Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $32,110
Woo hoo!! And the first 36% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by LadyNavyVet

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Case for Federal Employee Compensation Reform

    07/10/2010 4:53:47 AM PDT · 28 of 29
    LadyNavyVet to ExTxMarine

    Former military members DO NOT get their military time counted toward their federal employee retirement unless they pay into the system. They must pay 3% of their total base pay for their military time into the FERS system in order to receive retirement credit for it.

  • Election 2010: Florida Republican Primary for Senate (Rubio 54%-Crist 36%)

    02/22/2010 8:36:10 AM PST · 17 of 22
    LadyNavyVet to Carry_Okie

    He is against amnesty. He also does not want illegals counted in the census.

  • Ex-ROTC Recruit Forced to Pay Back Tuition [gotta love government bureaucracy]

    03/27/2009 5:27:14 AM PDT · 58 of 99
    LadyNavyVet to JoeViviano

    You’ve given us very little to go on, a few lines from a news article. I’m speaking from 24 years of Navy service. Whether your wife has the paperwork that says the Navy can do this in hand or not, the Navy can do this. JAGS are nothing if not risk averse. That they are being so inflexible in your case is telling.

    I’m surprised the Navy is requesting all the money upfront. In my experience that not how the Navy handles indebtedness, although I have heard of other services, specifically the Army, requiring immediate, full payment for indebtedness, although not repayment of tuition.

    In only one instance have I ever heard of tuition repayment being demanded by the Navy, and that is in the case of a young woman who went AWOL and hopped a plane to see her boyfriend without telling anybody where she was going. She was thrown out of school and the Navy and immediate payment of tuition was demanded. So the fact that the Navy is taking such a hard line leads me to think that 1) there’s a WHOLE lot more to the story than we’ve been given, and; 2) somewhere along the line your wife ticked off the wrong person and/or gave someone in her chain of command or the medical chain of command reason to be angry with her. I’m not accusing anyone of anything, but I am saying that in my experience what the Navy is doing to your wife is unusual bordering on unheard of, and things like that aren’t done without reason.

    My advice is this: neither suing the Navy (good luck with that!)nor declaring bankruptcy will accomplish your goal. I think you and your wife need to keep in mind that the Navy has the upper hand here, and conciliatory tones and and a kindly offer to work with the Navy to lower the amount of the debt and get favorable repayment terms are the way to go. Start with a FOIA request and get ALL the paperwork the Navy has about her case. The FOIA won’t make you any friends, You may be able to figure out the rest of the story that way. Get a good attorney who was a former Navy JAG, one who worked with medical boards. And good luck.

  • Ex-ROTC Recruit Forced to Pay Back Tuition [gotta love government bureaucracy]

    03/26/2009 12:37:21 PM PDT · 55 of 99
    LadyNavyVet to SuziQ

    “SHE didn’t reject the Navy, it rejected her.”

    She is unable to fulfill the terms of a contract which she signed of her own free will. In this case the moral of the story is READ THE FINE PRINT. If the Navy didn’t have the clear legal upper hand here, they would not be taking such a hard line. I have sympathy for her, but I won’t condemn the Navy for acting like the military service it is instead of a jobs program like the liberals want it to be.

    “But there ARE jobs that are done, onshore, in the Navy. Seems they could have left her in and had her taken one of those. There are Navy folks serving at the Pentagon, for example.”

    There is a sea-shore rotation. So many years at sea then so many years ashore. Those guys and gals at the Pentagon have been to sea and are currently on a shore tour. Some specialties spend more time than others ashore, but I know of no specialty, none, where one is guaranteed to spend an entire career ashore. Even the GURLS must be deployable, and an asthmatic is not deployable.

    While your friends’ son’s inner ear problem makes him unable to fly, it does not make him a potential medical emergency like asthma does. In a case like your friends’ son, sometimes an officer will be allowed to “lateral” to another specialty. It depends on the medical condition and the officer’s skills. I know of a pilot who developed a medical condition which precluded flying so he became an intelligence officer. If circumstances like those applied here, the Navy would have offered alternatives.

  • Ex-ROTC Recruit Forced to Pay Back Tuition [gotta love government bureaucracy]

    03/26/2009 6:28:38 AM PDT · 45 of 99
    LadyNavyVet to SuziQ

    “And why couldn’t she have been trained by the Navy for a less strenuous position? Not everyone in the Navy has a position that is physically demanding.”

    Here’s why. Navy officers go to sea. In fact, I can’t think of a navy officer job that doesn’t go to sea. Dentists, lawyers, supply officers, intelligence officers, cryptologists all go to sea, not just the pilots, submariners and surface warfare types. What are considered REMF-type jobs in the army, those which mostly require sitting at desk and producing paperwork, are done at sea in the navy. Navy officers, therefore, must be deployable, which precludes a lot of medical conditions that may be acceptable in the other services where REMF-types can be are stationed at bases with good medical facilities. Not so in the Navy. At sea, an asthma attack can become a medical emergency that requires a whole lot of manpower and extraordinary effort, effort that is not, at that point in time, going into accomplishing the mission. The navy, understandably, goes to great lengths to minimize medical emergencies at sea.

    In my experience the navy is a whole lot faster to “medical board” an officer (toss them out for medical reasons) than the army or air force. I had a friend with cancer who sought treatment at army facilities instead of navy facilities for that reason.

    I was a senior officer in the reserves when I developed asthma in my early forties. Even though I hadn’t been “haze gray” (deployed) in decades, I was told I had to retire. Bottom line is—navy officers must remain deployable, or they must go.

  • IBD/TIPP Takes Top Honors Again

    12/16/2008 7:28:41 AM PST · 23 of 31
    LadyNavyVet to wardaddy

    “...even though many here viciously eschewed such open speculating.”

    I hear ya. I had everything from my motivations to my parentage impugned because I posted that if Rasmussen said Obama was going to win, Obama was going to win.

    Your point about Ras vs. TIPP is right on. Ras’ final prediction is his final poll result, no sauce applied, unlike almost all the others, who make a final prediction that may be several points off their final poll.

    You are correct that the aggregate averages of the polls were highly accurate in the last several elections. But, in four years, if the pollsters don’t have the Pubbie winning, the same Freepers will come out of the woodwork asserting that ALL the polls are ALWAYS wrong and skewed toward the Dems, even when confronted with hard evidence to the contrary. Such vicious, widespread, galloping mendacity is why I’m mostly a lurker these days.

  • Early Voting in Presidential Elections Should Be Made Illegal

    11/26/2008 8:24:12 AM PST · 114 of 114
    LadyNavyVet to zeugma

    “The only exceptions I’d make is for military voting and perhaps voting at embassies, because at both locations you could have trained people to maintain a chain of custody to prevent fraud.”

    That’s utterly and completely unworkable. Military members and their families do not vote the same ballot. Each votes the ballot of his/her “home of record,” which could be anywhere from NYC to a small town in Alaska. Each gets a ballot from his/her particular jurisdiction, so that one servicemember may vote to retain judges in Florida while another votes for County Council members in Iowa and another for the governor of New Mexico. Many ballots require an OCR reader, others are counted using other specialized equipment, while still others, especially those from small jurisdictions, are designed to be hand-counted. Those are decisions made by supervisors of elections all over the US, not DOD. And it is their right, not DOD’s, to do so. The same goes for members of the diplomatic corps and their families. They vote their various absentee ballots, which are returned to their proper jurisdictions for authentication, counting and certification. In the case of both DOD and the State Department, voting is a many-months-long process, as the proper ballots are requested, received, voted, and returned.

    Suppose we adopt your “voting at embassies” and “chain of custody” idea. Who is going to train and equip all those thousands of people to count the tens of thousand of potential types of ballots? Who is going to certify the results? The Constitutions of the 50 states require that their Secretaries of State certify the vote and award electors to the winning candidates. Do you really want to give that states’ right over to the Executive Branch of the federal government, the same Executive Branch that will be under the control of BO and the Dems in two months? That would violate the Constitutions and weaken the authority of all fifty states where elections are concerned. I thought conservatives were for states’ rights and limiting the authority of the Federal Government. I know I am.

    I have no problem with absentee or early voting. There is no constitutional reason to oppose it. It is a states’ rights issue and people should decide at that level what the rules should be, as long as they comply with the Constitution, which says very little on the matter.

    Attempting to blame early voting for the Republicans’ loss, as this thread does, is shortsighted and ultimately self-defeating. “The system” didn’t cause the Republicans to lose. Blaming “the system” for one’s problems is what liberals do. ACORN didn’t give Obama 365 electoral votes. Nope, the Republicans did that, and unless and until the Republican Party is willing to face up to its core problem, which is that it doesn’t stand for anything anymore, it will continue to lose elections, whether we all go the polls one single day or not.

  • Early Voting in Presidential Elections Should Be Made Illegal

    11/25/2008 4:59:10 AM PST · 105 of 114
    LadyNavyVet to FreeReign; jveritas

    Nothing says the entire vote must be done in one day, just that the electors shall be appointed on that day. That is a law made by congress which can be changed at anytime, not a requirement of the Constitution, which only demands that the electors, not the electorate, all vote on the same day.

    And, jveritas, by requiring the military to vote in one day you would be disenfranchising large numbers of them. Military operations cannot and will not come to a halt all over the world for one day so military members can vote. Otherwise, we are asking to be attacked on that day.

    I find it revealing that nobody here complained during the last two elections when the Pubbies beat the pants off the Dems in early voting. Run a candidate who actually has some core conservative values and the willingness to articulate them and we’ll win, every time. Run Mr. Lib Lite Wishy Washy and lose, every time. The failure is wholly and completely that of the Republican Party and McCain, not the voting system.

  • What's wrong with Catholic voters? What's wrong with Catholics?

    11/06/2008 3:17:01 PM PST · 157 of 180
    LadyNavyVet to Alex Murphy

    Way to purposely misunderstand my post. I clearly said I would NOT judge protestants by Obama’s acts, since that would be unChristian and unfair. Would that some on this thread afford Catholics the same courtesy.

    I was clearly making a point by using the SAME standard used by Catholic bashers on this thread. Voters who told exit pollsters they were Catholic, whether they’d been to church in decades or not, have been labeled “Catholic voters” and their actions used to bash the church in general.

    By that very same standard, I could use Barack Obama (or Hillary or Bill Clinton, or Al Gore or a whole host of others) to bash all protestants, because they CALL themselves Protestant Christians, even though you and I both know they are anything but.

    Using the actions of some nominal members of a religion who have shown by their actions that they are NOT adherants to that religion’s teaching in order to smear that religion is neither Christian nor conservative.

  • What's wrong with Catholic voters? What's wrong with Catholics?

    11/06/2008 12:32:33 PM PST · 145 of 180
    LadyNavyVet to GoLightly

    “First off, marriage isn’t a Sacrament for Protties.”

    Yes, which is why you will find priests very reluctant to deny it to people who otherwise meet the requirements.

  • What's wrong with Catholic voters? What's wrong with Catholics?

    11/06/2008 12:29:39 PM PST · 144 of 180
    LadyNavyVet to wmfights

    “I understand the disappointment of seeing your church do so poorly in fighting infanticide...”

    Two can play at painting with a broad brush. How ‘bout we discuss our new pro-partial birth abortion PROTESTANT president as an example of how PROTESTANTS do poorly in fighting infanticide? How ‘bout I ping you and bash ALL protestants every time that Protestant president promotes morally reprehensible acts like abortion and homosexuality over the the next four years? Sound fair to you?

    I’m not a religious bigot, so I will not stoop to judging a whole group by the actions of a few who, while they may consider themselves part of that group, prove by their actions that they are not. I take the teaching of my Lord in His encounter with the Samaritan woman seriously, when He taught me to judge others on their individual merits, not on their membership in a group.

    So I will not judge you by the actions of your fellow co-religionist Barack Obama, since I’m sure you and I both agree that his actions should not reflect poorly on you nor on protestant religious doctrine, if you will agree that the votes of catholics in name only should not reflect poorly on me nor my religious doctrine.

    Otherwise, expect a lot of pings over the next four years.

  • What's wrong with Catholic voters? What's wrong with Catholics?

    11/06/2008 9:01:19 AM PST · 112 of 180
    LadyNavyVet to Zionist Conspirator

    “For some strange reason Blacks aren’t classified as Fundamentalists, Protestants, or even chr*stians. They’re just classified as ‘Blacks.’”

    Convenient, isn’t it? They pull blacks out of the Protestant numbers, making the “Protestant vote” appear more Republican, but don’t pull hispanics out of Catholic numbers. No agenda there!

    In the same way, observant Jews should not be lumped in with secular Jews. There is no “Jewish vote.” It is well known that the more observant a Jew is, the more likely he or she is to vote Republican.

    I’ll say it again: There is a religious vote and a non-religious vote. Crunching the numbers in a way so as to make members of certain religious groups appear to be sinning Democrats is bigotry, pure and simple.

  • What's wrong with Catholic voters? What's wrong with Catholics?

    11/06/2008 8:51:54 AM PST · 110 of 180
    LadyNavyVet to wintertime

    Protestant churches, of course, NEVER allow ceremonies among those who don’t attend regularly.

    I’ve been to big protestant weddings where the bride and room were openly living together. Generally such things are the individual decision of the priest, just as they are individual decision of the minister. A discerning individual realizes that it is the priest or minister in that case who is erring, not the entire faith.


    11/06/2008 8:43:17 AM PST · 14 of 14
    LadyNavyVet to Alex Murphy

    You are comparing apples to oranges. If every voter who had ever been baptized in a Protestant church was considered a “Protestant voter” by pollsters, the voting patterns of so-called protestants would line up very much with those of so-called catholics.

    That comparison is never made, however, because it doesn’t comport with the “What’s WRONG with those people?!” meme.

  • What's wrong with Catholic voters? What's wrong with Catholics?

    11/06/2008 7:50:41 AM PST · 86 of 180
    LadyNavyVet to pierrem15

    I agree that Bush did a lot more than most. And you’re absolutely right about the Court. However, the majority of presidents during the time that Court has been claiming overarching powers have been Republican, which gets us back to the main problem. The effective check on that claim has to come from conservatives clearly and effectively teaching the people that “checks and balances” doesn’t mean the courts always have the last word. And we haven’t had a leader who can articulate conservatism since Reagan.

    And, as we found out once again this election, when the voters are offered socialism vs. socilaism-lite, they will pick the real thing every time.

  • What's wrong with Catholic voters? What's wrong with Catholics?

    11/06/2008 7:16:45 AM PST · 70 of 180
    LadyNavyVet to pierrem15

    You make a good point. I had a discussion with younger family members who were on the fence about voting for McCain or Obama. Their response to my pro-life argument was that abortion would be legal in four years regardless of whether Obama or McCain was president. My argument about possibly moving the Supreme Court to the right with a McCain win fell on deaf ears.

    They have a point. The Republican party has had ending abortion as a plank in it’s platform for decades, yet it’s no closer to being outlawed than it ever was. I think that’s part of the reason why the pro-life argument doesn’t resonate anymore with a lot of people, especially young people. They see lotsa talk before every election, but little action afterwards.

  • What's wrong with Catholic voters? What's wrong with Catholics?

    11/06/2008 7:01:37 AM PST · 50 of 180
    LadyNavyVet to SoCal Pubbie

    You don’t think an article called “What’s WRONG with Catholic Voters” isn’t Catholic bashing? I disagree. We get this every cr@p every single election, as the media lumps religious Catholics with those who use the church for baptism, marriage and burial only, yet tell pollsters they’re “catholic.”

    Let me restate my argument. Lump blacks with every American who was ever baptized in a Protestant church and put those votes up against the “catholic” vote and a very similar voting pattern will emerge.

    There is no Protestant vote. There is no Catholic vote. There is the religious vote and the non-religious vote. But if the media spoke in those terms they wouldn’t get to bash Catholics after every stinking election.

  • What's wrong with Catholic voters? What's wrong with Catholics?

    11/06/2008 6:42:38 AM PST · 9 of 180
    LadyNavyVet to Alex Murphy

    I bet if they count black and white Protestant voters together, they will find that a majority of self-described protestants voted for Obama. But the media won’t do that. Nope, they’re too busy trashing real Catholics who practice their religion along with “catholics” who never darken the door of a church.


    11/05/2008 1:56:12 PM PST · 8 of 14
    LadyNavyVet to Presbyterian Reporter

    There are “catholics” and Catholics. If every American who had ever been baptized in any Protestant denomination was called a Protestant voter by the media, we would see similar voting patterns among that group, since it would cover a whole lot of “protestants” who never bothered to darken the door of church.

    There is no Catholic vote. There is the churchgoing vote and the non-churchgoing vote, and voting patterns of Catholics who attend mass regularly are virtually indistinguishable from those of Protestants who attend services regularly.

  • Bravo Rasmussen Poll! How Did We Do?

    11/05/2008 6:46:09 AM PST · 23 of 24
    LadyNavyVet to WilliamReading

    Rasmussen got something else right, too. His final party ID number was +6.5 for the Dems. According to preliminary numbers from the NES, the official year-long National Election Survey, party ID yesterday was +6 for the Dems.

  • Obama Wins Florida (O 50.9; M 48.4; 99% Rpt)

    11/05/2008 6:02:22 AM PST · 39 of 44
    LadyNavyVet to Tucson

    Amendments in FL have to get 60% of the vote to pass. Amendment 2 got 62%. That means that a lot of Obama voters voted for Defense of Marriage. This is still a center-right country ideologically, even if scared people who are hurting economically (and FL has been very hard hit by the housing mess) do stupid things at the top of the ticket.

  • Obama Wins Florida (O 50.9; M 48.4; 99% Rpt)

    11/05/2008 4:35:08 AM PST · 35 of 44
    LadyNavyVet to snowsislander

    Blacks are 16% of the population of Florida and up until this election only about half of them voted. The Obama campaign was here in Florida for months finding 600,000 of these people, registering them and making arrangements to get them to the polls. Those are the new voters. When the media said last night that McCain was underperforming in Hillsborough, Orange and Duval, that’s why. Those are swing counties that usually go red, but have large black populations.

    I’m in that crucial I-4 corridor, the swing part of Florida that swung for Obama last night, the part of Florida that McCain HAD to win to win the state. I tried to tell people that Obama was registering blacks left and right and that the ground game here looked NOTHING like 2004, but was shouted down by Freepers in others states who were sure they knew more than I about what was going on in my state.

    At least Amendment 2 (Defense of Marriage) passed. I collected signatures for it and sweated as it survived a court challenge. We’ll see how long it holds before a liberal Supreme Court shuts it down.

  • Rasmussen: O-52%, M-45% (Obama +1 since yesterday)

    10/23/2008 8:55:52 AM PDT · 56 of 63
    LadyNavyVet to Katdaddy

    Blacks are only about 12% of the total US population, but they are not evenly distributed. Blacks are almost 16% of the population of Florida. Traditionally, only a little more than half of them vote, but it looks like that will increase this year if early voting is any indication.

    Blacks make up 20% of the population of VA, 22% of the population of NC and 30% of the population of GA.

  • Election battle shifts to Florida (Dems pouring $40 Million into State)

    10/17/2008 11:13:59 AM PDT · 77 of 98
    LadyNavyVet to stainlessbanner

    Don’t say that! You be jumped by the sunshine and lollipops brigade for not being sufficiently upbeat. Don’t you know it’s all butterflies and puppy dogs for the Republicans this year and to say otherwise means you’re a doom and gloom DU troll who’s trying to suppress the conservative vote?

  • Election battle shifts to Florida (Dems pouring $40 Million into State)

    10/17/2008 11:11:47 AM PDT · 76 of 98
    LadyNavyVet to impeachedrapist

    I’d like to know where he gets that figure, because that doesn’t jibe with FEC filings.

  • Election battle shifts to Florida (Dems pouring $40 Million into State)

    10/17/2008 11:09:21 AM PDT · 75 of 98
    LadyNavyVet to PhiKapMom

    Well, all righty then. Everything is great. I’ll just ignore the daily blasting the campaign and the state party is getting on local talk radio because they can’t get their act together. I’m sure they’re not concerned Republicans who want to see their party succeed in a crucial battleground state. Nope, they’re just doom and gloomers.

    I’ll ignore the lines of blacks around the block outside the Supervisor of Elections office on the last day of voter registration, ignoring the fact that blacks are 16% of Florida’s population, and up ‘til now, only about half of them ever bothered to vote. They’ll stay home again this year, even though they stood in the sun for hours just to register, so McCain won’t need to find new voters to cancel their votes out, this despite the fact that Republican registration is sucking wind. Nope, it’ll be just fine, and to think otherwise is doom and gloom.

    Forget Obama’s 40 mil, McCain has a plan! Everything is great! Wonderful! Fantabulous!

  • Election battle shifts to Florida (Dems pouring $40 Million into State)

    10/17/2008 10:48:40 AM PDT · 73 of 98
    LadyNavyVet to impeachedrapist

    I said the candidate who RAISED the most money won. That was Bush.

    And, according to the FEC, he outspent Kerry by almost 30 million dollars (oops, those pesky facts, again.)

  • Election battle shifts to Florida (Dems pouring $40 Million into State)

    10/17/2008 10:12:04 AM PDT · 64 of 98
    LadyNavyVet to impeachedrapist

    What, no spin on McCain’s ground game or lack thereof? Just more screeching about how everything is just fine and I need to leave poor, little ‘ol McCain alone?

    “...since you’ve been outsmarting the dumb good ol’ boys for decades, then quit bitching and FIX THE DAMN PROBLEMS, BARRACUDA!!!”

    Guess who’s been trying to volunteer for the campaign and can’t get a call back? Even barracudas need something to work with and I can’t fix what’s wrong with McCain, only McCain can. I haven’t said I “respect and admire” Obama, I haven’t called him “a decent family man.” I haven’t said that we “shouldn’t be afraid to have him in the WH.” Nope, that’s your stellar candidate and his grand strategery.

    Your problem isn’t with me, it’s with McCain. It’s just that I’m a more convenient target to take out your frustrations on. If you REALLY believed all was well with the McCain campaign, it wouldn’t matter to you what I or anyone else posted here.

    And it’s not my fault that in every presidential election since the advent of television the candidate who raised the most money won.

    I don’t have time for a flame war. So, since you’re just ranting at this point, I’m done.

  • Election battle shifts to Florida (Dems pouring $40 Million into State)

    10/17/2008 8:41:46 AM PDT · 55 of 98
    LadyNavyVet to impeachedrapist

    Victim? LOL! Some of us were barracudas, outsmarting and outworking the old boys’ network, when Sarah was still in High School.

    And the reason my posts bother YOU so much is that you can’t refute them. You can only rant about how everything is great, great, great! Well you can stick your fingers in your ears and recite, “La, la, la, la, everything is peachy” all you want, but adults confront problems, not pretend they don’t exist.

    I’m at ground zero for this election, I can see what’s going on, and I see the vast differences between 2004 and now. This ain’t Rove’s operation anymore, and it shows.

    I live in Central Florida, along the I-4 corridor, the swing part of Florida that McCain must win. South Florida will go for Obama, North Florida will go for McCain. Whoever wins Central Florida wins Florida and McCain has no path to victory that doesn’t include Florida’s 27 electoral votes. Obama doesn’t need Florida, although he’d like it for bragging rights, but McCain must have Florida, or he will lose.

    Obama has enough money to pour into Florida almost half the amount that McCain is getting to fund his entire general election campaign and fully one-quarter of the amount that the RNC and McCain have together, to win a state that he DOESN’T EVEN NEED to win the election. Spin that.

    Obama has 56 offices open in this state and 150,000 volunteers while the RNC/Victory office closest to my house STILL isn’t even open full time and isn’t returning phone calls from potential volunteers. Spin that. Tell me how it’s good the McCain campaign isn’t answering the phone for people who want to drive old folks to the polls. Tell me how it’s good they’re just beginning to get geared up even though absentee ballots have been out for weeks and early voting starts Monday.

    I know people in the FL Rep party. The race is close here, and could go either way. The ground game will make or break this state, and McCain is still walking out onto the field.

  • Election battle shifts to Florida (Dems pouring $40 Million into State)

    10/17/2008 8:01:31 AM PDT · 52 of 98
    LadyNavyVet to impeachedrapist

    My “preaching to the choir” was aimed at the McCain campaign, not a fellow Freeper. I never throw the first punch, although I never shy away from throwing the second. I don’t see you do much of anything but throw punches. Give yourself time; most children eventually outgrow cyberbullying.

    McCain has solidified the Republican base. He needs to win undecided voters to win the election. Undecided voters aren’t listening to Rush. Obama may be in trouble in NH, although I think he’s safe right now in WI and PA. If the head-to-heads continue to show tightening, that may change.

  • Election battle shifts to Florida (Dems pouring $40 Million into State)

    10/17/2008 7:48:48 AM PDT · 47 of 98
    LadyNavyVet to impeachedrapist

    Florida is my home state. I didn’t realize you were keeping track of the states I opined about. I didn’t realize that we had a Freeper Fairness Doctrine, where I need to say so many good things about McCain before I can point out what he’s doing wrong. What’s the proper ratio?

    You don’t have to agree with me. But namecalling me “cyberpro” is an attempt to shut down debate, which is a pretty ridiculous thing to do on an internet forum, the purpose of which is to debate.

    Debate me on the points instead of trying to shut me down. If you can.

  • Election battle shifts to Florida (Dems pouring $40 Million into State)

    10/17/2008 7:30:22 AM PDT · 42 of 98
    LadyNavyVet to impeachedrapist

    “And every election season the “cyberpros” come out of the woodwork.”

    And here I thought the purpose of a political internet forum was to discuss...politics. Mindless cheerleading of anything the candidate does is the province of liberals. Conservatives opine based on critical thought.

    McCain’s running a lousy campaign, or he wouldn’t be fighting in red states to beat an empty-suited Marxist running on raising taxes and expanding government. This election could have been put away by now if McCain had run smarter. He should have been talking about Ayers and ACORN months ago instead of Britney and Paris.

  • Election battle shifts to Florida (Dems pouring $40 Million into State)

    10/17/2008 7:16:02 AM PDT · 36 of 98
    LadyNavyVet to impeachedrapist

    Every election season one set of “pros” loses.

  • Election battle shifts to Florida (Dems pouring $40 Million into State)

    10/17/2008 7:09:20 AM PDT · 32 of 98
    LadyNavyVet to gusopol3

    Same here. We’ve got McCain ads on during Rush. Preaching to the choir isn’t going to cut it. Meanwhile, you can’t turn on the TV here without being inundated with Obama ads, all different kinds, and some are speicifically targeted to Florida, talking about foreclosures, the space program, etc.

  • Poll: Obama leads in 3 of 4 key Bush counties

    10/15/2008 2:44:58 PM PDT · 219 of 220
    LadyNavyVet to Thane_Banquo

    “Dems have been registering black voters every election for decades, and it seems to have no effect. Do we really believe there are a whole bunch of eligible black voters who have never voted and now intend to?”

    This time, yes. I’ll believe in the huge youth turnout the Dems are predicting when I see it, but blacks will crawl on cut glass for “Barack.” Reports are that 37% of early voters in GA are black, even though they only make up 29% of the population. And Survey USA, in it’s state polling, is reporting early or absentee voters. Big numbers for BO. (One caveat—the SUSA numbers are, by their nature, small sample sizes.) Let’s hope they’re black, ‘cause if they’re youth, the good guys are in trouble.

  • Gallup Poll Once Again Contains GOP Sample Bias (Check out Gallup weighting of 2004)

    10/15/2008 2:36:39 PM PDT · 29 of 31
    LadyNavyVet to Names Ash Housewares

    Reagan had a lead coming out of the convention, lost it and then took it back again after the debate in the final weekend before the vote, where he asked stagflation-weary Americans, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

  • Poll: Obama leads in 3 of 4 key Bush counties

    10/15/2008 9:46:25 AM PDT · 215 of 220
    LadyNavyVet to Thane_Banquo

    “Statistically, if you have pre-election polls that show hugh variation in party ID, and exit polls over the past 20-30 years that show party ID remarkably stable...”

    Exit polls over the last 20-30 years have not shown party ID to be remarkably stable. In 1980 it was +15, for instance.

    “McCain supporters are fed up with the media establishment, and are hanging up in higher numbers.”

    We hope, we don’t know. That’s called the “Shy Tory” effect in polling, BTW. These polls that have Obama up right now had Bush up in 2004. Are people more fed up with the media now and not answering pollsters than in 2004? We don’t know. Pollsters will tell you that the hardest demographics to poll are the youth and minority vote. The oldsters and whites are by far the easiest.

    “I mean, 15% undecideds 3 weeks before an election like this is simply silly on its face!”

    Yes, it is, but Freepers are hanging on that TIPP poll, which has the highest rate of undecideds. Most pollsters have undecideds down to 5% or so, about right by historical standards.

    “Choosing to side with a party is a deliberate act, often requiring that you go to an eleciton office and register with that party.”

    There is a big difference betweeen party registration and party ID in polling. Most people don’t bother to change their registration every time they decide they like the other party better. Polls ask what people CONSIDER themselves to be, not what their registration is.

    “Newsweek shows McCain under-polling Zero among senior citizens.”

    They’re getting their 401K statements, and they need that money to live on right now. It’s always “the economy stupid” that is the greatest drive in voting behavior.

  • Poll: Obama leads in 3 of 4 key Bush counties

    10/15/2008 9:31:04 AM PDT · 214 of 220
    LadyNavyVet to LS

    “First, I’ve been polite in not calling you names...”

    And I was too, until your “Actually, if you know anything about the ‘insides’ of campaigns” crack. I’m always polite as long the other poster is.

    I agree with you about OH. But Obama doesn’t need OH. McCain does, just like he needs FL, VA, CO, NV, etc. All the current battleground states are ones that were Bush country in ‘04. Even if this race tightens up, and I think it will, McCain has an electoral mountain to climb.

  • Gallup Poll Once Again Contains GOP Sample Bias (Check out Gallup weighting of 2004)

    10/15/2008 9:16:26 AM PDT · 27 of 31
    LadyNavyVet to Names Ash Housewares

    No, the only way Gallup can be “oversampling” is if they are not norming properly for census demographics. Gallup has been in the business for decades; it is highly unlikely that they are making statistical errors. Their Likely Voter (Traditional) model is the same one they’ve been using for years, and it is highly predictive. It has missed one call since 1936, and that was Dewey over Truman.

    “Is there any reason to belive that siesmic shift to democrats has occured since 04 or 06?”

    Exit polls in ‘06 show that party ID was +6 for the Dems. And, yes, large shifts do occur, in fact they are common, even within election seasons. Here’s a graph of voter ID based on 81,000 interviews during the 2004 election:

  • Poll: Obama leads in 3 of 4 key Bush counties

    10/15/2008 8:09:59 AM PDT · 212 of 220
    LadyNavyVet to LS

    You continue to confuse party registration with party ID in polling. They are not the same thing at all, as anyone who really knows polling, as opposed to internet poseurs, will attest. I have been very careful to use “party ID,” not “party registration” in my posts, since they are NOT the same thing.

    Voter registration rarely changes, since it’s a pain to go to the Supervisor of Elections and reregister just because right now you like a different party better. Party ID in polling, however, changes in response to news events. It is labile, not static. That is hard for ideologues to understand, since their party ID and party registration are in lockstep. But to those not ideologically wedded to a party, and that is a greater and greater share of the electorate, party registration may not change because that requires effort, but party ID changes frequently in response to events in the news. That has been replicated in polling time and time again over many years.

    And no, just because there are a certain number of Rs in Montgomery County and that matches the vote count for the Pubbie, one cannot say that THOSE voters are the exact ones who voted for the Pubbie. There are crossover voters in every election, and right now, according to Gallup, Obama is winning 5% of conservative Republicans and McCain is winning 3% of liberal Democrats.

  • Poll: Obama leads in 3 of 4 key Bush counties

    10/15/2008 7:14:54 AM PDT · 208 of 220
    LadyNavyVet to LS

    LOL! I give you data you give me voter rolls. Dems have voter rolls, too.

    NAES isn’t he only pollster who has found party ID to be highly variable. Ras has found the same thing, and he interviews 500 every night.

  • Gallup Poll Once Again Contains GOP Sample Bias (Check out Gallup weighting of 2004)

    10/15/2008 6:44:02 AM PDT · 22 of 31
    LadyNavyVet to Names Ash Housewares

    Gallup does not weight for party ID.

  • McCain talks tough ahead of final debate with Obama

    10/15/2008 6:40:36 AM PDT · 54 of 76
    LadyNavyVet to Common Tator

    “Like many who know nothing about winning elections you want John McCain to be an attack dog.”

    McCain can win without being an attack dog. He might even have a better chance of winning if he’s not an attack dog. But he has almost NO chance of winning if he’s going to going to SAY he’ll be an attack dog again and again and again and then not do it.

  • McCain hints he may raise Obama-Ayers ties in tonight's debate

    10/15/2008 6:23:34 AM PDT · 41 of 51
    LadyNavyVet to parthian shot

    Yep, what chaps me is that McCain ran all out, pedal to the metal to win the primary, and other than picking Palin, he’s been phoning it in ever since. If he didn’t want the gig he could have let someone win the nomination who did. And here we were told that Fred Thompson was the one without fire in his belly.

    And for the love of Pete would someone on his campaign staff read Sun Tsu and stop telling the world everything they’re going to do before they do it? They constantly give up the element of surprise and give Obama time to plan a response. I’m sure by now he’s got snappy little rejoinders for just about everything that’s going to come out of McCain’s mouth tonight.

  • Poll: Obama leads in 3 of 4 key Bush counties

    10/15/2008 6:08:58 AM PDT · 206 of 220
    LadyNavyVet to LS

    “I deal in people.”

    IOW, don’t give me facts, I’d rather poll my circle of acquaintances? LOL!

    I’ve worked for the party here in FL, too and walked precincts. I know a thing or two about GOTV. And this time so do the Dems, who took the Pubbie’s GOTV methodology, coopted it, and if what I’m seeing is any indication, improved on it. Obama has over 50 field offices and 150,000 volunteers here. I live in the swing part of Florida, and they’re everywhere. Kerry had nothing like it, and McCain better get off his dead butt, since voting has already started.

    And while we’re trading anecdotes to avoid talking about facts, I know people who voted for Bush in 2004 who are voting for Obama. Security moms, who voted for Clinton, who are going back to the Dem party this time. No amount of persuasion works with them. I’ve tried.

    Now, back to facts. Voter ID is not a static idea, and when voters answer the question on a poll they are often not taking into consideration their party registration. Also, some states don’t require voters to register with a party, and in recent years the trend has been toward eschewing both parties and claiming independent status.

    Here are some facts from the 2004 NAES (yep, those pesky facts again!)

    “You still gotta do better-—a lot better than Blumenthal.”

    Blumenthal was talking about the NAES. Based on over 81,000 interviews, party ID was highly labile in 2004, and ranged between +7 for the Dems to +2 for the Reps. It was about +4 for the Dems on election day, and tanked shortly afterward, as respondents no longer wanted to be associated with the losers.

    For the third time, do you have any facts to back up your assumptions? Little stories about your wife are cute but unconvincing, especially since you present yourself as guy who knows about polling, yet you shy away from discussing it in post after post after post. Hmmmm....

  • Poll: Obama leads in 3 of 4 key Bush counties

    10/14/2008 7:42:15 PM PDT · 199 of 220
    LadyNavyVet to TaxRelief

    LOL! I thought so.

  • Poll: Obama leads in 3 of 4 key Bush counties

    10/14/2008 7:08:20 PM PDT · 188 of 220
    LadyNavyVet to TaxRelief

    Graph it for me, then, please.

  • Poll: Obama leads in 3 of 4 key Bush counties

    10/14/2008 6:53:31 PM PDT · 187 of 220
    LadyNavyVet to LS

    “Actually, if you know anything about the “insides” of campaigns, if they say they are 6 down, it’s more likely they are tied or down 12.”

    Normally I’d agree, but McCain’s campaign has been an OPSEC travesty. They’ve announced every move they’re going to make in advance. There is no advantage for McCain to tell the world he’s down, yet he did it anyway. McCain’s campaign has been all tactics and no strategy. That’s a lousy campaign, not a sign of some super secret political jujitsu.

    “Sure, it happens.”
    Yes, in 2004.

    “#4. You’ve gotta be kidding, right?”

    I stated clearly that I was talking about post-election interviews. Those numbers you’re so sure are absolutely correct, tell me, exactly how are they derived? And please be specific. Somebody who was really “inside baseball” wouldn’t make the rookie mistake of thinking that partisan turnout numbers only come from exit polling.

    As for party ID, pollster Mark Blumenthal: “Moreover, more recent studies have shown evidence of significant short-term change in Party ID. The 2000 Annenberg National Election Study (NAES), like the 2004 study now underway, was a daily tracking survey that ultimately included more than 58,000 interviews over the course of the year, roughly 5000 interviews per month. NAES observed that the percentage of the electorate identified as Independent “was not stable over time.” In a chart on page 61 of Capturing Campaign Dynamics, Daniel Romer and his colleagues showed the percentage of Independents falling steadily from roughly 31% to 27% during the conventions, then spiking 8 points to 35% just after the Democratic convention in early September, then falling off again steadily back to roughly 28% on election day, then plummeting sharply to below 25% a few days later. No surprise that they concluded:

    Surveys that are weighted by party identification may be operating under some misconceptions about party identification. Party identification may not be as stable as once thought and could be considered an indicator of the respondents’ attitudes toward candidates at a given moment of the campaign.”

    Like I said, I deal in facts, not assumptions. If you’ve got better data than the NAES, I’d love to see it.

  • Poll: Obama leads in 3 of 4 key Bush counties

    10/14/2008 6:29:48 PM PDT · 185 of 220
    LadyNavyVet to TaxRelief

    “A quick study of polling in these races will show a significantly different outcome.”

    Don’t be coy. If you’re trying to make a point, please make it. Significantly different outcome from what? How is the polling in 2000, 1988 or 1968 necessarily more or less accurate than that of other years? And how does incumbency affect the accuracy of polling?

    In 1968, Gallup predicted Nixon to win with 43% of the vote. He won with 44%.

    In 1988, Gallup predicted Bush to win with 56% of the vote. He won with 53%.

    In 2000, Gallup predicted Bush to win with 48% of the vote. He won with 47.9%

  • Poll: Obama leads in 3 of 4 key Bush counties

    10/14/2008 5:46:45 PM PDT · 182 of 220
    LadyNavyVet to LS

    Exit polling flaws:
    1) cluster sampling;
    2) the tendency of face-to-face interviewers to choose people like themselves to interview, instead of sampling randomly. Add to that the fact that exit pollsters are people willing and able to work at minimum wage for just a day, a cohort that tends to be young and/or poorly educated, and that fact that exit pollsters receive minimal training;
    3) exit polling cannot take absentee and early voting into account;
    4) post-election polling can’t correct for the natural human tendency to identify with the winner of an election immediately after that election, which is why the same exit polling that had Kerry up hugely in the early afternoon miraculously became 37-37 when post election interviews were tabulated in.

    Pollsters used to think that party ID was static, that people registered with a party when they turned 18 and that was the party they identified with for life. Not true. Party ID is, in fact, a very labile concept for the majority of the electorate. Pollsters will tell you that if they poll during the Dem convention, huge numbers will say they’re Dem. Poll during the Pubbie convention a week later, and shazam, everybody’s a Pubbie. Poll right after an unparalleled worldwide financial crisis happening on the watch of an already unpopular Republican President, and suddenly everybody’s a Democrat again.

    Today at a rally McCain said that he was 6 points down in the polls. Yesterday his campaign spokesman said the same thing, that their internal polling had him down 6. I’ll go out on a limb here and assume that McCain’s pollster is not in the tank for Obama and oversampling Dems. That -6 puts McCain right about where the good trackers say he is and gives me an invaluable data point from which to analyse the head-to-head polls.