Newt Gingrich recovered strongly to pip Romney at the post for the South Carolina Primary in a race with a number of reversals, shown clearly in the Gallup Daily Poll above. In the end it wasn’t close with Newt 40 to Mitt 28%, as shown on this cool Google App.
So the race of 2012 is turning out to be far more exciting than predicted, and with Mittens fading in the polls, the big-heads who named Mitt Romney a shoe-in for the nomination must be feeling the heat.
The results in SC reflect the performance in the national polls for the remaining 4 contenders, with Mitt and Newt in an upper tier, and Ron Paul and Santorum in a lower tier, at least for the moment.
Menzies House posts a good poll-based commentary on the race by Amir Iljazi, who has a Master’s Degree in Political Science at American University in Washington, D.C. and currently resides in Tampa, Florida.
I try to reserve my judgement on winners, and study the trends of the polls and the shifts in the race fairly objectively, where the odds of him winning the nomination are slim. However, the following article on the tipping point dynamics of elections is interesting:
As social media is not limited to geography, it explains the reach of his candidacy beyond the US to Australia. One can soon expect to see some his themes explored by the conservatives of other countries, such as 0 tax, limited government, sound defense and sound money.
After all, what is the alternative being offered? Continually intrusive and expanding government, growing debt and deficits, and a weakening, vulnerable nation-state.
Two things I have noticed while tracking polls that differentiate Ron Paul’s from the others.
The way support for Ron Paul is firming from the twitter tracking Eg. Support for Mittens has a tendency to droop suddenly, with tweets about him dropping almost to zero, but RP stays firm throughout. I think people are running out of things to talk about him, as they have with the other candidates. But RP at least gives people a hopeful, positive conversational thread. Perhaps that is how elections are fought these days. A series of posts. Building a
following. Like building a web site.
The other is in the Gallup daily tracking polls that while the other candidates “go up like skyrockets and fall to earth as dead sticks” (Paul Keating), RPs growth, OTOH, is steady. Its like, when a person decides to vote for him, they don’t change their mind. Maybe it is something to do with the barrier to committing to him.
Once you cross it you don’t go back. This is called “non-decreasing” in mathematics.
Mittens has peaked at 35% in South Carolina. Will he fall to Earth?
One of the themes we have dealt with repeatedly is bias: in global warming reporting and research, especially statistical bias. Bias in the media against the Ron Paul campaign is becoming a big issue.
Above is a clip of people telling Dana Bash, a CNN news reporter, what they thought of her biased reporting. One incident was were Dana reported that Republicans in general were worried “like I am” that RP would continue on and hurt her presumptive nominee Mitt Romney.
In another hilarious clip from Jon Stewart, a pundit from MSNBC reports with a straight face on RPs second in New Hampshire, that if your take RP out, then Jon Huntsman is the REAL second. “You can’t do that!” says Jon. “Its physics! (mocking on) And you know if you add two zeros to the end of Huntsman’s total he would have been in first place by thousands of votes. Why is no-one talking about this? (mocking off) Because it didn’t happen!”
Moving on to climate science and the IPCC, Steve McIntyre has written a couple of posts on the blatant bias in the AR5 draft, one of the most obvious being the suppression of his and McKitrick’s peer-reviewed paper demolishing a Santer defense of climate models.
As CA readers are aware, key findings of Santer et al 2008 do not hold using updated data. Ross and I submitted a comment to IJC showing this. The comment was rejected twice, with one of the reviewers (as in the case of the comment on Steig et al) being a Santer coauthor (who was not identified to us as such). Ross eventually managed to get similar results published in another journal.
Jean S points out in a comment on the Steig thread that our findings were completely misrepresented by IPCC chapter 10 (also the source of disinformation about Steig).
Our article stated that there was a statistically significant difference between models and observations in the tropical troposphere. Instead of citing our articles as rebutting Santer’s assertions, IPCC cites us as endorsing Santer’s false assertions:
That the IPCC authors would ignore peer-reviewed papers that contradict the consensus view comes as no surprise, which is why the IPCC should be added, in the words of Richard Muller, to the list of people to no longer read.
But passively not reading is not enough, which is the point of the Dana Bash clip above.
Steve McIntyre now reports that he, and others, have received a cease-and-desist order for publishing excerpts from the AR5 draft. Its a long story, but apparently after the brouhaha over the lack of transparency in the IPCC, and the IAC recommendations for greater transparency, they have been beavering away, changing the IPCC rules.
The IPCC Procedures in Article 4.2 of the Principles Governing IPCC Work state that “The IPCC considers its draft reports, prior to acceptance, to be pre-decisional, provided in confidence to reviewers, and not for public distribution, quotation or citation.” (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a-final.pdf). We therefore request the immediate removal of the ZOD chapters from your website.
The response of government scientists to calls for greater transparency is less transparency. After all, how could they promulgate their biased warming-related agendas if they were required to be fair? How could they satisfy their task-masters?
The parallel with the Ron Paul campaign, is that we see a closing of the ranks, and an intensification of the bias. Fortunately there are plenty of alternative media outlets now, and opportunities to “snowball” bias and corruption.
The capacity for “snowballing” is why Steve McIntyre has been such an inspiration to all of us too.
November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:
“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.
Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.
It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.
The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.
We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.
Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.
Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”
I think that is a fairer assessment than I have seen from a climate scientist. The problem is that when you dig into the field of climate science there is data and there are models and then there’s 50 feet of Climategate crap and big-government science funding. Below that there’s the IPCC.
What an exciting days racing in New Hampshire in the Tour de President! As expected, Mitt Romney in the yellow jersey after his (disputed) win in Iowa, with his lycra and billion-dollar techno-bike, opened up a commanding gap from the peloton, but Ron Paul riding his $10 Malvern star and air force scrubs stayed with him and was actually gaining a couple of points a day (RPs speech here).
The press dishonored themselves again with some of the most blatant displays of bias since Climategate. Here is a screen capture of CBS reporting on polling of the candidates. Numerate readers will immediately smell a rat as the numbers do not add up to 100. CBS has completely left out candidate Ron Paul who was polling in second place with 20% at that stage.
These fraudulent crooks need to be targeted under the infinite detention provisions of the Obama National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 to celebrate the Guantanamo Bay 10th Anniversary.
The online polls on Matt Drudge’s site tracked the outcome fairly closely, with a small Paul bias. The problem with online polls is the sample can be very biased towards readers of that web site, so I have filed away for further reference that Drudge may capture a fairly representative sample.
On we go to South Carolina. According to Drudge’s poll (now taken down) Paul is polling better in SC than in NH. So don’t believe a thing the media tell you. Romney might run out of puff.
Status Iatrogenicus by Scott K. Aberegg, M.D., and ER physician in Salt Lake City who also has a Medical Evidence Blog I follow. This blog is about how lack of common sense leads to common nonsense in medical practice, and aims a critical eye at various aspects of medical practice that just plain don’t make sense.