General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

Clinton's recent uptick in the polls are the direct result of a dishonest change in who is being asked the questions.

Does this underhanded fraud from the Democrats surprise anyone? (yawn) only more of the same.....

----------------------------------------------------



http://christiantimesnewspaper.com/bust ... e-numbers/

Consider the differences in the two most recent CBS News polls. This week’s, which shows Clinton with a 4 point advantage, included a sample population comprised of 29% Republican, 35.6% Democrat, and 35.2% of Independents.

Just two weeks earlier, when the poll showed a statistical tie, the sample population consisted of 32.4% Republican, 36% Democrat, and 31% Independent voters.

Again, a multi-point decrease in the number of Republicans polled, along with an increase in left-leaning independents, contributed to a drastically different result.

This trend continues with Reuters:

Pre-Debate polling showed a tie
35% Republican
43.9% Democrat
12.6%% Independent

Post-Debate polling showed Clinton +4
33% Republican
44.2% Democrat
12.7% Independent

The three most highly-respected and discussed national polls have all started to poll fewer Republicans and more left-leaning voters in recent weeks.

Clinton’s rise, and Trump’s fall, in the polls isn’t a result of a change in the race — it’s the result of dishonest and rigged polling by national media firm.

Reuters was also caught rigging a poll a month or so ago. They polled many more Deomocrats, and of course Hillary turned out to be 15% ahead, while every other poll showed her more like 4 or 5 points. That got someone suspicious, a little digging showed what they were doing.

I don't believe the polls any more. I look at the number of people showing up at Trump rallies compared to the nujmber at Hillary rallies, and the polls look definitely rigged. Just a few days ago Trump had 15,000 people inside at a rally and another 10,000 outside who couldn't get in because the Fire Marshall closed the doors. The same day Hillary held a rally, the most generous estimate was 1500.

This has been going on ever since the conventions. In some cases, Hillary can't draw 300 people while Trump fills a stadium with 10,000 or more. Trump fills large stadiums, Hillary can't fill half a basketball court.

A few samples...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... a-tonight/

http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/donald-tr ... -how-many/

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... -oklahoma/

I made sure those were different events.

Now Hillary...

http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillar ... os-public/

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/how-t ... n-4-photos

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... da-speech/

In that last one you'll notice the background is different, yet it's supposed to be the same rally. The pictures of the actual event show a much smaller crowd. At one event reported by the media to be "thousands" a suspicious reporter asked the promoter, 177 people actually came in the door.

How can the polls be even remotely accurate? Trump is consistently drawing 10,000 people or more, Hillary can't fill a basketball court partitioned in half. Right here where I live I've seen no Hillary signs at all, no bumper stickers, nobody with a Hillary shirt...to be fair, only about 10 Trump signs. in any other election I would see both all over the place by the hundreds. But zero for the Democrat candidate? Extremely unusual. The polls can't be even remotely accurate.

Then you also should consider another factor. Many people will not admit it to family and friends, or to a pollster on the phone, but will vote for Trump on election day. That's why he won big in several states when polls showed a tie or a margin of only 4 or 5 points. In one state it was called a landslide. I think the polls showed him barely ahead at all.

I can't pay much attention to polls this time. Not only have they been proven rigged, the "closet" Trump voters change the outlook entirely.