UNINFORMED AMERICA, LET’S HOPE THESE PEOPLE DON’T KNOW HOW TO VOTE EITHER …
As reported at The Hill, 35% of Americans have no clue that Obamacare and the not-so Affordable Care Act are one in the same. How is that possible. The Times article bias tried to portray that people are confused between the two names for the same law, yet some how when we look at the numbers … among Republicans, a higher percentage of 72% said they knew Obamacare and the A.C.A. were the same. The liberal bias Times would have you believe that the high percentage is a reflection of the party’s longstanding hostility to the law. Sorry Times, maybe it’s because they pay attention more and are more informed.
More than one-third of Americans are unaware that ObamaCare and the Affordable Care Act are the same law.
The figure comes from a new poll by Morning Consult that found 35 percent of Americans do not know ObamaCare is another label — made popular by the GOP — used to describe the Affordable Care Act, enacted under former President Barack Obama in 2010.
About 17 percent of Americans polled thought they were two different laws, and 18 percent said the didn’t know whether they were the same policy or two different things.
The New York Times published the results from the survey on Tuesday. Morning Consult conducted the survey in late January with a sample of 1,890 adults.
The bias analysis of the polling data courtesy of the NY Times:
Sorry Libs, it’s not a matter of confusion, this is a matter of a voter electorate being willfully and woefully uninformed. When one side of the political spectrum is so uninformed regarding what was supposed to be Barack Obama’s signature piece of legislation, their is a problem and it has nothing to do with confusion. However, ask those same Obamacare-ACA challenged people who the Kardashian’s are and the number skyrockets.
This finding, from a poll by Morning Consult, illustrates the extent of public confusion over a health law that President Trump and Republicans in Congress hope to repeal.
In the survey, 35 percent of respondents said either they thought Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act were different policies (17 percent) or didn’t know if they were the same or different (18 percent). This confusion was more pronounced among people 18 to 29 and those who earn less than $50,000 — two groups that could be significantly affected by repeal.
Among Republicans, a higher percentage (72 percent) said they knew Obamacare and the A.C.A. were the same, which may reflect the party’s longstanding hostility to the law.
This confusion may affect the public debate over health care policy. If many people think repealing Obamacare would not affect the popular provisions of the A.C.A., they might not understand the potential consequences of the proposals being considered in Washington.
Two Inspectors Generals Ask Justice Department to Open Criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton Email Account
THIS IS HARDLY VIA A RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY, THIS CRIMINAL PROBE IS BEING REQUESTED BY TWO INSPECTOR GENERALS …
The New York Times report Thursday that two inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department with regards to Hillary Clinton’s personal email account as Secretary of State and at least four messages from her email that contained classified information. That was before the NY Times decided to scrub their story at the bequest of the Clinton camp. No left-wing media bias there, huh? Who thinks the Times would change a story like this for a GOP presidential candidate?
Hillary Clinton sent at least four messages from her personal email account containing classified information during her time as secretary of state, according to a memo from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community obtained by the Wall Street Journal.
Following a New York Times report Thursday that two inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department, the Journal cited a letter to Congress from the inspector general.The Times later made revisions to the initial story.
Email/Server-gate is going to hound her all the way to the 2016 Presidential election. The media talks about how Trump should withdraw for what he has said about illegals. If that is the case, Hillary Clinton should withdraw immediately for her actions and lack of transparency as Secretary of State under Obama. Speaking of Obama, will his DOJ actually investigate Hillary? If not, why not?
Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.
The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.
It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.
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.”