The First 100 days

Mainstream polling overweights Dems by 29% over Republican voters. In many cases, the overweighting is quite striking. For example, The Economist overweights Dems 58% (The Economist' largest owners are the Rothschild family who showed up quite a bit in Hillary's leaked emails). See right hand column of chart below.
Why do you suppose they do that?

"Most of the top political polls that got the 2016 presidential race dead wrong are continuing to use a flawed methodology in rating President Trump's approval ratings that favors Democrats, women and younger voters, according to a new analysis.

The report shows that the mainstream polls oversample an average of 29 percent more Democrats than Republicans and the results skew anti-Trump. The result is that it robs Trump of about 8 points in his approval ratings, from 46 percent to 38 percent, it said.

And, said the report from Bombthrowers.com, one outfit, the Economist, used 58 percent more Democrats than Republicans in a recent poll on Trump's approval ratings.

"In every poll, Democrat respondents outnumbered Republicans by significant amounts. The Economist poll was the worst. Only 24 percent of respondents (360) were Republicans compared to 38 percent (570) Democrats – which means that 58 percent more Democrats were polled than Republicans, as shown in the %D/R column. On average, in these seven widely recognized national polls, only 29 percent (409 people) of the total 1,383 polled were Republicans, while 37 percent (518) were Democrats. Another way of saying it is that, on average, 29 percent more Democrats than Republicans were polled," wrote James Simpson, an economist, businessman and journalist.

Simpson called the practice "fraud."....."​

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f...re-democrats-than-republicans/article/2635271

 

Wouldn't it be pretty striking if Trump were somehow able to get Paul, Murkowski and Collins on board for this Graham-Cassidy bill, leaving McCain out there all alone with his Dem buds

 

LOL! The "report" is actually a blog and is from bombthrowers.com.

The premise of the blog is that there should be a 50/50 split in Democrat/Republican voter polling. Of course, there ARE more registered D's than R's. The difference in registration is 4-7% nationally. The rest of James Simpson's argument becomes superfluous if you understand that basic fact. At best, you'd be arguing over a few % and it still doesn't explain that all the polls, came out to within 4% on Approval and 6% on disapproval. He merely wants you to focus on the blue column which means nothing but rather is a big erroneous number that he tries fruitlessly to make it important.

 

While I agree that if you are looking at it as analysis of opinion it may not be that important/significant but if you are looking at how these things are actually USED to influence opinion, it becomes very important. Polls aren't just used to take a temperature anymore, they are used as propaganda to persuade particularly younger audiences to "get on board" with where "the majority of Americans" are.

Just listening to NPR you'll hear them cite polling on a regular basis however, when the poll is a pro-dem position they'll always slant the language.

If pro-dem position...."The majority of Americans agree..."
If pro-GOP postion..."a slight majority of Americans think..."

So if you consider what polls are really used for then the bias becomes more important. Then the bias becomes not just biased data but a lie and then that lie gets repeated over and over. I still believe this is faulty/fraudulent practice that gave us gay marriage.

We went from a society that was overwhelmingly in favor of DOMA in 1996 (signed by Dem Pres no less) to one that favored same sex marriage 15 years later.....BS.

 

A new coffee mug is available

 

They still get taxpayer funds through the CPB. I have never been able to grasp why Rs keep allowing this to go through. Even though the funding is not massive, there is a principle involved. Taxpayers funds should not be going towards the election of politicians from one political party in favor over the other. It is expressly forbid in other areas of federal law.

 

Has their ever been a poll that over-sampled Rs?

 

I've at least read that Rasmussen has oversampled Republicans, but I have no idea if that's true.

 

I haven't seen NPR use polls that way but fully admit there are many biased news sources that will couch the polls that way on both sides of the political aisle.

 

Some polling is starting to come out on Trump vs. the NFL Kneelers.

“Last week, Donald Trump said NFL players should stand and be respectful during the national anthem. Do you think NFL players should stand and be respectful during the national anthem?”

Yes 64%
No 25%
Unsure 11%​

Even Dems said players should stand for the anthem at a ratio of 43%-41%
African-Americans agreed they should stand 48%-37%.

And all agreed there was a “more appropriate” place to demonstrate than during the national anthem at the beginning of NFL games.
Almost double 60% to 31%

http://remingtonresearchgroup.com/surveys/NFL_9-25-17.pdf

 

I'm hugely upset and against this type of protest but DT doesn't get to take a victory lap on this. If anything he made it worse. I don't care if he happens to share my opinion, it was a crappy move to wade into this and stir it up again.

I hope the NFL ratings go in the tank. I hope some players get fired. I hope they continue to get booed....BUT I also hope the POTUS will focus on Florida/Houston/Puerto Rico/North Korea/Healthcare/Taxes/immigration.

 

Deez pretty much nailed this one. Lot of losing battles laying around the landscape at the moment...healthcare fail, NK, disasters, even his endorsed Sen candidate trailing. So he picked a surefire majority opinion winner that would dominate the news cycle.

A lot of people were deeply bothered by anthem protests. They weren't dying down, they actually increased by a lot this season in terms of player participation.

It's seemed less significant because the blowback was losing steam due to increased frequency. Fans had no recourse but to either give up watching the team/NFL game they've enjoyed for years or sit and watch their players disrespect our country.

Remember DT saying "I am your voice!". This is part of that promise. He was the megaphone and allowed those in strong opposition to have an outlet for expressing disapproval other than being forced to sacrifice something they truly value and enjoy.

 

I think DT set himself up for a victory lap no matter how it went

 

I also liked that it forced people out of the shadows and into the open, to take a stand so we get to learn where they are.

 

​

Another similar poll is out -- Reuters/Ipsos

 

One more poll on Trump and the holy kneelers -- This one is YouGov

65% of Rs think an NFL player should be fired if they refuse to stand for the national anthem before football games to make a political statement.

80% of Dems dont think they should be fired

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato....free_speech_and_tolerance_2017_nflplayers.pdf

 

Finally someone (Remington) conducted a fairly sampled poll (+1 Dems) according to party lines and the results are as expected...

Full poll in .pdf format. Very interesting things in here that slam the MSM narratives. Asks about anthem, NFL viewing, DT's favorable/unfavorable, etc.

Sample: 1,633 repondents
Non-partisan: 37%
Dems: 32%
Reps: 31%

Q1: What is your opinion of Donald Trump?
Favorable: 46%
Unfavorable: 47%
No opinion: 7%

Q2: What is your opinion of Roger Goodell?
Favorable: 12%
Unfavorable: 36%
No opinion: 52%

Q3: What is your opinion of the NFL?
Favorable: 37%
Unfavorable: 46%
No opinion: 17%

Q4: Now, just thinking about this year, have you watched more football or less football compared to previous years?
More football: 19% [GO TO Q6]
Less football: 51% [GO TO Q5]
About the same: 30% [GO TO Q6]

Q5: Why would you say you are watching less football this year?
Players using the NFL as a stage for their political views: 69%
New rules that reduce physical contact: 5%
There are too many games during the week: 6%
Games last too long: 2%
Pace of play is too slow: 2%
Something else: 12%
Unsure: 4%

Q6: Do you think NFL players should stand and be respectful during the national anthem?
Yes: 64%
No: 24%
Unsure: 12%

Q7: Last week, Donald Trump said NFL players should stand and be respectful during the national anthem. Do you think NFL players should stand and be respectful during the national anthem?
Yes: 64%
No: 25%
Unsure: 11%

Q8: On Sunday, a number of NFL players knelt during the national anthem in protest of Donald Trump’s statements, including players from your favorite team. Does this make you more likely or less likely to watch your favorite team’s games in the future?
More likely: 30%
Less likely: 50%
No difference: 20%

Q9: Do you support protesting during the national anthem at the beginning of NFL games, or is there a more appropriate place for players to protest?
Support: 31%
There is a more appropriate place to protest: 60%
Unsure: 9%

Q10: In the future, would you prefer to see more politics, less politics, or the same amount of politics during sporting events?
More politics: 7%
Less politics: 80%
Same amount: 13%

Q11: Do you consider yourself to be a fan of the NFL?
Yes: 70%
No: 30%

 

There are posters here who deny this.
We need a name for them "Kneeler Deniers?"

 

Here is another installment of controlling what you can control

Trump is going to lower the refugee cap to an all-time low: 45,000

https://www.wsj.com/article_email/w...al-year-1506447484-lMyQjAxMTA3OTIyNjUyMzY5Wj/

 

Is it time for DOJ Anti-Trust Division and the SEC to take a look at media monopolies?
Only a handful of people control 90% of the media.
And these people hate America.

 

This is from a poll MSNBC ran

 

Holy cow, I tend to agree with her!
(I hope this doesnt cause an earthquake somewhere)

 

There's no question this MUST happen. I don't care if they all suddenly flipped and started favoring conservatism. Where they stand today has no impact on where they may stand tomorrow. Our democracy could easily be in the crosshairs.

Control of information at that level is beyond dangerous and it will only be abused with greater intensity until thwarted.

 

Oh, I see now
Pittsburgh Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin hosted a fundraiser for other 1%'s at his home for you know who

 

I've already bought tix (j/k) for this bad boy coming to Irving, TX. Only $3,068 a pop on front row to see those two rant a few hours.

 

At first glance I read "The Horrible" Hillary Rodham Clinton. That would have been more accurate.

 

What she did is worse (private, unsecured server with classified material), but I don't think the use of private email for government correspondence is ever appropriate. If it's not illegal, it needs to be.

 

Yes, she probably should never use the phrase "the height of hypocrisy" anytime about anyone.

 

Trump is making progress on North Korea where past presidents have faltered ....

"Beijing orders North Korean businesses in China to shut down by January as part of the latest UN sanctions against Kim Jong-un"

The announcement comes days after China confirmed that it will apply another major part of the sanctions - a limit on exports of refined petroleum products to North Korea starting October 1 and a ban on textiles from its neighbour.

China's application of UN sanctions is particularly biting for North Korea. Beijing is Pyongyang's main ally and trading partner, responsible for around 90 percent of the hermit nation's commerce.

The United States has pressed China to use its economic leverage to strongarm North Korea into giving up its nuclear ambitions. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will visit Beijing this weekend for talks with China's top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi​

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sses-country-shut-120-days-UN-resolution.html