<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>GET::REAL with Jay DeDapper &#187; mccain</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jaydedapper.com/tag/mccain/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jaydedapper.com</link>
	<description>Facts matter. Question everything.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 03:33:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Immigration&#8217;s Return</title>
		<link>http://jaydedapper.com/2009/04/15/immigrations-return/</link>
		<comments>http://jaydedapper.com/2009/04/15/immigrations-return/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jay</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Skeptical Eye]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lou Dobbs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mccain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jaydedapper.com/?p=883</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It nearly cost John McCain the Republican nomination and it keeps the otherwise feckless Lou Dobbs employed. So what&#8217;s Barack Obama doing digging up immigration reform? It&#8217;s not as crazy as it first seems.
Sure Obama already has a pretty full plate &#8212; the economy, the banking system, health care, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc &#8212; and  immigration is hardly an easy lift. In fact immigration is a bit like gun control and to a lesser degree abortion rights. These are all issues that galvanize opponents far more effectively than they do ...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_889" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 260px"><img class="size-full wp-image-889" title="border" src="http://jaydedapper.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/border.jpg" alt="On the Border" width="250" height="250" /><p class="wp-caption-text">On the Border</p></div>
<p>It nearly cost John McCain the Republican nomination and it keeps the otherwise feckless Lou Dobbs employed. So what&#8217;s Barack Obama doing digging up immigration reform? It&#8217;s not as crazy as it first seems.</p>
<p>Sure Obama already has a pretty full plate &#8212; the economy, the banking system, health care, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc &#8212; and  immigration is hardly an easy lift. In fact immigration is a bit like gun control and to a lesser degree abortion rights. These are all issues that galvanize opponents far more effectively than they do supporters.</p>
<p>Decades of <a title="American Government" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=x7MSt22IGNMC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_summary_r&amp;cad=0" target="_blank">research</a> by political scientists has demonstrated that passionate single-issue voters can have a profound impact on how lawmakers deal with certain highly-charged issues. For instance plenty of people may favor some gun control measures but there&#8217;s no evidence that they vote on that single issue. For hard-core gun control opponents, however, it is often the only issue on which they base their vote. Polling in West Virginia in 2000 indicate Al Gore may have lost the normally Democratic state because of his position on guns (which helps explain why four years later John Kerry went hunting).</p>
<p>In the case of immigration reform several polls this year show that voters rate it as a pretty low priority in the grand scheme of things (10th of 12 in a CNN poll and 17th of 20 in Pew poll &#8212; see <a title="Polling Report" href="http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm" target="_blank">here</a> for full details). But among those for whom it is an important issue it is huge. Lou Dobbs sustains five hours a week of prime cable news programming largely on his opposition to any illegal immigration. Listen to any conservative talk radio show and no matter what the issue there will be at least a few callers who want to talk about illegal immigration.</p>
<p>Likewise immigration is a central issue for Hispanics &#8212; especially those from certain Central and South America countries that are the source of a majority of the illegal immigrants currently coming into the country. Republicans in California have learned the long hard way what xenophobic-appearing immigration talk will do in a state where almost 1 in 5 voters is Latino: Republican Governor Pete Wilson&#8217;s anti-illegal-immigration talk in the early 90s still tar the party among Latino voters. Fully 75% of the Hispanic vote this year went to Obama and the fact that the California legislature is dominated by Democrats is largely attributable to the GOP&#8217;s loss of Latino support.</p>
<p>A side note to this comes in today&#8217;s <em>LA Times</em>. The <em>Times</em> <a title="LA Times: Illegal Immigration Slowdown" href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immigrants15-2009apr15,0,6661883.story" target="_blank">front pages</a> that there is evidence illegal immigrants are beginning to leave the US and that people in some countries who might have headed to the US have been discouraged by news of the poor economy and tougher enforcement actions.</p>
<p>With all that in mind Obama may very well be making a smart move: Fulfilling a campaign promise to a group that nationally gave him 67% of their vote while tossing the ball into their court. When he announces his plans next month he&#8217;s expected to urge advocates to build a consensus around a comprehensive plan involving some form of amnesty along with tougher business-side enforcement.</p>
<p>Wednesday the administration <a title="WaPo: US Names Border Czar" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041500736.html?hpid=moreheadlines" target="_blank">made a move</a> towards tougher enforcement by appointing a &#8220;border czar&#8221;, which can be seen in the broader political context. He&#8217;ll set the stage to appeal to the broad middle of the American electorate which is both ambivalent and conflicted about immigration policy. Majorities think there are too many illegal immigrants entering the US but that sending them home is not the answer.</p>
<p>Certainly the most vocal opponents could still derail any &#8220;consensus&#8221; deal that is worked out but if a majority of Americans think the plan was developed in good faith and with an eye towards resolving the broader public&#8217;s competing concerns, those opponents could be marginalized in the same way Republicans have been on issue after issue during the first months of Obama&#8217;s term.</p>
<p><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjaydedapper.com%2F2009%2F04%2F15%2Fimmigrations-return%2F&amp;linkname=Immigration%26%238217%3Bs%20Return"><img src="http://jaydedapper.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Bookmark"/></a> </p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jaydedapper.com/2009/04/15/immigrations-return/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Barack and the Pirates (and other bits) [UPDATED]</title>
		<link>http://jaydedapper.com/2009/04/08/barack-and-the-pirates-and-other-bits/</link>
		<comments>http://jaydedapper.com/2009/04/08/barack-and-the-pirates-and-other-bits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:38:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jay</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Are You Serious?]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Watch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proof Positive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Skeptical Eye]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[20th district]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[approval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gillibrand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Walsh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mccain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pirates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[red state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scott Murphy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[somali]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tedisco]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jaydedapper.com/?p=818</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There a few things more certain in life than this: Hyper-partisans (left and right) will twist everything and anything to fit their worldview. Today&#8217;s case in point comes courtesy of Red State and a contributor who speculates that the Somali pirates who have attacked and apparently captured an American-flagged cargo vessel did so because they know Barack Obama is a wuss.
While the author is correct no U.S. flagged vessel has been successfully attacked by pirates to this point it&#8217;s worth noting how few American-flagged vessels there are any more. The ...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_825" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 310px"><img class="size-medium wp-image-825" title="pirate" src="http://jaydedapper.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pirate-300x216.jpg" alt="Ahoy There!" width="300" height="216" /><p class="wp-caption-text">Ahoy There!</p></div>
<p>There a few things more certain in life than this: Hyper-partisans (left and right) will twist <em>everything and anything</em> to fit their worldview. Today&#8217;s case in point comes courtesy of Red State and a contributor who speculates that the <a title="Red State: Have Pirates Read the Market Right?" href="http://www.redstate.com/brianfaughnan/2009/04/08/have-the-pirates-read-the-market-right/" target="_blank">Somali pirates</a> who have attacked and apparently captured an American-flagged cargo vessel did so because they know Barack Obama is a wuss.</p>
<p>While the author is correct no U.S. flagged vessel has been <em>successfully </em>attacked by pirates to this point it&#8217;s worth noting how few American-flagged vessels there are any more. The number of major cargo ships flagged (registered) in the U.S. is fewer than 200 because it is so much more expensive for shipping companies to register in the U.S. than in countries like Panama and Liberia which have low costs (and large fleets as a result &#8212; check page 36 of <a title="UN Report on Maritime Commerce" href="http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/rmt2007_en.pdf" target="_blank">this report</a> if you&#8217;re <em>really really </em>interested).</p>
<p>It&#8217;s also worth noting American-flagged and owned vessels <em>have</em> been attacked since piracy took off in 2005 during the time when the presumably frighteningly-tough-as-nails President George W. Bush was in the White House including two U.S. Navy ships, two large passenger cruise liners, and two large bulk cargo ships. Perhaps the best reason to question the author&#8217;s premise was Saturday&#8217;s attack on an Israeli cargo ship.</p>
<p>If these guys will attack an Israeli ship they&#8217;ve either never heard of the Raid on Entebbe or they&#8217;ll go after any ship they see. I&#8217;d bet on the latter.</p>
<h4><strong>The Magic 30 Percent</strong></h4>
<p>Speaking of that wuss of a President, the evidence is now awfully solid that the Republican game plan (<a title="Get Real: I No You!" href="http://jaydedapper.com/2009/04/03/i-no-you/" target="_blank">the Party of No</a>) has accomplished one thing: It has built and maintained Obama&#8217;s disapproval ratings&#8230;at 30%.</p>
<p>A new <a title="Marist Poll April 2009" href="http://maristpoll.marist.edu/majority-approve-of-obamas-job-performance/" target="_blank">Marist Poll</a> out right now (check out their new website too) gives Obama an approval rating of 56% with 30% saying they disapprove of the job he&#8217;s doing. Those numbers are in line with a series of other polls in the last month even if the approval number is on the lower end of the range. And while some might argue the bloom is off the rose, a quick look at <a title="RCP Obama Approval" href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html#chart" target="_blank">Real Clear Politics&#8217;s</a> or the <a title="Polling Report" href="http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm#ObamaJob" target="_blank">Polling Report&#8217;s</a> running averages of all polls proves the point.</p>
<p>Both averages put Obama&#8217;s approval rating at a steady 60%+ since January while his disapproval rate has gone from the teens to around 30% where it plateaued in mid-February. That should concern the GOP since Obama only got 53% of the vote in November to John McCain&#8217;s 46%. That means 16 percentage points worth of McCain voters still don&#8217;t buy the GOP&#8217;s opposing message (and most don&#8217;t buy Obama either).</p>
<p>The worst news for Republicans is in <a title="Gallup Poll April 7" href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/117355/Obama-Approval-Rating-Stable-Polarized.aspx" target="_blank">these numbers</a> from the Gallup Poll:</p>
<p><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-823" title="gallup4_71" src="http://jaydedapper.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/gallup4_71.jpg" alt="gallup4_71" width="514" height="314" /></p>
<p>Since his Inauguration Obama&#8217;s support among Democrats and independents has stayed roughly the same. Only Republicans have become more dissatisfied. With self-identifying Republicans dropping to levels rivalling post-Watergate, the GOP clearly needs a new plan. Unless they really enjoy being in the minority.</p>
<h4><strong>Number Crunchers Rejoice!</strong></h4>
<div id="attachment_826" class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 310px"><img class="size-medium wp-image-826" title="columbia" src="http://jaydedapper.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/columbia-300x271.jpg" alt="Bucolic Columbia County" width="300" height="271" /><p class="wp-caption-text">Bucolic Columbia County</p></div>
<p>If you can&#8217;t wait for the actual votes to get counted in the special election upstate to replace Kirsten Gillibrand in the House, Nate over at 538 has some <a title="538: Absentee Ballot Distribution" href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/ny-20-absentee-ballot-distribution.html" target="_blank">analysis</a> that indicates Democrat Scott Murphy could end up winning this most-Republican-district-in-New-York. What&#8217;s interesting is where the most absentee ballots are coming from: Columbia County, which we <a title="Get Real: Bellweather?" href="http://jaydedapper.com/2009/03/28/bellweather-in-new-york-or-not/" target="_blank">explained</a> several times could prove pivotal because of all the second-home NYC residents who vote up there (where their votes obviously count far more because there are actually two parties in Columbia County).</p>
<p>Republican Jim Tedisco has been making the rounds to conservative radio shows and columnists making noises about Democratic intimidation of local election boards but as a weekend resident in the district (who does NOT vote there) I can tell you that any intimidation would probably be by the election board members. These are hardy peeps in the 20th who are unlikely to take any crap or suggestions from anybody. Further the notion that the state Board of Elections would be denying military ballots in order to favor a Democrat is equally absurd.</p>
<p>Remember this: Tedisco is being represented in any court action by former Republican Congressman James Walsh. Walsh is one of the four members of the State Board of Elections. So give it rest guys.</p>
<p>We should know who gets the distinct privilege of representing me (on weekends) in a week &#8212; or sooner.</p>
<p><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjaydedapper.com%2F2009%2F04%2F08%2Fbarack-and-the-pirates-and-other-bits%2F&amp;linkname=Barack%20and%20the%20Pirates%20%28and%20other%20bits%29%20%5BUPDATED%5D"><img src="http://jaydedapper.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Bookmark"/></a> </p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jaydedapper.com/2009/04/08/barack-and-the-pirates-and-other-bits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another Spineless Sunday: The Economics of Tax Cut v. Spend</title>
		<link>http://jaydedapper.com/2009/01/25/another-spineless-sunday-the-economics-of-tax-cut-v-spend/</link>
		<comments>http://jaydedapper.com/2009/01/25/another-spineless-sunday-the-economics-of-tax-cut-v-spend/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:26:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jay</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media Watch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proof Positive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boehner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mccain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Meet the Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephanopoulos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wallace]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jaydedapper.com/?p=169</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This Sunday morning&#8217;s chatterfest was filled with deep and informed discussions about the relative merits of cutting taxes versus spending tax money as a way to get the economy on track.
OK I&#8217;m lying. From one gasbag to the next politicians and their economic enablers were allowed to make rather grand statements without worry of being confronted with any facts about what history has shown to be most effective.
On Fox News Sunday Senator John McCain said, “We need to make tax cuts permanent, and we need to make a commitment that ...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-175" title="money1" src="http://jaydedapper.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/money1-300x297.jpg" alt="money1" width="300" height="297" />This Sunday morning&#8217;s chatterfest was filled with deep and informed discussions about the relative merits of cutting taxes versus spending tax money as a way to get the economy on track.</div>
<div>OK I&#8217;m lying. From one gasbag to the next politicians and their economic enablers were allowed to make rather grand statements without worry of being confronted with any <span style="font-style: italic;">facts</span> about what history has shown to be most effective.</div>
<div>On Fox News Sunday Senator John McCain said, <span style="color: #993300;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman';">“We need to make tax cuts permanent, and we need to make a commitment that there’ll be no new taxes. We need to cut payroll taxes. We need to cut business taxes.”</span> <span style="color: #000000; ">Host Chris Wallace moved on.</span></span></div>
<div>The idea that tax cuts (especially the ones on the high-income Americans that Bush got through early in his first term and are set to expire shortly) will stimulate the economy as well or better than direct government spending has been refuted by a wide range of economists from the liberal to conservative end of the spectrum.</p>
<div>That being said we&#8217;re the first to admit economics is obviously not a science and one can find a tenured economist to support virtually any whacky idea one might want to espouse.</div>
<div>Still how hard would it have been for Wallace to at least push back a little on this bit of conventional Republican wisdom that is simply not true? Maybe he didn&#8217;t see one of the most important, simple, and telling charts any publication has created in years.</div>
<div>If you missed the Business section of the NYTimes on Friday you missed the kind of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/01/23/business/20090124_CHARTS_GRAPHIC.html">clear demonstration</a> of facts that all the economists in the world spewing all their mumbo jumbo can&#8217;t cloud. In two of the only really important measurements of the economy &#8212; growth and job growth (because otherwise what&#8217;s the point of having an economy, right?) &#8212; the last eight years have been the worst since Dwight David Eisenhower was sworn into office in 1953.</div>
<div>Did the huge tax cuts President Bush pushed through at the beginning of his term cause this? If economics was that simple they wouldn&#8217;t give out Nobel Prizes for it.</div>
<div>Indeed there are many explanations given &#8212; 9/11, tech bubble bursting, expensive war spending &#8212; but compare how the US economy has grown and how many jobs were created in the last 8 years with the same stats for other eight year periods and then look at what was happening with taxes during those eight years. This <a href="http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/images/economics/u.S.%20Spending%20And%20Revenue%20In%20Relation%20To%20GDP.GIF">helpful chart</a> shows the Federal tax burden as a share of the Gross Domestic Product (it&#8217;s the bright blue line).</div>
<div>Here&#8217;s what history shows (leaving Eisenhower out of this since tax rates were adjusted frequently in the belief that that was a good way to fine-tune the economy): When the relative tax burden decreases by a modest amount (Reagan, Kennedy) the economy has done well. When the relative tax burden has increased the economy has done well (Clinton, Carter). But when the relative tax burden has been substantially cut (Nixon, GW Bush) the economy has underperformed.</div>
<div>Why can&#8217;t we ever look at past experience as a guide to how our actions will effect the future?</div>
<div>The Sunday <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012401616.html">Washington Post</a> seems to have skipped history class as well and David Gregory was no tougher on Meet the Press with his guest Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner who stuck to the same theme and then attacked the idea of sending Federal money to the states: <span style="color: #993300; font-family: 'times new roman'; ">&#8220;But providing $300 billion of this package to states&#8211;$166 billion in direct aid to the states, another $140 billion in education funding&#8211;this is not going to do anything, anything to stimulate our economy, to help the&#8211;our ailing economy. And so at the end of the day, it has to be targeted. It&#8217;s about preserving jobs and creating new jobs.&#8221;</span></div>
<div>That stunner went unquestioned by Gregory. Here are some helpful facts: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/9-8-08sfp.htm">reports</a> 45 states are now facing budget shortfalls meaning either program cuts or tax hikes. Cuts would mean further layoffs. Tax hikes would, according to many of the same economists unhappy with the stimulus package proposal, further hurt the economy. Both Republican and Democratic governors have said Federal help is necessary to prevent these outcomes.</div>
<div>So when Boehner says in one sentence the state aid won&#8217;t do anything to help &#8220;our ailing economy&#8221; and in the very next breath says the stimulus has to be about &#8220;preserving jobs&#8221; Gregory lets him get away with complete head-spinning hypocracy.</div>
<div>Of course it&#8217;s also worth asking why Democrats are intent on telling the states exactly how to spend the money (if Albany wants to spend money on family planning and Birmingham  doesn&#8217;t isn&#8217;t that their business?) and ABC&#8217;s George Stephanopoulos had the chance to do just that in his &#8220;exculsive&#8221; interview with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.</div>
<div><span style="font-family: 'times new roman';"><span style="color: #993300;">STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?</span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: 'times new roman';"><span style="color: #993300;">PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children&#8217;s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those &#8211; one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.</span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: 'times new roman';"><span style="color: #993300;">STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?</span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: 'times new roman';"><span style="color: #993300;">PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, some of the initiatives you just mentioned. what the economists have told us from right to left. There is more bang for the buck, a term they use, by investing in food stamps and in unemployment insurance than in any tax cut. Nonetheless, we are committed to the tax cuts because they do have a positive impact on the economy even though not as big as the investments.</span></span></div>
<div>No apologies? George, this isn&#8217;t a Nirvana songfest. Why not at least ask her, if economists &#8220;right and left&#8221; say spending is more effective than tax cuts, why Democrats have shifted the stimulus package to be nearly 40% tax cuts? Obviously it&#8217;s to get Republican and blue dog Dem support but make <span style="font-style: italic;">her</span> say that.</div>
<div>Where&#8217;s Russert when we need him?</div>
</div>
<p><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjaydedapper.com%2F2009%2F01%2F25%2Fanother-spineless-sunday-the-economics-of-tax-cut-v-spend%2F&amp;linkname=Another%20Spineless%20Sunday%3A%20The%20Economics%20of%20Tax%20Cut%20v.%20Spend"><img src="http://jaydedapper.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Bookmark"/></a> </p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jaydedapper.com/2009/01/25/another-spineless-sunday-the-economics-of-tax-cut-v-spend/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NY Post + Zogby = Love</title>
		<link>http://jaydedapper.com/2008/11/02/ny-post-zogby-love/</link>
		<comments>http://jaydedapper.com/2008/11/02/ny-post-zogby-love/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:01:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jay</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media Watch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mccain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NY Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zogby]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jaydedapper.com/?p=31</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You gotta hand it to the New York Post. Perhaps even more so than it&#8217;s conservative corporate cousin Fox News the Post will apparently do anything to find and promote only the facts that support it&#8217;s masters&#8217; editorial positions. The Sunday front page is a classic example:


The Post finds the one national poll that actually gives John McCain the lead. Reporter Ginger Adams Otis&#8217;s story notes that &#8220;A Zogby tracking poll, taken Friday, shows McCain with a 1-point lead over Barack Obama, 48 to 47 percent.&#8221; After a number of ...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-size:medium;">You gotta hand it to the New York Post. Perhaps even more so than it&#8217;s conservative corporate cousin Fox News the Post will apparently do anything to find and promote only the facts that support it&#8217;s masters&#8217; editorial positions. The Sunday front page is a classic example:</span></p>
<div>
<div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5264167669186036786" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; width: 320px; height: 209px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ozjGJFlGknU/SQ4UmrfuBDI/AAAAAAAAAD4/F5EgizQA6is/s320/nyp1102.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></div>
<div><span style="font-size:medium;">The Post finds the one national poll that actually gives John McCain the lead. Reporter Ginger Adams Otis&#8217;s story notes that <span style="color: #009900;">&#8220;A Zogby tracking poll, taken Friday, shows McCain with a 1-point lead over Barack Obama, 48 to 47 percent.&#8221;</span> After a number of quotes from unnamed McCain advisors and from Zogby himself about the amazing poll numbers Otis does mention, <span style="color: #009900;">&#8220;other national surveys continue to give Obama a comfortable lead, and even Zogby&#8217;s three-day poll showed the Illinois senator with a 5-point advantage&#8230;.&#8221;</span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:medium;"><br />
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:medium;">Putting aside the &#8220;journalism&#8221; here, there&#8217;s more than a bit of deja vu in this. John Zogby has a history of providing last minute polls for the Post that are unlike those of any other pollsters yet magically support the Post&#8217;s editorial positions.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:medium;"><br />
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:medium;">Take the 2000 New York Senate race between Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio. I&#8217;m sure you can&#8217;t imagine which candidate the Post was supporting&#8230;. In that case the final Zogby poll, trumpeted by the Post to no end, gave Lazio a 46-45 lead over Clinton. Four other final polls gave her the lead by 6 to 12 points. Of course Zogby and the Post got it wrong: Clinton won by 12.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:medium;"><br />
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:medium;">In 1998 the Post and Zogby had a similar miraculous apparition of victory for their favored candidate. On the Sunday before the election the Post front-paged the results of breathtaking Zogby poll giving Republican Senator Al D&#8217;Amato a fractional lead &#8212; big news since Chuck Schumer had pulled ahead in everyone else&#8217;s polls. Schumer won by 9 points.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:medium;"><br />
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:medium;">Of course the Post is not alone in all of this nonsense. Their ideological bedfellows on the Wall Street Journal&#8217;s editorial page (and now corporate sibling) are more than happy to focus only on the data and polls that support their positions.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:medium;"><br />
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:medium;">For a good laugh check out </span><a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=65000504"><span style="font-size:medium;">this piece</span></a><span style="font-size:medium;"> by the illustrious John Fund from October 30, 2000 predicting Hillary Clinton&#8217;s loss in the Senate race. Why do guys like this never have to answer for being so very very very wrong?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:medium;"><br />
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:medium;">Oh, and if you&#8217;re looking for today&#8217;s story in the Post? </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/11022008/news/politics/poll_lifts_hope_of_mac_miracle_136467.htm"><span style="font-size:medium;">It&#8217;s gone.</span></a></span><span style="font-size:medium;"> Replaced by a story that makes no mention of the Zogby poll. It has been scrubbed from their website and cannot be located in their archives. Leave no fingerprints&#8230;.</span></div>
</div>
<p><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_share_save" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjaydedapper.com%2F2008%2F11%2F02%2Fny-post-zogby-love%2F&amp;linkname=NY%20Post%20%2B%20Zogby%20%3D%20Love"><img src="http://jaydedapper.com/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png" width="171" height="16" alt="Share/Bookmark"/></a> </p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://jaydedapper.com/2008/11/02/ny-post-zogby-love/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
