ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, October 24, 2016

It's not a question of IF the polls are false

But rather, the degree to which they are falsified:
Now, for all of you out there who still aren't convinced that the polls are "adjusted", we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in detail, exactly how to "manufacture" the desired data. The email starts out with a request for recommendations on "oversamples for polling" in order to "maximize what we get out of our media polling."

I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.

The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations.  In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:

Research, microtargeting & polling projects
-  Over-sample Hispanics
-  Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)
-  Over-sample the Native American population

For Florida, the report recommends "consistently monitoring" samples to makes sure they're "not too old" and "has enough African American and Hispanic voters."  Meanwhile, "independent" voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first.

-  Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state.
-  On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.

Meanwhile, it's suggested that national polls over sample "key districts / regions" and "ethnic" groups "as needed."

-  General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions
-  Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed
-  Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed
It is not "wishful thinking" to distrust the polls. Nor is there a "natural tightening up" of the polls as election day approaches. The entire polling industry is an exercise in attempted manipulation of public opinion. That's why there is so much media attention focused on it.

The Podesta email doesn't merely prove that the poll-doubters are right to be dubious about their credibility, but demonstrates, once more, that the conspiracy theory of history is the only one that can properly account for historical events.

Moreover, the media narrative claiming that Hillary's win is inevitable is nothing more than the First Law of SJW in action:
A confidential memo allegedly obtained from Correct The Record, a Democratic Super PAC, reveals a plan to “barrage” voters with high frequency polls that show Hillary ahead in order to “declare election over,” while avoiding any mention of the Brexit vote (which completely contradicted polls that said Brexit would fail).
Pursuant to which....

Labels: , ,

264 Comments:

1 – 200 of 264 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Mighty Lou October 24, 2016 8:08 AM  

Go figure! Figures lie, and liars figure.

Blogger BassmanCO October 24, 2016 8:15 AM  

What's tha saying? There are lies, damned lies, and statistics?

I work in Business Intelligence and half the battle is painting an accurate picture with the data you have rather than simply showing what someone else wants to see. The vast majority of people need to continue to learn that most of the media is lying and can't be trusted. Or we need to get back to only allowing people with skin in the game (pay taxes, own land, etc.) to vote.

Anonymous Undocumented Civilizationalist October 24, 2016 8:17 AM  

We really do live in Orwellian times. Assume everything you hear from media, government, Hollywood, etc., is a lie designed to manipulate you.

But it is the media I hate the most right now. I want the MSM destroyed. Every network, cable channel, and newpaper/magazine. They are enemy #1.

Blogger James Dixon October 24, 2016 8:17 AM  

dh's reaction to this should prove interesting. He never did believe me when I told him that the polls consistently understated republican voting by 5% or so my entire life (going all the way back to Nixon, I was a bit too young to be paying attention in the Kennedy/Johnson years).

Anonymous Desert Rat October 24, 2016 8:18 AM  

AS the saying goes: the greatest achievement of the devil was to convince people that he doesn't exist.

The term "conspiracy theorist" is one of denigration. Yet even a cursory look at history reveals that humans have routinely and regularly conspired against one another. The 20th century shows that the Bolsheviks, Fascists and Nazis all conspired to seize power and succeeded. Political parties in every nation are more-or-less open conspiracies to take power in their respective states.

Conspiracies are real. These leaked emails show clearly that such have and are occurring right here, right now. So long as humans jockey for power these will continue to occur.

And the devil IS real. This is not hyperbole.

Blogger Michael Thompson October 24, 2016 8:19 AM  

Th ABC poll is fairly close to the breakdown of party identification nationwide, according to a tracking chart that averages the results of polls that ask that question. Your article is premised on the notion that this methodological breakdown is flawed, (and that most polls are skewed), due to this foundation being far out of whack from what a realistic breakdown of party identification actually is. The reality is pretty easily explained. Far more conservatives self-report as independents than liberals do because there is no 'progressive' party like there is a 'libertarian' party. If and when liberals are presented with a separate party identity like a wing of conservatives were offered a couple decades ago with the rise of Ron Paul, you will see the percentage of liberals who self-identify as Democrats drop similarly. In the meantime, pollsters can only report how people respond to the question that's presented to them and if an average of 36% of poll respondents self-report as Democrats, while an average of 28% self-report as Republicans, that is what they will report and typically how the party identification of their polls will be represented.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 24, 2016 8:21 AM  

I read a snippet about a MSM state poll of Arizona where they admitted to a 30 point over sample of Ds in a state where both parties are in the 30s for registration. We need dH to explain that one to us. And that same poll I believe showed a 6 point Clinton lead. We pretty much should just poll the gals at HuffPo and call it good.

Blogger Fenris Wulf October 24, 2016 8:25 AM  

Wow. This is pretty close to being election fraud. Which we are told doesn't exist.

Blogger Sherwood family October 24, 2016 8:26 AM  

Holy smokes. I knew there was manipulation but the blatant coordination of it is what is disturbing. The whole thing is rotten from top to bottom. Trump is now shown to be doubly prescient when saying he won't automatically accept the election results. It really is rigged.

Basically there are three groups in the U.S. those who know it is rigged and are happy about it (Globalists, Democrats, GOPe, various colors/flavors of the diversity rainbow), those who don't know its rigged, and those who know it's rigged and are mad as hell.

In truth, I suppose you could say there are actually two more groups: those who know it is rigged and don't care one way or the other because they think it won't effect them. And those who simply will not believe that such rigging could take place in 'Murica. (Various flavors of normies) That last two groups are the ones I can't figure out.

I keep having arguments on-line with otherwise decent people who think that voting third party is the thing to do because, while Clinton is bad, Trump is icky. They know their vote will usher in a Clinton victory but want to have clean hands by not pulling the lever for the Donald.

I keep trying to tell them that if action X produces result Y, and they know it and result Y is one they think is awful, then taking action X (no matter how "good" it seems) is stupid/evil. I cannot seem to get through.

I suppose that is not a rhetorical enough approach.

Blogger Samuel Nock October 24, 2016 8:28 AM  

Vox, do you think this is more aimed at discouraging Trump voters from turning out or at preparing to "justify" a stolen election (i.e. when Soros-owned voting machines hand the election to Hillary, the media point to these polls as showing the lack of discrepancy between "polls" and "results")? Both? Other?

Exit polls are supposed to be harder to rig, but maybe at that point is too late.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 24, 2016 8:28 AM  

Any sound political election theory on how the virtue signalers for a Gary Johnson will break on voting day? Anderson seemed to hurt Carter and Perot hurt Bush so I cannot think of any example on how a credible third party candidate effects this race.

Blogger Michael Thompson October 24, 2016 8:33 AM  

"Any sound political election theory on how the virtue signalers for a Gary Johnson will break on voting day? Anderson seemed to hurt Carter and Perot hurt Bush so I cannot think of any example on how a credible third party candidate effects this race."

Just by examining the polls that ask both the 2-way question and the 4-way question, typically in the 2-way question Clinton's lead increases by a couple of percentage points, so I would say that if you group the independent leaners as a whole right now, (both the Johnson group and the Stein group), they are probably hurting Clinton slightly more than Trump. If Johnson and Stein were eliminated from the ballot, what you would probably see is the majority of them not vote and of those that remain and vote in an election they don't want to vote in, probably about 75% break for Clinton and 25% break for Trump.

Blogger Student in Blue October 24, 2016 8:34 AM  

@3. Undocumented Civilizationalist
[The MSM] are enemy #1.

The MSM is the front line on the war, but they are not the ones successfully indoctrinating everyone, and will make this war fruitless unless dealt with.

That award instead goes to the education system.

Blogger clk October 24, 2016 8:40 AM  

There are certainly ways to get the interpretation of results wrong and its not beyond even the mildest of politicians to present data in a light that supports them the most ... but its hard to believe that every national polling group is in this conspiracy. Just not possible.

I would argue that the problems are technique -- one such example is not appreciating how people communicate has changed over time. For example caller ID .. when I see a number I don't know, I don't answer.. it's a white conservative thing.. so there's a possibility that I am being underrepresented in the poles. I don't like strangers at my door and don't talk to them, and I never go to malls or other crowded places where pollsters might be ...

The math of statistics are simple -- the interpretations are not so easy.

Blogger Mighty Lou October 24, 2016 8:43 AM  

@ Fenris Wulf,

"Wow. This is pretty close to being election fraud. Which we are told doesn't exist."

Unless it's the Russians of course.

Anonymous dsgntd_plyr October 24, 2016 8:43 AM  

right, over sample democrats. one can also over sample women and get a similar result. the arizona poll is absurd.

Blogger Michael Thompson October 24, 2016 8:43 AM  

"There are certainly ways to get the interpretation of results wrong and its not beyond even the mildest of politicians to present data in a light that supports them the most ... but its hard to believe that every national polling group is in this conspiracy. Just not possible."

They aren't. That particular Podesta email was directed to the Atlas polling group, which handles the internal polls for the Clinton campaign. Without proper context, it's basically impossible to conjecture what they were actually talking about, but I imagine it probably had something to do with some targeted polling it wanted to do regarding how she was doing among minority groups against Sanders. That is, unless you believe that the Clinton campaign has a vested interest in paying a small fortune to tell itself a pack of lies that it knows are a pack of lies.

Blogger Johnny October 24, 2016 8:43 AM  

@9 Holy smokes. I knew there was manipulation but the blatant coordination of it is what is disturbing. The whole thing is rotten from top to bottom. Trump is now shown to be doubly prescient when saying he won't automatically accept the election results. It really is rigged.

The rule for me is that no matter how cynical I get it is not cynical enough. The red pills just keep coming.

Anonymous rienzi October 24, 2016 8:45 AM  

I played around with this poll during some idle time yesterday. If you use the latest census data, about 30% of whites have college degrees. 70% don't. Use the poll's own results for white grad and non- grads. Multiply out by the breakdown above, add it up, and then compare to the results of the poll for total whites.

Pretty obvious they way over-sampled the Hillary-leaning college grads.

Hey, ABC/WAPo, some of us bumpkins actually went to skool, and paid attention to that hard 'rithmatick stuff.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti October 24, 2016 8:45 AM  

I really, really, really want this to be true. But Clinton just jumped up +1.3 over Trump in the USC/LATimes poll, which is the only one I've been following since Pussygate (and has generally had him up all along). Honestly I am starting to get a little concerned.

I suppose what matters in the end is the floodgates have been opened. I can see the cucks already gleefully anticipating going back to their regularly scheduled worship of Zombie Reagan, blissfully unaware that the game has been forever changed. But the thought of seeing Hillary in the WH makes me want to vomit.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 24, 2016 8:45 AM  

#12 that so contradicts what has been pounded into me that D leaning voters would vote for Satan over the usual "Literally Hitler", but yeah you are correct on those polls of 2 way and 4 way.

WAG on my part, Trump is hitting on corruption and the "Nasty woman" meme to either suppress nice white suburban white women from Hilldawg or draw them in and that is where he is making his stand.

Even a state senate race here in the Chitown burbs is down to "Literally Hitler" versus corrupt nasty woman.

Blogger CarpeOro October 24, 2016 8:45 AM  

Neither of the 3rd party candidates this election has the charisma to pull 5%. Maybe combined, but not each.

As for the idiots that babble "conspiracy theories are for the tin foil hat crowd", they show their complete and utter contempt for history. Go tell Caesar's ghost that being stabbed on the Ides of March was a spur of the moment thing. I would not be surprised to see election results that are rigged in the least (I am living near Chicago these days, where the dead and Mafia pulled out the win for Kennedy).

Blogger Basil Makedon October 24, 2016 8:48 AM  

Well we can put to rest the gaslighting or not gaslighting discussion. Several questions are now worth some consideration at this point:

(1) To what extent are the GOP's choices of GWB, McLame, Romney and Trump the result of Democratic gaslighting. They got exactly what they needed with McLame and Romney, but perhaps not what they were expecting in Trump. But, the question is interesting.

(2) How much are the sheeple manipulated by the manipulations? I suspect quite a bit. Even I get shaken by the barrage of polling madness. I've only recently calmed down due to the actual vote tallies coming in (which now makes me think that early voting might not be the devil).

Finally, it is interesting how deep the manipulations go. Apparently, skewing by party registration is pre-school stuff. They carefully select different flavors of "vibrancy" to paint the masterpiece of their choice. So, they don't just skew by D, they make sure that their D's are post-grads. They don't just skew by I, they make sure that they get the "Tampa" I's, who are really shy-Democrats who fear the sea of red that surround them. I'm sure they carefully screen the R's to make sure that the Country-Club class is well represented. Amazing.

Blogger Salt October 24, 2016 8:49 AM  

If this polling by Anonymous is accurate, the MSM polls are not just adjusted, they're wholly fabricated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaOoFH8HHrk&feature=share

Blogger Mighty Lou October 24, 2016 8:53 AM  

The rigged polls along with constant coverage of false allegation against Trump while ignoring all of the scandals revealed from WikiLeaks constitutes nothing short of a large scale psy-op directed at the U.S (the world even) population by the MSM, and I mean all MSM. Even Fox News, which you would think would be the one network that wouldn't be complicit in this, is guilty, though not to such an extent as the others.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 24, 2016 8:54 AM  

Conspiracy, no way. Of course when is the last time some nut case went on an attack and claimed he was ISIS or has BLM done anything more than crappy graffiti in neighborhoods that Obama got 105% of the vote? (FTR I will bet a sizable minority of blacks are tired of BLM by now)

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr October 24, 2016 8:58 AM  

However the election turns out, the Propaganda Press has been caught. The days when they could lie unchallenged are over.

Anonymous The OASF October 24, 2016 9:00 AM  

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

In other words, Trump is winning by AT LEAST 15-20 PERCENT... at least.

@24

"If this polling by Anonymous is accurate, the MSM polls are not just adjusted, they're wholly fabricated."

Beat me to it. I was about to make a prediction: it will come out, not too long after this election cycle, that polls were not just rigged but completely imaginary... as in the CIA subcontracted Hollywood scriptwriters to make up the numbers and nonsense documentation & press releases supporting all of it.

Anonymous Disparaging Ratel October 24, 2016 9:02 AM  

Mighty Lou wrote:a large scale psy-op directed at the U.S (the world even)

Here in South Africa they got most people convinced that Trump is Literally Hitler, and in general "our" media is very disparaging of him. All negative and no positives. So it is a world-wide psy-op, even if that was not quite their intention.

Blogger Mighty Lou October 24, 2016 9:02 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Mighty Lou October 24, 2016 9:05 AM  

Last week the George Bush Sr. letter to Bill conceding the election was all over the internet. It was a response to Trump's comments about whether or not he would accept the outcome of the election, but the letter was being presented in a way as if Trump had already lost, and he was being a sore looser three weeks before the election, but we have idiots in this country who fall for this shit, if not they wouldn't try it.

But what pissed me off was when that shit Wallace mentioned to Trump that there is a tradition of peaceful transfer of power; he was subtly suggesting that Trump would incite violence.

The irony to all of this is that Hillary Clinton who shared the stage with Trump said that his response appalled her, and yet it is her campaign that has been inciting violence all along.

Anonymous RabidRatel October 24, 2016 9:09 AM  

@30 hereabout the msm is spinning it as if Trump promised an armed revolution if he were to lose. Even my father-in-law, who is very sceptical of the media, fell for their false images.

Anonymous BGKB October 24, 2016 9:11 AM  

I believe this email would have been better leaked earlier. The one thing I don't like about these leaks is that it shows I underestimated the corruption, an actual 37 page guide to poll fraud seriously. If you want to participate in lots of nationwide polls you can go to the nearest gay pride festival.

(FTR I will bet a sizable minority of blacks are tired of BLM by now)

At least the ones who own weave and liquor stores. Actually I hear that said in combination a lot are there any stores that sell both weaves and Liquor? I know there is drive thru draft beer in some states.

Blogger Cataline Sergius October 24, 2016 9:11 AM  

The thing the polls really can't measure at all is voter enthusiasm. I haven't seen this kind of grassroots backing for a Republican candidate since 1984.

The Democrats reek of fear. If they were that confident they wouldn't be this scared. I think their internal polls must be terrifying.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 24, 2016 9:14 AM  

In public if you show any skepticism of the MSM you will generally find people in agreement. So when a progtard is asked to what authority they appeal to and it turns to be the MSM you can pretty much discredit that authority and if you discredit the authority to which a progtard appeals to it is devastating. Doubt me watch their eyes when you discredit the authority if they don't blink then you have a sociopath on your hands

Blogger dienw October 24, 2016 9:18 AM  

I've only recently calmed down due to the actual vote tallies coming in (which now makes me think that early voting might not be the devil).

No votes are counted until the polls close on Nov. 8; you're falling for the gaslighting again.

Anonymous gggs October 24, 2016 9:18 AM  

Which Media Organization is using Atlas Project Polls? CBS? ABC? Pew? Quinniapac?

Or does the Atlas Project provide internal polling?

Blogger Mighty Lou October 24, 2016 9:20 AM  

But of course Fox News would be in on the fix, that's one of the best way to reach low info republicans. And they are doing it even as we speak.

Byron York of the Washington Post on Fox news just made the claim that Trump lost more republican support after he made those comments during the debate about accepting the election results.

Right after this they show a full screen chart which shows Clinton with 307 electoral votes, Trump with 181 and 50 up for grabs.

So anyone with fifth grade math skills can easily deduct that according to this chart (propaganda) even if Trump got all of those 50 up for grab votes he would still lose. Thus brining them to the conclusion that Hillary already won. This is a perfect example of a new segment meant to demoralize Trump supporters.

Blogger Michael Thompson October 24, 2016 9:22 AM  

"Or does the Atlas Project provide internal polling?"

It provides internal polling for the Clinton campaign, which again makes me sort of dubious as to whether these emails demonstrate anything. If you buy into this interpretation, it requires you to believe that the Clinton campaign was instructing their polling firm about how to rig it so it could tell lies to itself. None of the big nationals use Atlas Project. They have their own pollsters... that's what their business is.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore October 24, 2016 9:31 AM  

Got my Trump email this morning. Here is an excerpt:
"Over the past month, polls have shown us winning Iowa, Ohio, Maine, Florida, Nevada, and North Carolina. If we maintain our leads in those six states, we can reliably claim 266 electoral votes. Hillary can claim 193. But we’d still have 4 electoral votes to go."

"Polls show us close in New Hampshire, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. Winning just any one of those states would lead us to victory."

Blogger dh October 24, 2016 9:31 AM  

while avoiding any mention of the Brexit vote (which completely contradicted polls that said Brexit would fail).

The late polls for Brexit were correct, that it was too close to call. Pundits and commentators consistently called this one as Brexit would fail because they failed to understand basic maths around polling.

If you look at most of the poll trackers (for example, Bloomberg here http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-brexit-watch/), you can see that by around May, the polling was looking around 46 remain 42 exit, with the balance undecided and a MoE of around 3.5%. The correct description of that is "too close to call", however, consistently, the pundits claimed that Remain would prevail. The last polls were 46.3 vs 44.3, with 9.4% undecided and MoE of 3.4%. The correct description of this is "too close to call". Any description that says that Brexit was incorrectly polled is off base. Except for a few outliers from April, every major poll in the last 45 days of the campaign correctly showed that the race was too close to call, with a large undecided voter base that could swing it either way on polling day.

It is not "wishful thinking" to distrust the polls. Nor is there a "natural tightening up" of the polls as election day approaches. The entire polling industry is an exercise in attempted manipulation of public opinion. That's why there is so much media attention focused on it.

The Clinton/Podesta emails are specific talking about media polling, also known as internal polls, also known as push polls. This is well-established practice. This is more appropriately about media corruption, and counting on the media to dutifully push the narrative that the campaign demands. And it should make you distrust the entire industry. The are not worthy of trust. However, when you have the candidate, who has his own polls, and his own pollster has campaign manager, agreeing they are losing, it makes me wonder why they would do so:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-kellyanne-conway-20161023-story.html

It seems amazing that you are disputing that undecideds make up their mind. What do you suppose happens to undecideds who vote on election day?

Blogger James Dixon October 24, 2016 9:36 AM  

> Vox, do you think this is more aimed at discouraging Trump voters from turning out...

I find it difficult to credit that they have that poor an understanding of their opposition, but anything is possible.

> ...or at preparing to "justify" a stolen election (i.e. when Soros-owned voting machines hand the election to Hillary, the media point to these polls as showing the lack of discrepancy between "polls" and "results")?

Up until Obama's re-election, I was loathe to credit the voter fraud theory of elections, but the massive and blatant voter fraud in 2012 has convinced me that it is now playing a major roll in our elections.

> That award instead goes to the education system.

Yes. The public education system in this country is the recruiting base for our enemies. It needs to be destroyed.

> ...but its hard to believe that every national polling group is in this conspiracy. Just not possible.

Why? Who is paying them to conduct the polls? And Rasmussen and IBD don't agree, so not everyone is.

Anonymous gggs October 24, 2016 9:37 AM  

"The Podesta email doesn't merely prove that the poll-doubters are right to be dubious about their credibility, but demonstrates, once more, that the conspiracy theory of history is the only one that can properly account for historical events."

Tbe only thing the Podesta email demonstrates is that one of Clinton's internal polling firms over sampled some groups in some regions for political purposes.

When you can show me which media polling organizations (Gallup, ABC, NBC, Quinniapac, etc) did the same thing, then you will have a point.

Absent that, all you've got is a wishful narrative to spread for purposes that are hard to fathom unless one (probably properly) that you don't know what you are talking about.

Anonymous rienzi October 24, 2016 9:38 AM  

The ABC/WaPo poll also shows 5% of the black vote going to Jill Stein. Is there some way to bet the over/under on this? I would bet the farm on the under. How ABC/WaPo could have put out this poll with a straight face is beyond me.

Anonymous WS October 24, 2016 9:41 AM  

While I don't doubt many of the polls are skewed (I can't see Hillary winning by 12%), even Trump team admits they are behind but "not giving up." I tend to ignore the polls and watch the campaigns at this point: where they spend time during the last couple weeks telegraphs the true state of the race.

I fear that for Trump to win it will take either 1) a "smoking gun" type of bombshell leak about Clinton or 2) unprecedented % of Dem "likely voters" just don't show up to vote. I don't see many minds being changed at this point, it's basically who shows up (barring point 1). It's a long shot for sure, but not hopeless.

Blogger Johnny October 24, 2016 9:44 AM  

A thing a lot of people don't get is that a literal conspiracy (people talking to each other) is not necessary for their to be a conspiracy. A conspiracy of shared values, otherwise called culture, will get you where you want to go. Everybody goes along because everybody benefits from the approval of everybody else. The other side of it is shaming those who do not go along. That is the hit piece journalism that they media gets into now and then. Trump is the current target of course, and there have been many, many others. Woe to thea who does not agree.

That is why the consensus opinion matters, that is why school matters, and that is why value assertive religion matters; all are culture forming.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky October 24, 2016 9:47 AM  

Getting sick of these assholes.

gggs - nobody owes you anything, or has to show you a damn thing.

Michael Thompson - that ABC poll you cite had a D+9 oversample, with more independents than Rs. That is not reflective of reality

dh - who is now firmly in the asshole column - your take on Brexit is a bullshit rewrite of history. Even those polls you cite as being close at the end had the Leave vote undercounted BY 10%. That's pretty crappy polling by anybody's book.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 24, 2016 9:48 AM  

One thing the polls show the preference cascade was broken and Trump is still not a clear cut choice for social acceptability. I don't think Reagan had it either according to polls.

So in two weeks can Trump clear that issue up within the battle ground states and create that "safe space" for mushes? I think he can because it will be a TV commercial blitzkrieg and I think it bodes well for Trump because even the undercard races seem to be focusing on corruption in the D party, and the Obamacare price hikes hit before the election (that is a hammer between the mushes' eyes "muh free health care")

OpenID basementhomebrewer October 24, 2016 9:50 AM  

Samuel Nock wrote:Vox, do you think this is more aimed at discouraging Trump voters from turning out or at preparing to "justify" a stolen election (i.e. when Soros-owned voting machines hand the election to Hillary, the media point to these polls as showing the lack of discrepancy between "polls" and "results")? Both? Other?

Exit polls are supposed to be harder to rig, but maybe at that point is too late.


Exit polls are just as bad. In 2004 the media was announcing all day that Kerry was going to win. The people who preach "Profiling is wrong" are the people taking the exit polls and selecting the blue haired cat ladyies and dindu's and ignoring the white males for the the exit polling.


As to your first point I had the same thought. If you are going to commit mass voter fraud on a scale not seen before you need polls going into the election suggesting you are going to win big to lend legitimacy to the results.

Anonymous gggs October 24, 2016 9:54 AM  

"gggs - nobody owes you anything, or has to show you a damn thing."

This is very good news for you and others because based on the emails highlighted in this post, nothing remotely supporting the false points trying to be made can shown.

Anonymous Millenium October 24, 2016 9:59 AM  

@11
to "justify" a stolen election (i.e. when Soros-owned voting machines hand the election to Hillary, the media point to these polls as showing the lack of discrepancy between "polls" and "results")?


I have been expecting that outcome since the Trump train left the station. All the more reason to keep momentum going so if the election is stolen it is stolen so flagrantly that no one can be under the delusion the electoral process retains any legitimacy.

Anonymous BGKB October 24, 2016 10:01 AM  

It provides internal polling for the Clinton campaign, which again makes me sort of dubious as to whether these emails demonstrate anything

Why would they try blowing smoke up their own ass? To not destroy Clinton's heavily medicated CONfidence. If this is for their internal polls just think of how bad the external polls must be. Another possibility they were using it as tests to refine polling fraud for other polls. You need to understand something before you can cook its books.

"gggs - nobody owes you anything, or has to show you a damn thing."

I think he is hoping that someone owes him a spanking.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable October 24, 2016 10:02 AM  

@ Michael Thompson:

If they know something and choose to pretend to not know it, then that is the same as lying

Anonymous gggs October 24, 2016 10:05 AM  

"I have been expecting that outcome since the Trump train left the station. All the more reason to keep momentum going so if the election is stolen it is stolen so flagrantly that no one can be under the delusion the electoral process retains any legitimacy."

Stolen? You knew who stole this election? Trump.

Trump's organization is such a bad example of campaigning, Trump is such ideological chameleon, such an policy incompetent that he never gave the GOP a chance to win. The real blame however lies with the Trump voters who chose circus over substance in the primaries.

Blogger dh October 24, 2016 10:05 AM  

dh - who is now firmly in the asshole column - your take on Brexit is a bullshit rewrite of history. Even those polls you cite as being close at the end had the Leave vote undercounted BY 10%. That's pretty crappy polling by anybody's book.

The problem is that you are just factually wrong. I mean, the plain facts show you being wrong. So yes, I am an asshole, but I'm also correct whereas you are wrong.

The final polls did not have the "Leave vote undercounted BY 10%". The final polls, for example, these ones reported by Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-22/campaigners-press-last-brexit-appeals-as-poll-shows-sides-tied

Were completely correct in all sense of the word correct. The YouGov final polls was 51-vs-49 "excluding undecided voters". Pundits then take this and report that it will be close but that the remain "should" win. This presumed that undecideds would break roughly equally, which was not the case.

The Financial Times polling aggregator has it's final tally still here:

https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

And shows 48 remain vs 46 leave, indicating 6% undecided. The final result was 51.9% leave vs. 48.1% remain, meaning the final aggregated poll totally correct.

In fact all the polling in the last 45 days of the campaign was accurate. Yes, the media lied and distorted and made it seem like Remain would win, but that's a media problem, not a polling problem.

Call me an asshole all day, but re-writing history to find a false hope in the Trump campaign's death throes is not a convincing basis to induct me into that coveted group.

Blogger Stilicho October 24, 2016 10:09 AM  

Michael Thompson is a lying Hillary troll. Gallup actually tracks party affiliation of voters and shows a democrat advantage that swings from 0 to about 5 percent higher than republicans. Their latest shows 27r 40i and 32d as of mid September. The question will be who independents prefer if that affiliation hold thru Nov 8.

In 08 it stayed firm in favor of dems. In 2010 repub affiliation swung towards independent, but repubs had big gains in congress. In 2012 a seven point Sept dem advantage tightened to 5 points by election time with Obama re-elected but dems losing congressional seats. In 2014, a 4 point dem advantage in September moved to a dead heat at election time 28r/28d with 40i. Result was republican gains in congress. If 2014 is the best guide, then Trump wins. If other years, then dems have up to a 5 point advantage and polls should -at the least- be weighted accordingly. Not weighted more heavily than that in favor of dems and certainly not by over targeting dem friendly sub groups.

Interestingly enough, the latest ABC scam poll (d +9) only shows Hillary getting 82% of black vote and 63% of mexican vote. She can't win with that level of support from her base.

Anonymous gggs October 24, 2016 10:09 AM  

"If this is for their internal polls just think of how bad the external polls must be."

What do you mean "if"?

Podesta isn't running polling organizations. He doesn't run ABC, NBC, CBS, Quinniapac, Gallup, etc.

Every media poll shows which polling organization carried out the poll. The Atlas Project isn't one of them.

Man...the reaching being done by the losing side in this election is astonishing.

Blogger Cail Corishev October 24, 2016 10:09 AM  

There's been a bad smell ever since I first saw that some were deliberately sampling Democrats as high as 44%. Yeah, yeah, they adjust for it, but why use such a skewed sample in the first place?

Really, the only question left is which of these scenarios is true:

1. They're skewing the polls because Trump is actually leading, and they're trying to depress Trump voters to help Hillary squeak out a win.

2. They know/suspect the Soros Voting Machines(tm) are going to give Hillary the win by a point or two (and most of the swing states) regardless, so they're skewing their polls to make that result look legitimate and to make themselves look sharp.

Blogger dh October 24, 2016 10:10 AM  

One thing the polls show the preference cascade was broken and Trump is still not a clear cut choice for social acceptability. I don't think Reagan had it either according to polls.

There was almost no polling for Reagan at the local levels. It was essentially a few media outlets and national polling. In 1980, Reagan over performed, and the national polls from Gallup had him losing easily up until the last one.

In 1984, they were exactly right, with Reagan destroying Mondale.

Blogger Nick S October 24, 2016 10:11 AM  

I would buy the black T if it said "SJW speak with forked tongue". Yeah, I know it's implied, but MPAI.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable October 24, 2016 10:11 AM  

I keep trying to tell them that if action X produces result Y, and they know it and result Y is one they think is awful, then taking action X (no matter how "good" it seems) is stupid/evil. I cannot seem to get through.

I suppose that is not a rhetorical enough approach.


It's a good approach. You mustbe using it wrong. Tell her that when CWII happens, all of that brother-on-brother blood will be on her hands, because half of white men will not accept being serfs; that's why the US exists.

Blogger Michael Thompson October 24, 2016 10:15 AM  

"Michael Thompson - that ABC poll you cite had a D+9 oversample, with more independents than Rs. That is not reflective of reality."

An aggregator chart of polls that have asked for party identification since 2011 indicates about 36% Dem, 28% Rep, 32% Ind. Which is about an 8 point spread, so the ABC poll was slightly off, but not by nearly the margin you seem to believe. As I said earlier, this is partially a product of a lot of conservatives choosing to identify as Libertarians, rather than Republicans. It's also a problem of conservative independents and liberal independents being dumped into the same big pot, thereby making the number of 'independents' seem much larger than it probably is.

Blogger Cail Corishev October 24, 2016 10:16 AM  

Neither of the 3rd party candidates this election has the charisma to pull 5%. Maybe combined, but not each.

I'm still waiting for the Butthurt Brigade to decide whether they want to vote for Gary "Bake the Cake or Else" Johnson or Egg McMuffin. I guess it doesn't matter which if all you care about it taking votes from Trump, but it's hard to inspire people to follow your lead if your candidate is Some Other Guy I Guess.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis October 24, 2016 10:17 AM  

@14

16 years ago if someone told you that the US government would spy on it's own citizen's, put them on no-fly lists and collude with the media to drive a narrative you would have been equally as credulous, to be fair so would I, yet here we are.

Anonymous gggs October 24, 2016 10:18 AM  

"2. They know/suspect the Soros Voting Machines(tm) are going to give Hillary the win by a point or two..."

What voting machine is owned by Soros? In which states are they used?

Answer: None, none.

Bad Meme.

Blogger dh October 24, 2016 10:20 AM  

There's been a bad smell ever since I first saw that some were deliberately sampling Democrats as high as 44%. Yeah, yeah, they adjust for it, but why use such a skewed sample in the first place?

Because it's hard to get people to respond to polls, at any level. People, especially older people (like Republicans on average), don't like to respond to phone calls asking questions.

This is really just a stupid line of discussion. I feel like going back to the same time period in 2012, in the blog archives, and throwing up practically the same stupid comments from the same stupid people.

It's perennial - this time it's different, the time the polls are really rigged, this time the machines are really rigged.

It's the most bizarre thing. In this bizzaro world, Donald Trump is vastly popular and is actually winning the state and popular vote counts, and the media is doing everything it can to hide it, including 90% of the pollsters, even the ones hired by pro-Trump organizations and the candidate himself. The conspiracy is so deep that the candidates campaign manager, herself an experienced pollster, is in on it.

I'd like to quote someone who is actually pretty smart about this stuff, he wrote after 2012:

The bad news is that Helicopter Ben just got the green light for QEn. The dreadful news is that those seemingly ridiculous D+11 samples were actually correct1 which means the 2012 election has the potential to mark a demographic turning point from which the American Right will never be able to recover.

That was 2012 Vox Day. Let's listen to him, and not Hope-Pray-Vote 2016 Vox Day.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 24, 2016 10:23 AM  

#59 Yeah dh not as much polling, now its a racket. I think this election rhymes with 1980 and I think Trump squeaks by

Anonymous Eric the Red October 24, 2016 10:24 AM  

There will be a big surprise with the right side of the bell curve for blacks. Getting shoved around by increasing numbers of immigrants has finally made them wake up.

Absolutely none of them would ever admit to voting for Trump when they are polled. But the lying media is going to throw a hissy fit when they ultimately discover the big percentage of blacks voting for Trump in the election booth.

Blogger Nick S October 24, 2016 10:26 AM  

I'm not worried about Trump groping my granddaughter. I'm worried about even the most dimwitted child molester grasping the glaringly obvious and exploiting future legislations from Hillary's SCOTUS. If you want to be able to look your children in the eye and honestly tell them you did the right thing, vote Trump.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 24, 2016 10:27 AM  

Off topic, I wish Hillary would condemn the French for their actions in Calais today.

"District friggin 9" here folks

Blogger Michael Thompson October 24, 2016 10:28 AM  

"Gallup actually tracks party affiliation of voters and shows a democrat advantage that swings from 0 to about 5 percent higher than republicans. Their latest shows 27r 40i and 32d as of mid September. The question will be who independents prefer if that affiliation hold thru Nov 8."

So now you are annoyed with me because you don't believe that Independents are represented strongly enough? The ABC poll indicated 27% Republican self-identification. The Gallup poll you are citing also indicates 27% Republican self-identification. The only real difference there is between Independents and Democrats and others here have indicated they believe that Independent self-identification does not reflect 'reality.'

Gallup is not the only organization that tracks self-identification over time. The chart I use aggregates all of those organizations together, so you are not getting just one and thereby hopefully eliminating some of the internal biases and errors in methodology of the polling. In general, averaging all of the polls will give someone a clearer look at the picture as it stands.

Blogger Cail Corishev October 24, 2016 10:29 AM  

All the more reason to keep momentum going so if the election is stolen it is stolen so flagrantly that no one can be under the delusion the electoral process retains any legitimacy.

Indeed. When people first started talking about vote fraud, my response was to shrug: Democrats have been cheating since at least the 60s. Every election a few of them get caught with a car full of ballots on the way to the landfill or voting machines where they shouldn't be. In the middle of the 2000 recount, a Miami newspaper found over 500 felon votes in that county alone. So I figured the fact that the Republican needs to win by a clear margin was already baked into the numbers.

But now it's looking like it's more than a bag of ballots here or some illegal immigrants being given dead people's names to vote under there. They're prepared to rig the polls, the voting machines, and whatever else it takes to win. So let's make them pad Hillary's numbers by 10% or 20%, not just a few percent in a few states. That'll make it much harder for them to hide what they've done.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus October 24, 2016 10:29 AM  

Over-sample the Native American population

But Vox, your people are finally getting the representation they deserve!

Anonymous Rollory October 24, 2016 10:29 AM  

The Romney campaign was SURE the polls were inaccurate. The election results mirrored the polls precisely. Was the election that thoroughly rigged? If so, does it matter what the polls do or do not say?

If the 2012 election was not thoroughly rigged, what is the difference in pollster behavior between then and now, and why?

I did not vote in 2012 (I was a Ron Paul guy and Romney and his wife made it crystal clear they did not want my support). I do plan on voting this time around, regardless of probable outcomes.

OpenID basementhomebrewer October 24, 2016 10:36 AM  

dh wrote: Let's listen to him, and not Hope-Pray-Vote 2016 Vox Day.



Soooo, despair - don't pray - don't vote? Sounds like a winning strategy.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 10:37 AM  

The emails are dated 2008

Blogger VD October 24, 2016 10:39 AM  

That was 2012 Vox Day. Let's listen to him, and not Hope-Pray-Vote 2016 Vox Day.

If the Hillary +14 polls are correct, then I'll see that as confirmation that the Right is electorally DOA in the USA. 2012 suggested it. But, there is a massive and palpable difference between the enthusiasm for Obama and the lack of enthusiasm for Hillary.

This year, all of the enthusiasm is on the Trump side. If these same polls were being reported with Obama-style enthusiasm for Hillary, I would not doubt them.

But unlike 2008 and 2012, there is no enthusiasm on the Left. Does it matter? We'll find out. As I said, systems and process guys like you are reliably right, but you guys also always miss the vital turns.

Blogger Cail Corishev October 24, 2016 10:42 AM  

Because it's hard to get people to respond to polls, at any level. People, especially older people (like Republicans on average), don't like to respond to phone calls asking questions.

So pollsters are oversampling Democrats because in a nation containing approximately 55,000,000 registered Republicans, it's just too hard to get a few hundred of them to answer questions on the phone to fill out your sample.

Got it.

Blogger Nick S October 24, 2016 10:43 AM  

Hey, Josh, have you come out of the closet yet and admitted you're voting Trump? Maybe I missed it.

Blogger VD October 24, 2016 10:44 AM  

dh - who is now firmly in the asshole column

Settle down, rubberducky. DH is not an asshole, his behavior here has always been impeccable, and the fact that he disagrees with you, and disagrees with me, does not justify the claim.

Anonymous Yay Trump October 24, 2016 10:44 AM  

I think the evidence is solid that polling has more volatility than in 2012. I would note that the national polling that was closest to the final election result in 2012 has Trump closer than the other national polling. State polling is okish for him in most states, with again a lot of volatility.

Early voting is also a mixed bag, with lower turnout but better R and I ballots and in-person voting, where those breakdowns are available.

The Clinton campaign is not campaigning like they think it will be a 10 point blowout, they are circling around FL and PA in particular. I think polling doesn't really mean anything this cycle except a volatile race that will come down to turnout and I think sheer energy does favor a Trump win.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 10:46 AM  

Hey, Josh, have you come out of the closet yet and admitted you're voting Trump? Maybe I missed it.

I've never voted for a major party nominee

Blogger Nick S October 24, 2016 10:49 AM  

"I've never voted for a major party nominee"

And...? This will be your first?

Anonymous Sensei October 24, 2016 10:49 AM  

I don't want to believe dh either, but the polls were accurate in 2012. Something nigh miraculous will have to occur for Trump to even eke out a win in the last possible election for it to happen. Media, education system, churches... America has already been converged.

That sound at which many of us pricked up our ears was not a coming Trumpslide, but the heavy tread of the gods of the copybook headings, approaching to wreak reality upon the world.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 10:52 AM  

And...? This will be your first?

No. I will not be voting for Trump.

Anonymous Yay Trump October 24, 2016 10:54 AM  

The polls currently showing a close race are the ones that showed a race close to the final result in 2012. That is not true of the polls showing Hillary with double digit leads.

Blogger dh October 24, 2016 10:56 AM  

So pollsters are oversampling Democrats because in a nation containing approximately 55,000,000 registered Republicans, it's just too hard to get a few hundred of them to answer questions on the phone to fill out your sample.

Got it.


The question is simply distribution. You need them in the right numbers from the right places at the right time, willing to answer questions.

But as I have noticed in the past, it's actually borderline trivial math to correct the samples by applying weighting to bring the samples into line with (a) actual voter totals and (b) past voting trends.

Just about every poll that gives you the full report with cross-tabs includes the information for you to see the actual results and the corrected and weighted numbers, and most good ones provide a solid write-up for the models and statistical reasoning behind the corrections.

If you disagree with the methodology I think that's just fine. I recognize that a long history of ineptitude and a seriously broken business model (with the same group doing both push polls, media polling and public polling - it's just not ethical).

I think where we are is that the comments from Trump fans are just in a delusional sweet spot, and it's probably made worse by the fact that the candidate is actively promoting dysfunction with his campaign rhetoric. Whats interesting to me is that that same rhetoric is actually moving the needle a little bit in polling. That's unexpected.

I am a real skeptic when people claim polls to be wrong. I try to follow-up on them and see how wrong they really were, and for the vast majority of the ones I personally check, they didn't turn out to be wrong from a statistical point of view. The spin is often wrong, but the spin on everything is often wrong.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 10:57 AM  

Hey dh, did you read the 37pg pdf?

Anonymous TS October 24, 2016 10:59 AM  

"I think where we are is that the comments from Trump fans are just in a delusional sweet spot, and it's probably made worse by the fact that the candidate is actively promoting dysfunction with his campaign rhetoric."

Yeah and Hitlery never does anything dysfunctional! *rolls eyes*

Anonymous TS October 24, 2016 11:01 AM  

"No. I will not be voting for Trump."

So you are voting for Hitlery.

Anonymous Yay Trump October 24, 2016 11:02 AM  

There was an interesting NH poll that was weighted to be 10% black when that isn't typical for voter turnout in that state. Similarly there was an MI poll from the same pollster that had 75yos as half the sample after weighting.

Blogger dh October 24, 2016 11:02 AM  

The Clinton campaign is not campaigning like they think it will be a 10 point blowout, they are circling around FL and PA in particular. I think polling doesn't really mean anything this cycle except a volatile race that will come down to turnout and I think sheer energy does favor a Trump win.

Actually the Clinton campaign has begun to focus on down-level races. For example:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-hillary-clinton-campaign-20161023-story.html

Blogger Nick S October 24, 2016 11:03 AM  

Josh (the gayest thing here) wrote:No. I will not be voting for Trump.

"Choose and do what is right, not what fancy takes,
Not weighing the possibilities, but bravely grasping the real,
Not in the flight of ideas, but only in action is there freedom.
Come away from your anxious hesitations into the storm of events,
Carried by God’s command and your faith alone.
Then freedom will embrace your spirit with rejoicing." ~ Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 11:03 AM  

So you are voting for Hitlery.

No

Blogger Arthur Isaac October 24, 2016 11:03 AM  

None of any of this changes the fact that Hillary should be in prison. If she crooks into the POTUS we'll have a failed democracy on our hands. 3 more revisionist SCOTUS picks and college campuses of today will seem like safe spaces to patriots.

Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians happened on the Clinton watch. With Hillary as POTUS I think we'll see confrontations like we had in Utah and Oregon turn into bloodbaths. And with a gun grabbing federal government we'll be seeing a lot more confrontations.

Anonymous johnc October 24, 2016 11:04 AM  

@84 Hillary's trainwreck health seems to be the only issue with traction. When people saw her handlers throw her into that van like a sack of stale potatoes, that probably resonated more than any of Trump's (legit) attacks.

I think Scott Adams is right here. The narrative that she is corrupt and crooked to the core doesn't really move the voter. Everyone knows Hillary and knows she's crooked. Trump & Co. need to prove that she is a dangerous person. A very, very dangerous person. An extraordinarily dangerous person. People respond to fear. It's the #1 emotion that has people set against Trump.

Blogger Michael Thompson October 24, 2016 11:04 AM  

"The polls currently showing a close race are the ones that showed a race close to the final result in 2012. That is not true of the polls showing Hillary with double digit leads."

That is not true. The ABC poll from 11/1-11/4/2012 polled 50-47 in favor of Obama, while the IBD/TIPP poll from the same period polled 50-49 for Obama. Obama won the popular vote 51-47. So the ABC poll was more accurate, if you choose to put any stock in that sort of thing.

Blogger Mighty Lou October 24, 2016 11:05 AM  

Well, the other side of this coin is the MSM bias. When they are misinforming the public 24/7, when they are over reporting on trumped up allegations while engaging in a black out black out on anything damaging to Hillary, then yes there will be polls showing Trump behind. That's the whole freaking point!

However, even with all of the MSM bias Trump is still doing well in the polls (not as well as we'd like) and gaining ground. Even if Trump is behind in some legitimate polls, there are others that show him tied and in some he is even leading.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell October 24, 2016 11:05 AM  

Look, if in the wake of the third debate the LA Times poll, which always was more favorable to Trump now shows him down he's done.

The time to run ads was the time when voter preference was still dynamic. Clinton knew this and Trump doesn't. It's too late to try to swing the election towards Trump and the sexual assault/harassment allegations don't help either.

Trump is a shitty campaigner and the polls all suggest that Romney will have done better.

I for one cannot pretend he has a chance anymore. You can like dh or hate him but he knows about polling and most of us don't.

Blogger Stilicho October 24, 2016 11:05 AM  

@71 stop lying Michael. You are lying about voter party affiliation and you are lying about my comment. The dem advantage swings from 0 to 5 percent. If the Sept dem advantage of 5 percent holds with independents making up 40 percent of voters, the Marin of independents voting for Trump will absolutely determine election. If 2014 is replayed, party affiliation will move in Trump's favor and he will win. When was the last time a democrat presidential candidate won the national vote by the 8% democrat advantage you claim? Do try to keep up short bus. The despair troll schtick doesn't work around here.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore October 24, 2016 11:06 AM  

@87
dh, what do you think of the Primary Model used by Helmut Nothpoth?
http://primarymodel.com/2016-forecast-full/

Anonymous TS October 24, 2016 11:07 AM  

"No"

Yes you are by default.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 11:07 AM  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBrDzZCOQtI

Blogger dh October 24, 2016 11:08 AM  

Josh,

Yes, I did. I know you didn't, because if you did, you'd know:

* It's not a PDF, it's a Word-doc.
* It's from 2008, not from this election.

The company involved, Atlas, is a democratic polling outfit. They are designed to provide demographic and electoral data to promote Democratic candidates and to help them win.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 11:08 AM  


Yes you are by default.


Math is hard.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell October 24, 2016 11:10 AM  

Let's look at that ABC poll. A 12 deficit for Trump? Even if we assume it's a bad poll he's probably still down several points.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 11:11 AM  

Yes, I did. I know you didn't, because if you did, you'd know:

* It's not a PDF, it's a Word-doc.
* It's from 2008, not from this election.


Dude...check my freaking first comment in this thread...Josh (the gayest thing here)October 24, 2016 10:37 AM
The emails are dated 2008


Yeah, I was reading the embedded scribd document on zero hedge...hence my use of pdf vs doc...didn't see it was a doc file until I clicked over to WikiLeaks...

Blogger dh October 24, 2016 11:12 AM  

Al--

I just read the PDF:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/522ead72e4b0a584ece4eab9/t/57a61cbb29687fc5a2708b8b/1470504123571/Vote+2016+PM+PS.pdf

It uses primary vote percentages, scaled up to the general election, to predict a popular vote winner.

So, therefore, it doesn't calculate state-by-state wins, and therefore, I think it's not very good. I haven't checked any of his math for his historical analysis.

I don't believe you can forecast Presidential elections anymore without calculating state-by-state wins. It's especially true since a candidate could win with 52.3% of the vote like he projects Trump to receive while still losing the electoral college.

Blogger dh October 24, 2016 11:12 AM  

Josh, right you are. Sorry I missed that.

Anonymous FP October 24, 2016 11:12 AM  

Romney didn't even challenge the obvious voter fraud. Forgive me if I don't trust polls or the prognostications of dh given that all of the enthusiasm is on the Trump side.

Pollwatcher talking about 2012:
https://twitter.com/NubianAwakening/status/789028445418299392

Anonymous Anonymous October 24, 2016 11:13 AM  

95. Arthur Isaac

Incorrect. Ruby Ridge occurred under Bush 41. One presumes initial planning of the Branch Davidian standoff started under the Bush administration as well, though it did take place under Clinton. ( Feb 93 - Apr 93.)

Blogger Michael Thompson October 24, 2016 11:13 AM  

"stop lying Michael. You are lying about voter party affiliation and you are lying about my comment. The dem advantage swings from 0 to 5 percent."

What exactly am I supposed to be 'lying' about? Both the ABC poll you don't like and the Gallup tracking poll you apparently do like list Republican party self-identification at 27%. The aggregate of polls from all polling organizations since 2011 list it at 28%, which is mostly buoyed by the Fox News tracking poll, which typically lists it at 7-9% higher than almost any other one does.

Party self-identification does not predict how much a Democratic candidate will win an election by. In a nation that is ostensibly 32% 'independent,' those independents already lean one way or another. They simply don't affiliate with a given party.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 11:15 AM  


Josh, right you are. Sorry I missed that.


No worries man. I agree with the arguments you're making in this thread (and in past threads) about the polling.

I'm reading through the document now...it's not the smoking gun that 2016 polls are fraudulent...

Blogger Mighty Lou October 24, 2016 11:16 AM  

Well, I am voting Trump, but if I was polled today I would identify as an independent, so would my wife who is also voting Trump.

Blogger dh October 24, 2016 11:19 AM  

Josh, yeah, I mean it's push polling instructions. Campaigns love to release their poll results. Between the calls actually going out with leading questions, to the demographics, the whole thing is designed to make the candidate seem inevitable. It's a great example of why the business is fundamentally unethical, but it doesn't mean the results of any particular poll is wrong.

Things like this should be met with resolutions from media outlets to only talk about polls with full cross-tabs and raw totals available, and only done by independent groups. When a campaign leaks this type of push poll to the outlets, they should simply ignore it and do so vocally, or better yet, report that the campaign leaked biased and unreliable polling in an attempt to influence them into reporting something unproven. That would be the accurate and honorable thing to do.

Anonymous Breitcuck October 24, 2016 11:20 AM  

The worst part is that Breitbart is also in the game. Cucks! Who can we trust?

"Democrat Hillary R. Clinton opened up a four-point lead over her GOP rival Donald J. Trump in the campaign to win Florida and its 29 electoral votes, according to the Breitbart/Gravis poll conducted Oct. 11 through Oct. 13 with 1,799 registered voters."

Anonymous Wyatt Tiers October 24, 2016 11:20 AM  

Love this. It's going to make next Tuesday even more painful for Trump fans. Wikileaks did some good after all.

Blogger Arthur Isaac October 24, 2016 11:22 AM  

And those are just the confrontations inside the country. She has a lot of international scores to settle now as well. Ecuador, Russia, China, Duterte and Assange.

Blogger Nick S October 24, 2016 11:26 AM  

Wyatt Tiers wrote:Love this. It's going to make next Tuesday even more painful for Trump fans.

That might not work out as well as you imagine.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 11:28 AM  

Josh, yeah, I mean it's push polling instructions. Campaigns love to release their poll results. Between the calls actually going out with leading questions, to the demographics, the whole thing is designed to make the candidate seem inevitable. It's a great example of why the business is fundamentally unethical, but it doesn't mean the results of any particular poll is wrong.

Yup.

And isn't the deliberate oversampling of certain groups for messaging, id, and gotv?

Anonymous Jack Amok October 24, 2016 11:29 AM  

our article is premised on the notion that this methodological breakdown is flawed, (and that most polls are skewed),

No, the article is premised on the notion that Podesta was articulating specific methods to use for skewing the polls. Reading comprehension FFS.

...it requires you to believe that the Clinton campaign was instructing their polling firm about how to rig it...

Quit shilling. Clearly what Podesta was doing was asking their internal polling firm to use it's best legitimate data to recommend what sample manipulations other, for-public-consumption polls should do to produce the desired results.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 11:30 AM  

The worst part is that Breitbart is also in the game. Cucks! Who can we trust?

"Democrat Hillary R. Clinton opened up a four-point lead over her GOP rival Donald J. Trump in the campaign to win Florida and its 29 electoral votes, according to the Breitbart/Gravis poll conducted Oct. 11 through Oct. 13 with 1,799 registered voters."


Eh, relatively old poll.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr October 24, 2016 11:32 AM  

Personally, I think the GOP is in the middle of a serious shift in polarity. This happens...believe it or not, there was once a time when the Democrats were stronger on national security than the Republicans.

In this case, Big Business and the Truly Rich have shifted their support to the Democrats in exchange for crony capitalism with a side-helping of snobbery. This has left the lower middle class vote up for grabs. Kindly note that Trump's power base has been precisely that lower middle class vote.

Trump's personal drawbacks are serious, maybe prohibitive. As I've said before, he's a wretched candidate with a solid platform.

What the GOP needs to be doing is working to snap up the abandoned lower middle class voters, run the Trump Platform Mk2, get a serious counter-media effort going, and crush the Dems in 2018 and 2020.

And yes, part of that will involve flushing out the quislings and cowards in the party. We owe Trump a debt of gratitude for highlighting just who can and cannot be trusted.

Anonymous ViPo October 24, 2016 11:33 AM  

Quit bringing Gallup up. They are not doing presidential polling. CBS, ABC, MSNBC are Dem shills and are selling a specific product to the goyim.

Blogger Frank Brady October 24, 2016 11:34 AM  

62. Michael Thompson

The issue that skews most of the MSM-sponsored polls is NOT party registration, but the level of participation by people in those parties. This is very bad news for the Hillary crowd. In the primary elections, participation by self-identified registered Democrats was DOWN by double digits whereas participation by people who self-identified as Republicans was up by even larger amounts. In 2016, about 92,000 voters switched their party registration to Republican and more than 61,000 of those were Democrats. More than 63,000 switched their registration to the Democratic Party. About 43,000 of those were Republicans. Those numbers alone should spread terror among the Democrat faithful.

Donald Trump brought more people into his camp (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) than any previous Republican candidate for President. The Democrats, GOP RINOs, and the "nevertrump" neocons are whistling past the grave yard and will never understand what hit them on when they wake up on November 9th.

Anonymous TS October 24, 2016 11:35 AM  

"Math is hard."

What does math have to with backing a criminal by default?

Anonymous Broken Arrow October 24, 2016 11:36 AM  

The bad news is that Helicopter Ben just got the green light for QEn. The dreadful news is that those seemingly ridiculous D+11 samples were actually correct1 which means the 2012 election has the potential to mark a demographic turning point from which the American Right will never be able to recover.

This is the ringer. The question coming into this election was "Is it already too late demographically for the GOP resembling anything like a Conservative party?". The GOP rank and file answered with, "TRUMP!". As he promised to build a wall and deport at least some of the illegals.

Rubio seems to be a nice guy, but a non-starter on this all important issue as he was for amnesty, which means electing him would simply delay the inevitable.

The only polling question I have left is, Will the third party candidates really get this many votes? I find it unbelievable based upon history.

Blogger Mighty Lou October 24, 2016 11:38 AM  

I think many people saying they are voting third party are really voting Trump, they'd never vote Hillary but to avoid awkward conversation or outright arguments they just say third party.

Blogger Elocutioner October 24, 2016 11:39 AM  

"How do you do, fellow Republicans. We can't prove in a court of law that this is racketeering and rigging an election based on this one leaked email showing them rigging polls from this one firm, therefore it's still only a conspiracy theory. Don't mind the mountains of evidence that they're thoroughly corrupt 3rd world-style thugs, we must not make judgements until we're 100% sure that this thing is true that we believe to be true and fits like a glove with their SOP. Let's wait until a few months after the election to be sure. We have our cuck principles to maintain."

They've been rigging things for decades, they've been caught before the election for once. They've been importing millions of "natural conservatives" to vote for their agenda. They've been importing tens of thousands of "refugees" to destroy our culture and heritage. But somehow they deserve the benefit of the doubt? Blow.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 11:39 AM  

What does math have to with backing a criminal by default?

No, idiot, math says that if Trump has 100 votes and Clinton has 100 votes, and I don't vote for either, that does not move Clinton's vote total to 101, unless I'm dead and buried in Chicago.

Blogger Lazarus October 24, 2016 11:40 AM  

The NYT just published a whole list of Trump twitter insults . Should bump him up 2% in the polls.

Nothing grabs pussy like a good twitter insult.

Blogger mushroom October 24, 2016 11:42 AM  

I am having trouble understanding why there is so much controversy over the polls. They are right or they are wrong. They have been right, for the most part in the past, including 2012. This may prove to be the year they are wildly wrong.

Either way, we will soon have much bigger problems to worry about here in the States. If Hillary is elected, likely direct conflict with Russia and China; if Trump prevails, the central bankers let the markets crash out with all the accompanying wailing and gnashing of teeth.

My vote is for more ammo.

Blogger The Deuce October 24, 2016 11:43 AM  

I read the alleged confidential memo. Sorry to say, from the way it reads, there's very little chance that it's legit.

Blogger praetorian October 24, 2016 11:44 AM  

Disparaging Ratel wrote:

Here in South Africa they got most people convinced that Trump is Literally Hitler, and in general "our" media is very disparaging of him. All negative and no positives. So it is a world-wide psy-op, even if that was not quite their intention.



If I didn't know any better, I'd say it almost seems like the world-wide press is heavily concentrated in the hands of a very disciplined, single group of people with a very specific agenda...

But I know better.

Blogger Stilicho October 24, 2016 11:45 AM  

Come on Michael Thompson, when was the last time a democrat presidential candidate won by the 8% affiliation advantage? You say it doesn't matter, but you were sure it mattered when you were touting it as validifying a prediction of a Hillary win! You may not be lying after all, you may just be suffering from a sub-saharan IQ.

Blogger Cail Corishev October 24, 2016 11:46 AM  

We owe Trump a debt of gratitude for highlighting just who can and cannot be trusted.

I posted this here in August 2015:

"I don't know what [Trump's] policies would be, and don't care much. I do know what the other candidates' policies would be (and no, what they're saying now has nothing to do with that).

"If Trump makes a lot of sense and makes the others look stupid, that's a good thing. If he's a buffoon and makes the whole process look stupid and corrupt, that's at least as good.

"And if he keeps ¡Jeb! from being crowned Bush III -- which is still where we're headed, and have been for more than a decade -- he's a national hero."

Obviously my expectations were far too low. He's already done all that and more. And he turned out not to be a buffoon at all, though the media/cucks are determined to beat that dead horse to a pulp. He turned out to have a solid platform -- one might even call it conservative in the Reagan/Buchanan mold -- and the ability to articulate it well. He's exposed (or inspired others to expose, which amounts to the same thing) corruption not just in the GOP, but throughout the system. It's easy to forget how far we've come.

Blogger praetorian October 24, 2016 11:48 AM  

This is the ringer. The question coming into this election was "Is it already too late demographically for the GOP resembling anything like a Conservative party?".

It's amusing to hear leftists crow that whites will never win another election.

Well... OK.

Blogger Nate October 24, 2016 11:48 AM  

Josh.... shut up or I am gonna post pictures of you in a Trump hat.

Anonymous TS October 24, 2016 11:49 AM  

"No, idiot, math says that if Trump has 100 votes and Clinton has 100 votes, and I don't vote for either."

But that's not what the "math" is saying idiot. Yes, its apparently too hard for you traitor.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 11:51 AM  

A universal trait of conmen is a baleful contempt for the people they deceive. Therefore it is not surprising that by democratically electing the most skillful deceivers, we are guaranteeing that we'll be ruled by those who hate us with the greatest passion.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/201036.P_T_Barnum

Blogger dh October 24, 2016 11:52 AM  

The only polling question I have left is, Will the third party candidates really get this many votes? I find it unbelievable based upon history.

That really is the only question left on the table. As far as I can tell, know one has any clue what they'll really do. It does seem amazing that 1-in-10 or something like it would actually do it, but who knows.

One possibility is that will be the final number, but it will be focused around locales where it doesn't matter. Does anyone really care if 5% of California votes for Green? That type of thing.

Blogger Arthur Isaac October 24, 2016 11:53 AM  

Right you are Anon. I sometimes have difficulties distinguishing between the acts of one despotic globalist administration and another's.

Anonymous TS October 24, 2016 11:55 AM  

"It's easy to forget how far we've come."

Trump is not a career politician. His first foray into politics was still very successful by any measure.

Blogger Johnny October 24, 2016 11:55 AM  

href="http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/its-not-question-of-if-polls-are-false.html#c2573528038528029090">Disparaging Ratel wrote:Mighty Lou wrote:a large scale psy-op directed at the U.S (the world even)

Here in South Africa they got most people convinced that Trump is Literally Hitler, and in general "our" media is very disparaging of him. All negative and no positives. So it is a world-wide psy-op, even if that was not quite their intention.



My take on events is that Trump is a nationalist and if we start doing a better job of running out country it works to the disadvantage of other countries. So, naturally, he doesn't get a good international press. The same thing goes for other countries. Let some local nationalist start pushing things and the global press will be bad. Want a good press, make like a doormat.

Blogger Steve Clayworth October 24, 2016 11:55 AM  

Dude, Nate Silver is your downfall.

Blogger Nate October 24, 2016 11:56 AM  

"But that's not what the "math" is saying idiot. Yes, its apparently too hard for you traitor."

No sugar tits... what is obvious... is that you're new here.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/07/mostest-and-importantest-again.html

You're making an argument we've mocked or years.

Anonymous Yay Trump October 24, 2016 11:56 AM  

If people in blue states aren't just signalling when they say they'll vote Stein or Johnson because Clinton is so embarrassing, then Trump would have a great shot at picking up nearly all the states where he's running less than 10 points behind.

Blogger dh October 24, 2016 11:56 AM  

Nate - heh. Yup.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 11:57 AM  

No sugar tits... what is obvious... is that you're new here.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/07/mostest-and-importantest-again.html

You're making an argument we've mocked or years.


Another example:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/05/three-monkey-math.html?m=1

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 11:59 AM  

But that's not what the "math" is saying idiot. Yes, its apparently too hard for you traitor.

Also...idiot...by your retarded logic Vox is voting for Hillary...

Anonymous TS October 24, 2016 12:03 PM  

"Is that you're new here."

Well that's a relative statement. And I disagree that not voting for Hitlery and voting for Trump falls under the "pragmatic" category in this election.

Blogger Nate October 24, 2016 12:04 PM  

"Trump falls under the "pragmatic" category in this election."

oh?

Is that because this is the most important election ever?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 24, 2016 12:04 PM  

One of the bad news bears linked to a Chi Trib article about the Clinton campaign's moving on from Trump to down ballot races, perhaps a look at where those down ballot races are at is in order. I believe it is in battle ground states.

Anonymous Broken Arrow October 24, 2016 12:04 PM  

@140 Trump voters hiding out in the 3rd party candidates, especially Johnson is the Great Polling Hope for Trump.

Given that people are getting their property damaged simply by posting a Trump sticker or sign, it's not completely unbelievable.

Also, given the enthusiasm for Trump in certain states he could possibly when the popular vote and lose rather badly in the EC.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 12:05 PM  

Well that's a relative statement. And I disagree that not voting for Hitlery and voting for Trump falls under the "pragmatic" category in this election.

You ain't got no chili

Anonymous TS October 24, 2016 12:05 PM  

It a clear case of voting for a criminal vs. a noncriminal. No surprise you clowns can't grok it.

Anonymous TS October 24, 2016 12:06 PM  

"You ain't got no chili"

Yeah and you parrot the usual pablum like a leftard.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 12:07 PM  

Josh (the gayest thing here) wrote:No sugar tits... what is obvious... is that you're new here.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/07/mostest-and-importantest-again.html

You're making an argument we've mocked or years.


Another example:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/05/three-monkey-math.html?m=1


That "three monkey" argument fails because party-based, winner-take-all elections are a game with many iterations where the winning strategy is to radicalize your side. The "most importantest" debunking is correct in most cases, except when the election actually is the most importantest. In my view, it's the difference between an imperial 2nd-world phase of American history and a 3rd-world one, either way the republic is toast.

Anonymous #8601 October 24, 2016 12:11 PM  

Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Sunday. He said that 40% of voters in battleground states have voted early, and he implied that the Democratic ground game was largely responsible. He seemed very, very confident about his "ground game".

I guess that includes burial grounds.

Blogger Michael Thompson October 24, 2016 12:12 PM  

"The issue that skews most of the MSM-sponsored polls is NOT party registration, but the level of participation by people in those parties."

That isn't the position of the gentleman who wrote the article that Vox is linking here. In fact, his position is quite clear. His position is that this poll is clearly skewed because either a.) it over-sampled registered Democrats, b.) it under-sampled registered Republicans, or c.) it under-sampled registered Independents.

"Earlier this morning we wrote about the obvious sampling bias in the latest ABC / Washington Post poll that showed a 12-point national advantage for Hillary. Like many of the recent polls from Reuters, ABC and The Washington Post, this latest poll included a 9-point sampling bias toward registered democrats.

"METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats - Republicans - Independents."

Of course, while democrats may enjoy a slight registration advantage of a couple of points, it is nowhere near the 9 points reflected in this latest poll."

In fact, we can generally assume, given the derision that's been offered to the very notion of Independents outnumbering Republicans, that the majority here believe that the ABC over-sampled Democrats and under-sampled Republicans. Nothing in the article mentioned participation level and, in fact, that is a different question altogether that is implicitly answered by the results of the poll itself, ie, the 12 point advantage for Clinton. The writer questions the poll's veracity based on the makeup of the respondents, not based on assumptions about whether the respondents were not answering accurately when they indicated their intention to vote.

Movement from one party to another during the primary process is not an indicator of general election success. There is no way of determining the exact reason why those voters decided to register with a specific party for a particular primary. It might have been to vote for Trump. It might have been to vote against him. At any rate, what happened during the primary is largely irrelevant now because we are dealing with a completely different population of respondents.

As far as dealing with this particular population is concerned, the only way we really have at the moment is to use the same predictive tools we always have ... ones that have proven to be quite accurate in recent election cycles. Until I see some sort of compelling evidence that the polls taken don't accurately reflect the result, I will tend to believe the polls as they are taken over efforts to 'unskew' them or whatnot.

Blogger Nate October 24, 2016 12:12 PM  

"It a clear case of voting for a criminal vs. a noncriminal. No surprise you clowns can't grok it."

Listen... this idiocy doesn't impress people here. if you want to make a case for voting for Trump... then do it. There are plenty of points to make.

But talking about parroting a pablum after you've been busted doing exactly that is just going to get you ignored.

Blogger Undocumented Pharmacist October 24, 2016 12:12 PM  

Rush is hitting this topic to open the show right now.

Anonymous TS October 24, 2016 12:12 PM  

"Is that because this is the most important election ever?"

Of course...

Anonymous Yay Trump October 24, 2016 12:13 PM  

This isn't the most important election ever. But like 2008 and 2012, it's going to have ugly and unpleasant consequences for conservatives and moderates if they pick the D again. And they'll be especially ugly and unpleasant because Trump is getting at least 55 million votes on election day, win or lose. If he really was only going to get 30 million votes, well, things would look pretty different.

Blogger Nate October 24, 2016 12:13 PM  

"In my view, it's the difference between an imperial 2nd-world phase of American history and a 3rd-world one, either way the republic is toast."

you have an odd view of American History. The Republic has been toast for going on 200 years.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab October 24, 2016 12:16 PM  

So is it okay to respond to the Soros troll? He's obviously a paid troll. Only shows up on topics like this, follows the d-line, sticks to the SJW model, lie, dd, and project.

I don't want to go into the spam file.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 12:16 PM  

#8601 wrote:I guess that includes burial grounds.

Hmm...targeting Native Americans and targeting burial grounds...

Egads! Don't do it Sick Hillary! Sometimes, sometimesdead is bettah.

Blogger Nate October 24, 2016 12:17 PM  

not voting for romney is voting for Obama!

not voting for McCain is voting for Obama!

not voting for Bush is voting for Kerry!

not voting for Bush is voting for Gore!

and you speak of parroting pablum...

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 24, 2016 12:19 PM  

Josh (the gayest thing here) wrote:You ain't got no chili
The Fuck you mean Willis? I got a 2-gallon dutch oven here full of chili. Made it myself. Full of beef and beans and pepes.

Want some?

Blogger Michael Thompson October 24, 2016 12:20 PM  

"The only polling question I have left is, Will the third party candidates really get this many votes? I find it unbelievable based upon history."

I doubt it. Neither of them has the political prestige of John Anderson, (and remember that Anderson cratered from about 26% support to less than 7% support on election day), and neither has put the resources into the national campaign that Ross Perot put into it in 1992. The only real thing that they have going for them is that neither of the major candidates is very well liked, so presumably a sizable portion of the electorate is looking for a third option. I suspect that on election day, the majority of those claiming they will vote third party will end up not bothering to vote, while small minorities of each will bite the bullet and vote against whichever of the two major candidates they find most loathsome, and the remainder will stick to their guns and vote 3rd party.

I would predict that total 3rd party support will come in somewhere between 3 and 4 percent.

Blogger Nick S October 24, 2016 12:21 PM  

Josh (the gayest thing here) wrote:You ain't got no chili

Why do you hate children?

Anonymous Raptor disrespect from behind October 24, 2016 12:22 PM  

Polling leads to some strange conclusions particularly when you undersample voters:

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1184a12016ElectionTrackingNo1.pdf

According to ABC News and the Washington Posts poll, 5% African Americans support Jill Stein. The poll admits they did not have sufficient sample size for African Americans and had to combine two polling results.
Likewise who would have thought that 9% of Hispanics support Gary Johnson?

Anonymous EH October 24, 2016 12:23 PM  

It really comes down to turnout vs. fraud. No presidential candidate has ever really challenged the fraud that happens every election in all the swing states, because they all have had vulnerabilities that made that unthinkable and they all have really been part of the two-headed party. This time Trump will challenge the results, not just as a matter of counting as in 2000, but as the vast conspiracy it is.

It doesn't matter if Hillary wins the vote fair and square. She is ineligible to hold any US office because she exposed and deleted classified information, and has admitted that she did so. under 18 USC 2071, she is ineligible for any US office, even without a conviction. Other, older laws on spying and mishanding classified information 18 USC 783.h.1 do specify their penalties apply after conviction, this one does not, so that was intentional. Also Hillary's primary victory was statistically proven to have been the result of electoral fraud, the chance of the machines without a paper trail favoring her so heavily over those with a paper trail is 1 in 77 billion. She was never the legitimate nominee. Nor would it be acceptable for her to choose the VP nominee under these circumstances, and no one will be thinking they were voting for Kaine to be president. If she is ineligible, so is he. Further, the bipartisan political and media conspiracy to conceal her criminal acts makes them all guilty of treason and "domestic enemies" under the Constitutional definition of treason. Allowing them to install a president would itself be treason.

Therefore every American has a legal duty to prevent Hillary Clinton from being elected or taking office if she is elected, with armed force since the enemies of the nation are in control of the government and media.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 12:24 PM  

Nate wrote:"In my view, it's the difference between an imperial 2nd-world phase of American history and a 3rd-world one, either way the republic is toast."

you have an odd view of American History. The Republic has been toast for going on 200 years.


We aren't talking about something that happens at a single moment, it's more like a phase change in thermodynamics. It doesn't take much energy to get water from 31 degrees to 32 degrees, but it takes an immense amount of energy to go from 32 degrees to 33. In the phase change, ice and water can coexist for a very long time. A similar amount of energy is required to make ice reappear.

So what I'm referring to here is not a change from ice to water, but rather the disappearance of the last bit of ice. You're talking about the first appearance of water.

Blogger James October 24, 2016 12:27 PM  

To the person who said there is no issue with soros voting machines.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-24/concern-grows-over-soros-linked-voting-machines
Not a dead meme at all. Keep trying.

Anonymous TS October 24, 2016 12:29 PM  

"Therefore every American has a legal duty to prevent Hillary Clinton from being elected or taking office if she is elected, with armed force since the enemies of the nation are in control of the government and media."

Forget it. Leave the useful idiots to talk about chili.

Blogger Lazarus October 24, 2016 12:31 PM  

Political science professor Helmut Norpoth, who has accurately called the results of the last five presidential elections, still asserts that Donald Trump has an 87% chance of defeating Hillary Clinton despite Clinton being ahead in the polls.

Norpoth’s model has correctly predicted the outcome of the popular vote for every election since 1996, including the 2000 race where Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush took the presidency.


http://www.infowars.com/professor-who-predicted-last-five-elections-says-trump-has-87-chance-of-winning/

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 24, 2016 12:33 PM  

TS wrote:Forget it. Leave the useful idiots to talk about chili.
You think anything said here will affect the election in any way. That's so adorable.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 12:37 PM  

In describing this election as important, I'm making the relatively uncontroversial assertion that ordinary people will behave in noticeably different ways the day after, depending on who wins. For instance, Twitter is banning right-wing people right now. If Hillary wins, they will take it to mean their tactics are defensible to the majority of Americans and this trend will accelerate. If Trump wins, they will fear a backlash and cease to ban people for a while.

The election is rightly viewed by most Americans as a spoils system where the winning demographics get to flaunt their victory by looting as much of the pie as they can consolidate.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 12:39 PM  

TS wrote:"Therefore every American has a legal duty to prevent Hillary Clinton from being elected or taking office if she is elected, with armed force since the enemies of the nation are in control of the government and media."

Forget it. Leave the useful idiots to talk about chili.


They aren't useful idiots, they just aren't interested in engaging you in dialectic. Please understand that people will judge you based on your response to this.

Blogger VD October 24, 2016 12:43 PM  

I would predict that total 3rd party support will come in somewhere between 3 and 4 percent.

Below 2 percent.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 12:47 PM  

EH wrote:It really comes down to turnout vs. fraud.

Precisely why I'm predicting an unprecedented level of fraud. Typical fraud is only about 1% for reasons of logistics and optics, but this election has a much bigger incentive, the low-level people are motivated by fear of anudda shoah, and the Dems have a lot of practice. The only question in my mind is whether the leadership is competent enough to quickly scale up their efforts.

OpenID basementhomebrewer October 24, 2016 12:56 PM  

johnc wrote:@84 Hillary's trainwreck health seems to be the only issue with traction. When people saw her handlers throw her into that van like a sack of stale potatoes, that probably resonated more than any of Trump's (legit) attacks.

I think Scott Adams is right here. The narrative that she is corrupt and crooked to the core doesn't really move the voter. Everyone knows Hillary and knows she's crooked. Trump & Co. need to prove that she is a dangerous person. A very, very dangerous person. An extraordinarily dangerous person. People respond to fear. It's the #1 emotion that has people set against Trump.



I noticed that this point has been buried. No one is pushing the Hillary health narrative anymore but it was something that was making noticeable differences in the polls. The video of Clinton collapsing on 9/11 should be on a commercial aired 3 times an hour at this point.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 24, 2016 1:02 PM  

@122 Napoleon 12 pdr
What the GOP needs to be doing is working to snap up the abandoned lower middle class voters, run the Trump Platform Mk2, get a serious counter-media effort going, and crush the Dems in 2018 and 2020.

You assume that the Washington Generals really want to win, too?

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 1:03 PM  

basementhomebrewer wrote:I noticed that this point has been buried. No one is pushing the Hillary health narrative anymore but it was something that was making noticeable differences in the polls. The video of Clinton collapsing on 9/11 should be on a commercial aired 3 times an hour at this point.

I've been surprised to learn that Trump's problem so far is being too nice. People want to see him bury Hillary in her scandals.

Anonymous rienzi October 24, 2016 1:05 PM  

158.:Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Sunday. He said that 40% of voters in battleground states have voted early, and he implied that the Democratic ground game was largely responsible. He seemed very, very confident about his "ground game".

I guess that includes burial grounds.


Amazing. I live in Florida, a battleground state if there ever was one, and early voting started today.

Of course, I'm sure Mr. Mook is referring to the bags and bags of ballots they've been filling out down at Donk HQ for the past few weeks when he talks about 40% already being accounted for.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky October 24, 2016 1:08 PM  

Vox @80 - Apologies to Vox and dh.

Anonymous An Unpollable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 24, 2016 1:09 PM  

@141
I sometimes have difficulties distinguishing between the acts of one despotic globalist administration and another's.



A very easy mistake to make.
The question for us all is, if Hillary Rodan Robot gets elected, how many "Waco's" should we expect, and where?

Blogger James Dixon October 24, 2016 1:21 PM  

> Podesta isn't running polling organizations. He doesn't run ABC, NBC, CBS, Quinniapac, Gallup, etc.

Actually, all indications are that he does in fact run ABC, NBC, and CBS.

> What voting machine is owned by Soros? In which states are they used? ... Answer: None, none.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/soros-connected-company-provides-voting-machines-in-16-states/

> ...the time the polls are really rigged...

It's not that the polls are really rigged this time. It's that they've always been rigged.

> I don't want to believe dh either, but the polls were accurate in 2012

And relatively accurate in 2008. For the first time in my life. Now, what was different in 2008 and 2012 than in previous years? Will that difference be present in 2016? Dh thinks it's entirely a demographic change. If he's right then Hillary will win by what the better polls say.

Blogger Michael Thompson October 24, 2016 1:32 PM  

"And relatively accurate in 2008. For the first time in my life. Now, what was different in 2008 and 2012 than in previous years?"

In 2004, the last RCP average of polls had Bush with a 1.5% lead. He won the election by 2.4%. In 2000, the average of polls had Bush with less than a 2% lead. The race ended in a statistical tie. Polls are generally a lot more accurate than most people give them credit for, especially if you use an aggregate of polls from a variety of polling organizations.

Blogger Robert What? October 24, 2016 1:33 PM  

Unfortunately Hillary will have massive voter and election fraud on her side. It is impossible to speculate how much of an impact it will have but I'll go out on a limb and say that fraud will increase her total by a minimum of 10%. That's a big handicap for Trump to overcome.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 24, 2016 1:34 PM  

Anybody want spin I can try, look at the vote totals will Hilldawg draw more than Obama 2008, 2012 69.5 and 65.9 million respectively? Will she out do Kerry/Edwards 2004 59.0 million? Or if you are really sadistic and think no voter turn out we have 2000 where Sore/Loserman drew 50.99 million votes.

Of those elections which GOPe turd drew the most votes? If you guess Cowboy Assless Chaps Bush you were right who picked up 62.0 million votes besting Viet Cong Kerry's 59.0. FTR 2004 high water point for the GOPe

Anonymous LastRedoubt October 24, 2016 1:37 PM  

@gggs

Trump is such ideological chameleon, such an policy incompetent that he never gave the GOP a chance to win.

I see - you actually Believe the lying media. Or you're a liar. You certainly haven't bothered to look and see if those statements were true.

Blogger dh October 24, 2016 1:48 PM  

And relatively accurate in 2008. For the first time in my life. Now, what was different in 2008 and 2012 than in previous years? Will that difference be present in 2016? Dh thinks it's entirely a demographic change. If he's right then Hillary will win by what the better polls say.

Yes, my personal view supported by data is that US politics has gone almost entirely tribal. The tribes are browns + women who love browns + college educated white men, versus, white men and white women.

Blogger James Dixon October 24, 2016 1:52 PM  

> In 2004, the last RCP average of polls

You and dh both love "the last" polls, don't you? Hint, the last polls aren't the only ones conducted. Maybe you should take the entire sequence into account, the way most other people seem to do?

Anonymous BGKB October 24, 2016 1:53 PM  

Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians happened on the Clinton watch. With Hillary as POTUS I think we'll see confrontations

At least 15 of the Wild life sanctuary standoff were paid govt plants. That's more than the number of people charged. The govt spent over $9million in the standoff. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/10/roger-roots/persecution-bundy-good-guys/

Were completely correct in all sense of the word correct. The YouGov final polls was 51-vs-49 "excluding undecided voters". Pundits

The only thing that allowed Brexit to happen was the campaign to have people bring pens into the booths so their votes couldn't be changed afterwards. This was a specific campaign to prevent voter fraud. There are claims that the actual vote to leave was over 70%.

Here we have video of niggerette erasing votes & changing http://heavy.com/news/2016/06/brexit-voter-fraud-conspiracy-pen-pencil-erase-erasing-vote-leave-remain-change-youtube-video/

Podesta isn't running polling organizations. He doesn't run ABC, NBC, CBS, Quinniapac, Gallup, etc

Did you not see the Veritas video with the pink tie wearing faggot last week?

What voting machine is owned by Soros? In which states are they used? Answer: None, none.

16 states count them, diebold runs others and is (((Isreali))) http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/soros-connected-company-provides-voting-machines-in-16-states/

Nate this idiocy doesn't impress people here. if you want to make a case for voting for Trump... then do it

HilLIARy will put fresh from Africa black moslems into section 8 voucher homes that whites near you have been foreclosed on. Your majic dirt that makes the local blacks behave won't work on them.

Josh (the gayest thing here) wrote: You ain't got no chili

Actually I have a mix of chili and sauerkraut its actually quite good.

You think anything said here will affect the election in any way. That's so adorable.

I wouldn't be suppressed if someone on TRUMP's staff reads this. We will see if after he wins there will be a live game show "Don't Garrote Fewer Felons Than a "

Blogger Michael Thompson October 24, 2016 1:54 PM  

"You and dh both love "the last" polls, don't you? Hint, the last polls aren't the only ones conducted. Maybe you should take the entire sequence into account, the way most other people seem to do?"

You do realize what the last 'average' of polls means, don't you?

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 1:55 PM  

I figure voter fraud between 2 and 4 percent in swing states, depending on logistical competence. I suspect this is why Trump hasn't yet said that he'll accept the results, because a large, ramshackle logistical effort would produce bad optics and this forces them to retain plausible deniability.

The amount of flagrant misreporting of results that vote counters can get away with is entirely up in the air, IMO. There's no saying how much Pravda-style humiliation each demographic will actually put up with nonviolently.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell October 24, 2016 1:56 PM  

This is going to be the Trump supporter argument and everyone else is going to laugh at them.

Come back to reality. Clinton isn't getting massive voter fraud and she doesn't need it to win.

Blogger James Dixon October 24, 2016 1:56 PM  

> Yes, my personal view supported by data...

There are alternative views that explain that data, dh. There is, as yet, insufficient data to determine whether your view is correct or not. This election will go a long way towards determining that. I look forward to it with interest.

1 – 200 of 264 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts