Posted on 07/23/2016 2:46:53 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
For viewers, a whopping 57 percent said they had a “very positive” reaction to the speech, while only 24 percent said the speech had a “negative effect.”
Even more incredible for Trump was that 73 percent of viewers said the policies proposed in the speech would move the country in the “right direction,” with only 24 percent saying otherwise.
The speech left 56 percent of viewers saying they are “more likely” to vote for Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
It was in a “take down” of “the” report reflecting 57% liked Trump’s speech. I’ll try to find it.
Bump!
Kudos for putting together that collage of negative headlines with the poll which showed how the public reacted.
“I’ll try to find it.”
Don’t worry about it. If the report is critical, it will show up on FR later.
Agreed. It will turn up.
A quick search indicates it may be CNN’s “instant poll” which used a figure of 56% - they intentionally under reported their own “instant poll” because the number was actually %75 percent, according to Breitbart.com
“But CNN’s report is flawed: the 56 percent number was actually the lower of two numbers. The instant poll actually showed that 75 percent of Americans had a positive view of the speech, and that 56 percent would be more likely to vote for him following the speech.”
they are the ones that believe America is currently "on the right track"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html
Back in the mid eighties, the sister of a good friend worked at a central telex center for the Associated Press. This was where news stories came in 'on the wire' from reporters wordwide.
According to his sis, there were banks of telex machines with operators who'd take the stories off the telexes and type them up for distribution to the networks.
As she told it, there was a team of supervisors who'd patrol the rows, looking at the stories that were coming in. Every so often, a supervisor would snatch new copy out of a telex and begin redacting portions of reports or editing them on the spot. In some cases, they took the copy and shredded it.
Manipulation of the news didn't start with Journ-O-List.
To be fair, Mike Cernovich was really the one that put this together :)
“Pundits don’t speak for the people. They’ve never been more out of touch. #Trump”
https://mobile.twitter.com/Cernovich/status/756969652304093184
Agreed - it’s not new. The degree of entitlement displayed by Journo-list (i.e., we are holier than thou, we are the “conscience of humanity”) galls me though. THe person snatching copy off teletypes may not have been in elite private online groups what coordinate with other media to “unify” the message. *grumble, grumble* It’s the megalomania/narcissism on display that gets me. :0
“only 24 percent said the speech had a “negative effect.”
“negative effect” = The candidate we love is going to lose...
Seemed like in every poll, no matter how bad the Kenyan was screwing up, there was always that 23-24% that supported him.
Never saw a demographic breakdown of what made up that cesspool, probably a stew of the usual ghetto gibsmedats, university marxists, etc.
CNN probably regrets polling viewers after Trump’s RNC speech because, well… WOW>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Limerick: I found this on the washroom wall of the CNN (Wolf)studio:
When taking a much needed Dump
I met Mr. Donald Trump
He shat out Ted Cruz
Pissed out good news
And wiped his arse with Hillary.
Yes, who votes and who stays home determines the winner.
Historically Negative campaigns depress the vote of the opponent. This is likely to be a very negative campaign on both sides.
Historically the ground game of supporters going door-to-door to get-out-the-vote is the most effective. Historically positive TV ads and junk mail and robocalls are a waste of time and money beyond a certain threshhold.
“Nobody I know voted for Nixon”
Woodward and Bernstein on Watergate were the shift.
The media all wanted to get Nixon. They hated him, mostly because he could manipulate them similar to the way Trump does, and because Nixon won without their support.
But pre-Woodward&Bernstein journalists were always told to avoid being part of the story. With Woodwar&Bernstein journalists became the story.
Before journalists gave the most face time to candidates with the journalist not infront of the. Now journalists interview each other..or interview campaign consultnats, wich is the same thing.
The amount of time we actually hear the candidate directly is miniscule. ... with the exception of Trump.
Dark, dark, dark...
Gee... and who’da thunk it... For the first time, in eight years... after that speech, I actually see a LIGHT at the end of the tunnel...
(Psst... Mediots.... so do a whole lot of other folks)
Note that one of the headlines actually sources the “dark vision” line to a Clinton spokesperson, while the other headlines just ran with some variation of that, but didn’t attribute it to Clinton.
It’s not just journalists colluding amongst themselves, they are getting their talking points directly from the Clinton campaign and DNC and passing them off as their own reporting.
talking points straight out of hildabeast’s minstry of propaganda at the DNC.
e blast goes out immediately after trump’s speech at RNC to all MSM outlets and other surrogates of the xlintonista regime.
Yeah, but everybody knows CNN is in the tank for the Republicans... / sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.