Jarqui
Jarqui's JournalSo Trump wants to build this great wall to keep Mexicans out
and alarm people about the Mexican rapists that are effectively not coming in?
there's a joke in there somewhere.
It didn't to me
Up until now, I basically trusted PPP. Now, I have to read the small print every time they do a poll. That's sad. Shouldn't be that way for a good polling company.
If PPP doesn't want to get dragged through the mud
why didn't they do their little survey for the Clinton campaign under the polling company name XXX or $$$ - not under PPP? Or tell the Clinton Super PAC to publish the poll results under their name?
They took money from the Clinton campaign to do the poll and ok it by putting the super pac's name in small print - where hopefully, not many will notice.
I don't care what their record has been in the past. There's no two ways about it. That conduct smells real bad. And because of it, no matter what anyone says, that poll is tainted for me because it appears that Hillary paid for it entirely.
I don't understand why we'd even debate such a thing. It seems to clear cut to me. Just because PPP was great yesterday doesn't mean they can sell out and be great today.
This whole thing is starting to bother me. If she keeps it up and she wins the primary, I might be gone anyway. I can't support crap like this. When you do stuff like that, to me, you're not much better than the GOP. I'm sick of it.
That's fine. Many campaigns do their own internal polling
If a campaign were to package that up, put new wrapping paper around it and present it as if it were something else - unbiased, I think that's deceptive behavior.
A number of times a campaign might say (as Obama's did) "that poll does not match what we've seen with our internal polling" - which is fair because they're maintaining the context of how they arrived at their own internal results to be judged fairly.
I agree that there are significant flaws in online polling
When I see a straw poll and about 9 other online polls say (very roughly) Sanders 80% Clinton 15% O'Malley 5% and one commissioned by the Clinton campaign says Clinton 67% Sanders 20% (again rough numbers) then I think with the collection of those results, I am justified to be suspect or have my eyebrows raised.
It's purpose is not to mislead the people who commissioned it
It's purpose might be to mislead those who read the poll they publish
I give them some consideration - don't entirely dismiss them immediately
but I wouldn't rate them as high as others or rely on them. They give a perspective.
I like Nate's ratings for example.
I know Nate has rated PPP well before - and for good reason. I wrote PPP about what was going on last night. We'll see what they have to say if anything.
Absolutely
Just because a name changes, it doesn't amend the behavior that seems wrong/sleazy to me.
To date I haven't seen Sanders or his campaign do stuff like that.
Hillary's dishonesty with stuff like this goes back to 2008 with me. I'm not a person who hold grudges deeply but I haven't been able to get over it entirely. She'll always be a second tier politician to me because at times, a number of times like this, she has lacked integrity
When a polling company is hired by a group associated with one of the candidates,
I'd say that's a pretty good reason to be suspect of the poll and they had good reason for pointing it out.
Again, from the PPP poll:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/11/democratic-voters-overwhelmingly-think-clinton-won-debate-particularly-strong-on-national-security-i.html
This research was conducted on behalf of Correct The Record.
http://correctrecord.org/about/
Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks.
that's not very reassuring that we have an unbiased poll
Folks were right to point it out.
Having looked at all the online polls and straw poll, quite frankly, when I first saw CBS numbers, I was asking myself "how did the Clinton group get their fingers on the scales for this one?'
And quite frankly, when a campaign is doing what Clinton's appears to be doing with PPP, that stinks - not something that makes me want to support them after the primary because it's dishonest behavior - blatantly trying to dupe voters with money.
Last night, I'd say she answered at least four of them:
1) HRC, will you reduce US military spending by 10% each year of your first term? NO - implied by her answers not explicit
2) HRC, will you reign in Wall Street power by reinstating Glass-Steagall? NO - has other ideas
3) HRC, will you break up too big to fail big-banks? NO - not automatically
4) HRC, will you actively support repeal of Citizen's United?
5) HRC, will you denounce the TPP and work to repeal the legislation?
6) HRC, will you use the bully pulpit to support and lobby for single-payer health care? NO - improve Obamacare
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Aug 23, 2015, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 10,130
