No, The Polls Aren’t Biased. Clinton Really Is Leading Trump

The conservative blogosphere is lighting up again with accusations of polling bias against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in his race against Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. However, Trump supporters should avoid giving into this temptation to assume unfavorable results must be biased results. Clinton really is leading Trump, and by nearly 6 percentage points.

The blogospherian argument goes something like this: Clinton is leading Trump by 5 to 7 points in certain polls because the pollsters oversampled or over-weighted Democrats by about 5 to 7 points. If the polls are “corrected” to include fewer Democrats then the race is actually tied, they say.

For instance, one blogger argues that a recent CBS News poll inflated the number of Democrats in the poll, comprised of 28 percent Republicans and 35 percent Democrats. Citing one pollster’s calculation, she thinks party identification in the United States is closer to parity, with 28 percent Republicans and only 29 percent Democrats rather than a seven-point Democratic advantage. She reasons that if you erase the partisan gap that would erase Clinton’s six-point lead over Trump.

For Trump supporters, this is a tempting narrative to believe. But this simply isn’t so. The fact is there just are more Democrats out there than Republicans, and this has largely been the case at least since the New Deal. That obviously doesn’t mean Democrats always win, but it’s unwise to assume a pollster is biased because its sample included more Democrats than Republicans.

Hillary is defining Trump as a racist and a bigot. If that definition sticks, the obstacles to election will become daunting indeed.

It's unfortunate that Ted Cruz gave credence to this very same notion in the aftermath of the David Duke kerfluffle. Indeed, Cruz's play of the race card in the aftermath of that incident was one of his early missteps that turned myself and many other supporters away from him, because it was such a shameful act of political opportunism.

Trump is no racist or bigot, and such reckless accusations should be forcefully rebutted. He might not speak on such issues in a politically correct manner, but the historical track record Trump has established effectively rebuts such patently false accusations.

While it's tru that Hillary is attempting to define Trump as a racist and bigot, she is not succeeding, (nor will she) and neither will her cheerleading ilk in the Media, Establishment, and GOPe (but I repeat myself).

If the Democrats try to make such calumny a focal point of Hillary's campaign, I believe they will be strongly rebuked in November. Donald Trump is already showing signs of making significant inroads into Black and Hispanic demographics, already eclipsing, for example, Romney's performance with such groups.

If Donald Trump gets even modestly improved percentages of these target demographics (minorities, working class Democrats, etc.) vis-a-vis the two previous cycles, then he will win in a landslide of significant proportions.

There's little that makes patriotic Americans angrier than to be accused of racism or bigotry (either directly, or by proxy, via attacks on their nominee). The smear simply does not conform to objective reality, and is rebutted by ample enough evidence.

The Hillary campaign is trying to conflate opposition to current US immigration policy with racism and bigotry, and the American People are showing signs that they can tell the difference between the two, and that does not portend well for the Hillary campaign.

Consider the fact that, even with clear oversampling of Democrats in these polls, and in denial of the obvious trends in voter enthusiasm which are the opposite of the two previous cycles, and also with the entire Uni-party Establishment cheering and propping up Hillary tirelessly on every Media outlet, while simultaneously engaging in relentless demonization of Donald Trump, they still can only show her leading by single digits!

I firmly assert that Trump's standing in the electorate is understated, and there is ample logical basis for such a belief if one care's to dig beneath the surface.

In any event, glad to see you back, and I hope at some point that your vote for Trump will transcend merely "holding your nose", and cross over into active advocacy, because there's no doubt you can help persuade People to vote for Trump, should you ever be so inclined. In aggregate, merely holding one's nose may not be sufficient to prevent Hillary's election, so I hope you will do everything in your power to help see to it that she is not elected President in November.

Hopefully, at some point, if you maintain an open mind, Trump will be able to convince even you that he's a decent American who, while flawed, loves his country dearly, wants to make it great again, and will work tirelessly to do so in his own unique way.

Vote Trump, and promote Trump!

I profoundly disagree with your conclusions but I evidently have no right to say so under the rules of conduct laid down on this forum. Consider that in order to defend Ted Cruz, as opposed to attacking Donald Trump, one must explore whether Cruz played the race card and if there was warrant for what he said about Trump's remarks in the wake of the David Duke kerfuffle. The last time I was drawn into that kind of the discussion I was zotted for a week. So we now have a situation on this forum in which gratuitous slaps can be made at Ted Cruz, who might actually come to save the country in four or eight years, but he may not be defended if the defense necessarily requires a comparison with Trump.

Accordingly, I choose not to get drawn into that conversation. I believe the forum is the weaker for it. So long as we proceed down the path in which only one point of view is heard, we are likely to get blindsided.

For the record, I never implied in any way that Donald Trump was guilty of racism. That is quite independent however from the propriety of Ted Cruz' remarks.

I do not share your optimism concerning the black and Hispanic vote. The Democrats have a way of bringing that to the ballot box and they need put the effort in only in a few battleground states. The polls right now might be reflecting the fact that Obama is not in the race and therefore the reflexive support of the average American "community" might be weaker than when Obama is in the race but the Democrats will probably compensate on election day, probably with the help of data mining.

I think a review of my about page will confirm that for more than a decade I have agreed with your position about the poisonous playing of the race card.

In my initial post in this thread I undertook to identify some weaknesses in Trump's campaign (as to be distinguished from Trump himself-so that that is clear) for which I have been attacked. My view is that we should analyze the problems and seek to solve them. I do not hold that the better part of campaign methodology is to campaign with one's head in the sand. That is how you get blindsided.

The factors which I have recounted such as lack of money, especially lack of organization, composition of the media, and the need for Trump to compensate for those deficiencies with his unique personality and charisma, leads me to suggest that the opposition to Newt Gingrich which we read in another thread analyzing possible vice presidential picks, is misplaced. Newt can parallel Trump in the use of free media and he can help shape an affirmative expression for the nation which, while incorporating Trump's vision, will be given a fresh cast. I believe Newt is the best hope for victory among the vice presidential picks who have been touted.

Gingrich's age is relevant not because he will be seen as an old white male turning off younger voters, that is nonsense, but because he will not qualify in eight years to run for president by virtue of his age.

I intend to support Trump as I said. My idea of support however is not mindless cheerleading, I am approaching this election exactly as I approached the previous elections both for president and by-elections and I have never believed that the polls which show us behind should be discounted. That is the stupidest way I can imagine to lose an election, it's begging to be blindsided. It Happened to Romney in spades and not in small part because he knew nothing about data mining, a condition which unfortunately exists in the Trump camp today. That must be compensated for, hence my support of Newt who has the charisma to win it through the media with Trump.

So we now have a situation on this forum in which gratuitous slaps can be made at Ted Cruz,

The "slap" I made at Ted Cruz was not gratuitous. It was entirely factual. I saw and heard his comments for myself, and was not the only Cruz supporter to react to them in the way I did. His comments in that instance were entirely disingenuous and nakedly opportunistic and self-serving.

While I understand you not wanting to be drawn into that discussion, I'm simply pointing out that not every criticism of Cruz's actions was unwarranted or unfounded.

For the record, I never implied in any way that Donald Trump was guilty of racism.

And I applaud that, because it was one of the few instances in which you withheld your obvious dislike for Donald Trump. Would that Ted Cruz had done the same. One thing for sure: if Donald Trump was racist, we would certainly have heard about it from you.

I do not share your optimism concerning the black and Hispanic vote.

Do you share any optimism at all about anything at all? I don't hear much positivity from you regarding Trump.

I intend to support Trump as I said. My idea of support however is not mindless cheerleading.

Well, how about thoughtful cheerleading? Something tells me we won't get much of that from you either.

The reason you're being attacked probably has less to do with the content of your posts, and more to to with the fact that you simply can't disguise your utter contempt for the man, as yet. Which is too bad, inasmuch as Trump's policy positions, in many cases, are equally as conservative as Cruz's, if not more so. Trump looks to be the most conservative nominee we've had since Reagan, who himself, I might point out, was guilty of signing a rather substantial immigration amnesty.

As for your comments regarding Newt Gingrich, I generally concur. Albeit far from perfect policy-wise (support for NAFTA, for instance), at least Newt has significant depth of knowledge regarding the Constitution and its philosophical and legal underpinnings. Thus, he would serve as an excellent complement to Donald Trump, who is far more pragmatic in his views.

Vote Trump!

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.