Search the Community

Meanwhile, out in the hood, here's a black guy, Bedros Keuilian, turning a friend who supports Biden to voting for Trump. I think this guy articulated the arguments in just the right way for the hood. There are oodles of people like him out there now. I don't think the Dems have anything comparable in getting Trump voters to switch to Biden. The direction is going only one way. This video a big push by Mark Levin, who linked to the Facebook video. So the real traffic stats are there (671 thousand likes so far). In fact, the YouTube version above is out of sync. So if you want a better version, click on the link in Mark Levin's tweet below. The Facebook video is not out of sync. How much does "muh polls" scare you now? (If it does, that is.) Michael

CNN does. Muh polls... Michael

btw - Rush Limbaugh this morning said that he was wrong on a point he has stressed a lot over the last few weeks. He has always said that the polls will align to reality about 5 days before the election. Before that, polls only exist to mold public opinion. This morning he said he has to retract that for this election. He believes the polls are still being used to mold public opinion. I'll get his exact words and post them when the transcripts come out in a while. Michael

Korben, I didn't even watch the video. I have poll number overload right now. Anyway, does it matter? That's like saying the ingredients that killed you in the medicine weren't wrong, just the analysis. Gee thanks... It's funny how ALL of the polls (except two) kept erring in the wrong direction, time after time after time, ain't it? Rush Limbaugh said polls are for propaganda, not measurement. And they are great hooks to cause artificial news for pundits to blab where no news exists. I agree. Michael

The Daily Mail put out a series of screenshots from polls all over the Internet about the debate. Majority of snap polls show Trump won debate by a landslide despite CNN's overwhelming victory for Hillary in biggest official survey CNN's snap poll gave Clinton the win with 62 per cent to Trump's 27 But most of the others reported Trump was the winner by a landslide I'm not going to embed 19 images, so if you want to see for yourself, they are at the link. When people say CNN means Clinton News Network, there's a reason. Michael

Jonathan, He's back if you want to keep up with him. David Hogg deletes Twitter poll after majority respond 'No' to hearing his 2020 election 'thoughts' But someone was watching... Almost 100,000 votes. And 84% said shut up. That's impressive, even for him. Michael

William, Well, if an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll says so, it's gotta be true, right? Oh man, Trump is toast this time. Here's another opinion. Notice the full title: "Picking Kamala Harris BACKFIRED On Democrats, Leftists HATE Her And Even Black Voters Say NO WAY" Michael

Ellen, That is wise. Maybe I'm going a bit overboard, but I'll feel more anxious when I see signs of something to feel anxious about. Oddly enough, I felt anxious about AOC for a while because she had, or was being coached by someone with, President Trump's savvy about keeping the spotlight on him. (Granted, she can't run due to age, but she could be a powerful constant sidekick to the person who does run.) But she fizzled when her sheer incompetence at basic administrative and political facts became part of her image. (Look at her current polling numbers.) As the adage goes, sell with emotion and justify with reason. Well... AOC sells well with emotion, but she turns too many off when she gets to the reason part to be a threat to Trump. Also, I favor saying she is coached more than talented (although, as time goes on and as she learns, I do see signs of some talent emerging). But someone who is constantly and heavily coached in what to say and how to present herself does not stand a chance against someone who is fast on their feet when improvisation is needed. Look at what Trump did to Megyn Kelly, for example. Right at the outset ("Only Rosie O'Donnell...") shows what being fast on his feet with improvisation means. Then he went in for the bloodbath ("blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her whatever...") . Everything that unfolded in public after that showed how ineffective Megyn Kelly was as Trump's support grew. When she cut her hair short as a ploy to look stronger, he had her on the ropes and she never recovered. As to people who hate Trump? I'm not worried about what they think since nothing will convince them. But swing voters, which is where the election will be decided if it is close (and you know what I think of that prospect ), will need a lot more than "Orange Man Bad" and socialism with self-righteous class victims to stop looking at the way the economy is booming and decide to roll the dice on someone else, not to mention so many other issues where Trump's results are shining. Here is an indication that would make me worry. Did you catch any part of Trump's rally last night? I know that the conventional wisdom from political insiders says that crowd size does not matter in elections, but I believe that constant crowd size does. If Trump's crowd sizes ever start falling off, then I will get worried. So long as they are the sizes they keep being, and the Dems aren't able to come close except for a sporadic thing here and there, I don't think Trump will have any trouble. The only reason he lost the House in the midterms is that a slew of Republican House members retired and many Trump voters stayed home. I don't believe they will stay home this go around for the simple fact that Trump is on the ballot. But after he lathers them up in the heat of the election, I'm not worried about Trump haters inspiring enthusiasm anywhere close for turnout. I agree with you that powerful interests are against Trump, but I don't fear them in terms of the electorate. But there is an area where I do worry about them. I worry they will find a way to hack and falsify the voting results or assassinate Trump or something like that. These folks are very good at cheating. But with the scandals that will involve many of them that will soon erupt now that the silly "muh Russians" thing has been killed, I think the nastiness of their cheating heart bite will take a serious hit. So... I feel good about Trump's prospects for reelection, at least so far. I'm not crowing victory in general because someone could still come out of nowhere the way Obama did, but if the ticket is Harris and Pocahontas, I just don't see much of a threat. If the Dems want a woman with a chance to beat Trump, they need to come up with a liberal version of Margaret Thatcher or something like that, in other words, someone who inspires the poetic side of the human heart in addition to showing strong leadership. Can Harris turn into a liberal version of that? I doubt it. She's boring and arrogant. And I just don't see those qualities in the other women who are in the Dem public eye right now. Dem men ditto, except maybe Biden due to his eight years as VP, but he's compromised by needing to carry Obama's legacy--both on legit issues and those that are soon exploding--and he's older than Trump and showing it. I don't want to make light of your fears, but the way I feel right now, yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. Michael

William, I think I read this kind of mocking of doubters coming from a Brit a few months ago about the Brexit polling. Or was that someone here in the US about the Republican primaries polling? Odd... I'm feeling the weirdest sensation of déjà vu... Michael

Tulsa Fire Marshall and BOK Center Manager AEG Put Trump Rally Attendance Over 6000, Campaign Says 12,000 Got In Despite Protesters Blocking Entrances The campaign number seems about right to me just from looking. What I saw was about 2/3 full, not 1/3 full. Anybody who looks at the speech and sees only 1/3 full, to me, is trying too hard to see a low volume crowd. Anyway, all this is going to be bullshit once President Trump starts doing them one after another. The anti-Trump deceivers and cheaters will not be able to fudge all the rallies, so, at one point I expect them to give up and do like they did in 2016--ignore the rallies and cling to fake polls. Michael

Peter, There is a reference point to use as a template. Look at the primaries. So when will we see the good news from RealClearPolitics polling averages? Probably as the election nears and the pundits start wondering out loud if anything, anything at all, can take Trump out and start laughing nervously about being so wrong, just like in the primaries. Notice that Trump's establishment polling massively improved in the primaries around when that started happening. Michael

More good news: Don't look now, but a new poll shows Republicans don't hate Donald Trump anymore By Philip Bump July 13, 2015 The Washington Post From the article: This is polling of hardcore Republican voters. Apropos, in another recent poll by The Huffington Post, Trump is pretty far ahead of everybody. Here is his tweet crowing about it (deservedly in my view ): Michael

With the 24/7 assault of the mainstream fake news media, is anybody getting nervous about President Trump's chances of reelection? Let's look at a measurable fact that is not a poll. Fact talks. Bullshit walks. Michael

Peter, You are making an assumption that this poll number is set in stone for the next 8 months. What political poll number ever did that? As Rand would say, check your premises. And check Trump's poll numbers in the beginning when everyone was laughing at him, then tut-tut-tutting. Is anyone still laughing? Michael

Adam, I don't think you have ever heard me discuss "if the election were held today" polls. The reason is I think they're silly. They're a media gimmick to gin up news where no news exists. Persuasion-wise, this is to feed on the anxiety of suspense qua anxiety without any relevant peg to reality. Ultimately, it's to make people feel bad so they will continue watching the news, which ironically, in the case of these polls, is no longer serving up news from reality. A poll like that is like a TV personality narrating a football game and it's in the first quarter. Then he says, "Well, if that play happened in the 4th quarter and all other factors remained the same, here's how the game would end." I would not expect that particular sports commentator to have a long career. But in politics, that's all you get these days. Michael

William, Really? After all the stuff I've written directly to you, you say this? Dayaamm! You don't have to like the way I discuss the things you raise. For example, instead of going into the damn poll-weed patch and looking at every damn bug on every damn leaf and every damn blade and every damn twig to say bugs are in the weed patch , I might say I see it differently and talk about how the triune brain works in communication and how that is the reason the polls keep getting confounded since they don't poll that stuff. But to pretend I don't react? Here... let me come up with some groupthink liberal phrases to communicate my selective outrage: We can do better... Why not use this as a teachable moment?... Let's not be obstructionist... We should agree on some common sense measures... Be careful with outreach deniers... So much depends on acknowledgment of otherness... We must strive for inclusion... Michael

Roger, I know my stuff about Trump supporters because I am among them. I interact with them. I read them and talk to them. Try it and you will see. You want polls as a replacement for your eyes? Like a poll of Objectivists who truly believe in Rand's ideas? You would need a poll to figure that one out? Come on... Michael

You know, I'm losing so much respect for the chattering class (meaning most TV pundits and other press pundits), it's not funny. The big thing circulating about Trump among the chattering class is that Trump might win the nomination, but he will not be able to beat Hillary. Just look at the polls! I keep thinking, don't these people have eyes? In July, they said it was impossible for Trump to win the nomination and the polls said so, too. And they said it over and over through each "outrage surge" he levied against them. Now his numbers are so far through the roof they can't ignore it. Think about something, though. When asked how Trump intends to beat Hillary, after dismissing her, he always says he's not focused on her right now because he has to get the nomination first. He's focused on winning that, then he will focus on winning the other. Did you mind wander when you read that? It certainly did (and continues to do) for most of the mainstream. I have yet to see anyone talk about this comment. And Trump says it over and over. So what does it mean? It means he targeted what he needed to target among Republicans (and Republican-friendly people) to get the nomination. The poll results can't be denied. Or does the chattering class think this happened by magic? Do they honestly think Trump's competence to do what he has done so far is going to go out the window once he is nominated? Do they think he will suddenly lose the ability to (1) study targets, and (2) craft highly resonant messages for those targets? In other words, does the chattering class imagine Trump will run a general election in the exact manner he ran an election for a nomination? With no changes in strategy? Trump is telling them what he is going to do right to their faces. He's telling them over and over. And the chattering class chatters on, but does not chatter about that. Listen. Come close. Can you hear it? There is a distant echo of someone with Trump's voice. Can you make it out? It's saying, "Morons!" Michael

I saw the debate tonight and was going to post some things about it. For example, as usual, Trump is killing it with the online polls right now, Drudge, Time, etc., even CNBC's own online poll. I personally think Trump is going to rise in the voter polls some more, but let's see. That's not what excites me right now. Since we have some preeminent gay intellectuals on OL, I just came across the following at the Huffington Post: Gay YouTube Personality 'Comes Out' In Support Of Donald Trump "Long before Hillary Clinton supported gay marriage and gay rights, Donald Trump supported equal rights for everybody," he says. by Curtis M. Wong, Gay Voices Senior Editor The Huffington Post 10/28/2015 From the article: Wong seems to be in shock and none-too-happy, but he posted the video in the article and the facts (which he cannot bring himself to believe ). Here is a recent Tweet from Kittleson: If you look at the comments to the YouTube video and elsewhere with Kittleson, there is a lot of nastiness, but also lots of people saying the same thing as in the tweet. And all these LGBTQ Trump supporters sound serious. Just thought y'all might like to know. Michael

Adam, I suspect there is a monkeywrench in the Iowa polls, too, (hello Club for Growth...) but, ultimately, I have concluded that it's better to let the thing run like it looks. If we're right, it will be one more snafu to rub in the noses of anti-Trump folks (as we mockingly ask, "When will you guys ever learn?" ). If we are wrong, we will have faced reality correctly in public. I do agree there is a wildcard that anti-Trump people don't take into account when evaluating public impressions. A large chunk of Trump supporters are not folks who normally get involved in politics. Here is a recent Wapo article that focuses on one: Inside the world of Donald Trump’s super fans In my mind, there are plenty of these kinds of people in Iowa. And, since the most recent Iowa poll was conducted among "Iowa voters likely to attend the Republican presidential caucuses in 2016," which means people who attended in previous years, it might be the case that a true sample of Trump supporters was not made--that is, these Trump supporters did not fall within the sample of people polled because they never participated in caucuses before. But I say let those who predict Trump's demise have their fun right now. Trump is behind in several Iowa polls. There. I said it. I'm still voting for him. Michael

Jules, Let's not forget what we went through regarding the polls. It's easy to forget until you see it again. Here are some notoriously left-wing Bernie supporters a few days ago having great fun about sanctimonious polling (which I affectionately call crow-bait ). They're lefties, but they're entertaining. There's even some raunch at the beginning. That lady in particular should have her mouth stuffed full of crow feathers. She needs to eat it raw, not cooked. (Man, that sounds awful.) Michael

Is this the canary in the coal mine? The new trend starting? The fatal balloon puncture in the winner narrative? The crack in the dam that is a harbinger of the flood to come, that is, the final total irrevocable undoable complete devastating collapse and demise of Donald Trump? Poll Watch: Ben Carson Edges Ahead Nationally in Times/CBS News Poll NYT Or is this the reality? Poll: Trump leads Carson by 14 points nationwide The Hill I know what I think and where I smell BS, but I might be wrong. (Nah... I'm not wrong...) Michael

Trump is way ahead in the new Pew poll: Trump leads Pew poll as Republicans seek outsider If you read the mainstream media (left plus old-money establishment Republican), you will see a slew of articles saying this indicates that Trump is losing supporters, that he has peaked, that he has no room to expand, etc. etc., etc. You look at the numbers in one poll after another, then look at the media saying the numbers are not really the numbers because the real numbers are not the numbers at all, and anyway, the numbers mean Trump is losing. And you wonder just how long this is going to go on. It's actually funny to see the media in perpetual wishful thinking mode. Meanwhile, here are a few interesting items for Trump supporters: Trump, showing he’s in for long haul, picks staffers for Texas, other Southern states Trump: I 'Absolutely' Want Ben Carson In My Cabinet P. Diddy joins rapper fans of Trump Michael

Rush also said something about Apple. He said that since Apple's stock has gone down due to the scare, Apple is buying its own stock, and why not? They are getting their own stock on the cheap. They know that this coronavirus scare can't last and they are setting the stage to come roaring back when the propaganda fizzles out. So why not make some extra money investing in themselves? The lesson is don't listen to what people say during a mainstream press panic. Especially don't listen to the mainstream press, at least not these days. Look at what they do. Then you will see what is really happening. On another point on what they do, in the mainstream press accounts of the Democratic primaries, Rush said that the coronavirus is not to be found. The press is talking about Bernie and socialism, Biden, polls, the black vote, and so forth. For their business, the coronavirus is way down in importance. It is only important to them when they talk about President Trump. That is what they are doing, using the issue as a doomsday scenario for Trump, but ignoring completely it for their own stuff. Michael

According to Bev Harris, a voter fraud expert, she thinks the fix is in for Hillary Clinton through the voting machines. I'm mentioning this because it just hit Drudge. It's an Infowars story, though. See here: How America's Elections are Hacked My takeaway: the exploit is that whole votes are entered into fields that can be manipulated with fractions (like a money field, like dollars and cents). Once you can break votes up into fractions, then you can have a field day. Bev Harris urges people to get restraining orders so that election personnel do not destroy the ballot images. If possible, get a FOIA request for a USB copy of the ballot images, and try to make sure the ballot image feature is turned on in the machines. According to her, many places don't even turn the feature on. Here's a demonstration of a fraud system built by a person called in to test the voting machine systems called "Fraction Magic." This video is also embedded in the article, along with a video of an interview with Bev. From what I understand, Fraction Magic can do anything with vote tallies, but the results have to be believable, so they cannot diverge so much from perceived reality (created by press expectations, mainstream polls, person-to-person exit polling, etc.) they call for a fraud investigation. So a massive landslide will still be a landslide, just much less of one. In other words, as I understand it, this will only rig the election if voting results are tight. Alex Jones is putting his crew to making special reports about this, so new videos will be available shortly. I imagine this is going to become a thing very quickly. And I imagine all kinds of law enforcement people are going to get interested. Let's see what happens. Michael