Posted on 08/03/2016 8:40:26 PM PDT by GilGil
Let’s first discuss the obvious. How can CTH predict, weeks in advance, what Fox News Polling will present to their audience? Common sense would tell you it should be impossible to predict weeks and months in advance. After all, polls should be entirely random, based on current events.
d9d51-mouse-mission-impossibleIf media polling was truly scientific, and not manipulated by the corporate media entities producing them, we couldn’t accurately predict. But they’re not, and we can.
Actually, the entire reason we deliver these predictions to you is because there’s no other good or reasonable way to show people they are being “gaslighted” by professional MSM deceivers.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
To all cruz supporters, this is your guy. Lovely dude, turncoat MF.
Where is the ‘freedom forum’ first amendment center located... I am reminded of minister Khan ragging trump over speech?
He’s happy to be pictured with his illegitimate children. After all, bastard lives matter.
This is not true. Reagan was 8-12 points behind in the polls leading up to the conventions, but was even at convention time, and 4-5 point up on Carter in the month before the election.
It’s Uniparty all the way down.
Well I remember very well the Friday before election day listening to ABC Radio News tell me that with Anderson pulling votes from Reagan it was a toss up, leaning towards a Carter victory. It was a very nervous weekend, but what a sweet Tuesday evening. The Nets all called it around 8:00pm and it was so wonderful to watch the anchors all try to get their heads around THAT!
The media was as liberal then as it is now, so they were definitely pulling for Carter, probably even more desperately and openly because he was down in the polls!
Don't be too hard on yourself... many of us fell for Ted's lies... me included.
I don’t get it, why is Cruz stuff being posted on a polling article? Why the thread hijack to beat a dead horse?
I don’t get it, why is Cruz stuff being posted on a polling article? Why the thread hijack to beat a dead horse?
____________
This illustrates how fake the political system is. The polls are fake and Cruz is fake. All smoke and mirrors!
Edit, edit, edit. Write down your main point in short succinct English, active voice with a real subject, an action verb and an object acted upon. Then write down supporting evidence, in a short succinct form. And then delete every paragraph, sentence, phrase and word that does not contribute to making your point.
This plague of horrible writing is killing us. I can't even read it, much less the folks you are trying to persuade of something.
Surely you can explain in short sentences with clear evidence how polls are manufactured. It may not appeal to those who want to read a 735 page novel about the latest conspiracy, but I suspect there are not that many of those.
Thanks for posting this. Below is Sundance’s prediction of the lying polls from the left wing mediots:
Beware The Predictable Polling Onslaught to Paint the Potemkin Village…
The Last Refuge ^ | July 28, 2016 | sundance
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3454116/posts
Re polls - I remember so well the night of the Reagan election. ALL the polls - and Dan Rather - said the vote was going to be 2 to 1 against Reagan..
Special Report
How Carter Beat Reagan
Washington Post admits polling was “in-kind contribution”; New York Times agenda polling.
By Jeffrey Lord – 9.25.12
Dick Morris is right.
Here’s something Dick Morris doesn’t mention. And he’s charitable.
Remember when Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan in 1980?
That’s right. Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan in 1980.
In a series of nine stories in 1980 on “Crucial States” — battleground states as they are known today — the New York Times repeatedly told readers then-President Carter was in a close and decidedly winnable race with the former California governor. And used polling data from the New York Times/CBS polls to back up its stories.
Four years later, it was the Washington Post that played the polling game — and when called out by Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins a famous Post executive called his paper’s polling an “in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign.” Mondale, of course, being then-President Reagan’s 1984 opponent and Carter’s vice president.
All of which will doubtless serve as a reminder of just how blatantly polling data is manipulated by liberal media — used essentially as a political weapon to support the liberal of the moment, whether Jimmy Carter in 1980, Walter Mondale in 1984 — or Barack Obama in 2012.
First the Times in 1980 and how it played the polling game.
The states involved, and the datelines for the stories:
· California — October 6, 1980
· Texas — October 8, 1980
· Pennsylvania — October 10, 1980
· Illinois — October 13, 1980
· Ohio — October 15, 1980
· New Jersey — October 16, 1980
· Florida — October 19, 1980
· New York — October 21, 1980
· Michigan — October 23, 1980
Of these nine only one was depicted as “likely” for Reagan: Reagan’s own California. A second — New Jersey — was presented as a state that “appears to support” Reagan.
The Times led their readers to believe that each of the remaining seven states were “close” — or the Times had Carter leading outright.
In every single case the Times was proven grossly wrong on election day. Reagan in fact carried every one of the nine states.
Here is how the Times played the game with the seven of the nine states in question.
• Texas: In a story datelined October 8 from Houston, the Times headlined:
Texas Looming as a Close Battle Between President and Reagan
The Reagan-Carter race in Texas, the paper claimed, had “suddenly tightened and now shapes up as a close, bruising battle to the finish.” The paper said “a New York Times/CBS News Poll, the second of seven in crucial big states, showing the Reagan-Carter race now a virtual dead heat despite a string of earlier polls on both sides that had shown the state leaning toward Mr. Reagan.”
The narrative? It was like the famous scene in the Wizard of Oz where Dorothy and her friends stare in astonishment as dog Toto pulls back the curtain in the wizard’s lair to reveal merely a man bellowing through a microphone. Causing the startled “wizard” caught in the act to frantically start yelling, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” In the case of the Times in its look at Texas in October of 1980 the paper dismissed “a string of earlier polls on both sides” that repeatedly showed Texas going for Reagan. Instead, the Times presented this data:
A survey of 1,050 registered voters, weighted to form a probable electorate, gave Mr. Carter 40 percent support, Mr. Reagan 39 percent, John. B. Anderson, the independent candidate, 3 percent, and 18 percent were undecided. The survey, conducted by telephone from Oct. 1 to Oct. 6, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
In other words, the race in Texas is close, assures the Times, with Carter actually in the lead.
What happened? Reagan beat Carter by over 13 points. It wasn’t even close to close.
http://spectator.org/articles/34732/how-carter-beat-reagan
Bush v. Gore was in 2000
Bush v. Kerry was in 2004
You are making my point for me even more. the point of my post was to show that aside from Obama the other democrats who ran for president got less than 60 million votes. Kerry got 59 million.
There is a serious enthusiasm gap for Hillary.
If she cannot get above 60 million, and Sundance’ forecast of 73 million for Trump is accurate she will be crushed. That was the point.
Well, according to that Trump hater Rick Wilson, Teddy is going to come roaring back and clean everyone’s clock in 2020! Wilson is such a lyin hater, he blabbers all over twitter that Lee is going to be the Senate leader.
The cruz people are, imho, delusional. Or, in on this sick GS game. I detest them with a white hot passion.
;)
;)
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.