Hillary losing in the polls? Time to tweak the numbers
Submitted by gjohnsit on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 12:06pm
Maybe you saw this poll a few days ago.
Well, if you didn't it's too late now.
Why? Because the exact same poll looks like this now.
What happened in those few days? Did they take another poll?
Nope.
They changed the calculations in a way that by coincidence, just happened to help Hillary.
The presidential tracking poll reflects a slight change of wording from previous surveys, replacing the “Neither/Other” option given to respondents with just “Other.” An internal review had found the word “Neither” has, at times, siphoned support away from one or the other candidate.
By "one candidate" they don't mean Hillary.
Nothing unusual at all. This happens all the time, amirite?
Comments
Hillary would have been out of this election long ago
If not for all these "coincidences".
Beware the bullshit factories.
It's an interesting editorial choice
Since the plurality of registered voters in any election actually chooses "Neither" by not voting. But if pollsters made a habit of looking at that number and offering it as a choice, they might destroy the illusion that the two parties are giving us a real choice, rather than disenfranchising more voters than either of them pick up.
Actual polls that showed all the candidates, plus None of the Above, would probably look a lot different than the usual "Pick A or B" versions we usually get.
Please help support caucus99percent!
Some of that is the attendant 'bump'
in the post convention polls. Let's check again next week -- after the next email dump.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
You don't understand
It wasn't a new poll. It was the same exact numbers spun in a new way.
It still looks like hrc got a bump
if one didn't know better.
Reuters/iPsos
Is the only poll I'm aware of that's come out since the convention & she didn't get a bump; her numbers where unchanged.
The daylight (?) daily tracking poll had get up 0.5, but that's just noise in a daily poll.
Sorta like the CNN on-line
Sorta like the CNN on-line poll in the first Dem debate, where I'd been on there to see 80-odd for Bernie and numbers in the teens for Hillary and the comments full of Sander's supporters, went to look at some other polls and came back to first find the poll removed and, later still, returned to find it replaced with the numbers reversed, the huge load of Bernie comments erased with scattered (and frequently removed) comments from those Berning with outrage and disgust and stating that they'd keep reposting whenever they were wiped.
Pulling that poll because it, like CNN's own focus group, disproved CNN's claim that Hillary had won the debate, showed them to be propaganda rather than news and they should have had their broadcasting license pulled. But anything goes when it involves the Clintons and their funders. They must be kept out of public office!
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Ah.... My mistake. Thanks.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
If Big Banking can rake in more in fees than in their core
business of making community loans, then the capitalists behind Clinton can manipulate almost anything and count on the for-profit press to go along.
For instance: For January through March, 2016, Bank of America raked in $393 million in overdraft fees; Wells Fargo raked in $411 million in overdraft fees for the same period(both figures are up double digits over 2015).
We are dealing with a sociopathic greed machine that would make the mafia blush and what they want you to believe, they will hammer that message home. What the power junkies want you to believe is that Clinton is very very good for America (USA! USA!) and needs to put her pants-suited posterior into the oval office to continue Obama's 8 years of war which the Economic Lords profit greatly from.
Trump actually made a statement about possibly reassessing America's involvement with NATO. I don't know of another politician who has brought this key topic up, however fleetingly. Trump also did not genuflect before TPP, NAFTA, and the WTO. (Arched eyebrows of censure.)
Neither are worth voting for but some Trumpisms flank Clinton to the left.
To address to your informative charts: Since those who control the political economy are going to instill Clinton one way or another, this will become common. I hope you can stand to keep us posted because it's important to know. Thanks.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
It's too close to call
From 538
The media spent too much ensuring...
that candidates will have to spend BIG money on smear campaigns this election.
New Theory: Media Deliberately Ensured that the WORST candidates were selected...
For Ad Revenue.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Exactly. They want mud-wrestling and they'll get it,
while the rest of us are nauseated and disgusted by the spectacle.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
As pathetic as that is, at least it would be the first thing to
make some kind of sense in this election.
It's been such a monumental amount of absurdity that I am still in awe...
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Interesting thought
We've been assuming that the Powers want Hillary, so they're pretending that it's close so that we'll believe it when they say she won, because that would be good for stable, predictable, crony capitalism. But what if they actually want a fascist dictatorship? Hillary loses, blames the hippies, and the racist riots bring on the police state. Perhaps their template is not Hitler, but Mao - not Nazi Germany,which failed, but the PRC, which they think is succeeding.
On to Biden since 1973
instead of an "other" category they could ask "Stein? Johnson?"
but that would confuse people and maybe give them information that there are alternatives. If they're not going to name Stein and/or Johnson then they shouldn't name Clinton or Trump. Ask "who will you vote for?" and leave it at that. That would be fairer than naming the Dem and Repubs but no others.
Hillary in Pennsylvania is on in the background
She's speaking at some factory . As part of her economic pep talk she did an anti-trade deal bit followed up immediately by "right to work is wrong" bit. In the frame behind her is her brandy new Vice President who is on the record as being for both those things. Awkward.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
There are lies, and damn lies, and statistics (e.g. polling)
If you ever doubted why the Lady of Justice has her eyes blindfolded, it's because she couldn't stand to see the bullshit--she should also be provided with a clothespin.
Yes, the polls have to look like this
for it to be plausible that she won. Otherwise the win would just look like vote tampering...
They need the optics to match
They need the optics to match with what they've decided the results will be.