____________________________________

ParrotNewsReport.com/cj (Citizen Journalist Blog)

ParrotNewsReport.com (All the news at at glance)


Sunday, November 4, 2012

Obama quote about white Americans has been edited and hid from the public.

(I recently noticed that the video on fox news did not contain obama calling white people "whitie". The video was also in the movie dreams of my real father at 55 min into the video. I watched the movie dreams of my real father on netflix when it came out about a month ago.

I watched it again today and noticed that at 55 min into the video where obama was leading a protest at harvard and talking about professor bell it had been edited since the first time I saw it. The first time I viewed the video I noted in a past blog that obama referred to white Americans as "whitie".

Now obama's comments about "white" are gone. I also noticed that on you tube it is obvious that this comment obama made about "whitie" has also been edited out.

This means obama and his fellow comrads have gone to the trouble of leaning on the maker of a film to edit out the obama whitie comments on netflix. The you tube video is edited also. Fox news says it was unedited version but this is also not true.

I can see now that this comment obama made about white people at the harvard protest was hid from the public in 2008 and in 2012 was edited to cut out obama's comments about "whitie".

Again I saw and heard the same video clip in the move dreams of my real father on netflix about one month ago and IT DID CONTAIN OBAMA CALLING WHITE AMERICANS "WHITIE"

"Whitie" is under estimated by obama and his comrads.)
Story Reports
...................................
Battle ground watch.com Why "whitie" will win the election for Romney

The Folly of David Axelrod’s Turnout Model


The folly of the Obama campaign’s election assumptions is the 2008 perfect storm that doubled the election-over-election decrease in White participation at a pace 3.5x as great as the norm will repeat itself with another -1.4pp rate of change resulting in a -4.3pp decline to 72%.

The doubling of the average decrease in White participation was a combination of 2 competing factors: first, non-Whites were excited over the prospects of the first viable non-White Presidential candidate and White voters of the opposition party were unenthusiastic over their candidate and did not participate in the election. Without the combination of these factors the White vote percentage of the electorate would still have declined but the decline would not doubled. Compared to the recent rate of change of -0.4pp, the change in the decrease of White composition from 2004 to 2008 was -1.4pp, 3.5x greater than the modern trend.

The folly of the Obama campaign’s election assumptions is the 2008 perfect storm that doubled the election-over-election decrease in White participation at a pace 3.5x as great as the norm will repeat itself with another -1.4pp rate of change resulting in a -4.3pp decline to 72%.

This type of assumption is the same as a football team that has a record first quarter outscoring their opponent 35-0 and then game-plans they will repeat that every quarter scoring 140 points. That is clearly not going to happen.

In the 2012 election neither of the two major factors from 2008 that conspired to dramatically decrease White participation are evident. Every survey consistently reveals meaningful decreases in enthusiasm among non-White voters while White voters appear substantially more enthusiastic than 2008. To take a record turnout model from 2008 and extrapolate it to the next election and expect a repeat record decrease from the unusually low 2008 turnout is folly bordering on delusional.

Regarding the macro-trend in the US of an increase in the non-White composition of the population, the return of an enthusiastic white voter coupled with the decreased non-White enthusiasm should strongly mitigate the macro-demographic trend of very real increases in non-White voters overall.

But David Axelrod’s entire campaign is predicated on the above assumptions that expect a “White flight” that exists in no poll nationally or in any state. At a state level, it is due to differences of opinion like the above that both campaigns are reportedly seeing dramatically different electorates in Ohio with each campaign completely confident they will win the state. One of them is very wrong.

National polls often use 74% as the representative White vote in this election, but from a historic stand-point 75% is the more reasonable level which would be a -1.3% decline from 2008. With polls today consistently showing Obama’s support between 36-38% with this segment of the electorate comprising 75% of voters, it is easy to see how a tight race can turn into a blowout rather quickly. As for David Axelrod’s turnout model, he is talking his book when every ounce of data says he is blowing smoke. If Axelrod is right on the racial make-up of the electorate, President Obama probably wins re-election in a close race. But there is little evidence that the 76.3% of White voters in 2008 when combined with a probable return of the missing 1.7 million whites will make up only 72% of the electorate Team Obama needs to avoid a sizable Romney win on November 6.



No comments: