Replies

You can read Rush's take or analysis here and in the link.. Gotta go now. :-)

-snip-

" "(Under that scenario, Romney would have won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College...) According to the Times' calculator, Romney would have had to win 73% of the Hispanic vote to prevail in 2012."

-snip-

"So the party's doing that. They've got this new pathway to citizenship immigration bill. They're saying all the right things. But, again, remember, the percentage of the electorate that was Hispanic in 2012 was 7%. Obama got 71% of it; Romney got 27%. And if you reverse that, Romney gets 70%, he still loses. The highest percentage of the Hispanic vote any Republican president's ever got was Bush at 44. So the point of saying that even if Romney gets 70% he would still lose, it tells you that the Republican Party's problem is not the Hispanic vote.

It goes far deeper or is far more diversified than that. No doubt about it. How else would you read this? If you give Romney 70% of the Hispanic vote and he still loses, with everything else in 2012 being the same, then what are they doing? They're following the advice of their consultant class. They're following what the media's telling them.

They're following what the Democrats are telling them, what the conventional wisdom"

-end snip-

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/05/03/the_hispanic_vote_isn_t_why_romney_lost

I wouldn't trust New York Slimes exit polls (run by the gay lefty Nate Silver) for accurately reflecting the racial and ethnic breakdown of the national presidential vote, nor the state by state vote. They base their data on interviews of people exiting after just having voted, I presume. There has to be a bias built in to their selection (They will pick percentagewise more 'Rats to interview than there exist in the exiting population they are sampling.), plus a bias introduced into the potential interviewees who will cooperate with them (Who do you think is more likely to yuk it up with an interviewer who says "I'm from the New York Slimes"? If someone approached me after voting and ID'd himself or herself as being from that organization, I'd run away quickly.) And what about their choice of such a small percentage of precincts that they actually can and do sample? Does this accurately reflect the voting patterns of an entire state or nation, and for each demographic group? I doubt it.

Then they go out on a limb to extrapolate and speculate what the vote would have been in each state had each demographic group voted a certain way? Hell, I don't buy it. It's garbage in and garbage out, too many mere assumptions based on raw interview data that is too inaccurate to begin with.

Byron York shouldn't be buying the Slimes' statistical gymnastics. Republicans should instead be using their own pollsters and not rely on the Slimes pro-'Rat techniques.

Then Rush comes along and buys Byron York's analysis from the Slimes polls. Yes, the numbers suit his argument well, but the accuracy of the original Slimes data is highly questionable from the get-go.