by Clarice Feldman
As Mickey Kaus has long noted, many polls are “hamburger helper polls”, that is designed to advance a point of view of the press organs which engage the pollsters so they can promote as fact what is merely their opinion
That’s the short take of my friend Thomas Lipscomb and I have to agree with him.
Contrary to most of the media-sponsored polls (The LA Times stands alone now calling the race a tie at last view), I agree with this one: Trump will draw in millions of voters who didn’t show up to the polls before and he will beat Hillary Clinton.
I don’t pretend to be a polling expert but note others who claim to be have said much the same thing using different statistical methodologies, including Yale Professor Ray Fair (economic models) and Emory University President Alan Abramowitz (presidential approval ratings), Politik.com predicts a landslide, noting in recent years the number of people voting for Democrats has dipped while the number of those voting for Republicans has risen.
Conservative Treehouse has argued along the same lines and notes that the NYT buried its own key finding that American voters are whiter than “historic leftist presentations”.
It projects that 73,272,595 Republicans will vote this fall in the general election.
In any event, the recent coverage of the election by the major media suggest to me that they are panicking and throwing in as much as they can to make Hillary look as if she were a far better candidate -- or at least Trump a far weaker one -- than is the case. Obama’s unpresidential and unprecedented attack on Trump, the low turnout at her rallies (and cancellation of some of her appearances), the huge turnout everywhere for Trump, the promoting of the Khan phony baloney story, the Reuters polling change, the daily press sleight of hand all suggest to me there is panic on the left.
The Khan Con
The media fairytale is that Trump dissed a Gold Star family. In fact, it was the other way around. The Democrats used the father of a military hero who died at the hands of Muslim enemies to argue that Trump was wrong in wanting us to suspend immigration from terrorist countries until we had better means to vet them.
How far overboard on this did the media go? This week a number of press and photographers just happened to show up at the same time as two families showed up to pay their respects, the Washington Post even had a shot of one wiping a dry eye. Thomas Sowell long pegged such people as the Khans as “mascots of the anointed”. My friend Janet Shagam has documented the coverage by press which thinks we are dumb enough not to realize this was a staged performance:
The same was true of Mary Ann Mendoza, Sabine Durden, and Jamiel Shaw, whose children were killed by illegal aliens, Spanish speakers watching Univision and Telemundo heard they were “anti-immigrant” and gave them only 55 seconds of air time.
Covering for Congenital Liar Hillary is Getting Harder and Harder
Hillary keeps lying about Comey’s report, which said clearly she lied about her private email server. While a number of papers challenged her on this the NYT steadfastly stuck by her story. It was so blatant even the Public Editor of that paper, Liz Spayd, called her newsroom out for covering up for Hillary. As Tom Maguire observes quoting the Spayd:
The deal had to be kept secret because neither the voters nor the Congress would ever have approved it and it surely sent the wrong message -- taking Americans hostage is a money-making proposition,. Two more, in fact, have been taken hostage since that covert exchange took place.
It’s a deal so bad that the administration lied and said Israel approved it -- prompting the foreign minister to bitterly reject that claim and respond the deal is so bad it is like Chamberlain’s capitulation at Munich.
Trump criticized the hush hush deal and said correctly that Iran had made a video of the pallets of cash coming off the unmarked plane to further embarrass the U.S. This sent the partisan kiddos at the Washington Post into a tizzy, denying there was any such video, when in fact it was easily available to be viewed on YouTube, the BBC, or Memri.
In the meantime -- as crowds pour into Trump rallies throughout the country, waiting in long lines for a chance to hear and cheer him, Hillary made a rare appearance before unquestioning Hispanic and Black news reporters where she looked a wreck, almost called Trump her “husb--” and then said her earlier interview lies about Comey’s report were the result of a “short circuit.” It’s a long time between now and the election. Her staff cannot continue to keep her bottled up and appearing only before small, sympathetic audiences and interviewers and I expect so much “short circuiting” from her even the low information voters will have to take notice.
Contrary to most of the media-sponsored polls (The LA Times stands alone now calling the race a tie at last view), I agree with this one: Trump will draw in millions of voters who didn’t show up to the polls before and he will beat Hillary Clinton.
I don’t pretend to be a polling expert but note others who claim to be have said much the same thing using different statistical methodologies, including Yale Professor Ray Fair (economic models) and Emory University President Alan Abramowitz (presidential approval ratings), Politik.com predicts a landslide, noting in recent years the number of people voting for Democrats has dipped while the number of those voting for Republicans has risen.
Conservative Treehouse has argued along the same lines and notes that the NYT buried its own key finding that American voters are whiter than “historic leftist presentations”.
It projects that 73,272,595 Republicans will vote this fall in the general election.
That jaw-dropping number, 7.2 million more potential votes than Barack Obama carried in 2008 and almost 13 million more than Mitt Romney carried in 2012, is the least result achievable when you turn out THE MONSTER VOTE.I don’t know about the methodologies or baselines used by nationally recognized polling companies this year, but I note that Democratic pollster Pat Caddell recently said Reuters midstream shift in its tracking polls comes as close as I have ever seen to cooking the results.”
[snip]
What the New York Times is statistically beginning to quantify is the existence of The Monster Vote. If you look closely at the data behind their newly discovered 10 million potential/predictable voters, you’ll notice the additional votes carry to exactly what we predicted in February.
Even if Republican projection turnout was off by 5 million votes, Trump still wins in a landslide. Heck, even if the projection turnout was off by a staggering 10 million votes, the republican nominee (Trump) would still get more votes than President Obama did in 2012 and it is highly doubtful Hillary could turn out that level of support.
♦ Even the fact the NYT would write such an article tells you there are interests (financial interests, globalists) who are looking closely and trying to quantify the challenge they have in front of them.♦ Remember, even in honest scientific polling -- the poll methodologies are based on “assumptions”, or inputs into the collected poll samples in order to make them representative of the anticipated turnout.♦ Thanks to Donald Trump, historic turnout trends are obsolete. Additionally, historic demographics and party affiliations are also obsolete; And, more importantly, as a consequence…...any poll data that is relying on obsolete sample methodology is going to be significantly inaccurate.
There are methods for projecting and allocating undecided voters based on complex attitude structures, based on many questions that tell the pollster that this person is in movement to support someone, he said. “Sometimes, they are hiding. That happens. Particularly in the past, or in racially-sensitive cases.”As Mickey Kaus has long noted, many polls are “hamburger helper polls”, that is designed to advance a point of view of the press organs which engage the pollsters so they can promote as fact what is merely their opinion.
Caddell cited two examples to Breitbart News.
“On July 25, they originally reported: Trump 40.3 percent and Clinton 37.2 percent, which was a Trump margin of 2.8,” he said. “They have recalculated that now -- which I have never heard of -- they changed that data, to be: Clinton 40.9 and Trump 38.4, which is a 2.5 margin for Clinton.”
The July 25 Reuters poll now shows a result that reflects a 5.3 percentage point flip from the previously published results, he said.
“Now look at July 26,” he said. “On July 26 they had Trump at 41.5 percent and Hillary at 36.3. That was a 5.2 Trump margin. Then, in the new calculation, they claim that Clinton was 41.1 percent, Trump was 37.5, and the margin was 3.6 for Clinton. Same poll. Two different results. Recalculated, after you’ve announced the other results.”
“What you get is an 8.8 percentage point margin change, almost nine points swinging from one candidate, based on some phony, some bizarre allocation theory that you claim you know where these people are or you are just leaving them out,” he said. “I actually believe they are allocating them because they are claiming they are really Clinton voters and they are using something to move them to Clinton.”
In any event, the recent coverage of the election by the major media suggest to me that they are panicking and throwing in as much as they can to make Hillary look as if she were a far better candidate -- or at least Trump a far weaker one -- than is the case. Obama’s unpresidential and unprecedented attack on Trump, the low turnout at her rallies (and cancellation of some of her appearances), the huge turnout everywhere for Trump, the promoting of the Khan phony baloney story, the Reuters polling change, the daily press sleight of hand all suggest to me there is panic on the left.
The Khan Con
The media fairytale is that Trump dissed a Gold Star family. In fact, it was the other way around. The Democrats used the father of a military hero who died at the hands of Muslim enemies to argue that Trump was wrong in wanting us to suspend immigration from terrorist countries until we had better means to vet them.
How far overboard on this did the media go? This week a number of press and photographers just happened to show up at the same time as two families showed up to pay their respects, the Washington Post even had a shot of one wiping a dry eye. Thomas Sowell long pegged such people as the Khans as “mascots of the anointed”. My friend Janet Shagam has documented the coverage by press which thinks we are dumb enough not to realize this was a staged performance:
* Muslim Soldier's Grave at Arlington National Cemetery Attracts Visitors After Trump's Remarks About ParentsAs for the Benghazi soldiers’ survivors there has been scant coverage -- even though we know our government not only left them to die but also compounded the crime by lying to them about the motivations of their killers. In the words of another online friend “Iggy”, they were merely “unpeople from Jesusland”.
NBC Washington 4 --
* Humayun Khan’s grave becomes a shrine in the wake of his father’s speech
Washington Post --
* Strangers visit grave of Muslim US Army Capt. Khan at Arlington National Cemetery
ABC 7 News --
from the WaPo link - "Sally Schwartz, 65, and her mother, Harriet Schwartz, 85, stood before the grave. Harriet leaned on a black cane.
“We thought we’d pay our respects,” Sally Schwartz said as the women walked away. "
From the NBC link - "D.C. resident Sally Schwartz visited Khan's grave on Monday with her mother."
The local ABC coverage -- The story doesn't quote Sally Schwartz but she is pictured in the video.
The same was true of Mary Ann Mendoza, Sabine Durden, and Jamiel Shaw, whose children were killed by illegal aliens, Spanish speakers watching Univision and Telemundo heard they were “anti-immigrant” and gave them only 55 seconds of air time.
Covering for Congenital Liar Hillary is Getting Harder and Harder
Hillary keeps lying about Comey’s report, which said clearly she lied about her private email server. While a number of papers challenged her on this the NYT steadfastly stuck by her story. It was so blatant even the Public Editor of that paper, Liz Spayd, called her newsroom out for covering up for Hillary. As Tom Maguire observes quoting the Spayd:
Waddya expect? The conventions are over and we are at the top of the backstretch, bracing to head for home.Topping off the week and indicative of the media panic is the news that the administration illegally transported $400 million in cash on pallets in an unmarked plane to Iran where it is being used to finance terrorists. The administration dissembled to Congress about the transaction.
“The Washington Post, NPR, USA Today and PolitiFact all challenged Clinton’s claims, saying they appeared to be based on a selective and misleading interpretation of Comey’s remarks. The Post awarded her ‘Four Pinocchios,’ the worst truth-telling rating it gives, for statements it classifies as ‘Whoppers.’ “
Yeah, whatever. The Times has suspended criticism of Hillary until after the election, due to the national emergency caused by Trump.
The deal had to be kept secret because neither the voters nor the Congress would ever have approved it and it surely sent the wrong message -- taking Americans hostage is a money-making proposition,. Two more, in fact, have been taken hostage since that covert exchange took place.
It’s a deal so bad that the administration lied and said Israel approved it -- prompting the foreign minister to bitterly reject that claim and respond the deal is so bad it is like Chamberlain’s capitulation at Munich.
Trump criticized the hush hush deal and said correctly that Iran had made a video of the pallets of cash coming off the unmarked plane to further embarrass the U.S. This sent the partisan kiddos at the Washington Post into a tizzy, denying there was any such video, when in fact it was easily available to be viewed on YouTube, the BBC, or Memri.
In the meantime -- as crowds pour into Trump rallies throughout the country, waiting in long lines for a chance to hear and cheer him, Hillary made a rare appearance before unquestioning Hispanic and Black news reporters where she looked a wreck, almost called Trump her “husb--” and then said her earlier interview lies about Comey’s report were the result of a “short circuit.” It’s a long time between now and the election. Her staff cannot continue to keep her bottled up and appearing only before small, sympathetic audiences and interviewers and I expect so much “short circuiting” from her even the low information voters will have to take notice.
Clarice Feldman
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/08/the_press_and_pollsters_are_putting_too_much_cornstarch_in_the_cherry_pie.html
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the aut
No comments:
Post a Comment