• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Obama Losing Support Among New York Jews? Or, More Statistical Noise?

In addition to the Public Policy Polling Poll of North Carolina purporting to show 20% of African-Americans supporting Mitt Romney, which I wrote about earlier today, another poll that is receiving a lot of attention today is a Sienna College poll of New York State. The poll itself not surprisingly shows the President winning the Empire State by some 24 points, but it’s the level of support among Jewish voters that is  exciting  conservatives:

President Obama’s support among Jewish voters in the state of New York has dropped 22 percentage points in only a month, according to the results of a just released poll.

The poll, conducted by Siena College, finds that currently President Obama has the support of 51 percent of Jewish voters, while 43 percent are opposed to him. Five percent are undecided. That means, Obama’s lead among Jewish voters is at 8 percentage points.

Previously, in Siena’s May poll, Obama had the support 62 percent of Jewish New Yorkers, while 32 percent opposed him. That means, last month, Obama’s lead among this group of voters was at a strong 30 percentage points.

Those polled were responding to this straight forward question: “If the election for President were held today, who would you vote for if the candidates were [Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Don't know]?

Interestingly, this Daniel Halper piece at The Weekly Standard doesn’t link to the Sienna poll, but having found it on my own, I can confirm that this is indeed what the poll says. It’s understandable why this would be arousing interest on the right. Conservatives have been hoping that their hyperpartisan support for Israel and Israeli interests, as well as the President’s supposed “abandonment” of Israel over the past three years, would bring Jewish voters, who have historically voted Democratic for uncountable decades, into the Republican fold. Clearly, there has been some success in that regard among Orthodox Jews, but that group still represents a small percentage of the Jewish vote as a whole, even in New York, so the impact on elections has been pretty much non-existent. Indeed, considering that Jewish voters comprised 2% of the national electorate in 2008, it’s unclear even a significant shift in Jewish support from one party to the other would have a major impact on an election, even in a state, city, or Congressional District. Nonetheless, it’s been a point of pride you might say for conservatives to try to attract more Jewish support, so it’s understandable that this poll is getting some attention on the right side of the blogosphere. And, a 22 point shift in support in one month, even among a sub-group, is something that raises an eyebrow at the very least.

But, is this a reflection of actual trends, or another example of statistical noise?

The answer, as with the North Carolina poll, is that it’s too early to tell.

One of the first things worth noting  is that, in the Sienna Poll, Jewish Registered Voters constituted 10% of the total sample. This is significantly different from the 2008 Exit Poll of New York State which showed Jews representing 3% of the electorate (in New York the breakdown of the Jewish vote was 3% of the electorate statewide and went 78% to 21% for Obama. So, the Jewish vote is over represented in this poll, most likely because they wanted to over-sample that particular demographic, which is understandable given that this was a poll of 807 Registered New York Voters, and 3% would have  meant sampling the opinion of just 24 self-identified Jews. At the same time, even with the oversampling this poll only represents about 81 people who were actually polled, meaning that the margin of error for this demographic subgroup was plus or minus approximately 10.3%.  Even then, were also dealing with a 95% confidence ratio, meaning that there’s a 1 in 20 chance that this particular poll of New York Jews is completely wrong.

When the General Election season really began after Rick Santorum dropped out of the Republican race, I made note of a Nate Silver post about how to read the many, many polls that will be coming out over the ensuing months. One particular piece of advice from Silver seems entirely appropriate both with respect to this Siena poll, and the PPP poll I linked to earlier:

10. Don’t abuse demographic cross-tabs. The sample sizes on subpopulations in a poll — like Hispanics, young voters or evangelical Christians — are much smaller than for all voters as a whole and therefore contain much larger margins of error. For instance, a poll that surveys 600 respondents, of whom 75 are Hispanic, has a margin of error of about plus or minus 11 points on that subgroup. And that is under ideal circumstances; in practice, some subgroups (including Hispanics) are harder to get on the phone than others.

It’s easy to write the “Candidate X has problems among Group Y” stories, but very often they are just weaving narratives from statistical noise. Unless the demographic patterns are clear and consistent across several different polls, these stories are usually worth ignoring.

What we’ve seen today in both of these cases strikes me as being a perfect example of people ignoring this advice.

There’s one final thing worth noting. Even if you accept for the sake of argument the accuracy of the Siena numbers about how Obama’s support among New York State Jewish residents has declined  in just a short people of time, Obama’s poll margin in New York State actually widened by four points over the same period. That seems to me the best reason of all to consider that one little bit of data to be nothing more than statistical noise.

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Kinky Beats says:

    A buddy of mine the other day railed against Obama and said he didn’t want to vote for him this year when he was one of Obama’s biggest fans back in 2008.

    Obama is losing the Long Beach CA stoner vote. What does this mean for Obama’s chances in November? Let’s discuss.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  2. Nikki says:

    @Kinky Beats: Your friend is only one of 330 million Americans. When you have more data to back up your position, then we can discuss it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  3. Tsar Nicholas says:

    Mmmm, on this one I might have to partially jump the shark tank (perhaps) and not completely disbelieve and dismiss out of hand that polling data, despite the fact that I normally view polls the same way that I view promises by attorneys.

    Sure, Jews have voted for Democrats for decades, but Jews never have been the utter lockstep demographic as blacks have been. Israel is a hot button topic for Jews, even for those in the reform camp. You don’t really think a U.S. president can have such overt hostility and contempt for Israel and for it not materially to affect the Jewish vote, do you?

    In any case, regarding the pure politics of this, obviously this is irrelevant in terms of New York’s electoral votes, regardless whether that polling data is correct or out to lunch, but if it is correct then Obama has a colossal problem in Florida. Jews are around 4-5% of the Florida electorate. Obama in 2008 only narrowly won Florida despite an overwhelming supermajority of the Jewish vote and despite McCain’s Keystone Kops farce of a campaign. Romney is a better candidate. The hope & change dog & pony show broke a leg and was put down. Florida’s economy is in the crapper. Cuban ex-pats and their descendents are not exactly walking around with Obama T-shirts. Romney could win Florida without breaking the bank and perhaps without even breaking a sweat.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

  4. Mathais Crab says:

    I’m another friend of Kinky who can’t vote for Obama because of all issues going on….
    A good christian/jew can’t wont for him…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  5. Jeremy says:

    @Nikki: Here’s something to consider:

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/obamas-2008-donors-dont-give-in-2012

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  6. paladin says:

    Oh wait—I get it! The brilliant Obama is just playing three-dimensional chess by getting out all these polls about how he is failing with his base. Obviously these polls will rally the base (and their wallets) to his side and it will be VICTORY IN 2012.

    What a genius!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

  7. PJ says:

    @Nikki:

    @Kinky Beats: Your friend is only one of 330 million Americans. When you have more data to back up your position, then we can discuss it.

    What Kinky Beats has provided us with is an anecdote, more of them won’t change anything.

    The plural of anecdote is not data.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  8. Kinky Beats says:

    @Nikki:

    Though my anecdote is true, the comment was made with a touch of snark. I guess I have to comment here more often for others to recognize it. :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  9. G.A. says:

    Hey Doug http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2012/06/Matrix6132012/#wiright

    That’s a news tip since you have done a few articles on it:)

    And I have many friends who voted for him that will not be voting for him again.And that’s only partly because I have been talking to them, mostly it is because of the man himself.

    Oh and the contrast between him and Walker…Yup the live in WI…..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Tsar Nicholas: As you are partially jumping the shark tank, any chance you’ll fall in? Should I light a candle?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. jan says:

    I just think Obama has disappointed people from almost every group and on every political spectrum. Blacks have certainly not prospered under his leadership, as their UE numbers are up, rather than down. Poverty has grown under Obama’s hand, even though he has tried every hand-out possible. The jewish community must feel undermined, as to his dealings with Israel, showing more of a cold shoulder to them rather than a warm partnership. Republicans, who crossed party lines to support him in ’08, are regretting their decisions, as are more independents, who see themselves as being non-partisan, judging politicians on their performance, not their party affiliation. Obama has been a failure.

    Here in Colorado is a more typical reaction, via a focus group assessment on how the public is generally viewing Obama’s last 3 plus years in office.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

  12. Kylopod says:

    It’s helpful to examine a piece from late 2003 pointing to alleged signs of a Jewish exodus to the GOP. The arguments were based on the same types of evidence as they are now (for example, a 2002 poll of voters in a New York gubernatorial race that showed 47% of Jews expressing a willingness to consider voting for Bush), and yet nothing came of it. Kerry got three-fourths of the Jewish vote, as every Democrat since Clinton has, and in 2006 Democratic candidates across the country got a record-breaking 87% of the Jewish vote.

    In fact, we see speculation of this sort in every election cycle. It never comes to pass. It’s a persistent fantasy of the right, always accompanied by “this time it’s different” even though they were saying the same things last time around. In this case, it’s based on the right-wing delusion that (a) Obama has shown unique hostility to Israel unlike any previous president (b) Obama’s policies on Israel have differed substantially from those of his predecessors (c) A large segment of American Jews outside the right-wing bubble agree with the first two items (d) Most American Jews are single-issue voters, and Israel is make-or-break for them when it comes to deciding on a candidate.

    It’s striking how impervious these claims are to the evidence that disproves them, but it’s hardly unpredictable by now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  13. jan says:

    @Kylopod:

    I don’t believe there is any thinking on the right that they will get a majority of the Jewish vote, as this constituency has been firmly entrenched in the democratic party, for some time. But, there has been speculation that some of Obama’s support has simply eroded, by a few percentage points. The right is looking to chip away at some of these taken-for-granted constituencies, that the democratic party has come to think of as being in their pocket, no matter what happens.

    You may be right, though, and voting tradition may override any dissatisfaction Jewish people may be having with this administration. But, OTOH, maybe some of the discontent, idling out there, will actually come into fruition, and Obama will enjoy smaller margins than he had before with this group in 2012.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Kylopod says:

    @jan: I believe it is entirely within the realm of possibility that Obama will get a few percentage points less of the Jewish vote than he did in 2008–say, down to John Kerry’s measly 74%. How that would signify any important shift or have any noticeable impact on the election is a different question altogether.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. jan says:

    @Kylopod:

    “How that would signify any important shift or have any noticeable impact on the election is a different question altogether. “

    In a close election, it can count.

    Obviously, I’m hoping that Obama will lose. I don’t believe he has earned another term in office. It remains to be seen how many other people, from various constituencies will be peeled away from supporting him for the very same reasons — disappointment in his overall performance as POTUS.

    Just like his siren call in ’08, was ‘change and hope,’ it is applicable in ’12, in looking at another candidate for the very same reasons — hoping to change the policies that Obama thought was good for us, despite what people voiced they wanted.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Kylopod says:

    @jan:

    >In a close election, it can count.

    How? A shift of 4 percentage points among Jewish voters would be a blip even in a state like Florida, let alone on a national level. For it to have even the remotest potential of making a difference, the election wouldn’t have be to just close–it would have to be 2000 all over again, which is incredibly unlikely. (That’s not to mention that I don’t think this election is going to come down to Florida.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. mattb says:

    @Kylopod: The other thing to keep in mind is that there are three possible states that a vote can occupy:

    1. Supporting their usual party
    2. Switching and voting for the opposition party
    3. Choosing to vote 3rd party or not vote at all

    As with recent guesses about African Americans, it seems RW pundits typically assume the case with always be 2 – that there will be a complete shift. I would argue that, as we saw in 2008 and the lack of support for the McCain campaign, the reality of any abandonment would be case 3.

    Also, in the wake of people interrogating polls to death in Wisconsin, you would think that both sides would be far more careful about prognosticating based on any single bit of polling data.

    Finally, as always, I appreciate how comfortable people are with throwing memes around and then immediately shut up when someone posts something like this:

    In this case, it’s based on the right-wing delusion that (a) Obama has shown unique hostility to Israel unlike any previous president (b) Obama’s policies on Israel have differed substantially from those of his predecessors (c) A large segment of American Jews outside the right-wing bubble agree with the first two items (d) Most American Jews are single-issue voters, and Israel is make-or-break for them when it comes to deciding on a candidate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  18. jan says:

    @mattb:

    Finally, as always, I appreciate how comfortable people are with throwing memes around and then immediately shut up when someone posts something like this:

    There’s little point in taking a point further when talking to concrete.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  19. mattb says:

    @jan:

    There’s little point in taking a point further when talking to concrete.

    As always Jan, I don’t think you truly appreciate the irony of your writing that.

    If you can actually cite FACT as to where Obama’s Israel policy has diverted in any major way from the policy of the last three, if not the last five presidents, I would truly be interested in seeing it.

    But much like the idea that Obama is the most radically left president ever (note that one side is claiming “Radical” in other words “Extreme”), whenever asked to produced that fact you and other go silent. Or at best, you link to a partisan publication or editorial.

    I realize that this probably comes across as intellectual elitism. I know my writing can do that at time. I am not an elitist… I do not think reasoned argument is the exclusive purview of intellectuals. But we all need to agree that there is such a think as reasoned argument and it begins through facts rather than opinions.

    My continued issue with your style of argumentation is that (a) you continually mistake opinions for facts, and then when called out on this either (1) disappear or (2) double down on the claim that the opinion you presented us with was a fact.

    Again, I think most commentors here would probably agree I’m generally speaking open to looking at facts that could disprove my point of view (I will even cite them from time to time in my responses). So please… PLEASE… don’t pretend my mindset is set in concrete.

    The only concrete thing about me is the approach itself, and that it must start from fact and not opinion. You can get to opinion (and on that we may never agree) but you need to reason your way to it from the facts at hand.

    So again, please bring fact and I’ll be happy to look at it and have an adult discussion with you about it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  20. mattb says:

    Oh and @jan, please understand that wasn’t intended to simply be an insult or snark. If it had been I would have stopped at the first sentence (which to some degree was more an expression of my frustration than anything else).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  21. jan says:

    @mattb:

    My continued issue with your style of argumentation is that (a) you continually mistake opinions for facts, and then when called out on this either (1) disappear or (2) double down on the claim that the opinion you presented us with was a fact.

    What are ‘facts’ to you Matt? Are they stats cited via government sites, other publications, that have to pass the mustard of social progressives to even be noteworthy or read? Are they anecdotal stories, taken from one’s own experience or on the street observations? To me the coronation of saying something is factual is actually subject to individual interpretation and the eye of the beholder distributing said fact.

    Most of what I say is derived from a mixture of published sources, including my own opinion, discussions and direct observations around me. I don’t put myself up as an ‘elite’ poster. What I am is a business woman, an RN, a wife, mother, and interested/concerned citizen of the U.S. who sees this country’s direction, antagonisms, weaknesses/strengths, and issues around us very differently from yourself, most of the time.

    My so-called ‘disappearance’ from threads is caused by: 1) getting back to work and my life or 2) seeing a total futility in pursuing senseless counter points, when most of the discussion stems more from a difference in ideology than stacking one ‘fact’ up against another. After all, statistics are not infallible and can be excised and manipulated in acrobatic ways to make the point you want to make. The same goes for culling through internet archives to make one’s case.

    As far as this thread, about losing support among NY Jews being relevant or just mere statistical noise in assessing the 2012 election, it is conjecture on both sides as to what will happen. You can cite all the past history of how such ‘noise’ revealed itself in actual elections, and I am not refuting those ‘facts.’ However, in attempting to extrapolate that data and apply it with certainty to the future, I’m shrugging my shoulders and saying, ‘Wait and see.’ Upsets happen. The depth and breathe of a public’s disappointment with a sitting president will only be known on election day.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  22. mattb says:

    @Jan:

    First, without a hint of sarcasm, let me say “thank you” for taking the time to respond. I really appreciate the effort and thought you put into this. All of my responses from here down are offered without a hint of sarcasm.

    This is going to be a long note because I want to honestly and openly address your concerns, so let me serve up the “punchline” first: I really want to see more thoughtful responses across the board on OTB because I am looking to grow my perspectives. Right now, no offense, but the Conservative side of the house, by and large, isn’t doing a great job here at “thoughtful.” Typically most conservative posters drop a snarky comment or lose fact and then never follow it up. That wouldn’t be bad if they didn’t simultaneously complain that OTB’s comments are over-run with liberals.

    I’m not saying it’s just you or your fault. In fact I really appreciate that you did respond. So I’ll try to lay out what I (and I think a number of other progressive and independent posters) are asking for when we complain about a lack of “facts.”

    Please let me know if this makes sense…

    What are ‘facts’ to you Matt? Are they stats cited via government sites, other publications, that have to pass the mustard of social progressives to even be noteworthy or read?

    Fair question. As a jumping off point, let suggest the wikipedia page:

    A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

    Let me also be clear that this isn’t about “passing the mustard of social progressives” — if you talk to any conservative scholar or intellectual (trained or self taught) the will most likely have a similiar definition of “fact.” This is science (hard, social, political) we are discussing, and the rules of evidence and logic have been with us for centuries, if not millennium.

    (btw: complete aside, in case that wasn’t a spell check error or brain fart, the phrase is actually “pass the muster” … I used to get that confused as well)

    Are they anecdotal stories, taken from one’s own experience or on the street observations?

    As you just stated, anecdotes are exactly that anecdotes. They can be used as facts only in respect to how they speak to something that you experienced in the world.

    Anecdotal facts, however, cannot be projected or used to stand for other people’s experience unless you can demonstrate (without anecdotes) that many other people are sharing in the same experience.

    And even there, “many” has to be clarified (is many tens, hundreds, thousands, millions, etc). As has often been written, the plural of anecdote is NOT data or fact.

    To me the coronation of saying something is factual is actually subject to individual interpretation and the eye of the beholder distributing said fact.

    To some degree this is true. However, it is also not purely subjective.

    As I wrote above, there are long standing rules about “fact” that have been set up long before you and I took breath. If you want to play the game, you need to abide by the rules.

    Or conversely, if you want to rewrite the rules to suite your argument, you then need to accept what comes with that (i.e. being called partisan or being told that you are, under the common understanding, mistaking opinion for fact).

    Most of what I say is derived from a mixture of published sources, including my own opinion, discussions and direct observations around me. I don’t put myself up as an ‘elite’ poster. What I am is a business woman, an RN, a wife, mother, and interested/concerned citizen of the U.S. who sees this country’s direction, antagonisms, weaknesses/strengths, and issues around us very differently from yourself, most of the time.

    And that’s fine. Perfectly good. There’s no reason we should have to agree. I can hardly live with myself at times, let alone a world filled with other “matt b’s.”

    And that isn’t the issue. Your subjective experience isn’t in question.

    I truly believe that you believe in everything you’ve written here. And, just to be clear, as I’ve said numerous times, I think you are a fundamentally good person who is trying to stand up for what you think is the right thing.

    The issue is that you have a habit of representing your SUBJECTIVE belief/understanding as OBJECTIVE fact.

    My point is that OBJECTIVELY there is little data or evidence to back up the notion that Obama is a far left president. You can SUBJECTIVELY believe that. But you do have a habit of writing in a way that makes it sound as if you are stating your SUBJECTIVE belief as OBJECTIVE fact.

    And to be clear, that’s what we are calling you on.

    And where I do the same thing (which I’m sure I do more than I realize) you should challenge me. And it’s at that point of challenge, if both sides are willing, that a discussion can take place.

    But it can only take place through the sharing and examination of OBJECTIVE facts — a shared reality. From there we can then use those facts to help support our individual theories.

    My so-called ‘disappearance’ from threads is caused by: 1) getting back to work and my life

    Totally understand that… I’m, frankly, on OTB way too much for my long term good. In part it’s because this ties into research that I’m currently conducting. In part its because I’m right now a bit isolated from my usual community and this feeds a need for intellectual interaction and debate.

    or 2) seeing a total futility in pursuing senseless counter points, when most of the discussion stems more from a difference in ideology than stacking one ‘fact’ up against another. After all, statistics are not infallible and can be excised and manipulated in acrobatic ways to make the point you want to make. The same goes for culling through internet archives to make one’s case.

    I’m less sympathetic to this, in part because I feel its a cop out. You are right that the hardest of facts can be manipulated — that’s always been the case. BUT, in the act of manipulating, the facts have to be presented to the other side and then both sides get to use them in their argument. And that’s a good thing.

    BTW, you often collect good links and interesting material. And it’s good to do that. But, the flip side is that you (and anyone else who brings those links) should listen (or rather read) the responses and critiques that those links receive. And I know that it sucks having the potential short comings of your evidence pointed out. But the value of it is it can help you make your overall case more strong if you can accept and work with those short comings.

    Returning to the meme “Obama is a radical left wing” president, the issue that many of us have, is that beyond the ACA (which evolved the existing system versus radically recreated it) it’s hard to find many examples of racial left wingism in Obama’s governing style and what he’s supported in terms of legislation.

    Now, btw, the same thing can be said of the claim that “GWB was a radical right wing” president. With the exception of the period in time when the Neo-Cons were in ascendance in his administration, GWB largely governed from the moderate right. And that’s what the tale of the factual tape demonstrates.

    As far as this thread, about losing support among NY Jews being relevant or just mere statistical noise in assessing the 2012 election, it is conjecture on both sides as to what will happen. You can cite all the past history of how such ‘noise’ revealed itself in actual elections, and I am not refuting those ‘facts.’ However, in attempting to extrapolate that data and apply it with certainty to the future, I’m shrugging my shoulders and saying, ‘Wait and see.’ Upsets happen. The depth and breathe of a public’s disappointment with a sitting president will only be known on election day.

    I agree with the “wait and see.” My issue with your original statement is your repetition of the following right wing meme as fact:

    The jewish community must feel undermined, as to his dealings with Israel, showing more of a cold shoulder to them rather than a warm partnership.

    As many people continue to point out, Obama has continued the same general policies of every administration that came before him. So that’s why we tried to push back and ask for the actual evidence of this strained relationship. And granted, I can immediately go to the Internet and type in a search and find sites like http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1521 that present an argument. But when you dig into that article, you find that the people that are used as evidence are, generally speaking, people who politically oppose President Obama and broadly most Democrats.

    That would be like me polling the more extreme liberal posters on this site about your intelligence level.

    Beyond being a really jerky thing to do, I’m sure that I would get a lot of strong and insulting comments, but there would be little “fact” in there (other than as anecdotal evidence about what some individuals on this site think about you).

    If I try to pass that off as “hard fact” then I’m being intellectually dishonest.

    What I and others are interested in is someone to challenge our beliefs. But you can’t simply challenge beliefs with other beliefs and hope to get anywhere. You need to challenge beliefs with reason through facts.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  23. wr says:

    Jan says facts are subjective and only her opinion is worth following. She also claims to be an RN and to run a business. Which makes me wonder — when she’s taking care of a patient, does she trust a thermometer to tell his temperature, or does she overrule that, knowing that her own opinion is more trustworthy. When she’s doing the books on her business and they show a loss, does she decide that because it’s her opinion that she’s doing well, those stupid numbers don’t mean anything?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0