Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Fox News Poll Shows Hillary With Double Digit Lead Over Trump

Fox News Poll Shows Hillary With Double Digit Lead Over Trump


You see, this is the problem with having a campaign predicated on the fact that you’re leading in all the polls — when polling data turns unfavorable, your alleged mandate dissipates.

A new poll released by Fox News shows Hillary with a double-digit lead over The Donald. Hillary might me the least trusted presidential candidate in history, but she’s still crushing Trump (if data is accurate, of course).

Here’s why: majorities think Clinton is nevertheless qualified to be president, and has the temperament and knowledge to serve effectively. It’s the opposite for Trump: over half feel he is not qualified, and lacks the temperament or knowledge to lead the country. And his 62 percent dishonesty rating tops hers.

After the conventions, the Clinton-Kaine ticket leads the Trump-Pence ticket by 10 points (49-39 percent) in the race for the White House. Clinton’s advantage is outside the poll’s margin of error. A month ago, Clinton was up by six points (44-38 percent, June 26-28).

This is the first time the Fox News Poll included running mates. Trump announced his vice presidential pick of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence July 15. Clinton told supporters she’d picked Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine July 22.

Since last month, Clinton’s position is improved with most groups, as she gained ground among men, women, whites, Democrats, young voters, and seniors.

The whole Khan family kerfuffle was viewed unfavorably by just about everyone polled:

And Trump himself seems to recognize he maintains the maturity of a first grader:

So the Fox News poll is an outlier, right? Not quite. Yet another poll released by Reuters today shows Hillary eight points ahead.


clinton trump narrowed it down to this gif

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The popular appeal of progressive wars, violent regime changes, created and sustained refugee crises, redistributive change, class diversity (e.g. racism, sexism), selective exclusion (“=”), progressive debt, progressive corruption, and baby trials, may grant an insurmountable lead to Clinton. The evidence is in the extreme phobic response to Trump’s exposure of the status quo that was largely missing with Obama’s dreams of “redistributive change”, transformative change.

Khan wins because of the far left/far right’s success to equate provocation and response, and grant title to displacement and slander. Obama succeeded to destroy the significance of his son’s death and ignite progressive wars. Khan and the Democrat ploy succeeded to exploit a man’s death as exemplary and even redemptive of a philosophy. They’re coming for the Jews next. Apartheid is on the menu. But first it’s the Europeans and Americans.

    bombtrack311 in reply to n.n. | August 3, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    Ten point spreads used to be common when the country was less partisan, but in this century a spread this large is absolutely shocking. Trump had a window of opportunity where he could have pitted to the general election. Dislike of Hilary was at a high point and he had a chance to show himself as a serious candidate , but the man seems physically incapable of keeping his foot out of his mouth. There’s little reason to think he’s suddenly going to change so the unfortunate reality is we’re likely to have 4 years of another freaking Clinton.

As a long time reader and commenter here (8+ years), I don’t believe the short term poll trend is all doom.

There is so much to dislike about Hillary and so little enthusiasm that a turnaround story is possible …

I may be a Trump voter but am not a supporter. I will never support Hillary. All the clowns from the right saying voting Hillary makes sense – no, you are done. You will be primaries next round.

But to say that this is over and all doom and gloom – I don’t buy it.

There is room for surprises and shocks between now and November in an unconventional year.

I’m still watching and I am not going to ooh and aah over every poll yet, nor do I dismiss them out of hand. Hope is not a strategy either.

All the hysterical hand wringing is not yet a real reflection of where this is going – at least not yet. I see a llarge swath of real dissatisfaction that can swing this either way.

This poll needs to be taken with a big boulder of salt.

1.) It’s with registered voters, not ~LIKELY~ voters.
2.) It’s a national poll porportionally weighed by state, meaning that California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois and Pennsylvania are going to have an out-sized influence. Four of those six are SOLIDLY Democrat, and Florida is on the tipping-edge.
3.) On the Presidental poll, it doesn’t ask the person to commit. If they don’t know, it asks how they “lean.”
4.) The Libertarian Party pulls equally from both parties and narrows it from 10% to 9%, suggesting a heavier pull from the Democrat base.
5.) 52% of Trump supporters are voting “against” Sec. Clinton, where only 47% of Clinton supporters are voting “against” Mr. Trump. This exposes a wedge which may be exploitable to move voters from the “against” category into the “for” category.
6.) The spread for Sec. Clinton v. Sen. Sanders is 56% to 41%, while the spread for Mr. Trump v. Someone else is 50% to 49%
7.) Economy and Jobs (22%) and Terrorism/national security (22%) were tied for the top concern, and while Clinton and Trump were split at 47% on Terrorism, TRUMP has a 5% lead on Economy and Jobs. Again, exposes a potential exploitable position. However Clinton has a BIG differential on Education as 3rd top issue at 11%, with trust being 58% to 35%. This is something Trump needs to focus on.

8.) The “honest and trustworthy” question: Both candidates were equally rated as not trustworthy. 36% yes, 62 (61)% no.

9.) The question on the Kahn Family:

ASKED AUGUST 1-2 ONLY. N=635, MOE ±4%]

IF very familiar, somewhat familiar or not very familiar you get the follow up.

[IF 1-3 IN Q50, N=490, MOE ±4.5%]
51. How do you feel about Trump’s response — would you say it was in bounds or out of

So, as a note, less than 2/3rds of the poll respondents were asked the question at all, and only 77% of THOSE were asked for an opinion on if it was out of bounds (and they don’t give us ANY breakdown as to the makeup of THAT group, which was less than half of the poll size).

The question is badly polled. Take it with a boulder of salt.

    bombtrack311 in reply to Chuck Skinner. | August 3, 2016 at 7:48 pm

    Instead of focusing on individual polls you should focus on the overall trend of most poll, and that trend is very bad for Trump. As horrible as Hillary is Trump simply isn’t electable barring some bizzare scenario right before the electio. If Trump cared about Republicans he’d drop out and let the republicans replace him with someone who will actually beat Hillary.

      Not my point.

      My point was that this, of and by itself, is a poor poll due to poll design. Now whether that is BY design, or simply by a less-than-competent pollster is unknown (but I’m leaning toward either a less-than-competent pollster, or Fox making a choice to pick certain questions to make the polling look worse than it is for headline purposes.

      I expect that as we get closer to the general election, the polling will tighten up as the pollsters get more accurate with their samples and the wording of their questions.

        inspectorudy in reply to Chuck Skinner. | August 4, 2016 at 10:01 am

        “I expect that as we get closer to the general election, the polling will tighten up as the pollsters get more accurate with their samples and the wording of their questions.

        No, the polls won’t get tighter unless there is a major shift in Trump’s persona. At his age and temperament, I do not think that is possible. All of his life he has fought one foe at a time and had the veil of a semi-public entity. No longer. Now he is fighting many foes all at the same time and with total exposure of everything he says or does. He has never had to confront this situation and as we can all see he is not prepared to do so. As his poll numbers go down we will hear from him how they are rigged and that he is doing much better than it shows. He will say he draws much larger crowds than hiallry does so that means he is winning. We’ve all heard this and I am afraid he will not change his mantra. The Kahn issue shows how bull headed he is and how he has to get the last word no matter that he has already lost the argument. I believe his anger level will rise and he will lash out at his closest associates and friends to the point where he will be winning it alone. A similar personality is Rush Limbaugh. He could not handle a show with guests and there is only one way and that’s Rush’s way. Every conversation always leads back to him and unless he is part of the story he isn’t interested in it. If you like Rush you probably like Trump.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Chuck Skinner. | August 3, 2016 at 8:04 pm

    You are whistling past the graveyard. Poll after poll shows similar results. FiveThreeEight goes state by state and has Hillary @ 70% chance of winning with 313 Electoral Votes. RCP has poll after poll – national and state by state and they are all moving away from Trump. It really exploded after Khan. Would you like to bet on Trump?

    Oh yeah, the bookies have moved Trump from 2/1 underdog (on average) to 2.5/1 They are dealing in real money. Sometimes they get it wrong, but it isn’t wise to bet against them. They don’t stay in business if they keep getting it wrong.

    Rather than change the game, isn’t it more likely that Trump will continue to blow up? What’s to stop him. Who is going to stop him? We are seeing the real Trump. He hasn’t changed in 30 years.

    Do you think he is going to win the debates? They are not going to be like the debates during the primaries. Clinton will take her lumps, but Trump will be naked and unarmed. He couldn’t survive his first in-depth interview where he had to actually answer questions with push back and followups.

      You bring up a good point. In the debates, the leftist moderator will ask Trump questions like, “Who is the prime minister of Bumfukistan?” and when he doesn’t know, the media will talk about how stupid he is for weeks.

      But ten days ago 538 had Trump winning. The election is three months away and ANYThING can happen

        Betting on “ANYTHING can happen” is not a good sign.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Mercyneal. | August 3, 2016 at 10:50 pm

        538 never had Trump ahead. Unlike global warming deniers, you can actually look at the day by day graph on the site. Trump did close the gap, but he was never ahead.

        Anyway, he got a bump and then she did. Now the numbers are close to what they were before either convention.

        You actually have a better argument. They did get the Trump nomination wrong. What they say is that they didn’t believe their own numbers and they discarded some of the data. But the data did not lie. Are they doing that again? Time will tell. But Nate was right in 2008, 10, 12, & 14. Not just right about who was going to win, but by what percentage or how many electoral votes or how many seats. Impressive. I am glad you don’t believe them.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Mercyneal. | August 3, 2016 at 11:49 pm

        My apologies. Trump did get to 50.1 one day. I went back and checked. I do care about the facts.

      Do you think he is going to win the debates? They are not going to be like the debates during the primaries. Clinton will take her lumps, but Trump will be naked and unarmed. He couldn’t survive his first in-depth interview where he had to actually answer questions with push back and followups.

      I don’t know. I have a LOT more faith that Trump will not take lightly a moderator putting his or her thumb on the scale (ahem, CANDY CROWLEY we’re looking at you) with the same blase attitude that Mitt Romney did. I would expect that in that event, Trump, abandoning all sense of decorum, would probably call out the moderator right then and there, in public, for attempting to influence the nature of the debate, and questioning why the moderators have to ride to the rescue of Sec. Clinton if she’s such a good candidate.

      I fully expect that Trump will be A.) much more entertaining, B.) much harsher and sharp, and C.) if the moderator tries to pull any sort of stunt to lean on the debate outcomes.

      Now, not all of those things help him with every demographic. Younger women would probably be put off by that (although older women who remember Sec. Clinton’s reactions to the “bimbo-eruptions” as she liked to call them will probably be non-plussed).

      I have a feeling that this election will be about, I’m sorry to say, reality. Is the electorate going to pick something that is packaged, scheduled and formed, and controlled like a puppet from back-stage (Clinton), or are they going to go with something that is raw in an untapped form, which may or may not go with whatever happens to be in the moment (Trump).

      I don’t know. That’s part of what is likely to make the presidential debates entertaining. Also, if the Greenies can manage to get onto the stage, then they suddenly become VERY, VERY entertaining, as we’ll be watching Clinton scramble to move to the LEFT to shore up her base.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Chuck Skinner. | August 3, 2016 at 10:57 pm

        Still whining about that? I am sure Trump will make a lot of noise and be his nasty, nasty self. But it will not work with a general audience.

        Besides when Trump didn’t understand that annexing Crimea was invading The Ukraine, was he hoodwinked by a ‘gotcha’ question or did he simply not know what he was talking about? He has been trying to walk that one back ever since.

          Whining? No. But acutely aware that someone who purportedly has a position of respect in society (journalist) and whom the general public is supposed to rely upon to convey information either willfully, blatantly abused the trust of the general public when she she materially interfered in the debate which was supposed to reveal the quality of the candidates.

          I want to make sure that the name of Candy Crownley is never mistakenly associated for a Journalist.

        There is another effect of Jill Stein. If the debate committee tries to manipulate things, Trump can threaten to debate Jill Stein in some other venue.

        Think the networks would resist the ratings?
        Think Hillary is going to let those two debate, both bashing her?

        inspectorudy in reply to Chuck Skinner. | August 4, 2016 at 12:46 pm

        If I were hillary’s handlers for the debates I would coach her on how to get under his thin skin very soon into the debate. I would use a line that he will not be able to leave alone and then once his anger comes out only a few on the blue collar side will think that is the way to go. After Kahn and all the 16 other primary opponents, we all know that Trump cannot let any slight go unresponded to. On stage, it will be a disaster. hillary will also try and take the debate into the detailed knowledge area because Trump is clueless on such things. Wine, ties, magazines, airlines, and vodka he knows. Foreign issue not so much. His one strong suit is business experience and if he goes after jobs, jobs, jobs and immigration, he might have a chance to beat her in the debates. If she mentions small hands or bad hair he is lost!

bombtrack311 | August 3, 2016 at 7:42 pm

As crappy of a candidate as Hillary is, Trump is simply not electable outside of some truly bizzare scenario right before the election. Unless Wikileaks has some massive dirt on the already shady Clintons, then I just don’t see Trump possibly winning. I wish somebody would bribe him to drop out so they could put a sane republican on the ballot.

    A wiki dump is probably already already factored in. Unless there is something major in it, something other than how Democratic sausage is made, it’s unlikely to move the needle, let alone move it 10 points.

bombtrack311 | August 3, 2016 at 7:45 pm

Paul Ryan, John Kasich, etc have real downsides, but they’re at least qualified and actually electable. Either one would likely beat Hillary.

    Gov. John Kasich doesn’t (and wouldn’t) stand a chance of beating Clinton. He doesn’t generate enough energy to getting out the Vote. Gov. Kasich SHOULD have been one of the early drop-outs from the Presidential primary. Largely toward the end, he became the “protest” easy-cop-out vote for those who thought Trump was a nightmare come true, but couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Cruz because of Cruz’ position as a “purist.”

    Paul Ryan (at this point) doesn’t have a big enough following to be on the Presidential ticket. He’s got the decent looks and the charm, but he’s been too conciliatory since becoming Speaker, and that’s driving away the Base Conservatives who want a fighter that will say “this far, no farther.”

    Tactical considerations only make sense if you eventually plan to USE the negotiations to get something that you want. Lately the Republicans have been giving ground just for the sake of giving ground.

    If we could convince him to come back, I’d much prefer Tom DeLay in the Speaker position. But, he’s gotten comfortable in private consulting practice, making boatloads of money since he beat the bogus charge that derailed him from Congress.

    Come on. Ryan couldn’t even hold his own against an idiot like Biden in debates against him him.

    Kasich wasn’t going anywhere.

    There was no other GOP candidate inspired the base – in fact, the base hated most of them, and still do.

    Don’t be such wimps.

This is news? Hillary gets a bounce after the Democratic convention? I’m shocked, shocked to hear that.

I’ve been hearing pundits proclaim victory (or defeat) after the most recent poll for months now. This is not a big deal.

The election won’t even be held until 3 months from now. We have a long time before anything is settled.

DieJustAsHappy | August 3, 2016 at 7:57 pm

By no means do I claim to have the pulse of America. I do, however, listen to those around me. They’re saying what they have been saying for some months. Both disgust them. I’ve heard little movement one way or another. If anything, they are increasingly exasperated.

I just as soon Trump bow out and Mike Pence become the Presidential candidate. I’d have a whole lot more confidence in him than Trump. He, Trump, is ruining his own message. That’s quite difficult to undo. I think Trump has passed the “failsafe” point.

DieJustAsHappy | August 3, 2016 at 8:23 pm

The other day there was some speculation about the Democrat side. What they would do if something happened to Hillary. Yes, Tump is unlikely to remove himself.

Still, it would be something should, on Election Day 2016, there were two different names than the ones currently slated for the ballot.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 3, 2016 at 8:53 pm

    There is Gary Johnson. But I don’t think people on this site would like him. He is a libertarian who says he is personally against abortion, but doesn’t think the state should impose restrictions until late term.

The LATimes tracking has trump in lead thru and after convention. Reuters tracking doesn’t count any longer because of a fudging of its methodology. Most polls are based on a 2012 turn out model that doesn’t apply. But the biggest thing I see is that despite convention bounce biased in favor of Hillary methodology and the entire msm dropping even the slightest pretense of being anything other than a Hillary propaganda arm Hillary can’t top 49%.

Trump is going to win with 62 million votes to 60 million for Hillary, but there is a small chance that Trump will blow her out 64 million to 59 million.

Anyway that is what my crystal ball says.

    Trump is going to win with 62 million votes to 60 million for Hillary, but there is a small chance that Trump will blow her out 64 million to 59 million.

    That would be impressive. I think it unlikely, but it would be impressive.

    More likely is that if Trump is going to win, it will be with a smaller spread, or alternatively it will be because of depressed Democrat turnout. Call it 61mm Trump to 59mm Clinton. That would be more historically in line with the 1988, 2000 and 2004 election cycles (before the cult of Obama) and after the younger, more dashing Bill Clinton decided to try to engage younger voters by late night TV appearances.

    Although, I will note that in the last 20 years, the number of voters has increased almost 50%, so I suppose anything is possible.

This is a media poll. And, in case no one has figured this out yet, the media is totally in the tank for HRC. Forget the polls. What will matter is how the people, who vote in the general election, actually vote, and how much Democrat vote fraud slips through.

The same powerful people who back Hillary are the same people who back the anti-Trump Republicans. This is not a race between Trump and Clinton, but between Trump and the Establishment. And, the Establishment [political, media and business] is going to do everything it can to destroy Trump.

Since the DNC convention, the media has given 50x as much critical airtime to the Khan’s criticism of Trump as they did to Pat Smith, the mother of one of the men killed in Benghazi. The polls they showed for Trump, after the RNC convention showed only enough increase to allow him to break even with Hillary, and the previous polls were all suspiciously heavy on Democrats. Now, they have started a whispering campaign that Trump is mentally challenged or insane. Yet, no one seems to notice that Hillary is either totally divorced from reality or a pathological liar. Now, the opposition is attempting to scare Trump supporters by floating a whispering campaign that Trump is either going to drop out of the race or resign after taking office. Can Trump’s opponents become any more desperate?

Trump is still filling auditoriums with 100s to 1000s of supporters, while the Clinton campaign’s audiences are numbered in the dozens. The critics of Trump, such as the Khans, all seem to end up with an agenda which personally benefits THEM. And, the media has become so blatantly biased that no intelligent person believes anything they say about Trump, unless it is to praise him for something.

Once you understand who is involved in the contest and which side they are on, it becomes clear what is happening. The anti-establishment movement, which Trump tapped into, is still going strong and spreading worldwide. The Establishment forces; in business, politics and the media; are lining up on the other side. So, now the media is no longer neutral and is a wholly owned propaganda subsidiary of the Establishment. The same can be said for most of the political establishment, right down to local politics. Look for local governments to take a hand in swinging the election through vote fraud and counting irregularities [“computer problems” will abound this year]. So, believe nothing that you hear from this point until after the election. You’ll have a much more harmonious life.

Today Trump spoke to an overflow crowd of 8000 screaming supporters in Daytona, Florida.

Meanwhile Hillary spoke to a partially filled high school gym of 300 supporters in Colorado.

Yeah all those polls based on 2012 turnout models are going to be quite accurate.

DAYTONA BEACH — Donald Trump hammered hard on President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the news media — and had some good things to say about Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders — at a campaign rally Wednesday in Daytona Beach.

The crowd, estimated at 8,000 by Daytona Beach police, cheered “Build the wall!” and “Lock her up!” during Trump’s hourlong speech at the Ocean Center.

IF…..I collected the data I would believe it, BUT anyone else’s is suspect.

    legacyrepublican in reply to Old0311. | August 3, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    Given what is being used for polling questions, I would trust a proctologist more than a prognosticator.

Yawn. The “media polls” results are the results the media paid for. The media is in the tank for shrillary, as they were for Obama, as they wer for Kerry the traitor, and fat all gore.

Why do you believe the “media” when the “media” gets what it pays for?

    amwick in reply to Barry. | August 4, 2016 at 8:25 am

    Nope, the media is just the puppet. You can imagine who is pulling their strings… Wall Street??? Maybe. The only “poll” that really matters will be the November vote. When the voting numbers diverge from the earlier polls the media will have another story to report.

      Barry in reply to amwick. | August 4, 2016 at 7:41 pm

      I’m well aware the media is in the tank for interests other than the American people. It is also true they pay their pollsters to produce the desired result, which was my point.

Really, this is JournoList-type stuff. Say the same thing from different sides, and maybe it will fool somebody. Use the old sliding scale; that’s easy, and it sometimes works.

1. Trump is a buffoon.

2. Trump is rude.

3. Trump is unelectable.

4. Trump is maligning somebody who flogged some propaganda at the DNC convention.

5. Trump is deranged.

6. Trump is going to bail.

7. Trump is really the Queen of the Space Unicorns, and he’s been recalled to his home planet.

They’re at #6 now; I’m really looking forward to #7.

Ah yes, the scent of desperation … American politics just wouldn’t be the same without it.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | August 3, 2016 at 10:06 pm

    Yeah. There’s no need for Operation URGENT PIVOT…

    You just keep that comforter tucked firmly under your chin, tom.

This poll outcome was predicted weeks ago

Another Transparent Media Polling Prediction Comes To Pass…

“Let’s first discuss the obvious. How can CTH predict, weeks in advance, what Fox News Polling will present to their audience? Common sense would tell you it should be impossible to predict weeks and months in advance. After all, polls should be entirely random, based on current events.”

RSBN Panning the Cameras & Showing the YUGE Crowd in Jacksonville

The polls are predictable because the intent of the people conducting the polls is predictable. Donald Trump is an existential threat to their entire financial model and ideological world view. There are billions of dollars at stake.

If main stream and cable media polling was truly scientific, and not manipulated by the corporate media entities producing them, polling would be boring because it wouldn’t support the media narrative and its political agenda. But they’re not scientific.

Ask yourself this simple question? Why would corporate and cable news media be attacking Trump so vociferously if Hillary Clinton is actually and factually so far ahead? They wouldn’t. There would be no need to do so.

Clinton-Kaine held a campaign event in Daytona Beach, a few hundred supporters show up. Trump-Pence held a campaign event in Daytona Beach today and 10,000+ supporters show up.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Ghostrider. | August 3, 2016 at 11:21 pm

    There you go again! No apologies to the sainted ray-gun.

    Yes they are skewing the polls. No they are not scientific; just like all the climate change scientists have an agenda. They don’t just come to a different conclusion – they must be liars. Geez, it must be tiring to have to keep tying yourself in knots in order not to believe what is right in front of you face.

    ” Why would corporate and cable news media be attacking Trump so vociferously if Hillary Clinton is actually and factually so far ahead?” Simple – they are not. If Trump wants to keep on about Kahn, the media reports it. If he shuts up, they stop. The media did not go to town on Hillary’s emails?

    Why aren’t the Clinton rallies larger? I would guess it is because you don’t win with rallies; you win by getting out the vote with an organized ground game. Ask Romney how that worked out in Ohio.

    The Vietnam anti-war rallies were great. We filled up the DC Mall and then some. But Nixon won the election.

    What I love about this thread is that there will be an answer. I guess you will start complaining about massive, massive voter fraud when Trump loses. You won’t need any evidence for that, either. You will simply believe it.

    You guys should get off the internet. It doesn’t exist. Electrons don’t exist because you can’t see them with your naked eye. It actually takes science to understand them.

      Ah now I understand. You are the only smart person in the room. Sort of like Obama that way. You understand science and global warming and the nuances of the religion of peace unlike the rest of the rubes around here. You should be teaching somewhere and not hanging out with the commoners.

Trump can take a first step toward clearing the air by apologizing to (the execrable) Khan, and inviting Hillary to do the same for Pat Smith.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to MTED. | August 3, 2016 at 11:37 pm

    What makes Khan execrable? That he is Muslim and resents being singled out by a bigot because of his religion. Hence the Constitution he waved.

      Maybe it is that he uses his dead son to hawk for a candidate that promises him more money for his muslim visa immigration business.

      Maybe its the hint that what he is really angry about is his son joined the infidel army and got himself killed.

      Maybe its how he denies his son was killed by muslim terrorists and wrote articles supporting sharia law over western laws and constitutions.

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

― Michael Crichton

This is especially true of politics where the MSM wants you to believe that is the case.

Also didn’t anyone read those emails? You know the ones where media outlets were manipulating polls for Hillary?

On top of which. Recently i was at my sisters. While alone with my brother in law, I whispered to him “Who are you voting for.” He whispered back “Trump.” Neither wanted my sister to hear. Want to bet that there are a lot of people lying to pollsters? Especially when the stories about Trump are negative.

According to those polls Hillary received the same bump as Trump.
Does anyone who watched both conventions believe that?

Trump should bring back his oath.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to RodFC. | August 3, 2016 at 11:46 pm

    Yes, there are always people lying to pollsters. You anecdote carries more weight than all the polls. Congratulation, Mr. Trump! You would have won if only enough people lied.

    You know I feel the same way as Crichton felt whenever I try to listen to Limbaugh or Fox News. I do mean I try because I do. But then that Crichton effect kicks in and I have to turn it off or double my blood pressure medicine.

    Which convention caused a bigger bump. Well, Hillary had speakers people actually had heard of. But it is hard to be more entertaining than a demagogue.

Trump had 8000 people in Daytona and 15000 in Jacksonville. Both on same day.

Hillary 300 in a high school event and tgen cancelled another event when nobody showed up.

Yeah those 2012 turn out models are looking good.

Tonigbt Bravo watch what happens live conducted another text-in voter poll. Results Trump 62% and Hillary 38%

    The existence if hardcore Trump followers was never in doubt. What’s in doubt is his ability to appeal to anyone else. So, yes, he will turn out a few thousand people here and there. If you are selling timeshares or pitching a reality TV show it’s all you need.
    Hillary is the opposite. Very few true believers are dedicated to her. Obama was able to overcome her apparatus eight years ago. This time she only had a washe-out challenger who is not even a Democrat. Yet she will turn out disciplined voters who vote for any D and despise Trump.

    Justin Bieber used to draw really yuge crowds too. YUGE!

    Bieber-Kardashian 2016!

    “…another text-in voter poll.”

    Sounds legit.

After some of the poll fiascos of the past few years, I am not a big believer in them. I think they are marketing tools rather than true reflections of the elecorate.

Anyway, check this out:

and this:

I am no fan of Trump, but I will vote for him. I think there are a lot more of me out there than anyone realizes.

    Trump is down 10 in multiple polls in August. Clinton reached 50. The [unknown] polls Rush cited showed Reagan down 7 in June, with Carter at 39. Totally different situation.
    Most importantly, Trump is no Reagan.

I just held a poll today. According to my data, Trump is ahead 25 points. (Don’t worry: my poll has an accuracy of +/- only 1%.)

So everyone calm down, and support our candidate, and stop feeding into the democrat strategy (and Fox news GOPe strategy) of influencing our party.

The GOPe might be dumb enough to take advice from the democrats, but most of us here are not.

That’s why Clinton has been packing out her town halls isn’t it? 🙂

What is noticeable is just how empty and how small her campaign trail town halls have been.


Told ya so.

Anyone believing these polls is falling for it. Trump is ahead and they’re trying to hide it.