Posts Tagged ‘Liberal’

New York 23rd District Election Prediction: Hoffman Wins

November 2, 2009

I already put out my predictions for the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races.  The other major race going on tomorrow is the special election for the New York 23rd Congressional District.  Originally, there were 3 main candidates running: Republican Dede Scozzafava, Democrat Bill Owens, and Conservative Doug Hoffman.  Hoffman entered the race because people had criticized Scozzafava as being too moderate, some saying she was even more liberal than the Democrat.  Top Republicans were split in who they supported, with some Republicans like Newt Gingrich supporting Scozafava, and Sarah Palin supporting Doug Hoffman.

Last week, Scozzafava dropped out of the race and endorsed Owens.  At that point, Scozzafava was trailing in the polls by over 10%, and the race between Owens and Hoffman was close.  Since Scozzafava dropped out, Hoffman has skyrocketed in the polls, and I now expect him to win.

Even though Scozzafava dropped out, it’s too late to change the ballots, so she will remain on the ballot.  Here’s my prediction:

  1. Doug Hoffman (C) – 53%
  2. Bill Owens – 42%
  3. Dede Scozzafava – 5%

I really don’t see Hoffman having any problems now that Scozzafava has dropped out – the district leans Republican and hasn’t gone for a Democrat running for the District since 1992.  I see Hoffman winning pretty easily tomorrow, but we’ll see – it’s been an interesting race so far – there could always be another surprise.

Done Predicting,

Ranting Republican

Meat Industry Is Top Contributor to Global Warming, so Why Isn’t Al Gore a Vegetarian?

February 7, 2009

Alright, I was watching Glenn Beck’s show on FOX yesterday, and he had on his show Matt Prescott, a spokesman for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), who talked about a recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (a branch of the United Nations) study that revealed that the number 1 contributor to greenhouse gas emissions is the meat industry (animal farms).  They account for more than all of the transportation methods’ greenhouse gas emissions combined.  Anyway, I’ll let you watch the video (courtesy of  FOX News), and I’ll discuss it below:

He brings up a VERY good point.  Why aren’t Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Al Gore vegetarians?  Well, I think we all know why Al Gore isn’t – Al Gore is a hypocrite.  He’s never abided by what he tells others to do.  He goes around the country flying on his personal jet!

But the point is – now that has been revealed, are  all of the liberals who are warning of pending doom going to stop eating steak?  I doubt it.  And to those who are going to criticize my “ignorance” of the impending doom, I’m a meteorology major.  Most of the professors I’ve talked to don’t share the doom and gloom that Al Gore preaches.  They teach us that there’s a problem, but also say that we don’t know what’s causing the increase in the earth’s temperature.  Furthermore, neither the National Weather Service nor the National Climatic Data Center say that global warming is human caused; they say that it MIGHT be human-caused (which means that it might NOT be human-caused).

So, regardless of the cause of global warming (and the earth is warming – that’s a fact, so people who dispute that are just ignorant), those who believe that it’s not just a cyclical process should stop eating meat, and those who don’t stop eating meat need to shut up and not preach doom or gloom, otherwise they’re hypocrites.

I hardly ever agree with anything that PETA says, but at least they’re practicing what they’re preaching here.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

NOW We’re Officially in a Recession

December 3, 2008

I know this is a few days late, but life has been hectic (next week is final exam week for me).  But this is something that I really wanted to post about.

Back in April, I made the statement that we were not in a recession, because we had not yet seen an economic decline “lasting more than a few months” (which is the definition given by the National Bureau for Economic Research [NBER]).  I said that we were coming close, but we weren’t quite to the legal definition of a recession.  Well, on Monday, a report came out that confirmed what I said.  Our economic growth peaked in December.  A few months is 3-4 months, so “more than a few months” would be 4-5+ months of economic decline.  Meaning, in May of 2008, we could have officially been declared in a recession.  I was mocked in April for saying this, but I was right.

I was mockedbecause I didn’t factor in the unemployment rate, but neither does the NBER.  I was told that we were “years beyond peaking.”  We were not years beyond peaking.  We were 4.5 months beyond it (almost identical to what I said).

You can read below that “real personal income less transfer payments, real manufacturing and wholesale-retail trade sales, industrial production, and employment estimates based on the household survey-all reached peaks between November 2007 and June 2008.”  And this further backs up my point that April was too early to call it a recession.  The mainstream media was wrong to call this a recession when they did, and there are some liberals out there who owe me an apology.

The following is the report put out by the NBER:

Determination of the December 2007 Peak in Economic Activity

 

The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met by conference call on Friday, November 28. The committee maintains a chronology of the beginning and ending dates (months and quarters) of U.S. recessions. The committee determined that a peak in economic activity occurred in the U.S. economy in December 2007. The peak marks the end of the expansion that began in November 2001 and the beginning of a recession. The expansion lasted 73 months; the previous expansion of the 1990s lasted 120 months.

A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in production, employment, real income, and other indicators. A recession begins when the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends when the economy reaches its trough. Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion.

Because a recession is a broad contraction of the economy, not confined to one sector, the committee emphasizes economy-wide measures of economic activity. The committee believes that domestic production and employment are the primary conceptual measures of economic activity.

The committee views the payroll employment measure, which is based on a large survey of employers, as the most reliable comprehensive estimate of employment. This series reached a peak in December 2007 and has declined every month since then.

The committee believes that the two most reliable comprehensive estimates of aggregate domestic production are normally the quarterly estimate of real Gross Domestic Product and the quarterly estimate of real Gross Domestic Income, both produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In concept, the two should be the same, because sales of products generate income for producers and workers equal to the value of the sales. However, because the measurement on the product and income sides proceeds somewhat independently, the two actual measures differ by a statistical discrepancy. The product-side estimates fell slightly in 2007Q4, rose slightly in 2008Q1, rose again in 2008Q2, and fell slightly in 2008Q3. The income-side estimates reached their peak in 2007Q3, fell slightly in 2007Q4 and 2008Q1, rose slightly in 2008Q2 to a level below its peak in 2007Q3, and fell again in 2008Q3. Thus, the currently available estimates of quarterly aggregate real domestic production do not speak clearly about the date of a peak in activity.

Other series considered by the committee—including real personal income less transfer payments, real manufacturing and wholesale-retail trade sales, industrial production, and employment estimates based on the household survey—all reached peaks between November 2007 and June 2008.

The committee determined that the decline in economic activity in 2008 met the standard for a recession, as set forth in the second paragraph of this document. All evidence other than the ambiguous movements of the quarterly product-side measure of domestic production confirmed 2 that conclusion. Many of these indicators, including monthly data on the largest component of GDP, consumption, have declined sharply in recent months.

The committee’s primary role is to maintain a monthly chronology of the business cycle. For this purpose, the committee mainly relies on monthly indicators. It also considers quarterly indicators and maintains a quarterly chronology. In its deliberations, the committee relied on a number of monthly and quarterly economic indicators published by government agencies. The Appendix to this announcement lists these indicators and their sources. The Appendix also describes the calculations required to reproduce the series that the NBER committee examined in its deliberations.

The Month of the Peak

The committee identified December 2007 as the peak month, after determining that the subsequent decline in economic activity was large enough to qualify as a recession.

Payroll employment, the number of filled jobs in the economy based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ large survey of employers, reached a peak in December 2007 and has declined in every month since then. An alternative measure of employment, measured by the BLS’s household survey, reached a peak in November 2007, declined early in 2008, expanded temporarily in April to a level below its November 2007 peak, and has declined in every month since April 2008. For a discussion of the difference between payroll and household survey employment measures, see Mary Bowler and Teresa L. Morisi, “Understanding the Employment Measures from the CPS and CES Surveys,” Monthly Labor Review, February 2006, pp. 23–38.

The committee uses real personal income less transfer payments from the Bureau of Economic Analysis as a monthly measure of output. The deduction of transfer payments places the data closer to the desired measure, real gross domestic income. To adjust personal income less transfer payments from nominal to real terms (that is, to remove the effects of price changes), the committee uses the deflator for gross domestic product. Because this deflator is only available quarterly, the committee interpolates the published series to approximate a monthly price index for GDP. The resulting monthly measure of real personal income less transfers is an imperfect measure of monthly real output because of definitional differences between personal income less transfers and gross national income and because we use the interpolated price index. Our measure of real personal income less transfers peaked in December 2007, displayed a zig-zag pattern from then until June 2008 at levels slightly below the December 2007 peak, and has generally declined since June.

Real manufacturing and wholesale-retail trade sales from the Census Department is another monthly indicator of output. It is an imperfect measure of the production of goods and services for at least three reasons. First, it covers only goods and not services. Second, it does not deduct the sales of imported goods. Because the real value of imports declined substantially over the relevant period, the measure understates the growth of output. Third, the government does not publish a price index corresponding to the coverage of the measure. The committee uses the same interpolated GDP deflator as discussed above. Real manufacturing and wholesale-retail trade sales reached a well-defined peak in June 2008.

The last monthly measure of production is the Federal Reserve Board’s index of industrial production. This measure has quite restricted coverage—it includes manufacturing, mining, and utilities but excludes all services and government. Industrial production peaked in January 2008, fell through May 2008, rose slightly in June and July, and then fell substantially from July to September. It rose somewhat in October with the resumption of oil production disturbed by hurricanes in the previous month. The October value of the industrial production index remained a substantial 4.7 percent below its value in January 2008.

The committee noted that the behavior of the quarterly estimates of aggregate production was not inconsistent with a peak in late 2007. The income-side estimate of output reached its peak in the third quarter of 2007. The product-side estimate reached a temporary peak in the same quarter, but rose to a higher level in the second quarter of 2008.

The Quarter of the Peak

The committee determined that the peak quarter of economic activity was the fourth quarter of 2007. When the monthly peak occurs in the last month of a quarter, the NBER’s long-standing procedures dates the quarterly peak either in the quarter containing the monthly peak or in the subsequent quarter. Thus, the committee could have dated the quarterly peak in 2008Q1 if it had determined that economic activity was higher in that quarter than in 2007Q4. However, the committee determined that this was not the case. Most notably, both payroll employment and the income-side estimate of domestic production were lower in 2008Q1 than in 2007Q4, and the product-side estimate of domestic production was only slightly higher. The committee found that the peak quarter was the one containing the peak month, 2007Q4.

Further Comments

Although the indicators described above are the most important measures considered by the NBER in developing its business cycle chronology, there is no fixed rule about which other measures may contribute information to the process in any particular episode.

Committee members are: Robert Hall, Stanford University (chair); Martin Feldstein, Harvard University and NBER President Emeritus; Jeffrey Frankel, Harvard University; Robert Gordon, Northwestern University; James Poterba, MIT and NBER President; David Romer, University of California, Berkeley; and Victor Zarnowitz, the Conference Board. Christina Romer of the University of California, Berkeley, resigned from the committee on November 25, 2008, and did not participate in its deliberations of November 28.

For more information, see the FAQs below and also see http://www.nber.org/cycles.html.

 

So, there you have it, we’ve been in a recession for 11 months now (not years!).  Hopefully we’ll be out of it soon!

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Alan Colmes to Leave Hannity & Colmes Show on FOX

November 24, 2008

News has just come in that Alan Colmes, the liberal half of Hannity & Colmes, the number 2 show in cable news (behind The O’Reilly Factor), will be leaving the show at the end of the year.  Colmes told reporters, “I approached Bill Shine [Fox News Channel’s Senior Vice President of Programming] earlier this year about wanting to move on after 12 years to develop new and challenging ways to contribute to the growth of the network.  Although it’s bittersweet to leave one of the longest marriages on cable news, I’m proud that both Sean and I remained unharmed after sitting side by side, night after night for so many years.”

Shine also gave a statement, saying, “We’re very sorry to see Alan reach this decision but we understand his desire to seek other creative challenges in his career.  We value his incredible hard work in making Hannity & Colmes the most successful debate program on cable news and we’re going to miss him on the show.  Thankfully, he will begin developing a weekend pilot for us.”

Hannity also released a statement, saying, “Not only has Alan been a remarkable co-host, he’s been a great friend which is rare in this industry — I’ll genuinely miss sparring with such a skillful debate partner.”

Roger Ailes, the Chairman & CEO of FOX News also said, “Alan is one of the key reasons why FOX News has been such a remarkable success.  We’re sad to see him leave the program but we look forward to his ongoing contributions to the network.”

Colmes continue working at FOX, as a liberal commentator on a variety of news programs, including The Strategy Room.  He will also continue to host his radio program, The Alan Colmes Show, on FOX Talk.  Additionally, he will begin to develop a weekend program of some sort.

Personally, I’m going to miss Alan.  I’ve always enjoyed the back and forth on Hannity and Colmes.  They actually had good debates.  I always found the format both fun and educational.

The future of the show is unknown at this point in time, but I’m sure that Sean is going to stay at FOX.

The good news is, this leaves room for me and my roommate to get a show on FOX, although I’m not sure that we’d be as civilized as Hannity and Colmes were.  Both him and I like watching COPS, so we joke about combining the two shows, kinda like a Hannity & Colmes with TAZERs.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

The Problem with the Republican Party

November 18, 2008

So, I was taking a shower a couple days ago, when I had an epiphany (it’s where I always do all my great thinking).  I came up with this phrase: “A tax-and-spend liberal is better than a tax-cut-and-spend conservative.  At least the liberal can balance the budget.”

And this is a principle that the Republican Party (or at least a large part of its members) have forgotten.  The Bush Tax Cuts do NOTHING for us, unless you CUT SPENDING as well!  In fact, if we are going to keep up our spending habits, we need to RAISE taxes.

So should we raise taxes?  Absolutely NOT!  What we should focus on doing is cutting our spending.  Start with earmarks.  Eliminate them altogether.  Then move on to the welfare system.  Reform the welfare system.  And reform the school system.  There’s plenty of money in Michigan, worked around the right way, so that we can pay teachers decent wages and not have to continue closing down schools in Detroit.

Until the Republican Party begins to understand basic business principles (can’t have your expenditures higher than your income), they will continue to suffer election after election.  We need to return to our fiscally responsible principles.  Cut taxes.  Cut spending.  That right there will raise the quality of life for all Americans.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Clarification About Ethics and Family Members in Politics

September 13, 2008

Recently some controversy arose concerning whether or not I represent a conservative voice on a panel for an event at Central Michigan (the event is Speak Up, Speak Out [SUSO]).  The CM-Life wrote an article about a complaint by a student, Dennis Lennox, saying that he and conservatives were being discriminated against by the SUSO Committee not allowing him to be on the panel.

I left a comment saying:

I am the conservative representing the College Republicans, so no, it’s not a completely liberal panel.

As for the statement that the university shouldn’t decide who goes to these. I say, it’s their forum, they can do what they want. If you don’t like it, go start your own forum and run it how you want.

As for Dennis’s [Dennis Lennox] complaint, I would welcome another conservative on the panel, but I think that this would open the door for any politically-related RSO to complain and want a spot on the SUSO panel, which would lead to a dozen or more panelists, and this makes the forums too hard to run. You have so many people wanting to talk that it’d become too hard to manage.

2 days went by, another article came out, including statements by myself and the College Democrats’ President, defending the Speak Up, Speak Out Committee’s decision to only include the CRs and CDs.

Later in the day, a comment appeared on the original story, by someone impersonating my sister:

I know Nathan Inks; he’s not a conservative. He’s a moderate, a Republican ideologue. There is a difference between being a Republican and being a conservative. They are definitely not synonymous. 

That crossed a line.  That crossed a big, fat, thick line!  And the reason that I’m posting this on here is to point out a principle–a principle that should not be broken under ANY circumstances.  In politics, there is no reason to drag a family member into discussion, unless that family member has some effect on what’s going on.

Even further than that, to pretend to be somebody’s family or friend in order to deceive everybody else who is reading the comment is both disturbing and disgusting.

I ask for a public apology from whoever committed the heinous act.  It was uncalled for, and both offensive, to me AND my sister.

And I ask that this be a reminder to everybody out there–impersonating somebody on the Internet is not something funny, it’s serious, and it can have consequences that you never intended it to have or even imagined it could have.

If you have something to say, just come out and say it.  Don’t be a coward and try to hide behind someone else’s name.  It’s disgusting and wrong.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Rasmussen Poll: Like Joe Biden, Sarah Palin Hurts Her Ticket as Much as She Helps

September 2, 2008

This is kinda like a follow-up of my first post, regarding Rasmussen’s poll about Joe Biden (D-DE).

1* John McCain named Sarah Palin to be his Vice Presidential running mate. Was this the right choice for McCain to make?

 

39% Yes

39% No

22% Not sure

Well, that’s not too good for Palin or McCain.  They’d better hope that those 22% start swinging toward Yes, otherwise McCain could be in trouble.

2* With Sarah Palin as his running mate, are you more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain?

 

37% More likely

38% Less likely

23% No impact

2% Not sure

That’s essentially the same thing as Joe Biden, except that Biden was at 32% for each (so more people saying no impact/undecideds), and Palin had 1% more saying that they are less likely to vote for the ticket because of her.

3* If necessary, is Sarah Palin ready to be President?

 

29% Yes

48% No

23% Not sure

And this is the question that’s REALLY going to hurt Palin. Nearly half of the people surveyed say she’s not ready. Personally, I disagree. I think, due to her experience as an executive, she has more experience than Obama, who spent a large chunk of his time in the Illinois Senate voting “Present” and has spent nearly half of his time as a U.S. Senator campaigning for President, but still, this is going to hurt McCain/Palin.

4* Inpolitical terms, is Sarah Palin very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, or very liberal?

 

45% Very conservative

30% Somewhat conservative

11% Moderate

2% Somewhat liberal

0% Very liberal

11% Not sure

Wow – most people saying that she’s very conservative is going to hurt.  Like I saidwhen the poll came out for Michelle Obama, you really want Very Conservative and Somewhat Conservative to be switched.  You want something similar to a bell curve (although with politics, unless you’re actually a moderate, this won’t happen).  This isn’t going to win over many moderate voters, but it will energize the base.

5*Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression of Sarah Palin?

 

31% Very favorable

21% Somewhat favorable

20% Somewhat unfavorable

16% Very unfavorable

10% Not familiar with Sarah Palin

2% Not sure

And this is where Palin does better than Biden.  She has a favorability rating of 52%, while Biden only had 48% (and that’s a difference larger than the margin of error).  She has an unfavorability rating of 36%, while Biden had one of 38%, so they were pretty close there.  Having 52% like you is a VERY good thing to have, so this is going to help Palin out quite a bit, now the McCain campaign just needs to show people that she’s ready to lead.

Here’s a few results broken up by party and gender (I don’t have a premium account, so what’s posted below is all I can get):

  • “69% of GOP voters believe the choice was a good one, while nearly as many Democrats (63%) disagree. Unaffiliated voters are evenly divided as well.”
  • “The night after the announcement, slightly more women voters viewed Palin as the right choice for McCain’s running mate, but now 41% say she was not, versus 36% who still believe she was a good choice. Forty-one percent (41%) of women say they are less likely now to vote for McCain because of Palin, as opposed to 31% who say they are more likely to support him. Women voters were essentially even on this question in the earlier survey.”
  • “Men still back McCain’s decision. Forty-one percent (41%) say she was the right choice, while 37% disagree. Earlier, men favored the decision by a 43% to 31% margin. Forty-three percent (43%) of men voters say they are more likely to vote for McCain because of his choosing of Palin as a running mate, but 34% say they are less likely to do so. This is a jump in support from the earlier survey.”
  • “But even a plurality of men (47%) say Palin is not ready to be president in the event of the 72-year-old McCain being incapacitated while in the White House, although 32% believe she is ready. Women voters by a nearly two-to-one margin believe Palin is not ready.”

So, there you have it.  Palin is starting off I think worse than Biden did, but she has a lot more potential to improve than Biden does.  We’ll see what happens on Election Day!

Done Analyzing,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

39% of Likely Voters Think Michelle Obama Is Very Liberal

August 25, 2008

Here’s a new poll from Rasmussen Reports:

4* In political terms, is Michelle Obama very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, or very conservative?

39% Very liberal

25% Somewhat liberal

20% Moderate

4% Somewhat conservative

1% Very conservative

11% Not sure

Unfortunately, I don’t have access to all the demographics (with party breakdowns), but Rasmussen does say in the article that “Only 12% of likely Obama voters say Mrs. Obama is Very Liberal versus 69% of those who plan to vote for McCain. … Interestingly, while 63% of conservatives view her as Very Liberal, only 20% of liberals – and 28% of self-designated moderates — feel that way.”

This actually surprised me.  Of course, I think she’s very liberal, but 39% is a high number.  Normally the percentages for Very and Somewhat Liberal would be switched.  And having 20% of liberals say she’s very liberal is high too.  28% of moderates isn’t bad, but it’s on the higher side.  And with moderates, you want them to think that you’re a moderate too.

But, we’re not electing Michelle Obama, we’re voting for (or against) Barack.  What could make a difference is how much she affects her husband’s decision making.  Rasmussen asked that as well:

5* If Barack Obama is elected President, how involved will Michelle Obama be when it comes to making important policy decisions?

26% Very involved

31% Somewhat involved

25% Not very involved

4% Not at all involved

14% Not sure

And again, we have some demographics from the article: “Forty-six percent (46%) of likely Obama voters say Mrs. Obama will be at least somewhat involved in making important policy decisions, and only 12% think she will be Very Involved. But 41% of potential McCain voters expect her to be Very Involved in major policy decisions, and an additional 30% say they expect her to be somewhat involved. … Similarly, 24% of male voters and 27% of female voters expect her to be Very Involved in major policy decisions.”

And that seems pretty average to me, I just wish they’d have broken it down by ideology/party.  If anybody has a Premium account and can tell me the numbers (only if it’s legal), that’d be great!

So, Michelle Obama comes across as too liberal to too many people, and I think that that is going to hurt Barack, especially as he’s running against a semi-moderate conservative.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Rasmussen Poll: Joe Biden Helps Obama as Much as He Hurts Him

August 24, 2008

A new Rasmussen Reports poll came out yesterday asking questions about Barack Obama’s VP pick, Joe Biden:

Probably most important was question number 2:

2* With Joe Biden as his running mate, are you more likely or less likely to vote for Barack Obama?

32% More likely
32% Less likely

30% No impact
5% Not sure

So, Biden hurts as much as he helps.  That’s really not what you want to see your running mate do to your campaign.  I’m guessing a big chunk of the “Less Likely” category is Hillary supporters.

Here are some other questions:

1*Earlier today, Barack Obama named Joe Biden to be his Vice Presidential running mate. Was this the right choice for Obama to make?

39% Yes
25% No
35% Not sure

Most of the Clinton supporters said, “No,” I’m guessing.

3* If necessary, is Joe Biden ready to be President?

39% Yes
35% No
26% Not sure

Again, having only 4% more people think your running mate is ready to serve than people who think he’s not, is NOT a good margin.  So the same 39% in number 1 probably said yes here, but around another 10% don’t think he’s ready to lead.  Biden was NOT a good pick, simply because 1) He brings pretty much nothing to the table, and 2) Apparently, he’s not too popular as a VP/possible Presidential candidate (that’s obvious considering he got smashed in the primary).

4* In political terms, is Joe Biden very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, or very liberal?

3% Very conservative
7% Somewhat conservative

33% Moderate
25% Somewhat liberal
18% Very liberal

15% Not sure

OK, so 10% of the people poll are idiots and clearly should’ve said “Not sure”.  If Biden is a conservative, then I’m - I don’t know what I’d be if Biden is a conservative.  But this is probably the best question that Biden performed in.  A 33% moderate description is pretty good, and a 25% liberal description isn’t bad.  Since most of America leans left, he ideologically appeals to around 58% of America, but that’s just in general, not anything specific.

62-29*Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression of Joe Biden?

20% Very favorable
28% Somewhat favorable
19% Somewhat unfavorable
19% Very unfavorable
15% Not familiar with Joe Biden
3% Not sure

48% like him.  38% don’t like him.  18% know pretty much nothing.

Overall, if 48% say they like him, but only 32% say he makes them lean toward Obama, that means that around 16% weren’t impacted by his pick.  If 48% like him, but 39% say he was the right pick, that means that some Biden supporters think that, although they like him, he’ll overall not help the ticket.

So, who do I think Obama should’ve picked?  It should’ve been Senator Evan Bayh, from Indiana – at least he’s from a swing state.

Well, now I just have to wait for my text message from John McCain at 4:13 A.M. EDT next Saturday (why Obama sent it out that late/early seems odd to me – I was one of the few people in the Eastern time zone still awake.

Done Analyzing,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Liberals, Media Ignore GDP Growth and Continue Calling It a Recession

August 3, 2008

At the end of July, a report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis came out saying that the Gross Domestic Product grew at a rate of  1.9% during the second quarter.  Well, that’s good, considering that it only grew .9% in the first quarter.

So, the media ran stories about this right.  Well, kinda.  They ran stories saying things like “Q2 GDP Doesn’t Meet Analsysts’ Expectations,” which is true, since analsysts predicted anywhere from 2.0%-2.4% growth (those are the numbers I’ve mostly seen).

Now, the media has also reported that the Bureau of Economic Analysis, within the Department of Commerce may update the real GDP; however, the change is normally no more than +/- .2%.  So there’d still be an increase in the rate from the first quarter.

So, why is the media (and liberals) downplaying this?  Because they said we were in a recession.  And just like EVERYTHING the media reports on, the evidence MUST support the position that the media has taken.  Screw taking a position based on the evidence.  Take the position that’s good for liberals, and make the evidence fit!  I’ve even seen a liberal ask, “Are official GDP growth statistics wrong?” just because Americans are so convinced that we MUST be in a recession.

And whatever liberals did acknowledge the positive growth, said it was because the stimulus checks were such a good idea.  Yeah, bailing people out for making stupid housing decisions is a good idea.  Instead of just giving out tax cuts, let’s complicate the system with a stimulus package!

As I’ve said before, we’re not in a recession, so the media really needs to stop saying that we are.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 287 other followers

%d bloggers like this: