It’s Halloween time, but Senate Democrats have more to fear than ghosts, goblins, witches and vampires … NT Times and WAPO predict Democrats are the Walking “political” Dead …
With just days to go before the 2014 midterm November 4th elections, two very liberal papers, the New York Times and Washington Post, are predicting a GOP Senate takeover. The NY Times predicts that there is a 69% chance that the Republicans will win control of the US Senate. According to the Times, Republicans will win Louisiana, Arkansas, South Dakota and Kentucky, West Virginia and Montana, leaving the seven most competitive states below in question. The NY Times predicts that Democrats will win the senate races in New Hampshire, North Carolina and Kansas; however, the GOP will run the rest of the seats in play in Georgia, Iowa, Alaska and Colorado. If the New York Times is correct, the GOP will hold a 52-48 control of the Senate after the elections.
According to our statistical election-forecasting machine, the Republicans have a moderate edge, with about a 69% chance of gaining a majority.
State-by-State Probabilities #
To forecast each party’s chance of gaining a majority, our model first calculates win probabilities for each individual Senate race. In addition to the latest polls, it incorporates the candidates’ political experience, fund-raising, a state’s past election results and national polling. More about our methodology.
However, if Democrats think that the NYT’s 69% chance of a GOP victory is bad … the WAPO is predicting a 95% chance of the Republican party taking back control of the US Senate.
The model’s factors fall into three categories:
1) The national landscape. On average, the better things are going in the country, the better the president’s party will do in an election. We capture national conditions using two measures: presidential approval and change in gross domestic product. At the same time, the president’s party usually does worse in midterm years than presidential years even after accounting for the first two measures, so our model takes account of that, too.
2) The partisanship of the state or district. Obviously, House and Senate candidates will do better when their party dominates a district or state. We measure this with Obama’s share of the major-party vote in 2012. In Senate races, we also include the incumbent’s share of the major-party vote from the election six years before, which is the incumbent’s share of the Democratic and Republican votes, combined with an indicator for whether that incumbent is running or the seat is open. The incumbent’s previous election matters mainly when the incumbent is running again.
3) Key features of the race. The model currently takes account of whether the incumbent is running, which captures the well-known incumbency advantage in congressional elections. For the Senate, we also build in each candidate’s level of experience in elective office. In the Senate, we categorize experience into five levels, from someone who has never held an elective office to an incumbent senator. For states where there hasn’t yet been a Senate primary, we impute candidate experience using historical averages from similar races. (After the primaries, we will also add candidate experience to the House model. There, the measure will be simpler: whether the candidate has held any elective office.)
Question: The NY Times and WAPO have been among the two most liberal media outlets that have carried the water for Barack Obama and Democrats, why are they calling the election now for the GOP? Is it because they want to put out faux-news and give Republicans voters a false sense of security or is it because they see the handwriting on the wall and are trying to mantain some sort of credibility by finally reporting the truth?
Harry Reid literally begs for money as he sees his job of Democrat Senate Majority Leader slipping away. Just curious Dingy Harry, if you can triple one’s gift, you need money how? I have a deal for you, You can just double my donation of $0.00.
But I’m emailing once more because this moment is absolutely critical. I know you’re a busy person, but this is an absolute MUST-READ:
Our Final Weekend Get Out The Vote Push is on the chopping block: We’re still $1,389,071 short with 24 hours left.
If we don’t fill that budget gap, we’ll be forced to scale back our plans to mobilize 575,000 voters this weekend. These are voters who could determine the outcome of the whole Senate.
I’m begging for your help to close the gap IMMEDIATELY. If we fall short before the last end-of-month deadline tomorrow, our chance to keep the Senate gets a whole lot smaller.
Will you pitch in to the Final Weekend GOTV Push before the final deadline in 24 hours? We’ll triple-match your gift.
Other nightmarish 2014 US Senate predictions for Democrats. None of the pollsters are predicting that Democrats will maintain control of the Senate and Harry Reid (NV-D) will no longer be Senate Majority Leader.
The Hypocrisy of the Left, the Global Warming Folks and Tom Steyer … Billionaire Hedge Fund Hypocrite Made Money from Coal
Billionaire liberal and so called climate change activist Tom Steyer, he was for coal, before he was against it.
Define hypocrisy, see Tom Steyer. As reported in the New York Times this weekend, Tom Steyer, the most influential environmentalist in American politics, who has vowed to spend $100 million this year to defeat candidates through his PAC, NextGEN Climate, who oppose policies to combat climate change in fact made his billions by, hold it, hold it … investing in coal. You just can’t make this stuff up. But then again, one does not have to when it comes to the liberal, double standard Left. Steyer has been one of the main opponents of the XL Keystone pipeline.
Talk about a complete loss of credibility. If Steyer is so strongly opposed to climate change and has basically made his fortune by increasing global warming (this is the Left’s philosophy) then why doesn’t he give all his money away?
To environmentalists across Australia, it is a baffling anachronism in an era of climate change: the construction of a 4,000-acre mine in New South Wales that will churn out carbon-laden coal for the next 30 years.
The mine’s groundbreaking, in a state forest this year, inspired a veteran to stand in front of a bulldozer and a music teacher to chain himself to a piece of excavation equipment.
But the project had an unlikely financial backer in the United States, whose infusion of cash helped set it in motion: Tom Steyer, the most influential environmentalist in American politics, who has vowed to spend $100 million this year to defeat candidates who oppose policies to combat climate change.
Mr. Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund manager, emerged this election season as the green-minded answer to Charles G. and David H. Koch, the patrons of conservative Republican politics, after vowing that he would sell off his investments in companies that generate fossil fuels like coal.
Much, much more on the hypocrisy of the Left and Tom Steyer from Power Line, who was reporting on this story long before the NY Times decided that the news was fit to print.
NY Times Goes in the the Tank for Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton … Revisionist History Report Says Al-Qaeda Not Linked to Benghazi Attack & Was Fueled by Anti-Islam Video
hands liberal MSM on deck … its time to shill for Obama and namely protect Hillary Clinton for 2016 … Benghazi-gate, What Benghazi-gate?
The NY Times reported this morning that Al Qaeda was not linked to the Benghazi consulate attack that killed four Americans, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Instead, the attack was led by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. However, most astonishingly, the Times was back touting that the attack was “fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.” GOOD GRIEF. Hmm, doesn’t the Times realize that Hillary Clinton is already on record that in September of last year, Clinton suggested the attack was the work of Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda affiliates?
Darrell Issa disputes NY Times Propaganda Piece on Benghazi and tries to educate a bias NBC ‘Meet the Press’ David Gergory
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.
The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.
In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.
You thought the MSM was in the tank for Obama? You haven’t seen nuthing yet. They will be all-in, all the time for Hillary Clinton from now until the 2016 presidential election. The Libs in the MSM now have to make up for a weakened, scandal plagued, dishonest and untrustworthy lame duck Barack Obama, the lie and disaster that is Obamacare and an anemic economy. So why not start with as Powerline calls it, some revisionist history on Benghazi. It would appear that we have found Hilary’s weak spot and the MSM must now cover it up … but what difference does it make?
The Times stops short of claiming that the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi was “spontaneous.” It says, instead, that the attack was not “meticulously planned.”
That may or may not be true. But the quality of the planning — good enough, as it turned out — seems irrelevant. Again, what matters is that the State Department should have been prepared for the attack and taken action accordingly. This the New York Times does not dispute.
It also matters that the Obama administration’s account of the attack, per Susan Rice, was inaccurate even if one accepts the Times’ dubious reporting. The Times acknowledges this, though it chooses to characterize Rice’s account as just a “misstatement.”
The adequacy or inadequacy of the Obama administration’s response as the Benghazi attacks unfolded also matters. So does the treatment of those in the State Department who have dared to question Hillary Clinton’s actions relating to Benghazi.
Whatever else the Times story demonstrates, I believe it shows that this story won’t go away as long as Hillary Clinton aspires to be president.
The 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya was an “Al Qaeda-led event” according to multiple on-the-record interviews with the head of the House Intelligence Committee who receives regular classified briefings and has access to the raw intelligence to make independent assessments.
“I will tell you this, by witness testimony and a year and a half of interviewing everyone that was in the ground by the way, either by an FBI investigator or the committee: It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event. And they had pretty fairly descriptive events early on that lead those folks on the ground, doing the fighting, to the conclusion that this was a pre-planned, organized terrorist event,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told Fox News in a November interview.
“Not a video, that whole part was debunked time and time again,” Rogers added of the attack which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, “which just leads to questions of why the administration hung with that narrative for so long when all the folks who participated on the ground saw something different.”
Pulitzer Prize Winner Seymour Hersh Says The Obama Administration Lies Systematically and American Media is Pathetic and Carries His Water
The MSM, from watchdogs to Obama lapdogs … And we wonder why investigative journalism is dead?
The Guardians’ Seymour Hersh calls out Barack Obama, his minions and the lapdog main stream media. Hersh says that the Obama Administration lies systematically and American MSM is pathetic, bias and afraid to actually report the truth regarding Obama. It does seem lately to actually get an investigative, non-bias news story these days, we have to look to The Guardian or other foreign media as the Americans MSM is in the tank for Barack Obama. Hersh is hardly a right-winger, who is calling the Obama administration a bunch of liars and the MSM in the tank. Hersh all but calls the American MSM propagandists and chicken to stand up to Obama. Instead of acting like objective “outsiders” the MSM instead acts in a partisan manner and tries to get their president reelected.
Remember when the MSM used to report the news, not act as a propaganda wing of the White House?
Seymour Hersh has got some extreme ideas on how to fix journalism – close down the news bureaus of NBC and ABC, sack 90% of editors in publishing and get back to the fundamental job of journalists which, he says, is to be an outsider.
It doesn’t take much to fire up Hersh, the investigative journalist who has been the nemesis of US presidents since the 1960s and who was once described by the Republican party as “the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist”.
He is angry about the timidity of journalists in America, their failure to challenge the White House and be an unpopular messenger of truth.
Don’t even get him started on the New York Times which, he says, spends “so much more time carrying water for Obama than I ever thought they would” – or the death of Osama bin Laden. “Nothing’s been done about that story, it’s one big lie, not one word of it is true,” he says of the dramatic US Navy Seals raid in 2011.
The Obama administration lies systematically, he claims, yet none of the leviathans of American media, the TV networks or big print titles, challenge him.
“It’s pathetic, they are more than obsequious, they are afraid to pick on this guy [Obama],” he declares in an interview with the Guardian.
“It used to be when you were in a situation when something very dramatic happened, the president and the minions around the president had control of the narrative, you would pretty much know they would do the best they could to tell the story straight. Now that doesn’t happen any more. Now they take advantage of something like that and they work out how to re-elect the president.
Posted September 28, 2013 by Scared Monkeys
ABC News, Barack Obama, Chicago-Style Politics, collusion, Cover-Up, cronyism, Democrat/Obama Propaganda, Democrats, Divider in Chief, Epic Fail, Ethics, Government, Liberals, Media, Media Bias, Misleader, Misrepresentation, NBC, New York Times, Progressives, The Dodger in Chief, The Lying King, Transparency | no comments
New York Times Shows Sympathy For Boston Terrorists … Where is the NY Times Sympathy for the Families of 8 year old Martin Richard, Krystle Campbell, Lu Lingzi & Slain MIT Officer Sean Collier?
What is wrong with todays liberal media … Do these people understand that they are part of the problem, not the solution in America?
As reported at the Daily Caller, the New York Times shows sympathy for the Boston Marathon bombing terrorists, subtitled, ‘Sympathy for the Devil’. The NY Times just wanted to make this a sob story of a young man from war torn land that just could not fit in the United States. That’s right, the Boston Marathon bombing suspects were victims according to the liberal media of mean America that would not allow them to fit in. Good grief. As stated at the Jawa Report, Apparently, the bombers had no friends because Americans have no values, and Borat never made a sequel. Sarcasm intended.
How does the NY Times shamefully write a sympathetic story about two individuals who only killed an 8-year-old boy and three other people? Really, how do editors allow something like this actually go to print? I thought liberals were supposed to be compassionate and sympathetic? I guess its only reserved for misunderstood terrorist.
Tragedy usually brings out the best in us, well at least some of us. Following 9-11, the cry became “if you mess with ne of us, you mess with all of us.” People of all backgrounds came together in unity. Following the Boston Marathon bombings, many came together as well. Heck, we had the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox come together in a way that I would never have imagined when the Yankees played ‘Sweet Caroline’ in Yankee Stadium. It was a time like no one had ever experienced in Boston, MA as the bombing left 3 individuals again, 8 year old Martin Richard, Krystle Campbell, Lu Lingzi and Slain MIT Officer Sean Collier. Over 170 people were injured, many losing arms and legs. So how is it that the NY Times provides sympathy for terrorists who would have done such a horrific thing? What is wrong with these people that they do not think of the others who are really the victims? Obviously, the NY Times realized the errors of their ways as they have altered the post.
Barack Obama Widens Lead Over Romney in Swing States Ohio, Florida & PA with a Skewed Sampling of D+9 and Greater (Update: Polls Questioned as Bunk)
All Polls are not created equal … some are just skewed numbers meant to fit the liberal MSM and Democrat narrative …
Yet another example of the fraud that the MSM is trying to perpetrate on the Americans people to try depress the GOP vote turnout by claiming the swing state races are over. The fraud this time is courtesy of the New York Times and Qunnipiac. It has become obvious that polls can no longer be taken at face value or believed unless one takes the time t dig down to the data sampling. However, the liberal, corrupt media complex is hoping, they are praying that a lazy America does not. As Macsmind says. knock it of NYT, the GOP is coming out to vote in 2012.
For weeks, Republicans in Ohio have been watching with worry that the state’s vital 18 electoral votes were trending away from Mitt Romney. The anxiety has been similar in Florida, where Republicans are concerned that President Obama is gaining the upper hand in the fight for the state’s 29 electoral votes.
Those fears are affirmed in the findings of the latest Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News polls of likely voters in both states, which show that Mr. Obama has widened his lead over Mr. Romney and is outperforming him on nearly every major campaign issue, even though about half said they were disappointed in Mr. Obama’s presidency.
The polls, along with interviews with supporters and advisers in the nation’s two largest battleground states, lay bare an increasingly urgent challenge facing Mr. Romney as he prepares for his next chance to move the race in his favor, at the first debate with Mr. Obama next week. Mr. Romney’s burden is no longer to win over undecided voters, but also to woo back the voters who seem to be growing a little comfortable with the idea of a second term for Mr. Obama.
The New York Times, in collaboration with Quinnipiac University and CBS News, is tracking the presidential race with recurring polls in six states. In Ohio — which no Republican has won the presidency without — Mr. Obama is leading Mr. Romney 53 percent to 43 percent in the poll. In Florida, the president leads Mr. Romney 53 to 44 percent in the poll.
The surveys, which had margins of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for each candidate, also included a Pennsylvania poll, where Mr. Obama is leading Mr. Romney by 12 percentage points.
HOG WASH … However, a funny, no a hideous and blatantly fraud happened on the way to the 2012 elections in the polling. The in the tank for Obama media has been skewing the polling sampling so bad for Obama that of course they are going to show that the Obamamessiah is leading. The latest skewed sampling by the NY Times/Qunnipiac has lead to a poll that shows Obama allegedly is up 10 in Ohio, 9 in Florida and 12 in Pennsylvania? If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
Don’t look now but the NY Times/Qunnipiac used a +D9 sample in Florida, a +9D sampling in Ohio and a +11 sample in Pennsylvania. WOW, that is a greater sampling than the 2008 once in a life-time, anomaly election of the first black President Obama. Who honestly believes that the turnout is going to be anything like 2008? However, this poll thinks even more D’s are going to turn out.
It looks like this fact was not lost either over at Jammie Wearing Fool … “So Obama is up 9 in Florida with a D+9 sample, up 10 in Ohio with a D+9 sample and up 12 in Pennsylvania with a D+11 sample” What a coincidence, eh? Is it a close race, yes. Does Romney have a lot of work to do between now and election day, yes. However, to purposely present an obvious skewed poll as if it was fact and then have the liberal MSM run with it as news is nothing more than Obama propaganda.
Such a poll is not even worth adding to the RCP average of polling as it is so badly skewed, even when averaging it with other polls it brings up the polling number for Obama. Shameful, simply shameful.
UPDATE I: From NewsBusters, Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: ‘Probably Unlikely’ That Electorate Will Feature Massive Dem Skew. Gee, YA THINK? In order for this poll to be considered valid, Democrats would have to come out in record numbers even greater than 2008. Sorry, I have to break the orgasmic MSM’s bubble, but that ain’t happening.
Despite not believing that Democrats would have a 9-point advantage, Brown defended his organization, claiming that he and his colleagues were not intentionally trying to skew their sample size:
“We didn’t set out to oversample Democrats,” he protested. “We did our normal, random digit dial way of calling people. And there were, these are likely voters. They had to pass a screen.”
But what if that screen is simply not enough? The 2012 presidential election is unlikely to have an electorate which is similar to the ones before it. In the 2008 election, young and black voters turned out in record numbers and voted in even higher percentages for Obama. As specific surveys of these two voter groups have shown, however, both are dispirited this time around and are less likely to turn out for Democrats.