http://cesrusc.org/election/



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

http://freebeacon.com/politics/new-york-...ion-donor/

multiple high-dollar donors to the foundation are associated with the paper, including the Times’ top shareholder, Carlos Slim.

Slim, a Mexican telecom tycoon whose net worth of nearly $80 billion makes him the second richest man in the world, became the top shareholder of the New York Times after he doubled his shares to take control of 16.8 percent of the company.
-- free beacon

9 recents polls within the margin of error (>4%) ...
LA times ...
Morning Consult ...
UPI ...
Reuters ...
Pew ...
Bloomberg ...
PPD ...
Zogby Analytics ...
Rasmussen ...
conflicts with the prevailing narrative peddled by media hucksters ...
you know who you are ...

FOUNDATION DIRECTORY

people are remembering how mentally and morally exhausting it was when the clintons turned 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue into a trailer park -- and then they're realizing that it's a binary choice.

We will see but I think see maintains a 4 to 6 point lead when the new polls come out the first few days of the week.

The polls this cycle are all garbage. Both ways.

I'm thinking the media polls have it within the margin of error. This won't hit their polls until next week. State polls seem to be a week or two behind.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(08-20-2016 08:35 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The polls this cycle are all garbage. Both ways.

Truth. Polls are a propaganda war at this time. They become more credible in late October. The media can't have Trump winning now. They'll show this as a slowly tightening race and then Trump pulling away in the last 3 weeks. They tried the same thing with Reagan.



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(08-20-2016 07:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  We will see but I think see maintains a 4 to 6 point lead when the new polls come out the first few days of the week.

Sure skippy, whatever you and your media masters say.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/ups...oblem.html

LAT is useful for detecting shifts but lack of random sampling (initial sample was 7 points more favorable to Trump than polling average) and weighing by 2012 votes (problematic because people lie about not voting for the loser, thereby inflating share of people who voted for Romney) are two big reasons to doubt this poll's topline findings.

Media conspiracy.....good grief.

(08-21-2016 06:31 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  Media conspiracy.....good grief.

only a person with their head so far up their ass that they can examine their entire small intestine would think there was not a media conspiracy against Trump.

There's a difference between suggesting people in the media don't like Trump and suggesting all these different polling outfits are in a conspiracy to fake their numbers.

(08-21-2016 06:31 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  Media conspiracy.....good grief.

You know, if every time someone posts you see a conspiracy, it means you're always looking for a conspiracy. Funny how that always works.

(08-21-2016 12:33 PM)Max Power Wrote:  There's a difference between suggesting people in the media don't like Trump and suggesting all these different polling outfits are in a conspiracy to fake their numbers.

So their numbers were accurate in the Michigan primary polls? You know, the polls that had Clinton up by 20 points a couple of days before she lost?

Gullible and / or paranoid.

I have to agree that the polls to really look at are after that first debate. It also seems like everyone can find one that supports their preconceived notion too

(08-21-2016 02:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Gullible and / or paranoid.

It's not paranoia to say that modern Democrats, post-JFK, truly hate this nation and want it to fail.

(08-21-2016 02:18 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I have to agree that the polls to really look at are after that first debate. It also seems like everyone can find one that supports their preconceived notion too

That's still too early. They don't have to be right until November.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(08-21-2016 03:38 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 02:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Gullible and / or paranoid.

It's not paranoia to say that modern Democrats, post-JFK, truly hate this nation and want it to fail.

No the the word for that statement would be ridiculous.

(08-21-2016 02:18 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I have to agree that the polls to really look at are after that first debate. It also seems like everyone can find one that supports their preconceived notion too

It is hard to find legitimate polls that have Trump leading nationally. The LA Times, a different sort of polling, being the only recent one that has him up. Every other recent poll has HRC with some sort of a lead. The polls are good for identifying movement and you have to expect more and more of the vote is firming up as we move closer to Election Day. If the debates are uneventful they shouldn't make much difference. If either candidate commits a major blunder then maybe it moves the needle a bit. I think this is HRC's race to lose. She has to falter significantly in the face of a major national or world event or there has to be a huge new scandal for Trump to come back. I don't see Trump doing it on his own.