I so agree. EVERYONE needs to stop giving poll numbers any credence. Poll numbers have NEVER been accurate. NEVER. Well maybe 50-60 yrs ago but not in modern times. I wish everyone would just cease and desist with talking poll numbers. 🤦♀️
I thought we learned in 2016. Everybody laughed at how ridiculous the poll numbers were and so many saw right through how it was manipulated for a reason. And what happens….months later….back to the poll numbers as if nothing was revealed about them. 🤦🏼♀️ The sheer stupidity of it all! And the media leads the charge, unsurprisingly. Even Trump touts poll numbers!!! I’m always like…. NOOOOOOO STOP IT!!!
Nowadays you’d have to be nuts 🥜 to answer a pollster’s call ☎️ . Who knows whether they’re from the fake news 🤥 (or worse)? So maybe only dems and their paid operatives answer the polls; the rest of us talk to our friends, family, neighbors, and (hoping...) their elected representatives.
Oh I always answer them and record them, find out who paid for it, and if they are coming from the D side, I send the recording to the R side. It is interesting to see how they slant the question from one side or the other. Few of them are really asking open ended questions, they are designed to elicit a certain response. I also am volunteering with AFP making phone calls, it is an open ended survey on issues, and in an hour of calling, I am lucky to get 3 responses, and almost all are over ~age 50 or so. Most people don't answer or hang up before I can even get the first sentence out.
However, for years I was part of a survey panel, where you got 'points' for answering surveys that you could cash in for money or gift cards, and sometimes included opportunities to participate in panel discussions for cash. I got paid $125 cash to talk about cat food for an hour, for instance. Topics were all over the map, from breakfast cereal to politics. The survey company got bought by Ipsos and they started asking too many personal questions so I bailed, but suspect that a lot of the polling respondents come from such panels.
I am not sure how big the base is, but it started for me about 25 years ago. A local company called 'Delve' would sign up people to be in their database, and they would call me a few times a month to ask questions, and if I qualified, I would go to their offices to be on a focus group panel. Pay ranged from ~$50-$150 for an hour or 2 of providing opinions. In some cases they would send you products to try at home then come in and talk about them. It was a pretty sweet deal, I was working PT as I had young kids at home so a little extra cash was nice. Over time, Delve got bought by a bigger company, and then a bigger company bought them, and everything started just being online. Rare to get an in person cash offer, mostly it was points for online surveys that you could turn into cash, and it only netted a couple of hundred a year or so. But I do survey work from time time in my business, so I stayed plugged in as it was just interesting to me. The latest iteration was called 'Knowledge Panel' (which I still see in some methodology footnotes as the database they used) but that was I think it was either bought or partners with Ipsos. Started feeling uncomfortable with the idea that they asked a lot more personal questions and no longer made responses optional so I bailed, but my hubby still does them. He gets political surveys from time to time and I look over his shoulder at the questions. But I do answer phone surveys that randomly come in, they are mostly for local and state candidates, and they ask demographic info at the end so when it gets to the income part I hang up. None of their business.
Reality checks are better. All one had to do was look at how many people were showing up at campaign events in 2016 and 2020 in order to know who was going to win the election. Trumps got tens of thousands while The Witch and Pedo Pete were lucky to get a few hundred most of the time. Remember all the photos?
Also, look at the polling universe. Sometimes it's 'people', other times it's 'registered voters' and others it's 'likely voters'. I am not clear how they vet these categories, but if it's just asking people about how often they vote, 'likely voters' is suspect to me as people are likely to lie about how often they actually voted as they don't want to look bad. But supposedly, polls of 'likely voters' is supposed to be the most accurate.
In the state databases of voters, it shows how someone is registered and in which elections they voted (but obv. not *how* they voted). Political parties (and, I assume, pollsters; perhaps the general public, for all I know) can get these databases and from them contact people via the contact info in the database (which isn't always accurate, but they'd keep going until they had the sample size they needed for their statistical estimate). I can't remember how 'likely voter' is typically defined, but it may be something like 'voted in 3 out of the last 4 elections' or similar.
Well in MO we don't have party registration, so no way of knowing if voters are R or D. The legislature did add a provision to an election bill in 2022 where you can now register as a party, but it is optional. (Reason - they are trying to push towards party registration is because D's vote for the weak R's in the primaries, so trying to keep the D's from getting R ballots in primaries). However, a lot of my R friends refuse to add their party to their registration as they say they will not get their vote counted. Not true, but a lot of people distrust the elections.
In Colorado, if you are registered as independent you can vote in either primary. As I'll be pretty comfortable with most of the R candidates, my husband and I are seriously considering switching to I, and vote for RFK Jr.
Also Colorado went from a red state to blue the moment mailin votes were ratified in our constitution.
In our transforming state of CO, I believe voters register as either R or D or one of the Listed minority parties--if none of the above then you are UNaffiliated. "independent" is an inaccurate, incorrectly defined term people use euphemistically. Indecisive would be more accurate.
Yes, Republican Party is doomed to near irrelevance in CO just relegated a permanent minority as a backdrop for bipartisanship and to whine occasionally to allow some venting. Independents and weak Republicans like Dick Waddams attack the "Trump Wing" and crazy Pro-Life lunatics who don't trust the Dems and the elections they oversee and tabulate with Dominion. My answer is--then why are you complaining???? LIFE is GOOD with FULL Democratic control so why NOT just applaud the GOP demise register as UnAffiliated and Buzz-off?
I get the frustration with the R party - in MO we have a lot of internal battles between the purists and what I call the 'big tent' Republicans. 2022 primaries were vicious, with a lot of negative campaigning between the NO compromise candidates and those who, at least in our blue county (but red state), had a fighting chance of winning as they were more moderate, and there IS a contingent of D's who are disgusted with their party's left turn. But the no compromise candidates who lost in the primary supporters largely stayed home in November, said they would not vote for a 'RINO', and the D's swept the county offices and picked up some seats in the MO legislature. Things are not looking good for 2024 either, too many discouraged R's who jumped in with both feet when covid happened and got active for the first time have thrown up their hands and disengaged. I keep saying, the left plays the long game, and we have to get smarter and work together, but it mostly falls on deaf ears. There is a big R enthusiasm deficit heading into 2024. Trump is huge in rural red areas but the D rot is spreading due to them fleeing the mess they made of the most populated areas.
Yes, our moderation crowd won out in primaries as we allow UAFs to vote, but general election even they were wiped out by an overreaching Dem party in all areas, we're worse off now and the media and money Reps blame Trump and the passionate wing of the party. The Dems are very progressive, bipartisan as often as they can be, pull back when something seems too radical for the moment, appeal to a moderate middle (that is all really socialist-minded in this ers), They are political professionals and completely funded and incestuous with Big Money Corporations and unions and silently allied with Anti-Trump Republicans and Anti-Right Republicans. The red areas of the state are becoming small islands with massive demographic shifts and a clamor for gvt. services and spending so how does one counter Santa Claus without appearing mean and calloused, uneducated and a do-nothing and partisan? We have no real vision only complaining and nostalgic fondness for what it used to be like so the Dem-Progressive machine gorges and grows and becomes more powerful and any opposition weaker and less effective.
Well a lot of our politicians pay a lot of lip service to Trump to get elected but then become whores to the lobbyists once they win. In contrast, I personally know some of these so-called RINOs and while I am not always happy with how they vote, they are not bought and paid for, and try mightily to be heard when trying to explain their votes - a lot of issues are complicated and people have short attention spans and don't listen. They see a NO vote on an issue they support and fly off the handle on social media and start tossing insults. Some are just bad bills - poorly written with too many loopholes, too vague, or not likely to withstand a legal challenge. So they have to decide to vote Y to satisfy the social media mob or vote N and work for a better bill next session. Despite a super-majority in the legislature, and a weak R governor we get little done. Some of it is just personal. There are senators that literally hate each other and will vote no just out of spite if they don't like the bill sponsor. Politics is a nasty business and too many people who have come to this realization just check out. But Santa Claus is also alive and well, voters passed Medicaid expansion due to an initiative petition process that is way too easy for outside D money to come in and manipulate the system to get stuff on the ballot with a one or 2 sentence summary that totally ignores the fine print and people fall for it every year. The pot legalization bill was an awful socialist scheme with over 25 pages of fine print that no one read and that passed last year. Potheads turned out in force which also helped the D's in purple areas. But the R's are afraid of backlash to do any meaningful initiative petition reform as the Ds and media scream 'subverting democracy' if they try to pass bills to reign this in. It's a year from 2024 primary election, and we already have 120 initiative petitions approved to circulate, 80% of them sponsored and funded by leftist groups from outside the state. They pay $20/hr+ to people to collect signatures. We have a LOT of work to do.
Most people distrust elections in Oregon Donna, an all vote by mail state. Precinct voting fostered a touch of community, even if we only vote every couple years. I would love to have that back.
In Oregon, where I live, the election officials can search for voters that have moved or are deceased but are still on the votor rolls. They then know how many fake mail-in votes are available to send out voted for the candidate "they" want to win. No one is knows it's happening.
Wow, didn't realize OR was ALL mail in?! I wouldn't trust that either. Our mail service, which used to be very good in my area has gone downhill markedly the past couple of years. MO has 6 weeks of in-person early voting with an excuse, 2 weeks of no excuse in person early voting, Have to have a photo ID. Mail in ballots if requested, have to be notarized. We still have issues but did get a no ballot harvesting and no zuckerbucks bill passed last year. I work as an election judge and vast majority of ballots in my area are cast on election day, in person. 10.9% mail in last November. Our SOS finally ditched ERIC after years of pressure, since he is running for governor, guess he thought it was a campaign issue, although a group who provided evidence that voter rolls were corrupt was blown off.
Donna, yes, all mail in voting since 1998. Oregon has not had a Republican governor since. Coincidence? Maybe. But probably not.
There is no chain of custody of your ballot once you drop it in the mail. There is no way of knowing if your ballot was counted, all you will receive (if requested) is confirmation that your ballot envelope was scanned. In the 2022 mid-term, 'special' recycle boxes were set up on college campuses for duplicate ballots that were sent out. In one whistle blower complaint there was a notice put out requesting workers to help fill out extra ballots (see battleground oregon.org for federal court case updates). Yes, Oregon elections are less than honest irregardless of what the recently resigned SoS claims. (That's a dirty story for another time). Oregonians have no confidence in their elections.
Wow that is so corrupt! Got curious and looked it up https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/oregon/ Oregon is not all that different from MO https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/missouri/ where the population centers go blue but the rural counties are red. I am in blue Jackson, and they are exporting their rot as high taxes and crime are leading D's to flee to surrounding counties. 2 of them, Platte and Clay to the north, Trump barely eked a win in 2020. R margin shrinks with every election. And even Jackson is really 2 counties - the KC part is deep blue and had their own (corrupt) election board, while the rest of the county - the suburbs went for Trump (although only 50.5%, while KC was 20%). But can't overcome that the population centers cancel out the rural/suburb/exurb vote. I suppose part of OR's problem is the CA refugees. MO was considered a bellwether state until 2012, state had picked the winner in every election for something like 50 years. But went for Romney in 2012 and Trump won handily in 2016 and 2020. A lot of the rural counties were 'Truman Democrats' who had the common sense to see that the D party had left them. S. MO is called the 'bible belt' and they vote their values, many of those counties went 80%+ for Trump. My hubby is a sales rep and travels the state. Says a lot of places people have never taken down their Trump signs/banners/flags.
They have certainly been politicized, but it's not true that they are inaccurate. The way people interpret them causes issues. Sometimes intentionally. Polls provide a snapshot. They have a margin of error. Yet, people want to read them as if they literally say 49% to this candidate and 47% to that candidate. That's not what they are saying. If you take the margin of error into account it's more like candidate A likely has 44-54% of the vote and candidate B likely has 42-52% of the vote. Candidate A appears to be leading, but it's well within the poll's margin that Candidate B actually wins by a comfortable margin. People would say the poll is inaccurate if Candidate B were to win, but the poll was accurate. The interpretation was inaccurate.
People like Jesse Waters (who let's all remember is on Faux News and therefore is part of the establishment) will use the numbers to tell the story they want people to believe.
All that said, if you look across polls, across multiple polling co's - some with left leans, some with right leans - and average them all out over a 3-month period or so, you can get a pretty good sense of what the mood of the public is and which direction it's heading. It's not 100% accurate, but it's a snapshot that has some value. Way more value than having nothing at all.
I like seeing what my leftie friends say on FB. One is absolutely insane about Trump, but he never posts a single fact, only invective and mockery, which I think about sums up the Dem side generally. In real life, he's a retired historian who still gives lectures about Native Americans and settlers in his area of the country. He's a great guy in that arena, but the spirit that shows through on his political posts is very off-putting.
Same here. One of my lefty fb friends just posted about getting blue hats made that said "Make lying great again". The comments all thought that was hilarious and someone volunteered to get the hats made. I'm thinking that I don't really get it. I mean I get it sarcastically but are they really that oblivious to their own party? Cause the other side of me is saying, yes, go for it, advertise what a lying POS your side is standing for and see how many votes that gets.
Most of time their memes don't make sense and are not funny. Kind of blah.
Yes, this man's FB friends all also chimed in to agree. Once he posted about DeSantis 'banning books' in Florida, and I corrected him with a link to a neutral site listing which books had been assessed by school boards and which retained or tossed. He thanked me, but it appears not to have made a dent in his willingness to do the same thing, over and over, for jollies, it appears.
I had to unfollow my friends on FB who would make lists like this. It really upset me that people I genuinely liked would be this nasty and disrespectful towards people they disagreed with. And also so gullible to repeat the lies of the media taking heads and politicians.
It helps that I don't know this man well, and in fact we've never met in person. We have a mutual interest in the history of a particular place and time. I don't unfollow anyone who expresses those opinions, I find it a fascinating window into people I'm (thankfully) never around in real life.
I think it’s different when it’s someone you don’t have an actual friendship with. All of the people who are my Facebook friends are real friends I know quite well from real life for the most part, with a few “good” acquaintances sprinkled in but I really dislike having random people I’ve barely met in my Facebook friend group, personally. That is just the way I use Facebook. I participate in certain groups but no one is really political at all there. I just found it hurtful on the part of my friends to make statements like that, especially since most knew my opinions and leanings somewhat. Clearly I don’t have your ability to take a step back and look at it dispassionately.
I've been unfriended by a person or two, I think, and perhaps their reason is your reason. One former colleague actually made a post to say that he didn't appreciate politics showing up in his feed because he uses FB as you do. I felt a little badly, as I thought I was one of the people, if not the person, he was talking about, but of late I've noticed him liking some of my posts (which are probably 90% political, the remainder being nature and farm life, with non-political humor bringing up the rear; I too am in nonpolitical interest-based groups, though) and even commenting on some. I use my feed as my little C&C-like warning to others who may not read and hear the sources I do, or have the same fund of knowledge for analysis or comparison. I've had people I know in real life tell me in person how much they appreciate my feed, which they use as a sort of news source, but the vast majority, including those who tell me that, neither like nor comment. I'm an introvert with no desire to share details of my life online with anyone, but the conclusion I finally came to, when I started maing political posts, was, "if not now, when; if not me, who?"
I don’t generally unfriend people, just unfollow them. So their posts don’t automatically appear in my feed, I have to specifically go to their page to look at them. While I get your reasoning and love that you’ve been sharing political messages with people and gotten some to listen, I honestly didn’t join Facebook to do that. My purpose was to keep in touch with people I already knew and was friends with, especially those I didn’t see very often because they live far away or their schedules don’t allow us to see each other in person often. I wanted to know what they were doing and stay connected. People use FB in different ways and for different purposes. Reading very politicized posts (most of which at least in the case of my contacts had inflammatory headlines and were extremely slanted) just didn’t fit my purposes and I think FB is a terrible platform to have a decent debate with people. If I’d have seen more thoughtful posts and comments instead of the same old screeds, I’d maybe have been more interested in reading and engaging. But it just looked like an exercise in virtue signaling and self congratulatory preening to be part of a special club. Not insightful and thought provoking at all. I’d rather get my stimulation elsewhere.
Worse. They denied him secret service coverage, even though as a candidate he should qualify for it. And with his family's background in assassinations. Though maybe have the deep state guard you is dangerous in itself.
There has been several well placed internal polls that show he has captured a huge number and that is by solely doing podcasts! The DNC, being the DNC that gave Hilary the questions to the primary and not Bernie, have now decided to have all MSM block all stories about RFK. It’s so bad that RFK is apparently suing Google for censorship!The real irony in this is that because the MSM blocked all conservatives, we got X, Substack and Truthto send things around. Imagine if facebook blocks RFK links!
Tied with Biden? Could be true. In my personal experience, all of the democrats I know well enough to discuss anything going on today are oblivious to Biden’s and the democrat party’s flaws and questionable deeds. In a race between Biden and any Republican candidate out there, Biden would nearly unanimously get their vote. They all follow the MSM news. That is all they know. And they don’t think or ask questions.
Yes, they swallow the sermonizing of the DemoCult Media apparatus that's well crafted, better written than any Phlemzer Ad, almost as well produced as Netfixed or HomeBO. It IS REALITY and disparaging attacking, hateful commentary toward the target of the moment is fulfilling to them. Be it Trump, America, MAGA, Christians, AntiVaxxers, RFK Jr., UnBlack African-Americans, whoever and whatever, there is always a defined "enemy".
As someone who is very well-versed in survey research, I'll say political polls should always be viewed with the lens of: which polling co. and what is their methodology. Most of them are liberal-leaning companies and their methodology (intentionally or not) skews their results to the liberal side. It's all about the underlying methodology. Who takes their survey? How do they weight the results? How do they define a "likely voter?"
The problem with most polls is that they get massive underrepresentation of Trump supporters taking them b/c Trump supporters generally do not trust the pollsters. This is true for corporate Marketing surveys as well. You have to REALLY work to find Trump conservatives and get them to take a survey.
So, yeah, if the poll is showing Trump tied with "Biden," it's likely Trump is well ahead of "Biden" (whoever or whatever "Biden" is at this point).
The only "poll" I believed in the 2016 and 2020 elections were turnouts at Trump rallies vs. Biden "rallies". I stood in nearly 1/2 mile long lines at one in 2020, and got turned away from Trump's final 2016 rally in GR MI, while watching 50 people sitting in circles at the very few Biden 2020 "rallies". 2020 was the swing state fix the demoncrats didn't think they needed in 2016. Don't tell Grandma Garland I said this, I'd rather not be persecuted by the Department of "Justice".
The turnouts for Trump rallies were astounding,I've never in 73 years seen anything like it, and it happened every single time, over and over. The few pathetic public events for Biden were ridiculously small, embarrassingly so. There were so few "supporters" there that the MSM cameras had to use very tight angles so you wouldn't see how sparsely attended Biden's events were. I simply do not believe based on what I observed with my own eyes that Biden got more votes than Trump. I don't think it was even close.
The media likes to pin it on Idiots getting riled up like at a tractor pull with a KKK speaker--after all those church attending Bible believers need some entertainment off of the gun range. Maybe the Koch brothers are paying for people to attend? Studious, educated professionals and poor oppressed folks of color have NO NEED to go to a Biden event in mass, that would be undignified and his quaint stories don't add anything to the mix. They already all know how good they have things as long as Ol'Joe runs the show. See, even when no one shows up you're still the winner in MSM spin.
Yes, just posted about this on another thread as I do some occasional survey work for small businesses, although informal, such as surveying their current customer list, so I am always interested in methodology, how they word it, and who is paying for it. I record them and send them to whoever I think would be interested.
"likely voter' is suspect to me, as people may lie about how often they vote.
I've compiled door knocking lists for conservative school board candidates the past 3 years based on frequent voters, which I define as those who have voted in either 1, 2 or 3 of the last municipal elections (which have about a 12-14% turnout). Get the list from the county election board. Amazing when you cross reference that with the people who are the most vocal on social media, look them up to see if they have voted in past elections, and oftentimes, they have not. Actually 2 of the conservative candidates who have won in the last 2 SB elections had not voted in past SB elections - but they do now! Heaviest turnout in local elections is in blue precincts, R's need to step it up!
Well, different polling houses use different likely voter models. Some use self-report as in someone saying "yes, I plan to vote." Others use voting history (which in a survey is also self-reported). Others use age, gender, race, and strength of opinions to try to predict likely voters. So, for example...younger people are less likely. Whites and Asians are more likely. If they have strong opinions to their answers (rating feelings at the high or low end of scales), they would be more likely b/c supposedly more passionate.
It's really a guessing game, and when polls go horribly wrong (when polls attack, lol) it's usually b/c the likely voter models were wrong.
It's also something that left-leaning pollsters frequently get wrong, rating Dem voters as more likely to vote b/c from their biased viewpoint there is always something to be fired up about. Dems and leftists especially do not have good historical awareness. So, when the Supreme Court makes a ruling, they automatically assume that means every Dem is going to be hopping mad and ready to run to the polls. In fact, Republican voters tend to be older, whiter, more steadily employed (aka paying more taxes), and therefore more likely to vote, regardless of what outrage du jour the left whips itself into a frenzy over.
Yes. In my 'frequent voter' list for school board, (frequent voters in low turnout municipal elections) I sorted by date of birth. ~60% were over age 55, and only 6% were under age 35. On a national scale, this is why we will never get a good 'fix' for social security. Seniors vote, and woe to any politician who talks about reform.
So the polling companies don't have access to state voter databases showing how often particular voters have voted? I know political parties do have such access.
Probably depends on how hard they want to work at it. If they are polling just to get the answer they want, rigorous methodology is just an unnecessary expense.
Absolutely! You can get any result you want if you phrase the question correctly. I used to do census work and we were trained to use the questions as written to prevent skewing the results.
SO agreed! The "tied with Biden" is nothing more than government propaganda. Quit promoting it, Jeff, please! It's false, just like everything else we're being told!
Quite honestly, if Biden is said to be "tied with Trump", that's a total lie and no one should take it seriously. After what Biden and his corrupt administration has done to the country the last couple of years, anyone who would still support him now is comatose or totally brain dead. Or a moron.
Then we better advocate for a return to fair and secure voting so this one doesn’t get rigged. Make sure all the lenient and easy-to-cheat voting policies from 2020 get repealed. Better yet, clean up the rolls. Monitor and observe continuously. Seems like we did this in 2022, and Arizona still completely cheated in plain sight.
Absolutely correct KTH! Voter rolls bulging with fake names, ERIC being dropped by state after state for being another leftist operation, and brave counties returning to vote in person with ID on paper and counted same day.
Tune in to the Lindell election summit on the 16th & 17th. You will learn more about elections than you thought possible. And it's not a pretty story.
Vote in person on Election Day! Better yet, volunteer to be a poll watcher or judge. Go to county GOP meetings. Call all your elected representatives and insist on integrity in the elections and ask how the votes are secured in your county. We all must be involved!
The other things about this that I wanted to mention is that:
1) Trump has always been demolishing the primary field. It's never been close. The narrative that it has been close or that he was losing ground was propaganda intended to pump DeSantis' campaign. I think most of us have figured this out by now, but DeSantis is the establishment's candidate, literally hand-picked - and heavily funded - in 2020 to run in 2024.
2) Trump has always been "tied with" "Biden," statistically speaking. The polls have shown this result for years. So, it's odd that only now are they starting to say this out loud. It tells me the establishment players are shifting away from Biden, probably to move away from him and toward Newsom. Their "reasons" will be that he is compromised by the oh-so-unfair investigations into influence peddling and that they need someone who can beat Trump b/c it's an "existential crisis for 'democracy.'"
Ha ha! Next time I hear "Trump is a threat to our democracy " I'm going to ask " what do you mean by that and what is your definition of democracy?".......I'm sure I'll get some kind of 3rd grade answer 😉.
Most people I've spoken with can't distinguish between a "democracy" and a "constitutional republic". They tend to think we have a pure democracy without even knowing how it's defined.
I saw someone talking recently (just can't remember who it was) about a poll taken shortly before the 2016 election. This poll stated that HRC had over a 96% chance of beating Trump. So much for their polls.
That was a model. I think it was Nate Silver's model. He's a leftist. Just as with covid and "climate change," what the models spit out are based on the assumptions that are built into them. Modeling is nothing more than fancified conjecture. Faulty assumptions - like Dems will have higher turnout or all the polls are picking up all the types of voter - will lead to terrible modeling...like the 2016 predictive models (similarly covid and climate change).
The problem in 2016 was that there was systematic bias across the polls. They all undercounted Trump voters and did not properly weight for that. To Silver's credit he did say all along that if there were some sort of systematic bias across the polls, it's very possible that Trump could win, despite his model predicting HRC as a clear winner.
For all the talk of the failures of 2016, no one is mentioning how much more accurate the polls were in 2020 and 2022.
THEY ALL still assert that Trump-Russia cheated to win 2016 and that they tried and failed again in 2020 ONLY due to the "reforms" that they implemented (Starting in Dec 2016-to Election Day+1, 2020) and efforts they took to stop him! How do the 2 "realities" reconcile??? ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE!!! It's going to be worse in '24 in many ways i believe. MassBalloting for Democratic Party activated Masses and MassCounting and demands for Instant Accurate results shoving the old complaining out of touch white folks and whoever aside and proclaiming "Let Freedom Ring!" while enslaving the masses by a Democratizing Marxism and Authoritarianism and calling it virtuous and progressive.
So he was selected before the 2020 election to run in 2024 no matter the outcome of 2020, you're saying? And how would you see it play out, if he's owned by the establishment - he gets to be anti-woke but his foreign policy would be the usual all-war-all-the-time? He was actually much slower to take a 'constitutional liberty' stand during COVID than many now think and are lead to believe, especially by him and his campaign, but once on board he either was a true believer or he fakes it extremely well; which of those do you think is more accurate?
Yes, exactly. The deep state has used the "left" narrative fully. It's now starting to hurt their credibility and pocketbooks. Which hurts their ability to start wars on the down low. So, they are going to try to turn the country rightward, as they did in the W years. Same playbook. Clinton leaned on race-baiting and racial animus. Then, W, the governor of a large "red" state, showed up as a response to that with what the left called "dog whistle racism." Same plan. Same timing even (~5 yrs as governor).
The establishment - especially the deep state/CIA - only cares about war. It's how they become rich, get clout on the world stage, and keep the billionaire class funding them happy. The rest of it is merely noise used to divide the populace. They are all essentially nonpartisan and see themselves as world citizens. World leaders, actually. They don't care at all about American cultural issues. They just use those to divide. They set up the elections so they always have a candidate. HW, W, Clinton (both), Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney, Jeb...all essentially the same, and all on board with starting unprovoked decades-long wars.
The anti-covid tyranny role is the only one DeSantis has been able to pull off so far. (I feel he was tipped off before other governors that covid wasn't actually dangerous.) He just hasn't been able to play the part of anti-establishment, populist, man-of-the-people as they'd wished he would so he could supplant Trump (who somehow incomprehensibly does manage to pull off that role). RD is just not that guy and hasn't been able to fake it. And the base wants nothing to do with the (R) establishment b/c they've figured out what I mentioned above. The latest shift by team Ron D to "slitting throats of the deep state" is laughably propagandistic. Classic opposite-speak.
I think the reason Trump manages to pull off the 'role' of man-of-the-people, while being very wealthy personally, is that he likes working-class people and is very comfortable being with them and conversing with them. He builds buildings, as did his father, so he's been on job sites his whole life. It was from working-class people where I live, a poorer, rural area, that I learned of this affinity for Trump. It surprised me; I had been a Cruz supporter, but they didn't trust him (or basically any of the rest of that 17-person pool) as far as they could spit. I watched Gov. DeSantis in a social setting with Republican Party insiders once, and toward the end, it was clear to me that he was done, had other things he wanted to do, and really didn't want to pose with anyone else for a photo. For the last few, he could only come up with a pretty awful grimace instead of a smile. It's an annual event, no matter who the Republican Governor is, and I was told by longtime attendees that though they support RDS's policies more than they did some previous Republican Governors, there were aspects to the social event that indicated to them that he did not value them or really want to spend time with them. When I saw the 'throat' headline, I thought he was just trying to keep Vivek from getting to his right; it doesn't sound like him.
Good point. I find there is an honesty and directness to working class people that doesn't exist in the white collar professional class. In the white collar world, no one ever really says what they think. They speak around it, use euphemisms, and try to get people to understand what they think without actually saying what they think. In the working class world, you say what you think. Hence the reaction of the white collar professional class to Trump. It's actually mostly bias against a working class style. A "that's not appropriate" reaction. Maybe that aligns with Trump's personal style better and has drawn him to working class people.
I also think on some level he saw a market and seized it. He thought his former friends in elite circles would understand, and maybe not like that he won, but at least accept it and work with him. Instead, they turned on him completely and tried to destroy him, and as he's made a point to say, his family. Had they left his family alone, I think he may have just left after a term.
But, now it's personal, and it takes him one step closer to what has happened to the working class (turned on by the Dems, then Republicans, and subject to an attempt to destroy their lives).
DeSantis seems like a nouveau elite with an introvert personality type to me. He would be better as a VP candidate. Or a behind-the-scenes guy. He looks very uncomfortable in most social settings and seems to want to get away from people. He also isn't good at speaking to the working class - he comes across as if he is trying to communicate with space aliens when he talks to them. "Good people of Oklahoma...keep doing Oklahoma things...now take me to your leader" type stuff. (I'm somewhat joking, of course.) I'm not sure he's aware that he is the one the (R) establishment chose to be their nominee. They seem to now have regrets. A lot can happen before the vote, but he doesn't look good right now.
The working class people see very clearly that unlike many people in politics, Trump doesn’t have contempt for them. Many of the others pretend to be there to defend the interests of the working class but are really just using them to get power. They despise them and to anyone paying attention, it shows.
You had me laughing out loud at the end of your comment! I too think RDS is an introvert. Over time, I realized I had never given Trump a chance in the 2016 primary. I never sought to find out what he said, I had somehow absorbed the mainstream attitude toward him. (The "grab 'em" audio certainly didn't help; it offended my husband even more than it did me, I think.) I voted for him, because Hillary and because Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn said he had set a former student to find what Trump had said that was anti-constitutional, and he didn't find anything. And the list for the Supreme Court. At any rate, I was so thrilled with his policies, pre-COVID, and then I felt like a fool who'd been taken in *again* by the mainstream.
Ya I like Jesse but not as long as he’s chained to the faux desk. He has no choice but to tow the line and repeat like a robot. Nope 👎🏻 We don’t watch any of the msm ever. Don’t miss it. Quality of life soared ⬆️ when we turned it off. And we turned off fox sooner than 2020 but that’s when we really stopped listening to any of them.
What’s so funny is yes they are completely lying about the numbers but they can’t lie enough to look like better numbers because Everyone knows B 60 - T 40 would be complete BS 😂
Why are you purposefully ignoring the poll numbers showing RFK Jr. far ahead of either of those other two? It's stunning. Am I missing something? I don't think so.
NPR did an attack piece on RFK Jr. shredding him, then Dems in Congress savaged him mercilessly head to toe taunting and demeaning him. They are AFRAID of non-unity against Anti-Progressive Pro-American Conservatism; one reason they also seek to destroy Trump a lifelong Dem turning Republican and then NOT doing their bidding. The Neo-Democratic Party of 2007-2023 OBAMA's Party is not tolerant of straying from the ranks. Quite Marxist in tactics and strategy, Saul Alinsky should be proud.
To be fair, I ignore all polls. 😂 Honestly I didn’t know he was ahead because I don’t pay attention to them. My guess would be because the polls are notoriously democrats anyway. So maybe amongst democrats they are better? Just a guess.
“Trump’s now demolishing the primary field and is tied with Biden in the general.” - Jesse Waters
Tied with Biden? 😂 😂
If he was “tied” with biden in real life and not some made up phony poll number, we may as well kiss America goodbye and just go bury ourselves.
It is so ridiculous that anyone repeats made up numbers to try and further manipulate us. Please, please stop with the bull$hit numbers. We see you.
I so agree. EVERYONE needs to stop giving poll numbers any credence. Poll numbers have NEVER been accurate. NEVER. Well maybe 50-60 yrs ago but not in modern times. I wish everyone would just cease and desist with talking poll numbers. 🤦♀️
I thought we learned in 2016. Everybody laughed at how ridiculous the poll numbers were and so many saw right through how it was manipulated for a reason. And what happens….months later….back to the poll numbers as if nothing was revealed about them. 🤦🏼♀️ The sheer stupidity of it all! And the media leads the charge, unsurprisingly. Even Trump touts poll numbers!!! I’m always like…. NOOOOOOO STOP IT!!!
Nowadays you’d have to be nuts 🥜 to answer a pollster’s call ☎️ . Who knows whether they’re from the fake news 🤥 (or worse)? So maybe only dems and their paid operatives answer the polls; the rest of us talk to our friends, family, neighbors, and (hoping...) their elected representatives.
Oh I always answer them and record them, find out who paid for it, and if they are coming from the D side, I send the recording to the R side. It is interesting to see how they slant the question from one side or the other. Few of them are really asking open ended questions, they are designed to elicit a certain response. I also am volunteering with AFP making phone calls, it is an open ended survey on issues, and in an hour of calling, I am lucky to get 3 responses, and almost all are over ~age 50 or so. Most people don't answer or hang up before I can even get the first sentence out.
However, for years I was part of a survey panel, where you got 'points' for answering surveys that you could cash in for money or gift cards, and sometimes included opportunities to participate in panel discussions for cash. I got paid $125 cash to talk about cat food for an hour, for instance. Topics were all over the map, from breakfast cereal to politics. The survey company got bought by Ipsos and they started asking too many personal questions so I bailed, but suspect that a lot of the polling respondents come from such panels.
Wow, this is educational as I never knew about this survey things and that lots of people participate
I am not sure how big the base is, but it started for me about 25 years ago. A local company called 'Delve' would sign up people to be in their database, and they would call me a few times a month to ask questions, and if I qualified, I would go to their offices to be on a focus group panel. Pay ranged from ~$50-$150 for an hour or 2 of providing opinions. In some cases they would send you products to try at home then come in and talk about them. It was a pretty sweet deal, I was working PT as I had young kids at home so a little extra cash was nice. Over time, Delve got bought by a bigger company, and then a bigger company bought them, and everything started just being online. Rare to get an in person cash offer, mostly it was points for online surveys that you could turn into cash, and it only netted a couple of hundred a year or so. But I do survey work from time time in my business, so I stayed plugged in as it was just interesting to me. The latest iteration was called 'Knowledge Panel' (which I still see in some methodology footnotes as the database they used) but that was I think it was either bought or partners with Ipsos. Started feeling uncomfortable with the idea that they asked a lot more personal questions and no longer made responses optional so I bailed, but my hubby still does them. He gets political surveys from time to time and I look over his shoulder at the questions. But I do answer phone surveys that randomly come in, they are mostly for local and state candidates, and they ask demographic info at the end so when it gets to the income part I hang up. None of their business.
I’ve participated in those too, though not recently.
Or worse.....an AI recording your voice for future manipulation of your family or friends!
Do you know how easy it is to make up poll numbers?
These are the amount of people I called: random number
Here's the amount answers I got one way: biased number based on random number
Here's the amount that went the other way: random number - biased number based on random number
You can make all this data up without calling a single person! Just make it look reasonable.
As I recall, the Rasmussen poll told the tale accurately in 2016. No doubt that's been "fixed" since then.
Rasmussen is generally a conservative pollster that tends to get things more accurately. Or at least they were.
Reality checks are better. All one had to do was look at how many people were showing up at campaign events in 2016 and 2020 in order to know who was going to win the election. Trumps got tens of thousands while The Witch and Pedo Pete were lucky to get a few hundred most of the time. Remember all the photos?
Always find the number of people polled. That’s a tell right there.
Also, look at the polling universe. Sometimes it's 'people', other times it's 'registered voters' and others it's 'likely voters'. I am not clear how they vet these categories, but if it's just asking people about how often they vote, 'likely voters' is suspect to me as people are likely to lie about how often they actually voted as they don't want to look bad. But supposedly, polls of 'likely voters' is supposed to be the most accurate.
In the state databases of voters, it shows how someone is registered and in which elections they voted (but obv. not *how* they voted). Political parties (and, I assume, pollsters; perhaps the general public, for all I know) can get these databases and from them contact people via the contact info in the database (which isn't always accurate, but they'd keep going until they had the sample size they needed for their statistical estimate). I can't remember how 'likely voter' is typically defined, but it may be something like 'voted in 3 out of the last 4 elections' or similar.
Well in MO we don't have party registration, so no way of knowing if voters are R or D. The legislature did add a provision to an election bill in 2022 where you can now register as a party, but it is optional. (Reason - they are trying to push towards party registration is because D's vote for the weak R's in the primaries, so trying to keep the D's from getting R ballots in primaries). However, a lot of my R friends refuse to add their party to their registration as they say they will not get their vote counted. Not true, but a lot of people distrust the elections.
In Colorado, if you are registered as independent you can vote in either primary. As I'll be pretty comfortable with most of the R candidates, my husband and I are seriously considering switching to I, and vote for RFK Jr.
Also Colorado went from a red state to blue the moment mailin votes were ratified in our constitution.
In our transforming state of CO, I believe voters register as either R or D or one of the Listed minority parties--if none of the above then you are UNaffiliated. "independent" is an inaccurate, incorrectly defined term people use euphemistically. Indecisive would be more accurate.
Yes, Republican Party is doomed to near irrelevance in CO just relegated a permanent minority as a backdrop for bipartisanship and to whine occasionally to allow some venting. Independents and weak Republicans like Dick Waddams attack the "Trump Wing" and crazy Pro-Life lunatics who don't trust the Dems and the elections they oversee and tabulate with Dominion. My answer is--then why are you complaining???? LIFE is GOOD with FULL Democratic control so why NOT just applaud the GOP demise register as UnAffiliated and Buzz-off?
I get the frustration with the R party - in MO we have a lot of internal battles between the purists and what I call the 'big tent' Republicans. 2022 primaries were vicious, with a lot of negative campaigning between the NO compromise candidates and those who, at least in our blue county (but red state), had a fighting chance of winning as they were more moderate, and there IS a contingent of D's who are disgusted with their party's left turn. But the no compromise candidates who lost in the primary supporters largely stayed home in November, said they would not vote for a 'RINO', and the D's swept the county offices and picked up some seats in the MO legislature. Things are not looking good for 2024 either, too many discouraged R's who jumped in with both feet when covid happened and got active for the first time have thrown up their hands and disengaged. I keep saying, the left plays the long game, and we have to get smarter and work together, but it mostly falls on deaf ears. There is a big R enthusiasm deficit heading into 2024. Trump is huge in rural red areas but the D rot is spreading due to them fleeing the mess they made of the most populated areas.
Yes, our moderation crowd won out in primaries as we allow UAFs to vote, but general election even they were wiped out by an overreaching Dem party in all areas, we're worse off now and the media and money Reps blame Trump and the passionate wing of the party. The Dems are very progressive, bipartisan as often as they can be, pull back when something seems too radical for the moment, appeal to a moderate middle (that is all really socialist-minded in this ers), They are political professionals and completely funded and incestuous with Big Money Corporations and unions and silently allied with Anti-Trump Republicans and Anti-Right Republicans. The red areas of the state are becoming small islands with massive demographic shifts and a clamor for gvt. services and spending so how does one counter Santa Claus without appearing mean and calloused, uneducated and a do-nothing and partisan? We have no real vision only complaining and nostalgic fondness for what it used to be like so the Dem-Progressive machine gorges and grows and becomes more powerful and any opposition weaker and less effective.
Well a lot of our politicians pay a lot of lip service to Trump to get elected but then become whores to the lobbyists once they win. In contrast, I personally know some of these so-called RINOs and while I am not always happy with how they vote, they are not bought and paid for, and try mightily to be heard when trying to explain their votes - a lot of issues are complicated and people have short attention spans and don't listen. They see a NO vote on an issue they support and fly off the handle on social media and start tossing insults. Some are just bad bills - poorly written with too many loopholes, too vague, or not likely to withstand a legal challenge. So they have to decide to vote Y to satisfy the social media mob or vote N and work for a better bill next session. Despite a super-majority in the legislature, and a weak R governor we get little done. Some of it is just personal. There are senators that literally hate each other and will vote no just out of spite if they don't like the bill sponsor. Politics is a nasty business and too many people who have come to this realization just check out. But Santa Claus is also alive and well, voters passed Medicaid expansion due to an initiative petition process that is way too easy for outside D money to come in and manipulate the system to get stuff on the ballot with a one or 2 sentence summary that totally ignores the fine print and people fall for it every year. The pot legalization bill was an awful socialist scheme with over 25 pages of fine print that no one read and that passed last year. Potheads turned out in force which also helped the D's in purple areas. But the R's are afraid of backlash to do any meaningful initiative petition reform as the Ds and media scream 'subverting democracy' if they try to pass bills to reign this in. It's a year from 2024 primary election, and we already have 120 initiative petitions approved to circulate, 80% of them sponsored and funded by leftist groups from outside the state. They pay $20/hr+ to people to collect signatures. We have a LOT of work to do.
Most people distrust elections in Oregon Donna, an all vote by mail state. Precinct voting fostered a touch of community, even if we only vote every couple years. I would love to have that back.
In Oregon, where I live, the election officials can search for voters that have moved or are deceased but are still on the votor rolls. They then know how many fake mail-in votes are available to send out voted for the candidate "they" want to win. No one is knows it's happening.
Wow, didn't realize OR was ALL mail in?! I wouldn't trust that either. Our mail service, which used to be very good in my area has gone downhill markedly the past couple of years. MO has 6 weeks of in-person early voting with an excuse, 2 weeks of no excuse in person early voting, Have to have a photo ID. Mail in ballots if requested, have to be notarized. We still have issues but did get a no ballot harvesting and no zuckerbucks bill passed last year. I work as an election judge and vast majority of ballots in my area are cast on election day, in person. 10.9% mail in last November. Our SOS finally ditched ERIC after years of pressure, since he is running for governor, guess he thought it was a campaign issue, although a group who provided evidence that voter rolls were corrupt was blown off.
Donna, yes, all mail in voting since 1998. Oregon has not had a Republican governor since. Coincidence? Maybe. But probably not.
There is no chain of custody of your ballot once you drop it in the mail. There is no way of knowing if your ballot was counted, all you will receive (if requested) is confirmation that your ballot envelope was scanned. In the 2022 mid-term, 'special' recycle boxes were set up on college campuses for duplicate ballots that were sent out. In one whistle blower complaint there was a notice put out requesting workers to help fill out extra ballots (see battleground oregon.org for federal court case updates). Yes, Oregon elections are less than honest irregardless of what the recently resigned SoS claims. (That's a dirty story for another time). Oregonians have no confidence in their elections.
Wow that is so corrupt! Got curious and looked it up https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/oregon/ Oregon is not all that different from MO https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/missouri/ where the population centers go blue but the rural counties are red. I am in blue Jackson, and they are exporting their rot as high taxes and crime are leading D's to flee to surrounding counties. 2 of them, Platte and Clay to the north, Trump barely eked a win in 2020. R margin shrinks with every election. And even Jackson is really 2 counties - the KC part is deep blue and had their own (corrupt) election board, while the rest of the county - the suburbs went for Trump (although only 50.5%, while KC was 20%). But can't overcome that the population centers cancel out the rural/suburb/exurb vote. I suppose part of OR's problem is the CA refugees. MO was considered a bellwether state until 2012, state had picked the winner in every election for something like 50 years. But went for Romney in 2012 and Trump won handily in 2016 and 2020. A lot of the rural counties were 'Truman Democrats' who had the common sense to see that the D party had left them. S. MO is called the 'bible belt' and they vote their values, many of those counties went 80%+ for Trump. My hubby is a sales rep and travels the state. Says a lot of places people have never taken down their Trump signs/banners/flags.
Rich Baris is pretty accurate with his poll numbers. I haven't been following him lately to see if he has any numbers, I'll have to check up on it.
Rich Baris feels that DeSantis is out of the race.
Then he's probably right.
Poll numbers and polls are here to stay. I just ignore them like white noise.
Polls are just part of the MSM brainwashing, nothing more...
Polls are worse than daily weather forecasts.
They have certainly been politicized, but it's not true that they are inaccurate. The way people interpret them causes issues. Sometimes intentionally. Polls provide a snapshot. They have a margin of error. Yet, people want to read them as if they literally say 49% to this candidate and 47% to that candidate. That's not what they are saying. If you take the margin of error into account it's more like candidate A likely has 44-54% of the vote and candidate B likely has 42-52% of the vote. Candidate A appears to be leading, but it's well within the poll's margin that Candidate B actually wins by a comfortable margin. People would say the poll is inaccurate if Candidate B were to win, but the poll was accurate. The interpretation was inaccurate.
People like Jesse Waters (who let's all remember is on Faux News and therefore is part of the establishment) will use the numbers to tell the story they want people to believe.
All that said, if you look across polls, across multiple polling co's - some with left leans, some with right leans - and average them all out over a 3-month period or so, you can get a pretty good sense of what the mood of the public is and which direction it's heading. It's not 100% accurate, but it's a snapshot that has some value. Way more value than having nothing at all.
I like seeing what my leftie friends say on FB. One is absolutely insane about Trump, but he never posts a single fact, only invective and mockery, which I think about sums up the Dem side generally. In real life, he's a retired historian who still gives lectures about Native Americans and settlers in his area of the country. He's a great guy in that arena, but the spirit that shows through on his political posts is very off-putting.
Same here. One of my lefty fb friends just posted about getting blue hats made that said "Make lying great again". The comments all thought that was hilarious and someone volunteered to get the hats made. I'm thinking that I don't really get it. I mean I get it sarcastically but are they really that oblivious to their own party? Cause the other side of me is saying, yes, go for it, advertise what a lying POS your side is standing for and see how many votes that gets.
Most of time their memes don't make sense and are not funny. Kind of blah.
Yes, this man's FB friends all also chimed in to agree. Once he posted about DeSantis 'banning books' in Florida, and I corrected him with a link to a neutral site listing which books had been assessed by school boards and which retained or tossed. He thanked me, but it appears not to have made a dent in his willingness to do the same thing, over and over, for jollies, it appears.
I had to unfollow my friends on FB who would make lists like this. It really upset me that people I genuinely liked would be this nasty and disrespectful towards people they disagreed with. And also so gullible to repeat the lies of the media taking heads and politicians.
It helps that I don't know this man well, and in fact we've never met in person. We have a mutual interest in the history of a particular place and time. I don't unfollow anyone who expresses those opinions, I find it a fascinating window into people I'm (thankfully) never around in real life.
I think it’s different when it’s someone you don’t have an actual friendship with. All of the people who are my Facebook friends are real friends I know quite well from real life for the most part, with a few “good” acquaintances sprinkled in but I really dislike having random people I’ve barely met in my Facebook friend group, personally. That is just the way I use Facebook. I participate in certain groups but no one is really political at all there. I just found it hurtful on the part of my friends to make statements like that, especially since most knew my opinions and leanings somewhat. Clearly I don’t have your ability to take a step back and look at it dispassionately.
I've been unfriended by a person or two, I think, and perhaps their reason is your reason. One former colleague actually made a post to say that he didn't appreciate politics showing up in his feed because he uses FB as you do. I felt a little badly, as I thought I was one of the people, if not the person, he was talking about, but of late I've noticed him liking some of my posts (which are probably 90% political, the remainder being nature and farm life, with non-political humor bringing up the rear; I too am in nonpolitical interest-based groups, though) and even commenting on some. I use my feed as my little C&C-like warning to others who may not read and hear the sources I do, or have the same fund of knowledge for analysis or comparison. I've had people I know in real life tell me in person how much they appreciate my feed, which they use as a sort of news source, but the vast majority, including those who tell me that, neither like nor comment. I'm an introvert with no desire to share details of my life online with anyone, but the conclusion I finally came to, when I started maing political posts, was, "if not now, when; if not me, who?"
I don’t generally unfriend people, just unfollow them. So their posts don’t automatically appear in my feed, I have to specifically go to their page to look at them. While I get your reasoning and love that you’ve been sharing political messages with people and gotten some to listen, I honestly didn’t join Facebook to do that. My purpose was to keep in touch with people I already knew and was friends with, especially those I didn’t see very often because they live far away or their schedules don’t allow us to see each other in person often. I wanted to know what they were doing and stay connected. People use FB in different ways and for different purposes. Reading very politicized posts (most of which at least in the case of my contacts had inflammatory headlines and were extremely slanted) just didn’t fit my purposes and I think FB is a terrible platform to have a decent debate with people. If I’d have seen more thoughtful posts and comments instead of the same old screeds, I’d maybe have been more interested in reading and engaging. But it just looked like an exercise in virtue signaling and self congratulatory preening to be part of a special club. Not insightful and thought provoking at all. I’d rather get my stimulation elsewhere.
Yeah. I would be willing to bet RFK Jr. is beating biden now.
The Dems are so scared of RFK Jr.
I have no doubt RFK is beating Brandon, Annie. How long before the left begins indicting him for.. something. They have to remove all competition.
Worse. They denied him secret service coverage, even though as a candidate he should qualify for it. And with his family's background in assassinations. Though maybe have the deep state guard you is dangerous in itself.
There has been several well placed internal polls that show he has captured a huge number and that is by solely doing podcasts! The DNC, being the DNC that gave Hilary the questions to the primary and not Bernie, have now decided to have all MSM block all stories about RFK. It’s so bad that RFK is apparently suing Google for censorship!The real irony in this is that because the MSM blocked all conservatives, we got X, Substack and Truthto send things around. Imagine if facebook blocks RFK links!
I certainly hope so!
Tied with Biden? Could be true. In my personal experience, all of the democrats I know well enough to discuss anything going on today are oblivious to Biden’s and the democrat party’s flaws and questionable deeds. In a race between Biden and any Republican candidate out there, Biden would nearly unanimously get their vote. They all follow the MSM news. That is all they know. And they don’t think or ask questions.
Yes, they swallow the sermonizing of the DemoCult Media apparatus that's well crafted, better written than any Phlemzer Ad, almost as well produced as Netfixed or HomeBO. It IS REALITY and disparaging attacking, hateful commentary toward the target of the moment is fulfilling to them. Be it Trump, America, MAGA, Christians, AntiVaxxers, RFK Jr., UnBlack African-Americans, whoever and whatever, there is always a defined "enemy".
As someone who is very well-versed in survey research, I'll say political polls should always be viewed with the lens of: which polling co. and what is their methodology. Most of them are liberal-leaning companies and their methodology (intentionally or not) skews their results to the liberal side. It's all about the underlying methodology. Who takes their survey? How do they weight the results? How do they define a "likely voter?"
The problem with most polls is that they get massive underrepresentation of Trump supporters taking them b/c Trump supporters generally do not trust the pollsters. This is true for corporate Marketing surveys as well. You have to REALLY work to find Trump conservatives and get them to take a survey.
So, yeah, if the poll is showing Trump tied with "Biden," it's likely Trump is well ahead of "Biden" (whoever or whatever "Biden" is at this point).
The only "poll" I believed in the 2016 and 2020 elections were turnouts at Trump rallies vs. Biden "rallies". I stood in nearly 1/2 mile long lines at one in 2020, and got turned away from Trump's final 2016 rally in GR MI, while watching 50 people sitting in circles at the very few Biden 2020 "rallies". 2020 was the swing state fix the demoncrats didn't think they needed in 2016. Don't tell Grandma Garland I said this, I'd rather not be persecuted by the Department of "Justice".
The turnouts for Trump rallies were astounding,I've never in 73 years seen anything like it, and it happened every single time, over and over. The few pathetic public events for Biden were ridiculously small, embarrassingly so. There were so few "supporters" there that the MSM cameras had to use very tight angles so you wouldn't see how sparsely attended Biden's events were. I simply do not believe based on what I observed with my own eyes that Biden got more votes than Trump. I don't think it was even close.
Agree. There was no evidence that Biden winning was credible or made any sense at all.
The media likes to pin it on Idiots getting riled up like at a tractor pull with a KKK speaker--after all those church attending Bible believers need some entertainment off of the gun range. Maybe the Koch brothers are paying for people to attend? Studious, educated professionals and poor oppressed folks of color have NO NEED to go to a Biden event in mass, that would be undignified and his quaint stories don't add anything to the mix. They already all know how good they have things as long as Ol'Joe runs the show. See, even when no one shows up you're still the winner in MSM spin.
Yes, just posted about this on another thread as I do some occasional survey work for small businesses, although informal, such as surveying their current customer list, so I am always interested in methodology, how they word it, and who is paying for it. I record them and send them to whoever I think would be interested.
"likely voter' is suspect to me, as people may lie about how often they vote.
I've compiled door knocking lists for conservative school board candidates the past 3 years based on frequent voters, which I define as those who have voted in either 1, 2 or 3 of the last municipal elections (which have about a 12-14% turnout). Get the list from the county election board. Amazing when you cross reference that with the people who are the most vocal on social media, look them up to see if they have voted in past elections, and oftentimes, they have not. Actually 2 of the conservative candidates who have won in the last 2 SB elections had not voted in past SB elections - but they do now! Heaviest turnout in local elections is in blue precincts, R's need to step it up!
Well, different polling houses use different likely voter models. Some use self-report as in someone saying "yes, I plan to vote." Others use voting history (which in a survey is also self-reported). Others use age, gender, race, and strength of opinions to try to predict likely voters. So, for example...younger people are less likely. Whites and Asians are more likely. If they have strong opinions to their answers (rating feelings at the high or low end of scales), they would be more likely b/c supposedly more passionate.
It's really a guessing game, and when polls go horribly wrong (when polls attack, lol) it's usually b/c the likely voter models were wrong.
It's also something that left-leaning pollsters frequently get wrong, rating Dem voters as more likely to vote b/c from their biased viewpoint there is always something to be fired up about. Dems and leftists especially do not have good historical awareness. So, when the Supreme Court makes a ruling, they automatically assume that means every Dem is going to be hopping mad and ready to run to the polls. In fact, Republican voters tend to be older, whiter, more steadily employed (aka paying more taxes), and therefore more likely to vote, regardless of what outrage du jour the left whips itself into a frenzy over.
Yes. In my 'frequent voter' list for school board, (frequent voters in low turnout municipal elections) I sorted by date of birth. ~60% were over age 55, and only 6% were under age 35. On a national scale, this is why we will never get a good 'fix' for social security. Seniors vote, and woe to any politician who talks about reform.
So the polling companies don't have access to state voter databases showing how often particular voters have voted? I know political parties do have such access.
Probably depends on how hard they want to work at it. If they are polling just to get the answer they want, rigorous methodology is just an unnecessary expense.
Kind of like with the Covid clinical trials 😑
And always, what questions are asked and how are they phrased? That can hugely influence the results of a poll too.
Absolutely! You can get any result you want if you phrase the question correctly. I used to do census work and we were trained to use the questions as written to prevent skewing the results.
SO agreed! The "tied with Biden" is nothing more than government propaganda. Quit promoting it, Jeff, please! It's false, just like everything else we're being told!
To be fair, Jeff wasn’t promoting it IMO. He simply was showing what’s being said by various people. It was a quote, but not Jeff’s.
Agree.
Quite honestly, if Biden is said to be "tied with Trump", that's a total lie and no one should take it seriously. After what Biden and his corrupt administration has done to the country the last couple of years, anyone who would still support him now is comatose or totally brain dead. Or a moron.
Then we better advocate for a return to fair and secure voting so this one doesn’t get rigged. Make sure all the lenient and easy-to-cheat voting policies from 2020 get repealed. Better yet, clean up the rolls. Monitor and observe continuously. Seems like we did this in 2022, and Arizona still completely cheated in plain sight.
Absolutely correct KTH! Voter rolls bulging with fake names, ERIC being dropped by state after state for being another leftist operation, and brave counties returning to vote in person with ID on paper and counted same day.
Tune in to the Lindell election summit on the 16th & 17th. You will learn more about elections than you thought possible. And it's not a pretty story.
Vote in person on Election Day! Better yet, volunteer to be a poll watcher or judge. Go to county GOP meetings. Call all your elected representatives and insist on integrity in the elections and ask how the votes are secured in your county. We all must be involved!
"81 million" of those polled expressed a preference for Biden.
Tom, I'm sure you have heard this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4XWiKZNMOU
I still smile and shake my head when I hear it.
The other things about this that I wanted to mention is that:
1) Trump has always been demolishing the primary field. It's never been close. The narrative that it has been close or that he was losing ground was propaganda intended to pump DeSantis' campaign. I think most of us have figured this out by now, but DeSantis is the establishment's candidate, literally hand-picked - and heavily funded - in 2020 to run in 2024.
2) Trump has always been "tied with" "Biden," statistically speaking. The polls have shown this result for years. So, it's odd that only now are they starting to say this out loud. It tells me the establishment players are shifting away from Biden, probably to move away from him and toward Newsom. Their "reasons" will be that he is compromised by the oh-so-unfair investigations into influence peddling and that they need someone who can beat Trump b/c it's an "existential crisis for 'democracy.'"
Ha ha! Next time I hear "Trump is a threat to our democracy " I'm going to ask " what do you mean by that and what is your definition of democracy?".......I'm sure I'll get some kind of 3rd grade answer 😉.
Most people I've spoken with can't distinguish between a "democracy" and a "constitutional republic". They tend to think we have a pure democracy without even knowing how it's defined.
Bingo!!! And the 3rd grade answer would be "Trump is a big poo poo head!"
Yeah they complain all the time about how mean he is and about his name calling but call him Orange Cheeto 🙄 Hypocrites (but that’s nothing new 🙄).
Occasionally I will fill out a mail survey, until I see the twisted logic questions to elicit a certain answer. Then it hits the burn barrel.
I saw someone talking recently (just can't remember who it was) about a poll taken shortly before the 2016 election. This poll stated that HRC had over a 96% chance of beating Trump. So much for their polls.
That was a model. I think it was Nate Silver's model. He's a leftist. Just as with covid and "climate change," what the models spit out are based on the assumptions that are built into them. Modeling is nothing more than fancified conjecture. Faulty assumptions - like Dems will have higher turnout or all the polls are picking up all the types of voter - will lead to terrible modeling...like the 2016 predictive models (similarly covid and climate change).
The problem in 2016 was that there was systematic bias across the polls. They all undercounted Trump voters and did not properly weight for that. To Silver's credit he did say all along that if there were some sort of systematic bias across the polls, it's very possible that Trump could win, despite his model predicting HRC as a clear winner.
For all the talk of the failures of 2016, no one is mentioning how much more accurate the polls were in 2020 and 2022.
THEY ALL still assert that Trump-Russia cheated to win 2016 and that they tried and failed again in 2020 ONLY due to the "reforms" that they implemented (Starting in Dec 2016-to Election Day+1, 2020) and efforts they took to stop him! How do the 2 "realities" reconcile??? ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE!!! It's going to be worse in '24 in many ways i believe. MassBalloting for Democratic Party activated Masses and MassCounting and demands for Instant Accurate results shoving the old complaining out of touch white folks and whoever aside and proclaiming "Let Freedom Ring!" while enslaving the masses by a Democratizing Marxism and Authoritarianism and calling it virtuous and progressive.
So he was selected before the 2020 election to run in 2024 no matter the outcome of 2020, you're saying? And how would you see it play out, if he's owned by the establishment - he gets to be anti-woke but his foreign policy would be the usual all-war-all-the-time? He was actually much slower to take a 'constitutional liberty' stand during COVID than many now think and are lead to believe, especially by him and his campaign, but once on board he either was a true believer or he fakes it extremely well; which of those do you think is more accurate?
Yes, exactly. The deep state has used the "left" narrative fully. It's now starting to hurt their credibility and pocketbooks. Which hurts their ability to start wars on the down low. So, they are going to try to turn the country rightward, as they did in the W years. Same playbook. Clinton leaned on race-baiting and racial animus. Then, W, the governor of a large "red" state, showed up as a response to that with what the left called "dog whistle racism." Same plan. Same timing even (~5 yrs as governor).
The establishment - especially the deep state/CIA - only cares about war. It's how they become rich, get clout on the world stage, and keep the billionaire class funding them happy. The rest of it is merely noise used to divide the populace. They are all essentially nonpartisan and see themselves as world citizens. World leaders, actually. They don't care at all about American cultural issues. They just use those to divide. They set up the elections so they always have a candidate. HW, W, Clinton (both), Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney, Jeb...all essentially the same, and all on board with starting unprovoked decades-long wars.
The anti-covid tyranny role is the only one DeSantis has been able to pull off so far. (I feel he was tipped off before other governors that covid wasn't actually dangerous.) He just hasn't been able to play the part of anti-establishment, populist, man-of-the-people as they'd wished he would so he could supplant Trump (who somehow incomprehensibly does manage to pull off that role). RD is just not that guy and hasn't been able to fake it. And the base wants nothing to do with the (R) establishment b/c they've figured out what I mentioned above. The latest shift by team Ron D to "slitting throats of the deep state" is laughably propagandistic. Classic opposite-speak.
I think the reason Trump manages to pull off the 'role' of man-of-the-people, while being very wealthy personally, is that he likes working-class people and is very comfortable being with them and conversing with them. He builds buildings, as did his father, so he's been on job sites his whole life. It was from working-class people where I live, a poorer, rural area, that I learned of this affinity for Trump. It surprised me; I had been a Cruz supporter, but they didn't trust him (or basically any of the rest of that 17-person pool) as far as they could spit. I watched Gov. DeSantis in a social setting with Republican Party insiders once, and toward the end, it was clear to me that he was done, had other things he wanted to do, and really didn't want to pose with anyone else for a photo. For the last few, he could only come up with a pretty awful grimace instead of a smile. It's an annual event, no matter who the Republican Governor is, and I was told by longtime attendees that though they support RDS's policies more than they did some previous Republican Governors, there were aspects to the social event that indicated to them that he did not value them or really want to spend time with them. When I saw the 'throat' headline, I thought he was just trying to keep Vivek from getting to his right; it doesn't sound like him.
Good point. I find there is an honesty and directness to working class people that doesn't exist in the white collar professional class. In the white collar world, no one ever really says what they think. They speak around it, use euphemisms, and try to get people to understand what they think without actually saying what they think. In the working class world, you say what you think. Hence the reaction of the white collar professional class to Trump. It's actually mostly bias against a working class style. A "that's not appropriate" reaction. Maybe that aligns with Trump's personal style better and has drawn him to working class people.
I also think on some level he saw a market and seized it. He thought his former friends in elite circles would understand, and maybe not like that he won, but at least accept it and work with him. Instead, they turned on him completely and tried to destroy him, and as he's made a point to say, his family. Had they left his family alone, I think he may have just left after a term.
But, now it's personal, and it takes him one step closer to what has happened to the working class (turned on by the Dems, then Republicans, and subject to an attempt to destroy their lives).
DeSantis seems like a nouveau elite with an introvert personality type to me. He would be better as a VP candidate. Or a behind-the-scenes guy. He looks very uncomfortable in most social settings and seems to want to get away from people. He also isn't good at speaking to the working class - he comes across as if he is trying to communicate with space aliens when he talks to them. "Good people of Oklahoma...keep doing Oklahoma things...now take me to your leader" type stuff. (I'm somewhat joking, of course.) I'm not sure he's aware that he is the one the (R) establishment chose to be their nominee. They seem to now have regrets. A lot can happen before the vote, but he doesn't look good right now.
Good comment.
The working class people see very clearly that unlike many people in politics, Trump doesn’t have contempt for them. Many of the others pretend to be there to defend the interests of the working class but are really just using them to get power. They despise them and to anyone paying attention, it shows.
Speaking of RDS "not looking good right now,"
"DeSantis says [Trump's] 2020 election fraud theories did not prove to be true"
Self-immolation.
https://flvoicenews.com/desantis-says-2020-election-fraud-theories-did-not-prove-to-be-true/
You had me laughing out loud at the end of your comment! I too think RDS is an introvert. Over time, I realized I had never given Trump a chance in the 2016 primary. I never sought to find out what he said, I had somehow absorbed the mainstream attitude toward him. (The "grab 'em" audio certainly didn't help; it offended my husband even more than it did me, I think.) I voted for him, because Hillary and because Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn said he had set a former student to find what Trump had said that was anti-constitutional, and he didn't find anything. And the list for the Supreme Court. At any rate, I was so thrilled with his policies, pre-COVID, and then I felt like a fool who'd been taken in *again* by the mainstream.
Right on Sunnydaze!
Remember, Jesse is on faux news and not willing to give up his golden handcuffs. Thus he touts the faux party line.
I don't miss my TV at all.
Ya I like Jesse but not as long as he’s chained to the faux desk. He has no choice but to tow the line and repeat like a robot. Nope 👎🏻 We don’t watch any of the msm ever. Don’t miss it. Quality of life soared ⬆️ when we turned it off. And we turned off fox sooner than 2020 but that’s when we really stopped listening to any of them.
Yup. Agree.
His show was cringe worthy when he had his mom call into the show. I lost a lot of respect for Jesse.
What’s so funny is yes they are completely lying about the numbers but they can’t lie enough to look like better numbers because Everyone knows B 60 - T 40 would be complete BS 😂
Why are you purposefully ignoring the poll numbers showing RFK Jr. far ahead of either of those other two? It's stunning. Am I missing something? I don't think so.
NPR did an attack piece on RFK Jr. shredding him, then Dems in Congress savaged him mercilessly head to toe taunting and demeaning him. They are AFRAID of non-unity against Anti-Progressive Pro-American Conservatism; one reason they also seek to destroy Trump a lifelong Dem turning Republican and then NOT doing their bidding. The Neo-Democratic Party of 2007-2023 OBAMA's Party is not tolerant of straying from the ranks. Quite Marxist in tactics and strategy, Saul Alinsky should be proud.
To be fair, I ignore all polls. 😂 Honestly I didn’t know he was ahead because I don’t pay attention to them. My guess would be because the polls are notoriously democrats anyway. So maybe amongst democrats they are better? Just a guess.