Posts Tagged ‘MSM’

A Random Assortment of Texas Statewide Race News

Monday, March 3rd, 2014

With primary voting upon us tomorrow, it looks like I’ve run out of campaign to cover. Here then is a quick, scatter-shot batch of snippets on various races:

  • Wendy Davis is super popular…just not in Texas. “27 percent of the money Davis raised in the last filing quarter came from donors outside Texas, compared to just 2 percent of Abbott’s total.”
  • In the Comptroller race, Glenn Hegar seems to have have racked up the lion’s share of conservative endorsements, and is also winning the money race over Harvey Hilderbran (who has mostly racked up the endorsements of business groups, newspapers, and “shill” groups like Steve Holtz’s “Conservative Republicans of Texas“). 2010 Gubernatorial hopeful Debra Medina is also polling strongly despite having raised relatively money, I didn’t think she was ready for primetime in 2010, but Comptroller is probably a great spot for a Libertarian. I’d vote Hegar over Medina, but I’d vote both over Hilderbran.
  • The Agricultural Commissioner’s race is easier to narrow down with who not to vote for, namely J. Allen Carnes, who voted Democratic until 2012, and “donated to Texas Democrats Pete Gallego, Henry Cuellar, and Ciro Rodriguez.” Also who to vote against: Eric Opiela, AKA Joe Straus’ lawyer. By contrast, Sid Miller seems to have racked up an impressive list of endorsements.
  • In the Land Commissioner race, George P. Bush does have a primary opponent in David Watts, who has actually racked up a fair number of endorsements. Plus Paul Burka isn’t impressed with George P. Bush’s campaign (and Burka may even be right for a change).
  • Lt. Governor race roundup. if the Chronicle paywall won’t let you in, search for the first sentence on Google news. Here’s some damning-with-faint-praise for Todd Staples: “‘Staples becomes a plausible alternative if you don’t have Dewhurst in the race,’ Henson said. ‘My impression is that he is well-liked in the Capitol special-interest community.’” Ouch!
  • Here’s your biannual reminder that Texas mainstream media outlets almost always endorse the most liberal candidate.
  • Then the Garry Wills Kicked In

    Monday, March 4th, 2013

    Robert Caro’s The Passage of Power, the latest volume in his acclaimed Lyndon Baines Johnson biography, came out May of last year, but Garry Wills just got around to reviewing it in The New York Review of Books.

    The sad thing is that for the first few thousand words, it’s a really interesting review. Caro’s book is about how Johnson’s and Robert F. Kennedy’s mutual hatred for each other drove much of the Johnson’s Presidency. By this point, anyone beyond Democratic hagiographers know that both LBJ and RFK were nasty pieces of work, and it’s no surprise that both of them loathed each other. Caro is a good historian, I’m sure the book is quite fascinating, and the review conveys its central points well.

    Then, alas, the Garry Wills kicks in.

    For those who can’t lay their hands on The Field Guide to Liberal Fossils, Wills is a historian who started out as a protege of William F. Buckley but then started moving steadily to the left and has kept moving ever since. He came down with a full-blown case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and penned one of the nastiest hit pieces on Romney after he lost. He has such a bad case of it he can’t resist getting in digs at Bush43 while reviewing a book that takes place 30+ years before he entered office.

    “He [LBJ] also tried to work the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, requesting an office in the White House with a bulked-up staff for military and security issues. He was trying, we now see, to have the parallel presidency that Dick Cheney secured for himself under a compliant George Bush.”

    This is the sort of wacky “Cheney is the puppetmaster” conspiracism that had the nutroots convinced that “Fitzmas” was going to result the wholesale indictment of the Bush Administration for treason before The Great Fizzle. A professional historian believing in it is akin to treating The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a real document rather than a Czarist fake.

    Honorable mention goes to the line “Americans hated communism so much that they thought every Russian was a threat.” Yeah, funny what an ideology killing 100 million people and having some 5,000 nuclear warheads pointed at you by an evil empire will dampen your enthusiasm.

    At some indefinite point in the future, I hope to read all of Caro’s volumes on LBJ. But I see no need to read anything by Garry Wills ever again.

    Instapundit’s Favorite Word

    Tuesday, February 19th, 2013

    See if you can fill in the blank for the following headline:

    “Homebuilder Confidence in U.S. BLANK Fell in February”

    Having trouble? Try again with the first sentence

    “Confidence among U.S. homebuilders BLANK dropped in February from a more than six-year high, a sign the real-estate market will take time to accelerate.”

    If you’ve been reading Instapundit for any length of time, you know exactly what the word replaced with BLANK is. And that word is “unexpectedly.”

    Gee, how could anyone possibly have seen that continued high unemployment and an economy that is shrinking might negatively impact the housing market? (And of course, when the economy shrank, the shrinkage happened “unexpectedly.”)

    Obama and friends keep trying and trying neo-Keynesian pump-priming and keep getting the same results: economic stagnation. While trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of madness, that doesn’t matter to them, since it allows them to continue the payoffs to cronies and interest groups that keep the Big Government Class in power (and rolling in taxpayer dough). Germany and Estonia performed no or minimal “stimulus” deficit spending and their economies are growing again. Obama and congressional Democrats have taken the opposite tack: Keep pouring money down the big government rathole and hope that results this year won’t be identical to the last four. My prediction: higher deficits, continued high unemployment and continued economic stagnation.

    And each and every negative economic indicator the media will report as arriving “unexpectedly.”

    Expect it.

    So What Was It Romney Said About Libya, Again?

    Wednesday, October 10th, 2012

    So remember right after assault on our Libyan embassy in Benghazi, Mitt Romney issued a statement, then clarified those statements the next day?

    Let’s roll the video, shall we?

    Remember how the press jumped all over him, said it was a potentially campaign-ending gaffe?

    Since then we’ve learned that:

  • The Obama Administration lied about embassy assaults being the result of riots over an anti-Islamic YouTube video.
  • In fact, they now admit that there were no protests at all.
  • The Libyan embassy had repeatedly asked for additional security and were refused In fact, their security was reduced. “We couldn’t even keep what we had.”
  • That the American embassy was being guarded by an unpaid militia made up of shopkeepers.
  • That UN Ambassador Susan Rice was still peddling the “protest” line long after the Administration knew it was a terrorist attack.
  • This video timeline might help:

    Watching and listening to Romney now, who do you agree with more: Mitt Romney, or reporters sounding outraged at his criticisms of the Obama Administration?

    Both the Obama Administration and their lapdog media surrogates seem far more interested in defeating Obama’s political opponent than America’s Jihadest enemies, or telling the American people the truth.

    The New York Times Really Does Think You’re a Moron

    Wednesday, September 26th, 2012

    Right after I talked about how the mainstream media thinks you’re stupid enough to swallow badly skewed polls, Jim Geraghty reports that the New York Times is proving my point all over again by publishing a poll with more Democrats and fewer Republicans in the sample than in 2008 exit polls.

    Ohio 2008 exits: 39% Democrat, 31% Republican, 30% Independent.

    Ohio New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 35% Democrat, 26% Republican, 35% Independent.

    In this sample, the partisan split is D+9 compared to D+8 four years ago, and the GOP is five percentage points smaller than in 2008.

    Pennsylvania 2008 exits: 44% Democrat, 37% Republican, 18% Independent.

    Pennsylvania New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 39% Democrat, 28% Republican, 27% Independent.

    Somehow a D+7 split has turned into D+11 split, and Republicans’ share of the electorate is nine percentage points less than they were four years ago.

    Florida 2008 exits: 37% Democrat, 34% Republican, 29% Independent.

    Florida New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 36% Democrat, 27% Republican, 33% Independent.

    Each party’s share only shifts a few percentage points, but the overall split goes from D+3 to D+9.

    One again, the New York Times thinks Republicans are too stupid to figure out the con. If they’re going to be that absurdly biased, why not just cut out the middleman and poll Obama for America staffers directly?

    Remember: The business model of The New York Times is to envelop liberals in a soft, warm, comforting cocoon of reassurance that their ideas and leaders are popular. You saw this in 2010, when it dangerously blinded them to the coming Republican wave until too late. The same patterns is repeating itself this year.

    A Bit on Polling (or, Why the Media Thinks You’re a Moron)

    Tuesday, September 25th, 2012

    Remember how how incredibly tight the 1980 election was? How Ronald Reagan managed to edge Jimmy Carter at the last minute despite losing Texas and New York?

    Probably not, mainly because that didn’t happen. But as Jeffrey Lord’s story makes clear, that was the narrative the New York Times was pushing most of the fall, and they had “polls” to back it up.

    In the pantheon of lies, damn lies, and statistics, polls aren’t even as valid as statistics. At this point, polls by the usual MSM suspects (NYT, PPP, CBS, MS/NBC, Time, Newsweek, NPR, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, just to name a few) aren’t designed to gauge the race, they’re designed to encourage Democrats and discourage Republicans. They are, as Lord notes and Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee admitted to Ed Rollins, offering up “in kind contributions” to the Democrats.

    So let’s take a brief look at the many ways in which the MSM is distorting polls for the benefit of Obama and the Democrats.

  • Dick Morris (who knows a thing or two about polling) thinks the idea that an Obama victory is in the offing is bunk. “All of the polling out there uses some variant of the 2008 election turnout as its model for weighting respondents and this overstates the Democratic vote by a huge margin.” He also notes that even the skewed polls show Obama at less than 50%, and “the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent.”
  • By one analysis, pollsters are oversampling Democrats by an average of 6.1%.
  • More evidence that the media is oversampling Democrats.
  • A technical analysis of how that dynamic applies to Pennsylvania.
  • Jay Cost notes that “polls that do a poor job of differentiating enthusiastic non-voters from enthusiastic voters are going to overestimate Obama’s margin.”
  • Every week you see the media going to bat for Obama, and every week we see more evidence of lack of enthusiasm on the part of Democrats compared to 2008. 2010 did happen, no matter how much the media would like to pretend it didn’t. The Tea Party hasn’t gone away, nor suddenly decided that they like Obama’s free-spending ways after all. The fundamentals of our ailing economy and staggering unemployment haven’t gone away either. And remember: Republicans now outnumber Democrats in party identification.

    There’s a lot better chance that this election’s results will look like 1980 than that they will look like 2008.

    Polling in Perspective (or: Chill)

    Monday, September 10th, 2012

    This is the time of year when the political world is awash in polls. Some otherwise sensible Republicans take a look at those polls and go “Oh my God! Obama is up by 2! Or 5! He got a big convention bounce!”

    I could wade into the murky swamps of different polling companies, different methodologies, different biases, the problem with cell phone vs. landline samples, partisan weighting screens, the comparison between citizens, registered voters and likely voters, or a dozen other variables. But I’m not going to.

    Instead, one piece of advice, and one explanation.

    The advice: Chill.

    The explanation: Barack Obama was elected in 2008 with 52.9% of the popular vote to 45.7% for John McCain, the best popular vote margin of any Democratic Presidential contender since Lyndon Baines Johnson captured 61.1% of the vote in 1964. (People forget that Bill Clinton, for all his retrospective popularity, never broke 50% of the popular vote; Al Gore got 48.4% of the vote while losing in the electoral college in 2000.) Ignoring (for now) the electoral college and minor changes in the composition of voters, that means only 4% of the people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 need to switch their vote for Mitt Romney to win.

    Do you think Obama might be 4% less popular than he was four years ago? Perhaps among those who have lost their jobs? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that Obama is less popular than he was four years ago, his inability to fill campaign events the way he used to being one, and numerous elected Democrats in tough reelection fights avoiding the DNC being another. So who are you going to believe: MSM polls or your lying eyes?

    The media is desperately trying to pretend that 2010 never happened, or that it was an aberration.

    The polls are part of the media trying desperately to maintain what Instapundit Glenn Reynolds calls “preference falsification,” a willingness on the part of the political and media establishment to manufacture a false consensus that (in this case) liberal policies and politicians are popular. When it comes to the current election, the question might be most crassly boiled down to “Do you support Obama, or are you a racist?” In 2010 and now we’re finally seeing a “preference cascade” of people unwilling to buy that liberal narrative. The walls are finally coming down.

    Which is not to say the election is in the bag for Romney. There’s still a lot of hard work to be done, and a lot of work to make sure Republicans and anti-Obama independents get to the polls, especially in swing states. But there’s no reason to get worked up over each and every little poll. Time is not on Obama’s side.

    LinkSwarm for September 7, 2012

    Friday, September 7th, 2012

    Still trying to get back in the swing of things, so here’s a LinkSwarm for a lazy Friday:

  • Texas is on track to enjoy a $5 billion budget surplus, which I thought news too good to hold for the next Texas vs. California roundup.
  • The vast, yawning Obama jobs gap.
  • How Obama destroyed the Democratic Party.
  • The outgoing New York Times public editor just comes out and admits the paper is a shill for the Democratic Party:

    Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.

    As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.

  • Dwight covers yet another green scam.
  • Those self-identifying as Republicans now outnumber Democrats among American voters.
  • Here’s irony for you: The Obama Administration’s War on Fossil Fuels is harming the environment in the Gulf Coast.
  • If you haven’t seen the Democrats’ self-inflicted God debacle, here’s the video:

  • And here’s Allen West’s ad about it.

  • One democratic delegate was so offended he left the party and joined the Occupy protestors.
  • Speaking of Occupy, the would-be Occupy Cleveland bridge bombers have pleaded guilty.
  • The $4.351 trillion difference between Obama and Clinton.
  • More economic rumbles from China, which is no surprise to anyone who has heard about the “Ghost Cities.”

  • Toll road between Austin and San Antonio to have 85 MPH speed limit.
  • Myths Ted Cruz’s Victory Killed

    Tuesday, July 31st, 2012

    There’s a lot to digest and discuss about Ted Cruz’s victory over David Dewhurst, and I’m sure I’ll have more tomorrow. But here are a few myths that Cruz’s victory laid to rest tonight.

  • Hispanics can’t win statewide Republican primaries in Texas. This one was born in Victor Carrillo’s defeat in the 2010 Railroad Commissioner’s race. It was sour grapes by Carrillo (and wishful thinking by the liberal media) then, and was debunked tonight.
  • The Tea Party has peaked and is in decline. Cruz is just the latest Tea Party candidate to knock off an establishment Republican. And Sarah Palin looks more and more like the most powerful kingmaker in the Republican Party.
  • Big money will always trump grassroots enthusiasm. Dewhurst was a quarter-billionaire who outraised Cruz (at least initially) and dumped a ton of money on TV advertising. It didn’t help.
  • Social media isn’t nearly as important as TV and newspaper ad buys. The Cruz campaign was far more adept and nimble using Facebook, Twitter, etc., and it was a big factor in locking up grassroots support early. And many observers have noted that Dewhurst’s ad buys probably hurt him.
  • Negative campaigning is the key to victory. Dewhurst went negative early and often, and it not only raised Cruz’s profile, but backfired when people found out the issues they were hyping were trivia (the Chinese tire case) or outright lies (the amnesty and kids-for-cash smears). Honest negative campaigning is still a useful tool, but the Internet makes it so easy to debunk lies that obvious falsehoods no longer have time to take root before they’re debunked.
  • Media endorsements are vital to winning voter support. Dewhurst got the lion’s share of MSM endorsements. It obviously didn’t help him.
  • More race analysis tomorrow.

    Paul Burka (Still) Doesn’t Get It

    Wednesday, May 9th, 2012

    I know, dog bites man.

    In the course of talking about a phony-baloney, Dewhurst-friendly poll, Paul Burka has proven, yet against, that he doesn’t understand Republicans in general and conservatives in specific. You have to scroll down a little to find out his reaction to Richard Mourdock terminating Dick Lugar’s senate career, but it exhibits the same keen insight we’ve come to expect from his political commentary:

    I can tell you what I think of Lugar’s loss. I think Republicans have gone nuts. Lugar has been a distinguished senator for many years.

    It used to be that Republicans could skate by talking like conservatives then voting like liberals. That was several trillion dollars worth of debt ago. Now Republican voters demand that their representatives actually do something about out-of-control federal spending and unconstitutional enlargement of a runaway federal government, and those that don’t will find themselves being sent home in short order.

    When Burka says “a distinguished senator for many years,” what actual conservative voters (perhaps Burka should make the acquaintance of a few) see is someone who has become part of the problem: The get-along-to-go-along Republican establishment that was willing to let the federal welfare state grow indefinitely rather than fight to control it.

    Either we get runaway government spending under control, or we go the way of Europe, where the cradle-to-grave welfare state is destroying economies across the entire continent and “unacceptable austerity” is reducing Greece’s budget from 9% of GDP to 7.5% of GDP.

    The Red State model of government embodied by Texas under Rick Perry is kicking the ass of the Blue State model represented by Jerry Brown’s California, much to the consternation of Burka and his fellow liberal MSM journalists. Low taxes, holding the line on government spending, and a business friendly climate do wonders for your state economy. Democratic control, high taxes, out of control spending, and powerful labor unions bleeding the state dry? Not so much.

    If Republican elected officials won’t scale back the size and scope of federal power and spending, we’ll replace them with people who will. Republican voters have been sending that message to Washington loud and clear for the last three years, and even the Republican establishment has been forced to take notice. I think Texans will send that message at the polls loud and clear May 29, and Americans on November 6.

    And it’s quite possible that Burka will be just as baffled by the results.