Letter to a Black Female Friend

(This was a response to a friend during the last days of the 2008 Presidential Election. Her argument was that the polls indicated Obama had it in the bag, I argued that you can't trust the polls. She was right.)

Tonja:

As one of the three black women in America willing to speak to me (the other two: being Condoleezza Rice & Colin Powell's wife) after my vigorous support of John McCain, I respect your independence. However, your judgment here is more erratic than a drunken R Kelly hanging out in front of a All Girls Junior High School.

You say I should listen to the polls. I would rather listen to the walls. They have proven to be more accurate. Why should I listen to the polls when this time of the year, they always underrepresent the vote for the Republican candidate? Check out the data:

In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points.
Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.

In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading by a statistically insignificant 2 points -- 45 percent to 43 percent.

In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7 percent. (Ross Perot got 18.9 percent of Bush's voters that year.) On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent. So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by only 5.3 points.

All of this indicates to me that ACORN not only manipulates that voter rolls, but they must be in charge of the polls as well.

As far as your claim that no one cares about ACORN or Ayers, that will be decided on November 4.

Lets be clear about Ayers, though. If a Republican Presidential Candidate began his political career by having a fund raiser in the living room of a member of the KKK who bombed black churches, I'm sure that would not matter to you, right? Oh, I forgot, if that same KKK member said 20 years after the bombings, he wished he bombed more black churches, that would not be relevant. Right? Please. That candidate would not be eligible for dog catcher in modern America. And you would point that out every day. And that is why I point out the Ayers and Obama relationship every day.

As for me being a sore loser, it seems to me that has yet to be decided. Let's take your premise: McCain loses. Would I be a "sore loser?" Probably not. I am not the picket sign type. However, if the margin of victory is 50 votes in a swing state, and all 50 voters registered as "Old Dirty Bastard" I reserve the right to be a sore loser.