Posted on 08/16/2016 3:52:27 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
"subtlety", "nuance", "twitches", "tremors", "fine tuning", these the less visible notations a researcher can find when they look into the quiet data the smart-set stroll past.
However, that said, when the New York Times is noticed shuffling around in the same data sets, you just know they are attempting to quantify the reality behind the stats the MSM consistently, and fraudulently, represent. In addition, when they stop looking over their shoulder and begin polishing off the dirt from the glowing nugget, well,.. they wouldn't be standing next to us if they didn't suspect we were mining in a more lucrative locale.
CTH readers already know the scope of the research we've put into this election. Our spidey senses also anticipate a certain republican candidate has previously invested in a very similar endeavor. Indeed, it would be impossible for us to predict so accurately were it not for an accidental synergy and ideological alignment therein.
In a rare admission today, the New York Times is walking back over 10 years of prior demographic presentations regarding the U.S. electorate. In essence what they are saying is the voting base is far less ethnically diverse and far more white than historic leftist presentations.
Oh my.
The New York Times is also outlining something, carefully, without actually outlining the something they need to be careful about. Candidate Donald Trump's "potential" broad-based coalition is far larger than candidate Hillary Clinton's "potential" identity-brand political coalition.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
What was Nixon-Humphrey polls like at this time?
This is from June 9.
I’m not saying Trump isn’t behind, but . . . I can imagine huge numbers of union men saying they will vote to Hillary in front of union bosses, but voting for jobs and Trump and because they are tired of the whole transgender shtick.
HOORAY Trump
C’mon November
Some guest on Lou Dobbs Tonight the other day talked about a convention of hairdressers/beauticians he wondered into not long ago - said as people registered at the beginning of the meeting they were asked to sign beside their names whom they would be voting for this fall - Hillary won by about 55-45 percent over Trump - a few hours later they were asked to cast a secret ballot, again for this fall’s presidential election - this time - ie now anonymous vs the original public - Trump won 50% to 40% - silent majority indeed.......
Sadly, that generation has nearly all left us now, putting less reliable baby-boomers in there place.
Further, if Hillary can turn it into a "boys against the girls" school-yard contest, with ethnicities lining up with the girls' team, us boys will find ourselves badly outnumbered.
But I trust, hope and pray you are correct, the polls are all wrong and there's a secret Trump wave vote which will wash the country clean of Democrats from sea to shining sea.
Unfortunately, I've hoped that before, and been disappointed.
This time will be different...? :-)
They know all of their polls are fake and are terrified a massive vote is coming.
Pray America wakes
Surprise, surprise.
As long as those who detest Trump keep outing themselves, he should improve. Trump continues to prove he has ALL the right enemies. Trump is the perfect hand grenade to wreck the established uniparty/media coalition.
Again. America’s future is in the hands of white women.
They will vote with their men, or for the rape and murder of their children.
Nixon had a double digit lead over Humphrey after the conventions. Humphrey narrowed it to to close to call by election day. Nixon won comfortably in the electoral college, but popular vote was close. Nixon lost some votes to Wallace who ran as a law and order candidate too.
Pray America wakes
The answer to your second sentence lies in the first sentence.
I think what made it close in the end was LBJ started bombing North Vietnam. It made Humphrey’s numbers go up some and made the race closer that it should have been.
I’ve never understood why the GOP smart guys haven’t figured out that they need to make ClintonObamaClinton unpalatable to the people who vote for them. If a GOP operative can’t answer that question— what will keep a single woman/black/hispanic/muslim from going to the polls- they shouldn’t be hired.
Especially if you’re a lawyer as this guy was.....
The last two elections when people on our side (including myself) were saying “the polls are all BS designed to suppress the GOP vote” have taught me a lesson, and that lesson is not to discount the polls.
That said, it’s very hard to understand how Trump has no trouble turning out tens of thousands of people to hear him in pretty much every venue he visits, and Hillary struggles to fill a hundred seats, and yet we’re told that Hillary is solidly ahead of Trump in pretty much every MSM poll.
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.