Update: Reuters really going the extra mile to rig polls for Hillary;CNN doing "all it can"
Yesterday morning I saw this headline.
One-in-five U.S. Republicans want Trump to drop out: Reuters/Ipsos poll
My first reaction was: How many Democrats want Hillary to drop out?
But no news article about this poll answered that question.
Neither Huffpost Pollster, nor RealClearPolitics, nor the Reuters web site itself gave a data breakdown of this poll yesterday.
I thought that was curious. Maybe even suspicious.
After all, it was just a few weeks ago when Reuters changed its polling methodology to give Hillary a larger poll lead.
So I waited.
Today HuffPost and RealClear had the breakdown.
Kind of.
If you look through them neither site shows the question "Do you want Trump to drop out?"
It simply isn't there!
So where did the infamous 19% number come from?
There is only one place in the poll where a Trump-related number adds up to 19%. Here:
If you add up "Other", "Wouldn't Vote" and "Don't know", it comes up to 19%.
Add in the 6% of Republicans voting for Hillary you come up with 25%.
But nowhere do you find anything close to "19% of Republicans want him to drop out".
If it exists, Reuters isn't releasing it.
BTW, to answer my question, Hillary's number is 17% and 22% of Dems. Not much of a difference.
@ChrisCuomo @402Mel @CNN well Chris you admitted live on air CNN is promoting Hillary.. Watch pic.twitter.com/l2tOxCzWSF
— Melissa2 (@sweetatertot2) August 11, 2016
Comments
And as is par for the course...
No mention of third party candidates, because of their apparent fear of the Boogienader.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
A three-way Presidential debate?
it could happen
At this point I almost expect...
that whole Street Fighter flashback...
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PmEtJX3Els]
Which will be the "Sane" or "Independent" Rethug who gets into the polls because the media realizes that they can't keep this joke going much longer with Trump.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
I was a die-hard Nader voter in 2000
An active Green, in Tampa. We can't say for certain how things will pan out, but in 2000, probably 2/3s of potential Nader voters actually cast the lever for Gore. Our (poll stated) numbers were far in excess of what we actually got.
Last minute fear can play a very large role.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Fifteen years ago
things were a lot different. People did not know then what they know now.
Most folk who are not going to vote for Clinton or Trump have their minds made up already. Particularly among the Sanders support, unless it really is fixed, the expectation is that Clinton is not in good shape to win unless she gets a whole lot of Rs to vote for her...
The trouble is in EVs
I can't see a Trump victory. What is his path to 270? The closest I can come to is this. It's possible, but success would require much better performance from the Trump campaign, and a catastrophic fumble from Clinton. The above map contains a lot of optimistic assumptions.
I can see a catastrophic fumble in the pay-for-play scams that plague the Clinton Foundation, they have played ball with a lot of world class criminals, but in order for that to play we would need for a lot of average people to internalize the message, and be outraged by it. I expect that many will just say "Yeah, she's corrupt, so what?".
For myself, I've been thinking that a Trump victory represents only a 75% chance of WW4, vs. 100% for Clinton, but at the end of the day, either one will be a complete disaster.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
OK
I expect that many Dems are not going to vote for her because she's corrupt to an obnoxious and offensive degree, and so is the media that props her up. Many will vote for another candidate because of this, if they even get out and vote.
One of us is right, but we don't know who just yet.
We have very limited control over who wins,
but we have absolute control over our own assent and cooperation. When Obama was toying with Syrian intervention in 2013, we stopped it cold with overwhelming negative calls to Congress, calls were 100 to 1 in many districts. If the new POTUS pushes for intervention or conflict in Syria, Iran, or God forbid, Russia or China, it's incumbent upon us to push back as hard as we can. I expect that it will come to that.
One would think this would be a difficult place to govern and control, if the majority withholds its support.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Heh
We have full control over who we vote for. If ballots were counted correctly, we'd have full control over who wins the most votes, too.
What a timely reminder that we don't. Which renders much of this meaningless, actually, and brings us full-circle back to "American ballot counting has been corrupted beyond repair".
How about this three-way debate?
Bernie, $Hillary, Drumpf.... How about adding Bernie's name to the presidential selection in every state to see if he is as much of a threat to the two worst candidates in American history (next to Bush the Lesser)?
Would Bernie win the whole thing hands down?
Heads would explode, starting with $Hillary & Drumpf. I'd pay to see that (even tho I'm disgustingly pacifistic).
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute ..., where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference. — President John F. Kennedy, Houston, TX, 12 September 1960
Perot Would Have Won in 1992
But only if he'd stayed in and didn't drop out to protect his daughter's wedding from a rumored incident. As it was, he still pulled 19%.
Bernie should have acted at the Convention, leading his supporters out of the Convention after fulfilling his promises to Hillary. He's lost too much support now to restart his attempt. Now, he'd lose.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Perot's VP Choice Was Not Great
Perot was flying high until the VP debates (was it Stockwell? Stockdale? Stockpuppet? can't remember). I remember watching that first VP debate in horror, and watching Perot's polling numbers drop substantially after that.
"Who am I? Why am I here?" was the first thing his VP candidate said, and by the end of the debate, everybody thought those were really appropriate questions! It showed that Perot was not so great at picking top people.
Rigged polls
are what enable candidates to qualify to participate in Presidential debates.
80% of Republicans want Trump to stay in!
Just to make the obvious point, even if the data were true.
Edited: Do the Trump v Clinton numbers even make sense?
Democrats - Clinton 78%, Trump 5%
Republicans - Clinton 6%, Trump 76%
Independents - Clinton 20%, Trump 27%
Yet the Registered Voters column in the chart has Clinton leading Trump 44% to 32%. How can nearly identical party support for the 2 candidates combined with Trump's 7% lead among Independents end up in a 12% Clinton lead unless the poll is pure garbage and heavily oversampled Democrats?
Edited to add:
The poll consisted of 680 Democrats, 468 Republicans and 175 Independents. Considering there are roughly equal numbers of Dems and Reps and that Independents outnumber either major party, the poll has an overwhelming Democratic bias. In other words, this is a shit poll.
Whose to say the media won't manipulate poll data to keep 3rd
party candidates just below the 15% threshold? After the primaries were so rigged I wouldn't be surprised by anything.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
Of course they will.
n/t
They're doing it already
the idea that Stein isn't polling anywhere near 15% and Johnson is, is kinda ridiculous, IMO.
just keep in mind,
not voting for trump is a vote for hillary.
(repeat, repeat, repeat)
GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG
Not voting for Jill
is a vote for a corrupt, 2 party system that's killing us.
Beware the bullshit factories.
I owe you another thousand
I owe you another thousand recs.
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.
Really the way I read the poll...
It isn't who you want to stay or go, it's who would you vote for given the crap choices. Would you rather have you knuckles broke or your toes? How ya gonna vote on that?
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
Toes.
ghotiphaze
ghotiphaze
Non-corporate, non-destructive Green.
If enough people vote for Jill, rather than either evil, guess who gets the most votes?
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.
I have a poll question no one will ask:
Would you support an investigation into the fraud, voter disenfranchisement, and hacked/pre-programmed voting machines to find out if Bernie Sanders won the Democratic primary?
Mendacious Moronic Media will never support such a thing or pursue a story about rigged elections on their own, nor will our Contemptible Congress Critters (some of whom may have gotten their posts because of rigged elections). They're all in cahoots with the Clinton Foundation and I am convinced they conspired eight years ago to elevate Hillary to being crowned the first woman president.
Certainly, no one ever anticipated Bernie's popularity right from the get-go....
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute ..., where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference. — President John F. Kennedy, Houston, TX, 12 September 1960
We Need to Push to Address This
What you point out is something people like those here really need to make a big stink about and push our states to fix. Try to replace voting machines with more traceable ballots. Repeal voter disenfranchisement laws. Make new laws that make purging of voter rolls illegal right before elections. Things like that.
We need to organize on that somehow. Things will never change until that happens.
I heard that number this am
& had the exact same thought as you.
And in contrast, my understanding is that
... Trump received more votes in the Republican Primary than any Republican ever. And further, Trump inspired more Republicans to vote in the Republican Primary than ever before. Trump won the Republican Primary by an unprecedented landslide victory. Trump's support within the Republican Base is unified and electrified and passionate and energized. The only Republicans who do not support Trump are the GOPe, i.e., "The Republican Establishment Leadership." But none of Trump's Base listen to the Republican Establishment Leadership... lol.
That poll is totally bogus as are all of the official polls today.
“I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”
― Harry Truman
Plus in the Republican primary
The exit polls were spot on with the vote, even in the same precinct where Dem voters voted in that primary.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll is weird ...
I swear earlier in the week, they were within 3 points of each other, within margin of error. She'd already lost her convention bounce. Including all four candidates, it was about the same, IIRC.
There were several articles on it, just DuckDuckGo'd this one for example.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3457154/posts
(probably you should shower now, I think this is a RW source)
I think it was the CNN poll that had no respondents in the 18-34 range: pretty much a yuge percentage of Bernie voters. So we all have to get used to drilling down to see what message they're selling today.
I've noticed it with all of them
They vary massively from one day to the next. Apparently, the media doesn't get that while they are falling on their swords, the are becoming irrelevant. What good are they if they have proven time and again that they are liars?
Nate Silver has transitioned nicely from
analyzing polls to explaining why polls were wrong.
In this job market, it pays to have more than one marketable skill, emphasis on "marketable."
For a long time
I would have fallen for the "but that other guy is So bad" routine. But, then this year something happened to me that I had never before experienced. I stepped into a voting booth and I voted for a candidate with who I agreed on almost every little thing. It made me feel good. In fact it made me feel great. It made me feel so damned good that I decided I wanted to experience that feeling every single possible time I could arrange it from that moment forward. Casting that vote for Bernie turned something on inside me. Call it a light, call it a flame, call whatever you like. I Liked it and I am going to seek it out from now until the day I cannot drag myself to the polling station again. So in the future, starting with November of this year, I will vote for some Democrats, particularly any Berniecrats and others that I can deem to be progressive enough to suit me, I will not vote for any Repukes (no real change there), but for President I am voting for Jill Stein because Bernie is not on the ballot. Next time I will vote for whoever I feel is the Right person, the one who has earned my vote by being a Real Person not a Corporate Robot.
Damn! I owe Bernie big for this year! Making it all the more galling to realize the depths the Democratic party went to in order to steal his nomination from him and us. Really ready for both current parties in our Two Party/No Party system to bite the dust and die in agony.
I wonder
about all of those "entities" on the Clinton bandwagon. How are they going to react when things really get rough? The emails, that should have been bad enough to scare anyone with a brain away, but... Now we are talking about possible murder, and someone is actually talking about that:
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/08/fox-floats-conspiracy-theory-murdered-dnc
Then there is are the Benghazi lies about weapons, supposedly showing that she lied under oath. Libya--weapons--Syria--ISIS drip drip
Since you're reciting the history...
...you may be interested to know that Judicial Watch is attempting to get their hands on the sample indictment written up with HRC's name on it about Whitewater. It was not used based on Comey's 'no reasonable prosecutor' standard, apparently - Judicial Watch has the notes. The prosecution felt she a jury would not convict such a high profile person on circumstantial evidence, but they felt she was absolutely guilty. In those days, I don't think prosecutors were quite as rabid as they are these days - today, they regularly are happy to indict and convict ham sandwiches, as the saying goes. Take a look down the page in their Press Room if you want to see what they've received (it's redacted, but the bulk of it is viewable).
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Clever!
Bloomberg slanting polls for Hillary too
it's the thing to do