Let's discuss political polling. There are allegations that the polls are biased. There are facts out there that indicate polling techniques and samplings lean in a way to skew the results in efforts to affect voting. That just might be true. It probably is true.
I worked market surveys in my younger days. It is true that the way survey and polling questions are worded can sway the answers received. It's a fact of human nature. Marketing polls are written in such a manner in order to gain attention to certain products. It is also true that pollsters will look at people, using profiling, in order to garner people to take the surveys that fit into a select demographic. I have two words about those facts: so what?
Here's the flat out fact people ignore: Will the results of surveys that polled other people affect your vote? If your answer is yes, then pay attention to those numbers. They will not affect my vote. They will not affect any amount of campaign work I may do for any candidate other than to motivate me to work harder if my guy is behind. However, those results will not change my decision. They really should not affect yours.
If they affect your choice, you are an idiot. Electing an official who can and will do the job we are hiring him (or her) to fill is not a popularity contest. It isn't about who has better hair or a cuter smile. It is about which one will do the job. It is about which one will most comply with the rules, laws, and hard contract with the employers (citizens).
The pure facts remain that Obama has not upheld that contract. He believes it to be renegotiable on a second by second basis, and that we, the employers, have no say in how he changes it. If you doubt that fact, you may want to look at all of the executive orders he has signed. You may want to look at the executive regulatory policies enacted as though they are as valid as legislated law. You may then want to take a look at those among those EOs and policies that have been decided upon by the court system. The vast majority that have been brought before the courts have been deemed invalid. However, that is after the EO, regulations, and policy in question has already done some level of damage.
If you want examples, research the light bulb fiasco. Take some time and research the way the socialists attempted to take over farms through excessive regulation of "farm dust" and cow flatulence. There are even cases where the EPA (which works for the president) has attempted to violate the fourth amendment and seize property from its lawful owners because of some bird or butterfly. Read that again. Notice I explicitly named the fourth amendment. The Constitution is the hard contract with the states and citizens that Obama seeks to bypass, violate, ignore, or alter at a whim. He believes that he has the right to seize private property acquired through the natural right of "the pursuit of happiness" without a warrant issued due to probable cause. He thinks he is king. He thinks he owns your property and is just lending it to you.
Whole books have already been written about violations such as these that Obama has committed. Whole books researching his upbringing and ideology are on the shelves at the book stores.
On top of it, you have idiots pointing fingers at Bush as some uncaring and heartless soul. Bush signed letters to our fallen. Bush still attends fundraisers for charities that assist veterans. Bush feels the weight of every life sacrificed during his administration and since. Obama calls them "bumps in the road". Brian Terry, killed by a weapon provided to a foreign criminal/terrorist organization by Obama's administration, is just a "bump in the road". Our ambassador to Libya along with the three others murdered by a terrorist group are just "bumps in the road". A US Citizen lawfully exercising his first amendment rights is, instead, criminalized. That citizen committed no crime, incited no violence, and called for nobody to be harmed. Yet, according to Obama, he is to be considered a criminal. Compare those two men.
Was Bush perfect? No he wasn't. He was far from the perfect president. He isn't even in my top ten (about twenty percent). However, he was far better than O-blamer. Yes, I am just saying that because I met the man. However, I met each president who held office while I was active in the military except Obama. Obama considers military members to be just "bumps in the road", much like Hitlery Clinton thought herself equal to royalty when she commanded US Soldiers to "turn [their] eyes away" because they were "not worthy of looking at [her]".
Do I think Romney is the best choice? No, I do not. However, he is the only viable candidate who can beat Obama. He is far from perfect. However, his platform and policies are far, far better than those we have suffered under the past approximately 4 years. At least Romney knows how to run a business and manage people. At least he knows how to lead. At least Mitt knows that a balanced budget is better than bankruptcy. At least Mitt doesn't want the citizens of this country subjugated under him and his cronies and dependent upon the efforts of somebody else in order to prosper individually.
Yes, Romney's campaign is currently a little soft cell. What does that mean to conservatives and libertarians who want nothing less than to evict Obama from our White House? Well, it falls upon us to do the "hard sell". It is up to us to openly tell people why we want Romney (or do not want Obama). It is up to us to get our friends to register to vote and actually show up at the election sites and vote. it is up to those of capable to get certified as polling officials to watch those election sites to make sure laws are followed (and help prevent/deter fraud).
So, if you don't like the current poll results, quit crying about their bias. Instead, go out and do something. Sitting there and crying about it makes you sound like the zombies who are voting for Obama. "You want me to learn how to fish instead of just stealing your fish? Waaaaaah! You're racists! That's unfair!"
Original article at
Mental Aikido
