Jump to content

Obama Dropping In North Carolina And Virginia Polls And Chris Kluwe's Rant: Coincidence?


HolyMoses
 Share

Recommended Posts

I hope so, but consider

1) In North Carolina, a Survey USA poll shows Obama losing 7 points over the course of a week in which he has done very well nationally. The cross tabs show that an absurd 30% of black voters support Romney

2) In Virginia, a new Gravis Marketing survey shows Obama losing 9 points in the past month, again contrary to the national trend. (No cross tabs)

3) Chris Kluwe sends a profanity laced diatribe to . . . Maryland legislator and delegate, Emmet C. Burns:, an African American Democrat.

Which all gets me wondering . . . Is Gay marriage being stirred up in black churches in southern swing states the way it was in Ohio in 2004?

Of course, it's a heckuva leap . . . but I would LOVE to see the Gravis crosstabs in Virginia, and watch to see if there is a trend of Blacks moving towards Romney in Virginia, North Carolina . . . and even Maryland. The next question would obviously be "WHY?" Is Klewe's letter to Burns an indication of what's going on? Actually, the question is if Burn's letter to the Raven's owner that precipitated Klewe's rant an indication of a concerted effort to make this an issue to get southern blacks to support Romney?

Just a little paranoia for a Tuesday afternoon . . . .

After Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo voiced his support for marriage equality, Burns wrote a letter on August 29, 2012, to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, on official Maryland State letterhead, demanding that Mr. Bisciotti "take the necessary action ... to inhibit such expressions from your employee," further stating, "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing." Ayanbadejo's off-field activities did not violate any NFL or Ravens' rules or regulations. Burns was criticized on two accounts: 1) Trying to use the authority of his government position to prevent a citizen from exercising First Amendment rights; and 2) taking a public position on marriage equality that was in direct conflict with his Democratic Party platform and the constituency which elected him. According to The Washington Post, the Ravens acknowledged receiving the letter but had no further comment.[9][10][11]

Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe also came to Ayanbadejo's defense, penning a scathing retort for the popular sports website Deadspin. After echoing previous criticisms and wondering why Burns "hates freedom," Kluwe stated that making gay marriage legal "won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster" and that Kluwe, too, has been very vocal in supporting marriage equality.[12]

Edited by holymoses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow....30%.....honestly I didn't think there was anything that could pry more than 10% of the black vote away from President Obama in any state, even though he is obviously on the wrong side of the gay marriage issue with the black community.

The gay marriage thing is a BFD for Blacks. Homosexuality is a major taboo, which is why the "Down Low" is almost an exclusively black phenomena. (And, according to a friend of mine with the CDC, why AIDS is much more of an issue for black women and white women.)

This might be the real reason Obama did not express support for Gay marriage during the first election; it would have inhibited black support in terms of votes and ground forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://dailycaller.c...ized-pollsters/

Justice Dept. Gallup lawsuit came after Axelrod criticized pollsters

Internal emails between senior officials at The Gallup Organization, obtained by The Daily Caller, show senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod attempting to subtly intimidate the respected polling firm when its numbers were unfavorable to the president.

After Gallup declined to change its polling methodology, Obama’s Department of Justice hit it with an unrelated lawsuit that appears damning on its face.

TheDC is withholding the identities of the Gallup officials to protect them from potential retaliation from Obama’s campaign and his administration.

In April, Axelrod tweeted that a poll showing Mitt Romney with a 48-43 percent lead over Obama was “saddled with some methodological problems,” directing his Twitter followers to read a National Journal story criticizing Gallup polls showing a Romney lead.

In that National Journal piece, Ron Brownstein wrote that the polls showing Romney leading the president had “a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012.”

Internally, Gallup officials discussed via email how to respond Axelrod’s accusations. One suggested that it “seems like a pretty good time for a blog response,” and named a potential writer.

In response to that suggestion, another senior Gallup official wrote — in an email chain titled “Axelrod vs. Gallup” — that the White House “has asked” a senior Gallup staffer “to come over and explain our methodology too.”

That Gallup official, the email continued, “has a plan that includes blogging and telling WH [the White House] he would love to have them come over here etc. This could be a very good moment for us to [show] our super rigorous methods compared to weak samples etc.”

The writer named several news organizations with their own polling methodologies, all of which resulted in numbers more favorable to President Obama at the time.

In response to that email, a third senior Gallup official said he thought Axelrod’s pressure “sounds a little like a Godfather situation.”

Imagine Axel[rod] with Brando’s voice: ‘[Name redacted], I’d like you to come over and explain your methodology… You got a nice poll there… would be a shame if anything happened to it…’”

In a second email chain titled “slanderous link about Gallup methodology,” another senior Gallup official noted that a Washington Examiner story on Axelrod’s anti-Gallup tweet was “on [the] Drudge [Report] right now,” before writing that the episode was “o politically motivated, it’s laughable.”

“As they say in b-ball: he’s trying to work the refs,” that official wrote to other senior Gallup staffers. “What a joke. Axel’s had a bad week. He got in the middle of the Ann Romney thing. Then said the country is going in the wrong direction. (Oops!) Now he’s swinging at us.”

The emails directly contradict what Axelrod’s fellow Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs told The Washington Times’ Kerry Picket this week about the campaign’s dealings with Gallup. Picket reported that Gibbs said he was unaware of any communications between the Obama campaign and Gallup.

“I was the press secretary for two years. I know and it was really smart not to get involved in discussing things around the Justice Department that I have no knowledge about,” Gibbs said at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte on Tuesday. “I have no knowledge of any discussions of anybody on the campaign side with Gallup.”

Since Gallup first roused Axelrod’s ire, Obama’s Justice Department revived old allegations against the firm that, according to now former Gallup employee Michael Lindley, the polling company violated the False Claims Act by over-charging the federal government for its services.

In August, Justice signed on to a suit Lindley filed in 2009. Lindley alleged, according to The Associated Press, that Gallup filed false claims with the federal government on contracts it had with the State Department, the U.S. Mint and other federal agencies.

A senior Gallup official told TheDC Lindley left Gallup on July 24, 2009, after working there since Feb. 25, 2008.

Lindley made his allegations under seal after leaving his Gallup job. A senior Gallup official told TheDC that the Justice Department began investigating the allegations in October 2009 and served the company with subpoenas in February or March 2010. Gallup, the source said, provided the government with about three terabytes of data responsive to those subpoenas.

Gallup, the source continued, did not hear from the Justice Department again for approximately one-and-a-half years.

“We did not have a substantive discussion about what they had subpoenaed until Fall of 2011,” the Gallup official told TheDC. “And the meeting came at our request, a request that had been outstanding from the time we were served [with the subpoenas].”

Lindley was a field organizer in Council Bluffs, Iowa, for then-Sen. Obama’s 2008 run for president before joining Gallup, a fact omitted from the DOJ’s legal filings and from most press accounts.

Edited by Dirtybirdn@tion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you couldn`t be more clueless about politics in Virginia and North Carolina. First off, Virginia has shown a history of supporting a candidate regardless of Party, if you remember correctly Virginia elected the first BLACK Governor in history when it elected Doug Wilder. Ironically, Wilder recently was extremely critical of Joe Bidens gaff about "putting y`all back in chains" and has been critical of Biden in the past. Wilder to this day is extremely popular in the Commonwealth and blacks still pay attention to what he has to say. You also have a LARGE number of blacks who work in the defense sector in Virginia and they know which side of the bread is buttered on. As much as Blacks love Obama, they love their jobs more.

As far as our little brother Carolina is concerned, their politics almost mirror ours and with the amount of military bases they have in their state, you really cant be shocked that an "absurd" 30% of blacks are supporting Romney. Again, blacks love their jobs more than they love Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://dailycaller.c...ized-pollsters/

Justice Dept. Gallup lawsuit came after Axelrod criticized pollsters

Internal emails between senior officials at The Gallup Organization, obtained by The Daily Caller, show senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod attempting to subtly intimidate the respected polling firm when its numbers were unfavorable to the president.

After Gallup declined to change its polling methodology, Obama’s Department of Justice hit it with an unrelated lawsuit that appears damning on its face.

TheDC is withholding the identities of the Gallup officials to protect them from potential retaliation from Obama’s campaign and his administration.

In April, Axelrod tweeted that a poll showing Mitt Romney with a 48-43 percent lead over Obama was “saddled with some methodological problems,” directing his Twitter followers to read a National Journal story criticizing Gallup polls showing a Romney lead.

In that National Journal piece, Ron Brownstein wrote that the polls showing Romney leading the president had “a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012.”

Internally, Gallup officials discussed via email how to respond Axelrod’s accusations. One suggested that it “seems like a pretty good time for a blog response,” and named a potential writer.

In response to that suggestion, another senior Gallup official wrote — in an email chain titled “Axelrod vs. Gallup” — that the White House “has asked” a senior Gallup staffer “to come over and explain our methodology too.”

That Gallup official, the email continued, “has a plan that includes blogging and telling WH [the White House] he would love to have them come over here etc. This could be a very good moment for us to [show] our super rigorous methods compared to weak samples etc.”

The writer named several news organizations with their own polling methodologies, all of which resulted in numbers more favorable to President Obama at the time.

In response to that email, a third senior Gallup official said he thought Axelrod’s pressure “sounds a little like a Godfather situation.”

Imagine Axel[rod] with Brando’s voice: ‘[Name redacted], I’d like you to come over and explain your methodology… You got a nice poll there… would be a shame if anything happened to it…’”

In a second email chain titled “slanderous link about Gallup methodology,” another senior Gallup official noted that a Washington Examiner story on Axelrod’s anti-Gallup tweet was “on [the] Drudge [Report] right now,” before writing that the episode was “o politically motivated, it’s laughable.”

“As they say in b-ball: he’s trying to work the refs,” that official wrote to other senior Gallup staffers. “What a joke. Axel’s had a bad week. He got in the middle of the Ann Romney thing. Then said the country is going in the wrong direction. (Oops!) Now he’s swinging at us.”

The emails directly contradict what Axelrod’s fellow Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs told The Washington Times’ Kerry Picket this week about the campaign’s dealings with Gallup. Picket reported that Gibbs said he was unaware of any communications between the Obama campaign and Gallup.

“I was the press secretary for two years. I know and it was really smart not to get involved in discussing things around the Justice Department that I have no knowledge about,” Gibbs said at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte on Tuesday. “I have no knowledge of any discussions of anybody on the campaign side with Gallup.”

Since Gallup first roused Axelrod’s ire, Obama’s Justice Department revived old allegations against the firm that, according to now former Gallup employee Michael Lindley, the polling company violated the False Claims Act by over-charging the federal government for its services.

In August, Justice signed on to a suit Lindley filed in 2009. Lindley alleged, according to The Associated Press, that Gallup filed false claims with the federal government on contracts it had with the State Department, the U.S. Mint and other federal agencies.

A senior Gallup official told TheDC Lindley left Gallup on July 24, 2009, after working there since Feb. 25, 2008.

Lindley made his allegations under seal after leaving his Gallup job. A senior Gallup official told TheDC that the Justice Department began investigating the allegations in October 2009 and served the company with subpoenas in February or March 2010. Gallup, the source said, provided the government with about three terabytes of data responsive to those subpoenas.

Gallup, the source continued, did not hear from the Justice Department again for approximately one-and-a-half years.

“We did not have a substantive discussion about what they had subpoenaed until Fall of 2011,” the Gallup official told TheDC. “And the meeting came at our request, a request that had been outstanding from the time we were served [with the subpoenas].”

Lindley was a field organizer in Council Bluffs, Iowa, for then-Sen. Obama’s 2008 run for president before joining Gallup, a fact omitted from the DOJ’s legal filings and from most press accounts.

Thank you so much for contributing to the discussion of this thread's topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you couldn`t be more clueless about politics in Virginia and North Carolina. First off, Virginia has shown a history of supporting a candidate regardless of Party, if you remember correctly Virginia elected the first BLACK Governor in history when it elected Doug Wilder. Ironically, Wilder recently was extremely critical of Joe Bidens gaff about "putting y`all back in chains" and has been critical of Biden in the past. Wilder to this day is extremely popular in the Commonwealth and blacks still pay attention to what he has to say. You also have a LARGE number of blacks who work in the defense sector in Virginia and they know which side of the bread is buttered on. As much as Blacks love Obama, they love their jobs more.

As far as our little brother Carolina is concerned, their politics almost mirror ours and with the amount of military bases they have in their state, you really cant be shocked that an "absurd" 30% of blacks are supporting Romney. Again, blacks love their jobs more than they love Obama.

Dear God, Rambler . . . .this has nothing to do with whether Blacks should or should not vote for Obama. The reality is that the national trend has black support for Romney WELL under 30%, one poll had it at ZERO last month.

Here's a little project for you: Compare black support for Obama Nationwide in 2008 with now. Then compare black support for Obama in North Caroline in 2008 and now. For my theory to have any validity, the loss of support for Obama in South Carolina would have to be considerably more than the loss of support among black's nationwide.

As I mentioned, I have not even seen the crosstabs from the Virginia poll, so I don't know if Obama's losses there have anything to do with losing black support or not.

But thanks for being so insulting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm as clueless as Michael Barone . . . .

These numbers are eevidence of the Obama campaign's hard work and shrewd tactics--and also of the spontaneous enthusiasm of many blacks who had not voted in the past for his candidacy. Such numbers in dozens of counties were essential to his carrying North Carolina and very helpful to his carrying Virginia. His support of same-sex marriage will probably make it harder for him to duplicate his 2008 performance among this demographic group.

Edited by holymoses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I jus

Dear God, Rambler . . . .this has nothing to do with whether Blacks should or should not vote for Obama. The reality is that the national trend has black support for Romney WELL under 30%, one poll had it at ZERO last month.

Here's a little project for you: Compare black support for Obama Nationwide in 2008 with now. Then compare black support for Obama in North Caroline in 2008 and now. For my theory to have any validity, the loss of support for Obama in South Carolina would have to be considerably more than the loss of support among black's nationwide.

As I mentioned, I have not even seen the crosstabs from the Virginia poll, so I don't know if Obama's losses there have anything to do with losing black support or not.

But thanks for being so insulting.

Say what? I was under the impression that you were claiming that the "absurd" amount of blacks supporting Romney in Va. and Carolina might be due to a backlash created by Kris Klewe`s comments. I tried to point out to you that in Virginia there are large numbers of blacks working directly because of the defense sector and that they loved their jobs more than they loved Obama. Carolina does not have the same number of DOD jobs we do but our politics are similar. No misunderstanding here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I jus

Say what? I was under the impression that you were claiming that the "absurd" amount of blacks supporting Romney in Va. and Carolina might be due to a backlash created by Kris Klewe`s comments. I tried to point out to you that in Virginia there are large numbers of blacks working directly because of the defense sector and that they loved their jobs more than they loved Obama. Carolina does not have the same number of DOD jobs we do but our politics are similar. No misunderstanding here.

1) "absurd" refers to the number verses what any other poll has indicated, not that blacks would support Romney to that extent. Personally, I think it US a sued that 95% of a single ethnic group would vote the same way.

2) I don't think any actual change is a response to Kluwe's letter. I think the legislator's letter which precipitated it might be indicitive of a movement to make this a political issue in the Black community.

3) if it's just a lost jobs thing, then you would exleft black support to decline at the same rate as white support, right? Actrually, it's more complicated than that because whites have been trending away from Obama at a higher rate than blacks nationally.

Edited by holymoses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ran the crosstabs from the Survey USA Polls from August 19-23 and the one from this week:

The percentage of black voters surveyed was about the same, 19-21%, but the support for Romney went from 6% to 30%. That change, if it actually reflects a change rather than a bizarre sampling, would account for most of the change in Romney's overall support in North Carolina.

So What happened between August 23 and September 7? Burns wrote his letter to Raven's owner on Wednesday, August 29. I wonder if anything happened the last week of August that might have drawn African American attention to gay marriage in mid Atlantic states?

Edited by holymoses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm willing to make a large wager that the total # of black votes, this election, will be off by at least 10% of the numbers in 08. Lets break this down where it should be. Obama has done more harm to the black population then any other and include his incompetent stance(no law actually changed) on Gay marriage and the black clergy and church crowd are incensed. 2nd group to get the axe are women. They've been unduley burdened by this economic colapse.

Edited by Deisel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK . . . Acworth set me straight:

-Nationally, Obama is still polling around 94% with Blacks.

-The Survey USA/Civitas poll was a small sample size "flash" poll and mainly prior to the Democratic Convention

-The PPP poll, with twice the sample size and polling after the Democratic convention shows little change in Black support for Obama, 85%

The Virginia poll also looks like a majory outlier . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK . . . Acworth set me straight:

-Nationally, Obama is still polling around 94% with Blacks.

-The Survey USA/Civitas poll was a small sample size "flash" poll and mainly prior to the Democratic Convention

-The PPP poll, with twice the sample size and polling after the Democratic convention shows little change in Black support for Obama, 85%

The Virginia poll also looks like a majory outlier . . .

Whatever the case, I don't think it is because of the Emmett Burns thing. I live in Virginia, and it doesn't seem to have been that big of a story.

Then again, I don't live in the DC area, I live in the Richmond area. In northern VA, maybe it has been a bigger story, with the proximity of Baltimore and DC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of polls, pretty wierd discrepancy between Rasmussen and Gallup, who usually track very closely together.

Gallup shows Obama's bump holding, at 50/43, but Rasmussen has the bump completely vanished, at 46/45.

I haven't seen a discrepancy like that between the two polls int he last two months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever the case, I don't think it is because of the Emmett Burns thing. I live in Virginia, and it doesn't seem to have been that big of a story.

Then again, I don't live in the DC area, I live in the Richmond area. In northern VA, maybe it has been a bigger story, with the proximity of Baltimore and DC.

Again, I don't think it is BECAUSE of the Emmit Burns thing . . . I think any change in black polling AND the Emmit Burns thing might be a response to something else going on . . . .Maybe there was a memo to Southern Black Clergy about Obama blasphemy on the Gay Marriage issue . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of polls, pretty wierd discrepancy between Rasmussen and Gallup, who usually track very closely together.

Gallup shows Obama's bump holding, at 50/43, but Rasmussen has the bump completely vanished, at 46/45.

I haven't seen a discrepancy like that between the two polls int he last two months.

Rasmussen is 3 day, Gallup 7 days. If Obama's bounce maxed out last Thurday or Friday, after the best of the Democratic Convention but before the job report, then you would expect SOME discrepancy. Gallup's numbers include the Peak of Obama's polling, and even if the more recent days are lower, the overall rolling average can rise if the the days BEFORE the convention were particularly low, which they likely were because they reflected the Republican convention (mini) bounce. Lets say today's number was +3 for Obama, if last Tuesday was, +1, that result in an increase in the reported polling number. The Gallup number will probably stabilize around three or four, which would be within the margin of error with Rasmussen . . .

Of course, Rasmussen is a three day rolling average, so ALL of their numbers are after the job report form Friday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of polls, pretty wierd discrepancy between Rasmussen and Gallup, who usually track very closely together.

Gallup shows Obama's bump holding, at 50/43, but Rasmussen has the bump completely vanished, at 46/45.

I haven't seen a discrepancy like that between the two polls int he last two months.

You did get the info that the DOJ is suiing Gallup. I wonder if that has anything to do with their discrepency?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...