Top Polling Companies Rigging Polls For Hillary

[rmstock]

Alert! Top Polling Companies Rigging Polls For Hillary
by John Ale, Saturday, August 6, 2016 13:45
http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2016/08/alert-top-polling-companies-rigging-polls-for-hillary-2544699.html

The author at BeforeItsNews inserts some old Bloomberg info on how
Trump was helped by the Rothschild fortune, but that is a Gross Lie in
itself. Trump got a short term loan of $1 million to start his
business, and thats it. This article is about the youtube video
featuring Pat Caddell, Democrat and Polling specialist interpreter
complaining how Reuters of all media outlets rigged the polls for
Hillary.

1. Video from beforeitsnews (strange quality) :

ALERT - Top POLLING COMPANIES RIGGING Polls For HILLARY
by David Vose , Published on Aug 6, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW5y16wXLC4
  "Confirmed: Pollsters Loading Polls with Democrats to Give Hillary a
   Lead Over Trump. Trump continues to sell out venue after venue. Hillary
   can't fill a high school gymnasium this week without hauling in high
   school kids to sit in the stands.
   Trump continues to sell out venue after venue.

   Reuters tweaked their polling methods this week to give Hillary a lead.
   Reuters -Ipsos used more than 100 more Democrats in their poll to give
   Hillary a lead over Donald Trump."

2. The original from FIX news :

Democrat Pat Caddell has words on Reuters Polling & Debate Scheduling
by LurkerDood , Published on Aug 1, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4grXyM_IUk

[rmstock]

New Polls Are Rigged for Hillary
by The Alex Jones Channel, Published on Aug 5, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAua8JovI7Y
  "The establishment will stop at nothing to get in their preferred
   candidate. We've seen them rig the nomination, the media coverage, and
   in a new move they are even retroactively rigging polls!"

[rmstock]

Hillary Lead Over Trump Surges After Reuters "Tweaks" Poll
by Tyler Durden  Jul 31, 2016 5:20 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-30/clinton-lead-over-trump-surges-after-reuters-tweaks-poll


Reuters Baffled As Clinton's Lead Over Trump Suddenly Evaporates
by Tyler Durden  Aug 6, 2016 2:55 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-06/peak-hillary-reuters-baffled-clintons-lead-over-trump-suddenly-evaporates

  "We're gonna need another polling methodology 'tweak'...
   
   Having seen her poll numbers suddenly explode higher (and Trump's
   collapse) following Reuters' decision to tweak its polling methodology,
   it appears we just witnessed 'Peak Hillary' as Reuters reports
   Clinton's lead over Trump has tumbled back to just 3 points (the poll
   had a credibility interval of plus or minus 3 percentage points)
   meaning, as Reuters is forced to admit, that the results suggest the
   race is roughly even...
   
      Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's lead over Republican
      rival Donald Trump narrowed to less than 3 percentage points, according
      to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday, down from nearly
      eight points on Monday.
   
      About 42 percent of likely voters favored Clinton, to Trump's 39
      percent, according to the July 31-Aug. 4 online poll of 1,154 likely
      voters. The poll had a credibility interval of plus or minus 3
      percentage points, meaning that the results suggest the race is roughly
      even. Among registered voters over the same period, Clinton held a lead
      of five percentage points, down from eight percentage points on Monday,
      according to the poll.
   
   Reuters tweaked data shows Hillary's lead has peaked...
   
   
   
   Reuters subtly points out the folly of their survey respondents...
   
      Clinton had pulled well ahead of Trump on the heels of the Democratic
      National Convention last week, where she became the first woman to
      accept the U.S. presidential nomination from a major political party.
   
      Since then, Trump has engaged in a days-long feud with the family of an
      American soldier killed in Iraq and squabbled with the Republican
      leadership over his comments and leadership turmoil within his campaign.
   
   But as RealClearPolitics' aggregated data shows, the swings are
   dramatic to say the least...
   
   
   
   The noise in these polling numbers is incredible and prompted
   MishTalk's Mike Shedlock to take a caustic look at the prognostications
   of the web's forecasters... Peter Atwater, President of Financial
   Insyghts and Author of Moods and Markets asked an interesting question
   today: "Have we reached peak Hillary yet?"
   
   In Atwater's tweet, he posted a flashback to this January 2014 Time
   Magazine cover.
   
 
   
   The answer to the question "Can anyone stop Hillary?" is pretty
   obvious: Yes, Trump can easily win if he can ever learn to control his
   mouth (a recession hits or some dirt that matters comes out on Hillary
   that matters).
   
   Ridiculous Forecasts
   
   I watch with amusement as Nate Silver posts his ridiculous forecasts on
   the Presidential Election Odds.
   
   
   
   Rest assured, Hillary does not have a 79% chance of winning.
   
   
   
  Pure Idiocy
   
      * Supposedly, Hillary has a 79.9% chance of winning in November as of today.
      * Supposedly, Trump had a 50.1% chance of winning in November on July 31, just four days ago!
      * Supposedly, Hillary had a 77.4% chance of winning in November on July  12.
   
   This is pure idiocy.
   
   Silver is clearly taking the news of the day and projecting it out to
   November when voters clearly have a time span of about three days.
   
   How Silver can look himself in a mirror and make such widely varying
   off the wall predictions is a mystery.

   Social Mood
   
      Atwater had a second tweet today that is quite interesting...
   
      https://twitter.com/Peter_Atwater/status/761317506518806529
   
      Social Mood is clearly in control here.
   
    Silver is totally clueless about what social mood will be in November,
      just as he was totally clueless about social mood the entire Republican
      nomination process.
   
   *  *  *
   
   We leave it to Reuters themselves to conclude with their thoughts on
   the drop in Hillary's support and revival of Trump...
   
      The reasons behind the shift were unclear.
   
   Unclear indeed."

[rmstock]

Hillary Lead Over Trump Surges After Reuters "Tweaks" Poll
by Tyler Durden  Jul 31, 2016 5:20 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-30/clinton-lead-over-trump-surges-after-reuters-tweaks-poll


Reuters Baffled As Clinton's Lead Over Trump Suddenly Evaporates
by Tyler Durden  Aug 6, 2016 2:55 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-06/peak-hillary-reuters-baffled-clintons-lead-over-trump-suddenly-evaporates

  "We're gonna need another polling methodology 'tweak'...
   
   [ ... ]
   
   We leave it to Reuters themselves to conclude with their thoughts on
   the drop in Hillary's support and revival of Trump...
   
      The reasons behind the shift were unclear.
   
   Unclear indeed."

No Tyler, NOT unclear. Reuters included say 500 Republicans and 699 Democats
in their polls creating rigged polls based on a sample of in total 1199 voters.

[MikeWB]

They're trying to generate consensus... sometimes the perception of reality is reality.

I'm yet to meet a #CrookedHillary supporter in the town I live in. I think this is the case across most of the towns in the US. When the election day comes, it won't be even close.... Trump will win by a landslide. And all these media jews will be "shocked".

[yankeedoodle]

They're trying to generate consensus... sometimes the perception of reality is reality.

I'm yet to meet a #CrookedHillary supporter in the town I live in. I think this is the case across most of the towns in the US. When the election day comes, it won't be even close.... Trump will win by a landslide. And all these media jews will be "shocked".

Think you are right.

Was in the library the other day, and the librarian, who doesn't care much for Trump, almost seemed sympathetic over that stupid "he kicked a baby out" nonsense.  She saw what happened, and described it accurately, and said that he didn't kick the baby out.  Don't think she'll vote for him - who knows? - but just shows that the bullshit isn't working.

[MikeWB]

YD, have you noticed how the jews are now pushing Gary Johnson and how they're saying he's a 'viable 3rd party candidate'? lol... they're trying to pull another Ross Perot.

[yankeedoodle]

Won't work.  Trump will say something like "It's rigged.  Look what happened when people voted for Ralph Nader - we got George Bush, and war in Iraq."

This is just like 1976.  Nothing will work.  In 1976, it was Carter.  In 2016, it's going to be Trump. 

This guy, Pat Caddell, who is talking about the polls being "cooked" and the crooked debates in the YouTube Robert posted above, was, in fact, Jimmy Carter's pollster.  Yankee Doodle remembers that VERY well.  Carter and Caddell spent many months in Iowa, ahead of everybody else, tweaking his bullshit

[MikeWB]

Re: Pat Caddell...  that's interesting. I personally remember him as a shill for Israel for some reason. I haven't watched his videos in 5+ years at the very least. Had no idea about his Jimmy Carter connection. Interesting!

[yankeedoodle]

Caddell was very young at the time, and a hot-shot from Harvard.

Carter and a few young hot-shots - Caddell, Hamilton Jordan, and Jody Powell - sneaked out to Iowa and beat the bushes for months, while the other candidates had jobs to do, and they managed to get about 28% of the vote - 1-2% more then the second place candidate - and  the fucking media declared him the winner, and  went CRAZY over this unknown grinnin' goober and his "Trust Me" slogan, and the stupid fucking public went crazy, too, and the rest is history.  Nothing could stop him.

This is why the idiots today spend months and months in Iowa: they don't want to let anybody like Carter get a head start on them. 

Blame Carter for the never-ending political campaign.

People are going crazy for Trump just like Carter.  Deja vu.

[MikeWB]

YD, thnks for the info!

BTW, I found another proof of jews shilling for Clinton. This one is from (((Nate Silver))) who got famous for getting Оbаmа/Romney polls right. Now he's thrown his credibility away and is just shilling as hard as he can.



PROOF FiveThirtyEight rigged their polling average over the past week in order to manufacture a fake post-DNC bump for Clinton. Between July 29th and August 7th, *every* poll going back to Nov 2015 was re-adjusted by an average of 8 points in favor of Clinton. (self.conspiracy)

submitted 7 hours ago * by MYGODWHATHAVEIDONE

FiveThirtyEight has three models that adjust and weight the polling average according to a number of factors – Polls-Plus, Polls-Only, and Now-Cast. Now-Cast has the least "smoothing" of the win percentage forecasts.

Here is an image of the most recent National Polling average produced by the Now-Cast model: https://i.sli.mg/eznBiZ.png

You can see that in this model Trump took a slim lead from July 25 through July 29th. So we would naturally expect many (although not all) polls from that period to show Trump in the lead.

When you scroll down you can see the most recent polls being given the highest weight by the model. If you click on "Show More Polls" you can see a list of the previous polls from earlier in the election season. Here is a screenshot of the Now-Cast for today, August 7th: http://sli.mg/LScz0n

Here is a picture of the polls from the period when Trump had a lead according to the 538 model (shown is any poll that included July 25th or July 29th): https://i.sli.mg/XOva19.jpg

Notice that not a single poll, after 538's adjustment, shows Trump with a lead. How is it possible that Trump had a lead for five days without ever once coming out ahead in 538's model? What happened to erase after-the-fact the lead that Trump had during that period?

I went to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine to look for snapshots of the 538 National Polling average page, and the most recent snapshot they took (coincidentally) was on July 29th, the last day of Trump's lead. Here is the snapshot (you have to manually select "Now-Cast" in the sidebar to the left, because I can't link directly to it): https://web.archive.org/web/20160729151320/http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/

What is immediately clear is that there are many polls showing Trump as the adjusted leader, as you would expect for Trump to show up as the leader in the chart produced by the model. How did this lead disappear between July 29th and today?

I decided to look at individual polls themselves to see what happened to the adjustment that 538 gives each poll. In their methodology page, Nate Pyrite explains the factors that go into their poll adjustments. The most important is the "house effects" adjustment, that corrects for the bias of each individual polling firm, some of which are known to produce results favoring Republicans and others favoring Democrats to different degrees.

So what happened to the adjustments of polls from the period of Trump's lead? Below is a table showing what happened to each individual poll between July 29th and now. Adjustment is shown in the table as negative when it perceives the poll as biased toward Clinton and corrects toward Trump, and positive when it perceives the poll as biased toward Trump and corrects toward Clinton.
Poll    July 29th Adj    Today's Adj    Change
Jul. 22-26 Ipsos    -2    +3    +5
Jul. 21-22 Gravis Marketing    0    +6    +6
Jul. 22-24 CBS News/New York Times    0    +5    +5
Jul. 22-28 USC Dornsife/LA Times    +3    +9    +6
Jul. 22-24 Morning Consult    -1    +5    +6
Jul. 23-24 YouGov    +1    +6    +5
Jul. 22-24 CNN/Opinion Research Corp.    -1    +5    +6
Jul. 26-27 Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion Research    +1    +5    +4
Jul. 18-24 SurveyMonkey    -2    +4    +6
Jul. 22 RABA Research    -2    +5    +7
Jul. 14-16 Monmouth University    -3    +5    +8
Jul. 12-16 RKM Research and Communications, Inc.    -2    +6    +8
Jul. 21-24 University of Delaware    -1    +5    +6
Jul. 9-13 NBC News/Wall Street Journal    -4    +3    +7
Jul. 13-18 Greenberg Quinlan Rosner    -4    +3    +7
Jul. 21-22 Echelon Insights    -1    +6    +7
Jul. 5-9 Marist College    -5    +3    +8
Jul. 17-20 American Research Group    -1    +5    +6
Jul. 11-14 ABC News/Washington Post    -1    +6    +7
Jul. 12-15 icitizen    -3    +4    +7
Jul. 7-11 GfK Group    -3    +4    +7
Jul. 8-12 CBS News/New York Times    -3    +5    +8
Jul. 13-16 CNN/Opinion Research Corp.    -3    +4    +7
Jun. 21-27 Quinnipiac University    -3    +5    +8
Jun. 26-28 Fox News    -4    +4    +8
Jun. 26-29 Suffolk University    -5    +4    +9
Jun. 15-26 Pew Research Center    -6    +2    +8
Jul. 15-17 YouGov    -1    +6    +7
Jun. 27-28 Public Policy Polling    -4    +4    +8
Jun. 24-29 IBD/TIPP    -5    +3    +8
Jun. 28-29 Zogby Interactive/JZ Analytics    -7    +1    +8
Jun. 20-23 ABC News/Washington Post    -4    +4    +8
Jun. 8 SurveyUSA    -5    +4    +9
Jun. 19-24 Atlantic Media/Heartland Monitor    -6    +2    +8
Jun. 15-19 Monmouth University    -6    +3    +9
Jul. 21-25 Ipsos    -2    +3    +5
Jul. 18-19 Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion Research    0    +7    +7
Jun. 10-13 Selzer & Company    -8    0    +8
Jun. 19-23 NBC News/Wall Street Journal    -7    +2    +9
Average          +7

I could continue, but you get the point. Here is a spreadsheet comparing every single poll from July 29th to its counterpart today, August 7th. The average re-adjustment in favor of Clinton was 7.9 points.

In the Now-Cast today, Nate Pyrite has Clinton leading Trump by 7.5 points (44.5 to 37). But this post-DNC bounce may have been entirely manufactured by re-weighting every single polling firm by 4-9 points in Clinton's favor. Is it remotely plausible that the house effects of every single polling firm were discovered since July 29th to be heavily biased towards Trump, necessitating radical across-the-board re-adjustment? And that this discovery just so happened to coincide with the end of the DNC? Not even remotely plausible.

Given that Hillary's lead today is reported to be 7.5 points, but the above table shows an average shift of 7 points in Hillary's favor, it is plausible that Hillary's lead today would be only 0.5 points if the weighting from July 29th were still being used.

Nate Pyrite has clearly and ham-handedly cooked the books in order to produce a post-DNC bounce for Hillary Clinton, sacrificing what little integrity and honesty he might still have had before this.

[yankeedoodle]

The thing is, Mike, it's deja vu.  Nothing is going to work - NOTHING.  Same as with Carter. 

Fucking hot-shot statistical wizards like Silver are losing their minds.  There's no place for daja vu in their calculations. 

Been saying this for a year now.  Where do you go to get your paycheck for seeing what all the experts can't? 

People have reached their breaking points, and it's like an earthquake:  the seismographs can measure the build-up of stresses, but they can't predict when, where, and how severely the earth will shake. 

Of course, the politicians knew people were pissed off: that's why, as in 1976 and again in 2016, there were so many candidates.  But, the problem is, the candidates were a continuation of the status quo, and people were 110% finally pissed off with the status quo. 

In 1976, after Nixon, they were ready to vote for somebody goofy, and there was Carter with his stupid smile.  In 2016, after Obama, they are ready to vote for somebody like Trump with goofy hair. 

There's nothing more to it than that.   

And, like Carter, Trump will pretty much fail, because what is goofy ceases to be funny when what is goofy gets in the White House and runs into the entrenched politicians that hate him.  Goofy funny becomes...well, "How fucking GOOFY," or, "That's a goofy idea."

It ain't going to be pretty, but it will be better than that ugly Clinton bitch.