Sounding like Republicans blaming their woes on that “liberal media,” the leftwing of the Democratic party are creating their own myth to explain why their preferred candidate(s) can’t get any traction in national polls. Using combinations of professional associations and shoddy research, bloggers and discussion forum patrons have determined that every national poll is “rigged” against “progressives” and in favor of Senator Hillary Clinton.
The caterwauling began earlier this year when Opinion Research announced a partnership with CNN to conduct their polling. Vinod Gupta, chairman of Opinion Research, is a Hillary Clinton supporter. That means, following the twisted logic of the left, the CNN polls are rigged in Clinton’s favor. The only problem with that, though, is the CNN poll results are always similar to those of other major polling companies – often within one or two percentage points.
To believe CNN is gaming the system for Clinton, one must also believe the other polls are in on it. Maybe there’s a top secret meeting every week of “Clintonistas” where all the polls are given the numbers Bill and Hillary want fed to the nation. And then again, maybe not. But to make the conspiracy theory hold – that polls are being rigged in favor of Hillary – there has to be some evidence somewhere else having to do with some other poll.
Enter Zennie Abraham. Mr. Abraham believes he’s found the smoking gun and he takes USA Today / Gallup to task on his blog on June 17:
OK. Get this. Just get this. Two weeks ago, Senator Barack Obama was tied — that’s right, tied — with Senator Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic Presidential race in the then latest USA Today / Gallup Poll. Now, USA Today / Gallup didn’t do a poll in May, and certainly not two weeks apart, but this new one says that Senator Clinton has a large lead. What?
The critical eye would have a question. I’ve got several. But the bottom line is the second round of polling was rigged. Why? Because someone didn’t like the outcome and doesn’t want Senator Barack Obama to win, so they immediately ordered another poll and worked to obtain results they wanted to see. (Italics mine)
Although there are multiple problems with what Zennie wrote, his entire premise is based on some real shoddy research. Contrary to his claims, not only did USA Today / Gallup Poll do a poll in May, they did TWO in May, and they WERE two weeks apart. USA Today / Gallup has been doing two polls a month on the Democratic presidential race since March. (source)
USA Today / Gallup certainly MAY have raised on eyebrow at the results of the June 1 poll referenced by Zennie that had Obama tied with Clinton because no other poll was showing such a bounce for Obama. Polling organizations ALWAYS analyze their findings. But they didn’t “order another poll and work to obtain the results they wanted to see.” They simply began preparations and then carried out the second poll for the month, the same as they’d done for the last three months.
Interestingly, Zennie offers no explanation for Obama’s sudden 9 point jump in the June 1 poll. He doesn’t even mention it because he wants people to believe there was no poll in May when there was, in fact, TWO. But to accuse USA Today and Gallup of “rigging” a poll against Obama without a shred of evidence and based entirely on the fact he got excited about an outlier poll only to see his hopes dashed when the next poll came out is simply desperate.
As Frank Newport said, and Zennie quoted him, NO OTHER POLLS that week showed the results the June 1 USA Today / Gallup poll did. Not the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, not Wall Street Journal/NBC polls, not Rasmussen, not CNN.
In the book Politics: What is Disinformation? Conservative Republican Pat Buchanan said, “The truth is, I’ve gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive… I’ve gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage — all we could have asked… For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that.”
In the same book, GOP strategist William Kristol also reveals, “I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.”
Isn’t it time someone from the left of importance – Markos Moulitsas, David Sirota, Jerome Armstrong – comes forward to denounce what is quickly becoming the netroot’s excuse for “progressive” failings in national polling?
For Centrist Democratic News and Opinion – visit DonkeyDigest
34 users commented in " Obama Supporters Contend National Polling Is “Rigged.” "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackUmm…you take one blogger’s comment and conflate that to say that “Obama Supporters Contend National Polling is Rigged”? That’s some objective reporting. Imply that Obama supporters in general are saying that.
I’m a staunch Obama supporter and have not heard others making that claim. I think your analysis of the blog in question was fair in itself, but don’t make the unsupported broader claim that “Obama supporters contend.” The blog you cite is one among thousands of Obama blogs. You can always cherry pick information from the internet to make false generalizations.
I believe the polls, but I believe you will see major moves in the polls as we get closer to the actual elections. Just look where John Kerry was in the polls four years ago. It’s simply too early to worry about them.
Hi. I’m an Obama supporter who reads and posts at DKos. I’ve never seen this “rigged poll” allegation from anyone posting there. You’re making an unsupported generalization. The CW among Obama supporters is that the national polls don’t matter that much right now. The race is just kicking into gear, for one. At this point in the game organization and fund raising matter as much as anything. Furthermore, the national polls are mostly of “registered Dems” not “likely primary voters”. Turnout is a big deal in primaries and there’s an idea going around that Hillary’s support is soft, meaning she’s got name recognition but not hardcore supporters that will definitely turn out for primaries. Especially for the Iowa caucus, Edwards and Obama’s supporters feel like they are in a good position with better organization and firmer support.
CeeCee and Jeremy
Notice the author states: “bloggers and discussion forum patrons have determined that every national poll is “rigged” against “progressives” and in favor of Senator Hillary Clinton.”
You no doubt have missed the the multiple threads on this topic at Democraticunderground – started and/or bumped by Obama supporters. Certainly people at DemocraticUnderground qualify as “discussion forum patrons.”
But even on the Obama website itself:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/danielleclarke/CJWh
As for Jeremy never reading this at dailykos, I checked Google and found:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/10/165423/511
I didn’t even spend a lot of time looking for these links.
I would submit there are many Obama supporters swallowing this hook, line, and sinker.
Well it seems by your research i did fall for this idea of Zennies. However, i am the only one of hundreds of thousands of Barack Obama supporters. I will delete my blog at barackobama.com
Red, you are still not engaged in objective reporting. The DKos story you link to is written by the same blogger you quoted in the first place, Zennie Abraham. And if you look at the 31 comments posted to the story, the community strongly disagreed with him.
Danielle Clark, the blogger you link to on the Obama website, simply refers to Zennie’s blog. If you search for “Polls” in the Community Blog section of the Obama website (where Danielle’s item was posted) you come up with a lot of stuff and none of the ones I checked said anything about this ‘conspiracy.’ If I had the time or interest to check every last one of the entries, no doubt I could find someone besides Zennie or Danielle buying in, but clearly it is not the opinion of many Obama supporters.
They are not rigged they are irrelevant
In one of the e-mails David Plouffe, our campaign manager sent 6 weeks ago he said: “Attach no significance to national and even state polls unless they affect our campaigns ability to grow”. Well Obama is still attracting the largest crowds in every state he visits because people want to hear his message. I wanted to suggest that we take Plouffe’s warning at heart.
This month, four years ago, Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean were leading the national polls. Kerry was fourth and Edwards was in single digits. Granted Hillary’s lead has been more solid than that any democrat had 4 years ago but that’s because she has been campaigning for 15 years, Obama only for 6 months.
But even state poll-watching carries risk. About 50% of the people who are asked do not respond to these polls because of fatigue. Participation is much worse in month of August. Many young voters only have cell phones.
Now even the polls in December in early-voting states can be misleading: In December 03 and January 04 John Kerry, Johns Edwards, Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt were locked in a statistical dead heat contest. The caucus results were: Kerry 38; Edwards 32; Dean 18; Gephardt 10.
The only useful information even Iowa state polls will have this December (currently they are next to useless) is to indicate momentum. Dean and Gephardt were falling and Kerry and Edwards were rising during that time. This is all about peaking at the right time.
Iowa is all about local organization and peaking at the right time with an overwhelming message. Obama’s senior strategist got Edwards from single digits to 32% in Iowa within 3 months. Lets campaign as hard as we can and attach no significance to polls.
Geez. I don’t know where to begin. But I’ll start by saying that it’s obvious you were so upset by my claim your emotions prevented you from seeing the evidence that’s right in your face. First, unlike me, you don’t state who you support — I would get, however, that you’re not an Obama supporter, thus your bias. Let’s start there as the basis for your totally anti-intellectual display.
You missed the obvious points right in your face! First, one does not run a poll just to match another poll. To re-do a poll just because it’s different from another poll is rigging. Period. You run a poll — make sure the sample size of PEOPLE (we’re not talking about robots here) is large enough to be credible, and go with the results. Like it or not.
You didn’t back research to learn about my claim. If you did, you’d have discovered that Frank Newport SAID that the new poll, ran only a week later and out of sync with USA Today / Gallup’s common timing, place Senator Clinton “in her position of leadership.”
What?
That’s not something for a pollster who supposed to be non-biased to write, but he did.
Look, I have experience at this you lack. I’ve made economic models for newspaper publications in the past. Here’s an example: in 1994 I was commissioned by the East Bay Express to estimate the economic impact of a 5 percent reduction in the salary of UC Berkeley Employees on the City of Berkeley. To determine this, I created a 942 equation system dynamics model of the City of Berkeley and UC Berkeley in it. I discovered that a 5 percent drop had for all practical purposes no impact. Why? Because many Berkeley employees don’t live in Berkeley.
I did learn that a major impact on Berkeley’s economy — negative — was from increases in student tuition. The more they had to spend, the less they could pour into the local economy.
Well, John Raeside, the editor at the time, didn’t like the conclusion and threatened not to pay me and not to run the story. My point is that USA Today has HIRED Gallup, hence “USA Today / Gallup Poll” with USA Today at first billing. Do you think USA Today would back a poll with Obama tied? Not if they could help it.
People forget that newspapers have agendas. Sorry to be the deliverer of reality, but you should be critically careful of what you read in the papers of the mass media.
Zennie Abraham
Concerns about the mainstream media polling results may well be valid, as in the old saying: “Just because you are paranoid does not mean nobody’s after you.” Neither Zennie’s critique, which is based on an admission that the pollsters did not trust their own findings, or the Red State Donkey counterargument that cites the neocon establishment to vindicate the liberal media, really deals with the problem or dispels all concerns.
There are serious methodological issues with current polling practices. The actual medhodolgy usually is completely lacking in transparency, perhaps because it is considered prorietary information. We are left to guess at how they impact on the results.
The most frequently cited problem with modern poling is the fact that it is all done by phone. This involves land-line owners, an entire mobile population of cellular users is left out. Since the demographics of the latter differs from from the former, there is a significant but unquantified margin of error.
The sample size and classification is also questionable. Can a national poll of several hundred people compare in accuracy to a similar sized poll conducted only in Iowa? Of course not. And what about the fact that any Republican can change party affiliation on caucus night in Iowa? So here are further questions about the margin of error.
As anyone who has done polling knows, the way in which quesions are framed will affect the results. So when it comes to name recognition vs voter preference, degree of committment from strong to undecided, and the exact wording of the poll, the ordering of candidates, the option for undecided or none of the above, all sorts of effects will impact the results.
Finally, there is the way in which polling results are presented. For example, the Rasmussen Report headlined “24% Say Clinton Will Not Be Influenced By Lobbyists”. However, is that the importance of their finding? I thought it was the fact that 48% believe she would be influenced and 28% are unsure.
Then there is hint of conflict of interest. Vinod Gupta was cozy with the Clintons, because he truly likes them and they have apparently advanced his business interests. He must have gotten something for paying Bill Clinton $200,000 in consulting fees. But Gupta also recognized when that relationship could diminish the value of his investment in CNN’s polling organization. Otherwise, he would have had no reason to cool his public relationship with the Clintons.
From regularly watching and scrutinizing CNN one could easily conclude that some of its staff actively support Hillary, and others may be unconsciously boosting her image. In this, they are not much different than most of the other large news organizations. It is entirely understandable that the Clintons and their Democratic machine have long and productive ties to the media, and their may be conscious to subliminal wishes that Hillary will resume residence in the White House.
Besides Bill Schneider’s diminished reliability (and I remember when he was a Washington newcomer who was cautiously spot-on in his political analysis), there are many examples of CNN bias. The selection of commentators on the debates (and I have only heard one who sounded objective amongst all they have invited to date) has been disappointing, and the profiles of some candidates’ spouses by Anderson Cooper could be deemed offensive.
This week’s CNN Rafferty File question on whether Hillary is a liabililty to the Democratic Party is a prime example of the selectivity of reporting. Rafferty aired four pro-Hillary, one clearly anti-Clinton and one ambiguous viewer response. Now those numbers do not nearly reflect the national polls on Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings, which are close to 50-50. One presumes that CNN gets hundreds of comments on such a visceral issue, and while this is a non-scientific survey that may have had a preponderance of pro-Hillary respondents. But there had to have been more negative views that could have been included to more closely reflect the national reality.
So unlike RSD, I am far from convinced that our media is at all reliable in the current election season. But then again, what do you expect from the people who helped George Bush launch his War on Iraq?
I’ve never claimed to be a reporter, CeeCee. I wrote an Op-ed. It was stated you’d not seen it on Dkos. But there is was – regardless of who wrote it.
Not did I say it was the opinion of “many Obama supporters,” but it is the opinion of Obama supporters. Obviously.
If you’re looking for a magic number of supporters to qualify as “Obama supporters,” I’m sure we’ll disagree on what that number should be.
One instance of Zennie’s blog post contains a favorable response by an Obama supporter:
http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2007/08/usa-today-gallup-poll-rigged-to-favor_10.html
Then, of course, the 25 mostly favorable comments at the youtube video page:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqmQ7D8DXps
Of course, there are the threads on DU I mentioned before…
Then we have an Obama blogger going after Rasmussen polls:
http://baracktheyouthvote.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/poll-dancing-questions-answers-and-the-naked-truth/
Fact is, there is a distrust among Obama supporters of polls because they don’t believe or understand why Obama isn’t polling better.
Zennie:
The fact of the matter is, you either didn’t research the polling frequency of USA Today/ Gallup or you flat out lied about it. Contrary to your claims, not only did USA Today / Gallup Poll do a poll in May, they did TWO in May, and they WERE two weeks apart. USA Today / Gallup has been doing two polls a month on the Democratic presidential race since March.
Regardless of what Frank Newport said in his analysis, USA Today/ Gallup did not redo the poll. They poll every two weeks regardless. And every polling outfit examines their results. We all understand that you don’t like what Newport said, but you can’t change the facts that NO OTHER POLLS had the results of the June 1 Gallup poll and Gallup prepares for their next poll almost immediately after the completion of their last one.
Red State Donkey. The web is ginormous. What you can find using google and what is actually being widely discussed are two different things. Suppose 1% of Obama’s supporters online think this. How many hits will that return? I stand by my previous post and think that a quick googling does not provide evidence to defeat my argument.
Re: 10:16 am
In that post you basically admit you use an intentionally ambiguous phrase “Obama Supporters”. It seems to me that you are responding to a specific person’s argument and you should address it to that person rather than a vague number of supporters.
So, Jeremy – what is the magic number?
We seem to have a difference of opinion on that as well as the fact that Obama supporters on different online communities latched on the shoddy research.
Red State Donkey is creating this controversy. I’m tired of the establishment which apparently includes Mr. Donkey here and how they just love negative press about Obama but conveniently miss the fact that Mr. Obama is doing rather well in Iowa and the other early battlegrounds. National polls don’t matter if you’re not in the national race yet. You need to win the early states to even progress. Just ask Howard Dean about that one. The Obama campaign is rightly focused on where they need to win.
Which is your candidate RSDonkey? I think that’s a fair question since it’s obvious who you’re not for…
Jimbo the Realist – what difference does it make who my candidate is? If I said “John Edwards” would you then try to turn this discussion into something about John Edwards? Clinton? Richardson?
Stick to the fact: A blogger, in his zeal to elevate Barack Obama, did some shoddy research, and people on Obama’s own website, DemocraticUnderground, Youtube, and a commentor on his blog hi-fived him for it. Fortunately it got stepped on before it could spread even further.
Red State Donkey. You ask “What is the magic number?” Of course the answer is that there’s no magic number. That was precisely my point. The phrase you used was vague, and given this “magic number” business you’re trying to peddle it seems like you know that it is vague.
If you want to get into semantic specifics, I will. “Obama supporters” can be read as a plural meaning “more than one” or as a general term encompassing the group. Suppose 1% of Obama supporters want to cut off trade with Canada. Would you write a headline saying “Obama supporters oppose trade with Canada” when 99% believe no such thing? Would you insist on that headlines accuracy by saying “there’s no magic number”? Would you think everyone doesn’t see through your ruse?
I’m an Obama supporters. I am willing to believe what the national polls report. But the MSM’s spin on the national polls is garbage. Hillary’s inevitability is sufficiently concocted that the Media risks losing yet more credibility.
1) Obama has been behind in the polls for the entire election (while he was ahead in the money polls). Why is this old news worthy of a headline?
2) The polling itself is interesting in that it is premised on the question “if the election were held today, and Al Gore were on the ballot?” Well, Al Gore is not on the ballot in any election held today. Sure, he might enter the race, but so might Bloomberg, or Michael Jackson, or Jimmy Carter. This is 15% of the electorate that is, in the end, undecided.
3) The “Gore included” question might not be such an objectionable bias if Hillary Clinton’s name recognition were not so high. In a contest amongst unknowns, it might be assumed that Gore’s supporters would distribute randomly. Given that 96% of those polled say they believe they have enough information about Hillary, it seems a dubious assumption that Gore’s partisans would go to Hillary.
4) Finally, of course, the national polling is not newsworthy because it is premised on the further hypothetical of a single-day national primary. This assumption is about as defensible as Elvis entering the race.
In the end, the interesting data in the national polls is not that the nomination has been sewn up, but rather that the “inevitable” candidate _still_ has very high negatives and will be quite vulnerable on February 5 should other contenders leave the race after the early primaries. To be safe, Hillary must win the early primaries _AND AVOID KNOCKING THE OTHER FIVE OR SIX CANDIDATES OUT OF THE RACE_.
Obama has always been a long-shot. But this shot has started to look much more plausible as the early primaries tighten.
RSD, your response to my broader point? You’re just full of straw men, red herrings, ad hominem attacks and generalizations which are all meaningless arguments. I have yet to see you meaningfully defend your article against the numerous well made points people have put to you in this forum. Until you quit attacking people and just answer the questions about what you base your assertions on and what axe you have to grind there’s not a lot of point in discussing it with you.
Exactly, Jeremy – I mean, who would say “Obama supporters” and mean every one of them? How could that even be determined?
Yes, if 1% of Obama supporters want to cut off trade with Canada and would feel very comfortable with the headline “Obama supporters oppose trade with Canada.” I wouldn’t say “All” or “Most.”
Jimbo the realist – I’ve found that passionate supporters of single candidates will claim “straw men, red herrings, ad hominem attacks, generalizations, meaningless arguments, and attacks” if they’re disagreed with.
RSD, that’s a broad generalization, NEXT
Suppose I ask you this:
“Are GOP supporters pro-choice?”
You would answer “yes”, since after all more than one GOP supporter is pro-choice?
Jeremy – yes.
I thougt you said George Bush knew something about 9/11. How come you’re now defending the ‘rigged polls’ conspiracy. Oh I forgot- right is wherever you happen to be.
And BTW, the polls are a complete farce. 30% response rate, totally reliant on land lines and even the questions asked are phony. I have been polled 13 times and never was I asked who I would be voting for. The last time, I was asked “Hillary Clinton recently called Senator Obama naive and irresponsible. Do you support that a presidential candidate should call another candidate names like naive and irresponsible?”. Recently, all they asked were questions on taking money from lobbyists, Obama’s experience, talking to enemy presidents, etc. At the end of the day, they inteprete it as meaning I will vote or not vote for whoever it was the question was referring to. It’s a sham.
If you can say unequivocally with 100% surety that the polls are not rigged, then I ask you to invite me for an open debate.
“I thougt you said George Bush knew something about 9/11. How come you’re now defending the ‘rigged polls’ conspiracy.”
??
Who cares about National polls anyway? They don’t mean jack. Once Iowa happens the whole board gets rearranged anyway. And, I seem to remember Kerry being in 4th place in Iowa as late as Oct before the primary, last time around. People are saying Hillary, because many haven’t started paying attention yet and they don’t know anything about Obama. In good time my friends, in good time.
>Obama Supporters Contend National Polling Is “Rigged.”
then
>Sounding like Republicans blaming their woes on that “liberal media,” the leftwing of the Democratic party are creating
>their own myth to explain why their preferred candidate(s) can’t get any traction in national polls”
Obama is not on the left-wing of the Democratic party. He is moderate. If you read his positions, you will see for yourself.
The only contention I have made is that the polls do not capture the full picture. Most polls only poll Democrats. Some also poll Independents. None of them poll Republicans who intend to switch their ticket for a day to vote in the primary.
Obama has gathered support along a very wide margin of the political spectrum. We are getting volunteers, yes VOLUNTEERS, who have never voted in 40 years, or who have not voted for decades, or are first time voters. We are also getting Republicans. None of these are being polled. If the volunteers are not people who campaign and volunteer every election, imagine what our voter base looks like.
Our general feeling has been that if we are even close to being tied or are tied in the polls, we are in very, very good shape.
Maybe not all national polls are biased (though some probably are), but at this point they’re all irrelevant. In the only states where any of the campaigns are focusing (Iowa, NH, Nev, SC), the race is very tight. Summarized at:
http://unitedagainsthillary.wordpress.com
“Zennie:
The fact of the matter is, you either didn’t research the polling frequency of USA Today/ Gallup or you flat out lied about it. Contrary to your claims, not only did USA Today / Gallup Poll do a poll in May, they did TWO in May, and they WERE two weeks apart. USA Today / Gallup has been doing two polls a month on the Democratic presidential race since March.
Regardless of what Frank Newport said in his analysis, USA Today/ Gallup did not redo the poll. They poll every two weeks regardless. And every polling outfit examines their results. We all understand that you don’t like what Newport said, but you can’t change the facts that NO OTHER POLLS had the results of the June 1 Gallup poll and Gallup prepares for their next poll almost immediately after the completion of their last one.”
WRONG. Totally incorrect and again, you’re tripping all over yourself here.
Read this. Please read because what you’re stating is missing the point. Did you click on the link and scroll down to what Frank wrote? NOPE. You did not.
If you did, you would see Frank’s own words that the poll released was to counter the poll reporting a TIE. THAT IS OUT OF CHARACTER!! The May polls had nothing to do with this.
Come on. Please. Get with the mental program here. You’ve obviously never done a poll or survey and don’t know how to estimate an error term. I do. These changes so throw the error term out of wack as to make the polls unusable — but you don’t know this, so you quote this again and again.
But my work — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqmQ7D8DXps — which started this. Stands.
And you’re just plain wrong.
I am an Obama supporter and I think the polls are suspicious because:
a) he won the “first primary” as Bill Clinton stated because he has raised more money
b) he raised money from a larger donor base, because he does not accept federal lobbyist or PAC money
c) he has consistently had the largest turn-outs on campaign stumps and at forums Ex. At the annual Association of
Black Journalists…. he spoke to a packed audience whereas Clinton spoke at a half filled room
d) At the Take Back America forum, Clinton was booed as she was booed at the televised forum prior to the GLBT debate
e) At MNBC debate the “talking heads” grudgingly acknowledged that he won the debate with the people, and Clinton was the winner inside the Beltway
f) The feedback after the LGBT debate by their attendees was that he won the debate
g) The NY Daily News had a headline “Hilary Raises A Lot of Money” in the article, they refer to Obama as having raised
the most money. (Since WHEN does #2 get the headline?)
h) I have seen photos of some of the candidates on tv whereby his photo was excluded (how is #2 excluded when the
2nd tier are included?)
i) I never read anything in the papers about his June Walk-athon, his dinner oh… there was a brief article about the NYer
who went
j) Clinton moved $10M from her senate campaign… the press just gave her a pass. It may be legal ($) but it is not appropriate.
These are some examples of the blatent biases against Obama. That a Clinton supporter (Mr Gupta) is doing the polls, leaves room for questions about the validity/integrity of those polls. NY1 is clearly proClinton… her video has been given an extraordinary amount of air time. CNN is clearly proClinton as evidenced by the moderator during “Faith and Politics” forum who stated enthusiastically “Next Senator Hilary Clinton (and in a low deadpanned voice) but before her Senator Obama.”
Then as he was answering a question, she all but through him off the show… but he gave her a hug.. When Clinton came on the moderator’s enthusiatic grin and tone was readily apparent. CNN and NY1 are both owned by Time Warner.
A comment that Obama made about Clinton and some other presidential candidates was referred to as “an attack” yet her remarks calling him “naive and inexperienced” was called a comment.
I would like to know exactly what are the questions that are asked and from whom… I don’t know anyone who has been survey and I’d like to know the geographic locations of the respondents and the demographics. So yes, I am suspicious about these polls.
We need more transparency and the fourth estate is too often unable to leave their biases on the opinion pages.
Indie Imani
Actually PollingPoint is rigged. Check out the ad on Huffingtonpost then do the pole on Hillary Clinton. The poll references her camporared to all candidates EXCEPT BARACK OBAMA!!!! It’s really obvious so you shouldn’t believe any of the pols.
FEMA Trailers. Thousands of persons reside in RVs voluntarily. I an a “Full Time” RV’er. Just like a new car or any new home construction odors are are a fact of life. We have always just left our cabinets open in a new RV and ALWAYS leave our optional exhaust fans on night and day. RV’s are small spaces and air exchange is essential. BTW boaters install formaldehyde in dry docked vessels to combat mold, solar powered ventilation is common.
I am beginning to believe that some voters can not handle the truth. I was finish with Hillary when she told that running from bullets on the tarmac story. Everything she says should be suspect. If you need to lie in a primary to win, It’s pretty pitiful. How does one trust you. I believe her staffer do not, hence they are jumping ship.
Leave A Reply