never mention that fact in reporting on polls.
The Roper Polling organization estimates that an adult's odds of being called in any given year for a political survey are more than 100 to one. How many friends and family do you know who have participated in a telephone poll in any presidential election? Crickets.
Secondly, the vast majority of presidential polls are conducted by land line telephone. Ask yourself: How many people with caller ID even answer a call from a polling organization? How many adults accept the call then refuse to answer the questions?
Pollsters have tried other methods, including online surveys and text messages to elicit opinions about politics. However, both political parties have learned how to influence the results by encouraging their supporters to cast votes to sway the poll. That renders the data worthless.
It is a disservice and dishonest for news organizations to keep the public in the dark about all the variables implicit in the polls. Don't take our word for it. The ex-chairman of one of the most-respected polling organizations in America has scolded the media for misleading the public.
"But they (the media) would be better off assuming--as most of the readers surely do--that all surveys and all opinion polls are estimates, which may be wrong," warned Humphrey Taylor, the former chairman of Louis Harris And Associates, Inc., writing in an article in 1998.
Taylor pointed out that the wording of questions, the order of questions, the refusal rate, the non-availability of people and inadequate weighting are factors that make polling results subject to "substantial error."
For that reason, Harris included a "strong warning" in all its polls. "It is difficult or impossible to quantify the errors that may result from these factors (cited above)." So-called journalists are not the least bit interested in these caveats, concluded Harris.
Despite all the admonitions, the media persist in deceitful reporting of results. Unfortunately, too few Americans understand political polling, thus many continue to put stock in the results.
Although political polls enjoy public trust, these samples have a checkered past. In the 1948 presidential race, the Gallup poll had Thomas Dewey ahead of Harry Truman, 45 to 41 percent. Truman won the White House with 50 percent of the vote to Dewey's 45 percent.
In 2008, a consensus of seven polls taken just before the New Hampshire Democratic primary showed Barrack Obama had an eight-point margin over Hillary Clinton. Instead, Ms. Clinton won by three-percentage-points, leaving pollsters red-faced.
American pollsters could learn a few things from the British. After opinion polls were grossly wrong in predicting the outcome of May's general elections in Britain, some smart folks decided to do a face-to-face survey of voters by going door-to-door.
The sample included 3,000 people who fit the profile of those who regularly showed up and voted at the polls, instead of just surveying adults in general. The results were eyeopening. The voters' preferences in the poll accurately reflected the actual vote in the general election.
That begs the question: Why don't more polling outfits employ that same methodology if it is more accurate? The simple answer is money. Telephone surveys are infinitely less costly than door-to-door polling, especially when the research is conducted monthly or even weekly in the U.S.
The big media cabal understands the flaws with U.S. presidential polling. That's why their reporting is a deliberate deception. There is never an attempt to explain the limitations and fallacies of research. Reports on the latest polls are presented as unassailable truth.
Shawn Parry-Giles, a political communications professor at the University of Maryland, argues the media should stop treating polls as if they are authentic. "This is about what the voters say and do, and the media has to be very careful about how they frame the polls," she notes.
In other words, what voters tell researchers often may not be the same as their decision in the voting booth.
Her advice has gone unheeded by a mainstream media intent on using polls to advance their narrative about the race. When polls showed Hillary Clinton leading, it was front page news. Now that Donald Trump has narrowed the gap, there is less media enthusiasm for showcasing the results.
With Ms. Clinton sliding in the polls, the media use data to strengthen the case for Ms. Clinton. When Trump began climbing in the polls, the media quickly noted that he was losing with women, Hispanics and African-Americans. The media snickered that Trump was winning only with white men.
Of course, these conclusions were drawn from polls, too, subject to the same distortions as the presidential samples. In general, people trust polls way too much. The only thing that matters is the actual votes cast on November 8. Everything else is political chatter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)