The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

A politician lied?

I can hardly believe it!

That's not really the issue she's taking with him. It's that it's obvious he hasn't actually talked with them about this stuff, hasn't listened to what they had to say and taken it to heart, and then publicly asserts all complaints about what the GOP is doing are null and void because these specific women are behind him 100%, when...they're not.

This goes way beyond "lying", it's more like dramatic irony. His response to the accusation that the GOP disrespect women actually revealed just how much he does in fact disrespect them. It's one thing for Mitch McConnell to not be exactly in tune with what women in general are saying, but these are coworkers of his that he's referring to by name in a press conference, and it's obvious he hasn't bothered to check whether they actually feel the way he says they do or not.

It'd actually be better if he knew their positions and was lying, but I think he honestly didn't know what he was saying was wrong. After all, if he knew what their publicly stated positions were, would he really tell the press to go ask them how they feel about these issues?

>> ^Trancecoach:

A politician lied?
I can hardly believe it!

There is no Republican war on women. It's something the libs made up.

The only real war on women is the abortion war on women fetuses.

But perhaps it is not a sexist war, since males and females are terminated alike.

>> ^lantern53:

There is no Republican war on women. It's something the libs made up.
The only real war on women is the abortion war on women fetuses.
But perhaps it is not a sexist war, since males and females are terminated alike.


When you have a vagina you can have a say. Women agree that this is a War on them or haven't you checked the poll numbers for women. Check how many women are voting for Obama than are voting for Romney.

It happens to a woman's body, it's a woman's choice.

Women agree that this is a War on them or haven't you checked the poll numbers for women

It would be more accurate to say that LIBERAL women agree with these LIBERAL pundits that there is some mythical GOP "war on women". The so-called poll you reference is a single poll conducted by ABC was oversampled with LIBERAL women. The overall numbers show Obama having no significant lead (49 to 45 = insignificant) among women.

Still in denial?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_04082012.html

901. Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as (a Democrat), (a Republican), an independent or what?
Democrat Republican Independent Other (vol.) No opinion
4/18/12 34 23 34 5 3

Now - you tell me... Does 34% Democrats, 34% "Independants", and 23% Republican sound like any sort of representative sample? This poll's results were 100% unadulterated bullcrap, and they were used deliberately to reinforce the false claim that the Democrats are desperately peddling about this bogus, completely farcical "war on women". The whole "War on women" is a line of leftist propoganda that is being used as a distraction to try and talk about anything EXCEPT Barak Obama's record of failure, incompetence, and the REAL "war" in America, which is Odumbo's war on the economy with his stupid moron idiot policies.

Results of polls are given after they use complex weighting methods to correct for the mismatches between sampled demographics and the national demographics.

All polls would be meaningless if they didn't do that, because you're never going to just accidentally wind up with a random sample whose demographics are exactly in proportion with the national demographics.

Besides, if they didn't weight it, how is it that you think Obama is only winning 51/43 against Romney with only 23% Republicans? What do you think the properly weighted number would look like, 70/30 for Romney?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Now - you tell me... Does 34% Democrats, 34% "Independants", and 23% Republican sound like any sort of representative sample?

you're never going to just accidentally wind up with a random sample whose demographics are exactly in proportion with the national demographics

Yes you can. You randomly contact 1,500 people or 2,000 until you have a large sample, and then you randomly select a proportion of them in order to arrive at a proper percentage of the national average. It's called oversampling, and it is a common, simple way to obtain the right sample while avoiding the far more opaque and dubious method of "weighting" data ex post facto.

This very poll oversampled African Americans so as to do a seperate analysis on the population. 199 out of 1,103. 18% of the results - which for the final analysis they'd have to reduce down to 12.8%. Presumably they did this, but thier internals are hidden so there is no evidence they did any data correction whatsoever. This is a common problem with leftist "research". They conduct a study, publish crazy results, and then claim they have done magical mystery data correction behind the scenes and just trust them on it. Well, 9 times out of 10 so far when you peek at the actual methdology, it is a blatant cooking of the books. Frankly, until they show me the raw data I don't believe a word of it and neither should you.

Putting it bluntly, obtaining a sample population as badly out of proportion as the ones in this poll as REPEATEDLY as they are doing it (see the link) can only be through a slanted sampling practice that is being done on purpose. Much like how NBC had to purposefully edit out the middle of the Zimmerman phone call.

If I was doing an opinion study that consistently and regularly was resulting in a sample population of 39% Conservatives, 37% Moderates, and 24% Liberals would you call it a fair sampling? Oh - and remember - I "PROMISE" (wink wink) that I'm doing all the proper data correction behind the scenes - don't you worry about it!