Skip to comments.Hannity Guest Dick Morris Confidently Declares Obama's Defeat
Posted on 09/24/2012 6:41:05 PM PDT by BlueStateRightist
click here to read article
Well, I don’t necessarily believe Morris, but he does NOT just read other people’s polls-— he actually pays for his own private polling. That’s sort of his stock in trade. He has been running polls for a few weeks. Whether he is any more accurate than anyone else, who knows?
I remember Morris saying (about the same time in late Sep 2008) that McCain was in trouble, and that he had to come out swinging.
McCain was actually closing to Obama by 3 points or so, and then..................................................................................the Economic Collapse began. The Dow lost 778 in one day, McCain was stupid enough to "suspend" his campaign, and it was over before it ever really began.
At one point, about half a Trillion dollars was "mysteriously" exiting the financial system. This was economic terrorism, and it was never fully investigated or prosecuted.
I clearly remember him on Hannity saying we would WIN the senate. Others on FR remembered the same thing as they said on other threads. I do not doubt what you say he said, but he sure said we WOULD take the senate.
I absolutely believe Romney’s will win. Can’t wait to see Romney call O out during the Univision debate. O’s stuttering problem is going to get ridiculous, then the stutter will be followed by umms, and wells, uhhhs, and multiple ‘let’s be clear’. Then when O knows he’s truly screwed, watch for the ol’ middle finger scratch on the nose. This one is going to be really good.
There is no time for overconfidence. The prospect of four more years of Obama is too awful to think about.
Yep, and when R/R win in a landslide that I predicted 3 months ago, you won’t hear much from them.
I don’t listen to that guy. He has no principles if he could help Bill Clinton.
Frankly, he was close on that. There were a lot of Senate races that went down to the wire. And even if the republicans has taken control, I think it would have been largely symbolic.
The Democrats would have been doing the same thing as the Republicans are doing now, filibustering, or threatening to filibuster. In a way, it may have worked out for the Republicans, because Obama didn’t have to pivot to the center like Clinton did.
That he was. I remember it too.
That’s Hannity, not vanity.
Can’t stand Morris. Half the time he’s on he’s peddling his latest book or his website.
In 2008 he predicted Hillary would be our next President and we could all bank on it! His opinions are worthless.
The second the database behind a preference poll is adjusted, it no longer has enough validity to bother with.
If you know how to read these polls, Obama is losing. Forget what the lib headlines say. Dickie Morris does know how to read polls.
Remember his book declaring the 2008 presidential race would be between Condoleezza Rice and Hilary Clinton? I’d say Morris’ prophetic abilities are somewhat lacking.
Interesting point about the senate pub by scenario.
Morris was one of the few analysts that nailed it in 2010. He predicted 66 GOP seats. We won 63.
This site says Romney by 4 (which as ticked down a point, was +5).
Hey you never know, Dick could be on the money with this one.
Another K-State fan! EMAW! Love the HCBS picture!
Yeah, and don’t forget Dingy Harry stole Nevada. He bused in illegals and union workers to do the voting dead Nevadans wouldn’t do.
He also knows the Democratic party, the whole inner works. And he knows the clintons. The whole Obama administration to a man are old clintonistas.
I think Mittens will pull it out. Not my point. Don't trust Dick Morris, or send money to him. Period.
Many polls are based on a 2008 turnout model. Since 2008, GOP enthusiasm has grown and Dem enthusiasm has waned. Also, there has been an upsurge in GOP voter registration as compared to Dems.
Hardly anyone thinks this year will be like 2008, but no one really knows what it’s going to be like - they’re guessing.
If I recall he predicted McCain would win but only if he went after Obama on the economy and his votes as a Senator, neither of which he did and instead chose to play nice while Obama hammered him about Bush so McCain lost.
The Toe Sucker has been wrong more times than he has toes.
I hope he’s wrong a being wrong this time.
He was very pro McCain and tried to look for a silver lining, but in late October he had Obama 7 points ahead of McCain.
The problem is the sampling is never truly random to begin with. As Morris wrote, the phone polling always picks up too many older people and other groups. So not adjusting would leave worse results. If you could do a truly random poll, that wouldn’t need adjusting, and you wouldn’t get margins of error.
Obama worked for hard for Arab Spring. How did that work out for him?
Egypt is under the control of radical Muslim Brotherhood. Sworn to destroy Israel, these nuts have now talked Obama to give $Billion to Egypt for submarines.
Now what would Egypt need Submarines for? Obviously to attack Israel.
IS Obama a fool?
Actually no. Obama is a wild success. He has been widely successful in most everything he has done but as a Muslim, he too wants Israel destroyed. Obama is working quickly to set up Iraq, Egypt, Syria and Libya to finally destroy the Jews. Every Muslim wants that.
And heres the good part. Americans watch and Obama continues on. CBS or NBC or even Rush Limbaugh would tell you if Obama is a Muslim, wouldn't they?
Not even Rush Limbaugh will touch that story no matter how obvious it becomes.
Ann Coulter was also on Hannity saying that Romney would win.
“Like puddy in their hands. Freakin sad!”
The word is ‘putty’ — not ‘puddy.’ Please do not give our enemies ammo that we are illiterate.
You know what, I never used that word in a written form before, and I didn't feel like taking the time to look it up for a simple blog post. Nice that you took the time to correct my error though. Obviously you knew what I meant.
I'm sure you've never misspelled, or misused a word before in a blog post...right?
Now kindly f*ck off!
My son’s BFF, now at the University of Miami, got a seat near Romney along with a grip, greet, and encouraging word kindness of the Federalist Legal Society (although its hard to ignore a 6’7” fellow.) An agent from the Republic of Texas, he reports many R&R yard signs in this swing state. That 24 year old kid is excited.
“You know what, I never used that word in a written form before...”
It should’ve been: “You know, I've never used that word in written form before...”
Whew, glad I caught that; would hate to think I've hurt the conservative cause. ;-)
I like this one best. He reminds me of Count Dracula.
When has the toe sucker ever been right?
I agree, heavy turnout mostly Republican. We are the motivated ones. The skewed polls will only lure lazy democrats to stay at home, because Obama has it in the bag, right??
Take 100 samples and it's 1%. Differentiate between Dems and Reps, or 2 factors, in the framework of those 100 samples, it doubles your level of error. look at three factors Dem/Rep/Ind, and you're up to 3.333% on a sample of 100.
You can increase sample size or reduce the number of factors recorded to change your confidence interval. Plus, if you do D/R/I and you get different levels of response, your confidence interval is the LEAST of the three different levels ~ usually the Ind which will be down there at 5% while the others are up at 2% or so.
Sample size used to be Call 100 Voters and now it's hardly ever less than Call 230 Voters ~
Br'r Morris is warning you that most of the polls you are looking at are too small to support the claims they make, and not all the elements reported on were found in sufficient numbers to give you a satisfactory confidence interval ~ meaning ~ NOT that they aren't statistically valid surveys but they aren't being reported consistently with the statistical methodology!
If the pollster knows that then he' lies. If he doesn't he's in the wrong business. If he's not a pollster with knowledge of what he's doing, but instead a reporter, he will lie as a matter of course because that's his profession.
Then there are the more expensive internal polls. That's where the astute politician has his own staff statistician familiar with these matters ~ because the pollster will still misrepresent what his polls say, and the news media, if they get aholt of it, will lie as well, so you need somebody around who will tell the truth ~ kinda'!
BTW when you do a presidential poll you go out and ask about Obamagube, Romney, Rep, Dem and Ind. You also ask for NO Response ~ that'll be down there on your list to reflect a call was made and you didn't get any response. That's actually 6 different factors in an array with 12 boxes or cells. The least number of responses of any kind sets the basis for the confidence interval ~ so if you want at most a 5% level of expected or tolerable error in your otherwise perfect random sample based survey you'd probably hope for no cell showing up with less than 21 responses!
That's probably why the pollsters never tell you about the surveys they took where they only got 15 Republicans to answer the phone, or where almost nobody happened to like either of the candidates ~