Eagle Watch - All Comments

re: Creative Destruction

Eagle Watch — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:44:53 GMT

These periodic polls pitting the president against this challenger or that are mercurial, like the daily tracking polls that look at job approval every day. They float around depending on the events of the day. President Obama has only recently started beating Mr Romney occasionally in these polls. It will go back and forth until Election Day. These polls are weighted the same way that local polls are – that is, proportional to the number of registered Republican, Democrats and Independents in the sample pool – not weighted by electoral votes of their home state, nor are they smoothly distributed in population-based numbers across all states. That won’t get here until after both conventions.

Yes, I was surprised that Mr Santorum swept all three states. I expected Missouri and suspected Minnesota, but was surprised by Colorado. He has now won four states to Romney’s three and Gingrich’s one. I have the delegate count as Romney 87; Santorum 35; Gingrich 32; Paul 13; and Huntsman 2. 1,144 needed for the nomination.

re: Creative Destruction

Libby — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:07:27 GMT

Simply my last word on polls and polling: I see both Rasmussen and WSJ / ABC agree that as of last Monday Barack Obama comes out ahead (very narrowly) in a matchup against Mitt Romney. But after Tuesday's big triumph for Santorum in Minn., Mizzou and Colorado, Santorum comes out ahead in a head-to-head matchup with Obama according to Rasmussen. Kind of makes me think these daily pollings are a big waste of time in predicting anything! LOL.

Were you as shocked as I was in how well Santorum did? Everyone thought he would win in Missouri, but Minn. was a minor upset and Colorado was totally unexpected. One last gasp from the anybody-but-Romney crowd I guess. So now Santorum ascends the "flavor of the month" throne...Wonder how long he'll stay there?

re: Creative Destruction

Eagle Watch — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:13:14 GMT

In a national poll, both Gallup and Rasmussen typically use more than 1,000, but I can’t emphasize enough that Rasmussen is only pollster that always use likely voters – the others use either registered voters or adults, both of which are good for gauging the general attitude of the country, but inaccurate when gauging the outcome of elections (the most important variable on the direction of future policy).

re: a Calm Discussion about Iran

Eagle Watch — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:06:47 GMT

No … my goal is to find out if it is possible for “all other avenues to be tried,” or if that is just liberal code for “no military means under any circumstances.” And if that’s the case, then what plans do liberals have for a nuclear Iran? Containment? Deterrence? If that’s the plan, just how will that work?

So you’re saying that Obama’s pledge that “Iran will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons” is like his promise to close Guantanamo in the first year of his presidency – in other words, worthless.

By January 2013, Iran could well have the bomb.

re: Creative Destruction

Libby — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:05:05 GMT

Your explanation helps somewhat. I would think that most reputable pollsters would use a similar form of screening. There wouldn't be much point in just asking someone if they plan to vote and who are they going to vote for. But you are the expert in these matters. I believe both Rasmussen and Gallup use a sample size of around 1000 don't they?

re: a Calm Discussion about Iran

Libby — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:40:35 GMT

Well I knew when I read your "A Calm Discussion about Iran" that your goal was to convince anyone who read it that it is now time to take military action against Iran. In other words, it isn't designed to have a "calm" exchange of ideas of possible options in dealing with Iran. It is a manifesto in which you have "calmly" laid out the reasons why there are no other options but to go to war with Iran ASAP.

Your thinking is eerily similar to Dick Chenney's right after Iran downed and captured the spy drone several months ago. He maintained that when Iran did that it was an open act of aggression against the United States and we should retaliate be carpet bombing them and taking out their nuclear installations in the process. Another "Calm" opinion on how to deal with Iran, some would say.

Let's cut to the chase: Under the Obama administration there will be no actions of this nature taken against Iran unless Iran decides to engage the United States militarily by trying to carry out their "threat" to close the Strait of Hormuz. Or launch an attack on Israel. Or send some of it's Revolutionary Guard out to invade Iraq. Much to your chagrin.

You will have to wait at least until January 2013 for your plan of action can come to fruition. And that's a fact. Just sayin'.

re: Creative Destruction

Eagle Watch — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:32:31 GMT

A “likely voter” is someone who voted in the previous same-type election (off-year, presidential, bond issue, etc). So this year’s “likely voter”, being based on 2008’s Democratic-heavy turnout, is especially telling. Any poll is up against the tendency of people to tell the pollster what they think they want to hear, and that is best laundered-out by the relative size of the sample you poll (there are statistical data available to serious pollsters that indicate what your sample-size should be for a given “universe”-size – adult citizens, American registered voters, likely voters, and on – expressed as degree of certainty. Sample size also affects the margin of error in the results.

re: a Calm Discussion about Iran

Eagle Watch — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:20:50 GMT

OK, what other way is there to stop Iran’s nuclear ambition – in other words, haven’t we exhausted all other options? That’s all I’m saying. Negotiations and sanctions: Been there, done that.

I don’t think the public is ready to become sniper-targets again just yet. They certainly have no reason the think we will give them any support – in ‘09, they bled in the streets and the White House yawned. While I agree that regime-change would be preferable to airstrikes, it is also the most difficult, and if unsuccessful, has the highest risk (to the Iranian people). Remember, it’s not just Ahmadenijad, it’s the ruling mullahs and the whole security and economic apparatus that enforces the repression.

re: Creative Destruction

Libby — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:14:54 GMT

I'm still mystified how pollsters figure out who is a "Likely voter". Do they ask the person they are surveying, "Are you likely to vote in the general election this November?" And how does that validate what the person being polled answer?

re: the “Green” Movement

Libby — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:03:32 GMT

Thank you for your wise advice.