A.P Dillon on Social Media
Got PayPal? Donate Today!
Donate Other Ways
Got News? Get the Newsletter.
LATEST LL1885 POSTS
- #WCPSS Updates: Mental health screenings, the latest reassignment plan draft and failing schools
- Alamance teacher arrested for indecent liberties with students
- Former Winston-Salem teacher indicted on charge of storing a student’s gun in her classroom
- 63-year-old CMS teacher accused of having sex with a student found dead in apparent murder-suicide
- #WCPSS Updates: Heard about the BIMAS-2 yet? Plus, MVP drops their suit and a Magnet School Felon
- #NCED Updates: NAEP scores drop again, NCGA passes final Ed bills and teacher pay mini-budget
- 63-year-old CMS teacher arrested on multiple sex crimes charges with 17-year-old student
ARCHIVES BY CATEGORY
Tag Archives: election 2012
Welcome to the LL1885 Election 2012 Thread
This post will be updated throughout the day and evening until the election is called. Updates will begin below the fold, but first a few items that will remain static:
I am on Twitter and Facebook all day and evening today as well. Check the top of this blog to get connected with me.
Follow #WatchTheVote on Twitter today. Vigilance, folks.
Here’s the list of when the polls close and where: Election Day polls: closing times
IF YOU HAVE NOT YET VOTED… What the $#@% are you waiting for? Go do it now.
Rolling Updates (newest first):
I am not vouching for or against the accuracy of any links posted here today. We all know what a zoo Election day can be. Read the items and decide for yourself. I will attempt to post updates, corrections and the like as the day progresses. Continue reading
A ton of people know who Jim Turner is now.
I am sure I was not the only one who emailed the NC Board of Elections, inquiring that one Jim Turner be investigated for potentially having voted multiple times during early voting in North Carolina.
Close up of his comment:
Turner doesn’t even think his comment, true or not, had anything wrong with it:
Indeed, I was not the only one to follow up with the Board of elections. They were apparently overwhelmed. I did receive this answer though:
“We are aware of this claim of multiple voting posted on Facebook. We share your concerns. A preliminary investigation found that this claim is without merit, but we are continuing our investigation of this matter. This claim has been referred to appropriate law enforcement authorities.”
It would seem he intended to cause a stir and he succeeded. Continue reading
Related: The PJ Tatler » Obama Ticket Demand Low — In Boulder Continue reading
Published on Oct 27, 2012 by TrueFeministVids
A simplification of the larger elements at odds this election. When you boil it down, the choice is not so complicated as our political parties want us to believe. It’s truly very simple, and with a look back at history, it’s easy to see the future, either way.
[youtube=http://youtu.be/2b7JxnIOVxk] Continue reading
CNN pulled a post off their website yesterday that was only up for a few hours and put this in its place:
October 24th, 2012
08:15 PM ET
Post removed: Study looks at voting and hormones
A post previously published in this space regarding a study about how hormones may influence voting choices has been removed.
After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.
We thank you for your comments and feedback.
My curiosity got the better of me. So I checked for the cached page. Get ready ladies, if you’re ovulating you’re risking voting with your eggs instead of your brains. LADYPARTS!!! I can’t say more, because the stupid…ow, it burns. Just read it:
October 24th, 2012
05:10 PM ET
Study looks at voting and hormones
While the campaigns eagerly pursue female voters, there’s something that may raise the chances for both presidential candidates that’s totally out of their control: women’s ovulation cycles.
You read that right. New research suggests that hormones may influence female voting choices differently, depending on whether a woman is single or in a committed relationship.
Please continue reading with caution. Although the study will be published in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science, several political scientists who read the study have expressed skepticism about its conclusions.
A bit of background: Women are more likely to vote than men, other studies have found. Current data suggest married women favor Gov. Mitt Romney, in a 19% difference, over President Barack Obama, while Obama commands the votes of single women by a 33% margin, according to the study. And previous studies have shown that political and religious attitudes may be influenced by reproductive goals.
In the new study’s first experiment, Kristina Durante of the University of Texas, San Antonio and colleagues conducted an internet survey of 275 women who were not taking hormonal contraception and had regular menstrual cycles. About 55% were in committed relationships, including marriage.
They found that women at their most fertile times of the month were less likely to be religious if they were single, and more likely to be religious if they were in committed relationships.
Now for the even more controversial part: 502 women, also with regular periods and not taking hormonal contraception, were surveyed on voting preferences and a variety of political issues.
The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney, by a margin of at least 20%, Durante said. This seems to be the driver behind the researchers’ overall observation that single women were inclined toward Obama and committed women leaned toward Romney.
Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they “feel sexier,” and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says.
“I think they’re overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men,” she said. It’s a way of convincing themselves that they’re not the type to give in to such sexual urges, she said.
Durante’s previous research found that women’s ovulation cycles also influence their shopping habits, buying sexier clothes during their most fertile phase.
“We still have the ovulatory hormones that have the same impact on female brains as across other species,” she said. We want sex and we want it with the best mate we can get. “But there are some high costs that come with it,” she said, particularly for women who are already in committed relationships.
This isn’t the first time hormones have been looked at in connection to voting. Last year Israeli researchers published a study in the journal European Neuropsychopharmacology examined the stress hormone cortisol in voters in Israel. Levels of this hormone were higher in people right before they were about to vote than in the same people when they were not voting.
Durante’s study on women noted that liberal attitudes favor social equality and tend to be less associated with organized religion. Conservatism is more about traditional values and is linked to greater participation in organized religion.
The most controversial part of the study is not only that hormonal cycles are linked to women’s preferences for candidates and voting behaviors, but also that single women who are ovulating are more likely to be socially liberal, and relationship-committed women are more likely to be socially conservative, said Paul Kellstedt, associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University.
One of the major caveats this paper fails to address is that men also have biochemical changes, Kellstedt said.
“The reader may be left with the impression that women are unstable and moody in ways that extend to their political preferences, but that men are comparative Rocks of Gibraltar,” Kellstedt said in an e-mail.
Kellstedt does not study biology, but he has been involved in research suggesting that men’s political preferences are even more volatile than women’s.
“There is absolutely no reason to expect that women’s hormones affect how they vote any more than there is a reason to suggest that variations in testosterone levels are responsible for variations in the debate performances of Obama and Romney,” said Susan Carroll, professor of political science and women’s and gender studies at Rutgers University, in an e-mail.
Carroll sees the research as following in the tradition of the “long and troubling history of using women’s hormones as an excuse to exclude them from politics and other societal opportunities.”
“It was long thought that a woman shouldn’t be president of the U.S. because, God forbid, an international crisis might happen during her period!” Carroll said.
A better explanation for the divide in voting preferences between single and married women is the difference in economic status, she said.
One expert gave it a little more credence: Israel Waismel-Manor, a political scientist at the University of Haifa in Israel, who did the cortisol study last year.
He’s not sure that this hormonal effect Durante found among women isn’t real, but offered an alternate explanation too: Research has shown women prefer more “manly men” when they are in their most fertile phases of the cycle. Obama and Romney are both handsome, in good physical shape and could fit the type of “provider of the family,” so either could fit the ideal, depending on a woman’s preference.
Assuming there is some hormonal explanation, the effects could cancel themselves out, since different women will be on different cycles when they vote, and the candidates have a similar level of physical attractiveness, Waismel-Manor said. A more elaborate research design is needed to examine it further.
“Even if the finding is correct, there’s a chance that it won’t have a cumulative effect on the electorate,” he said.
Women: Do you feel the political parties don’t represent you? Share your story Continue reading
The story posted by Texas Darlin’ (below) prompted me email the station for comment.
Cincinnati, Ohio TV Station WCPO Shows Election Night Results with Obama Win on its Website
The reply I received was this:
This was an internal test of equipment with randomly generated numbers. The page referenced was not linked or referenced on our website, and was not meant to be public. It means nothing, and we will be prompt in reporting actual election results on Nov. 6.
PJ O’Keefe | Executive Producer of New Media | WCPO-TV Networks
(c): (513) 258-4952 | (w): (513) 852-4972 | (f): (513) 721-7717
They will report “actual” election results instead of randomly generated ones. Oh, thank goodness. Continue reading
I have mountains of respect for Ann Althouse. She’s smart and uses her wit to amuse and not abuse; that’s a talent and a half. I normally agree with her on a number of issues, this is not one of them, from her Instapundit post:
October 3, 2012
AM I THE ONLY ONE OF THE INSTAPUNDIT BLOGGERS AND GUEST-BLOGGERS who loathes the Daily Caller’s exploitation of the 2007 video of Barack Obama stirring up the black churchfolk? I don’t think this is helping Mitt Romney with the swing voters at all. Like last week’s playing and replaying of the Obamaphone lady’s ravings, it repels me from Republicans. I’m a swing voter — I voted for Obama in 2008 and Bush in 2004 — and I am genuinely undecided this year. Those of you who are pleased with these seemingly exciting new weapons to use in the fight to defeat Obama are losing perspective. You are not thinking about how you look to the people you need to convince. Here’s a clue: You look ugly.
Posted by Ann Althouse at 12:31 pm
Before I decided to put up a full blog post, I tweeted this:
Dear Ann Althouse, No but hiding from the daily caller video is even more ugly. pjmedia.com/instapundit/15…
— Lady Liberty 1885 (@LadyLiberty1885) October 3, 2012
I stand by that tweet, but after thinking about it for a bit longer, I got a bit annoyed. Exploitation? Since when is exposing what the media hasn’t covered exploitation? I find this post disappointing.
I’m sorry but, WE look ugly?
Have you seen that video? Read the transcript of those remarks? THEY are ugly. Barack Obama looks ugly. So does the media who didn’t report it at the time. So do the Obama mouthpieces trying to spin it away. Exposing it for what it is and who is HE is for that matter, is also ugly — but necessary. It is a detail that comprises a bigger picture. That is not to say that I think this should be front and center — Benghazi should be as well as our Freedom Speech in Obama’s America.
Backing up a bit:
“You are not thinking about how you look to the people you need to convince.”
That’s how we lost in 2008. This election is all or nothing. Two paths. Freedom or Occupy. If people haven’t figured that out by now, God help them.
Backing up even further:
“I’m a swing voter — I voted for Obama in 2008 and Bush in 2004 — and I am genuinely undecided this year.”
With all due respect, if you are genuinely still undecided this year, then this won’t make any difference. Clearly the Fast and Furious, Solyndra, the stimulus, Obamacare, Occupy and Benghazi haven’t made a difference and neither has the maintained high unemployment, rising food stamp enrollment, rising cost of food and gas that has remained over $3– all of which would have had Democrats rattling their sabers for impeachment by now had these been events that came to pass under a Republican President.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say most people have made up their mind already. Obama’s self-fulfilled his own prophecy. Continue reading