Hillary won more votes for President

JC29856

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/poll-hillary-clinton-leads-donald-trump-by-14-points-nationally


https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/donald-trumps-support-falls-in-wake-of-lewd-video-new-poll-says-1476115225

JC29856

tonifig8 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

rgambs said:

tonifig8 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I assume Hillary doesn't believe Bill's accuser at all... If that is the case I am not really sure what to think of the repeated reference to something Bill Clinton did (something that hasn't been proven any more than Trump's child rape accusation has been), as though it has some bearing on what Donald Trump said. Is it supposed to change how we feel about Trump's misogyny or what? And why are Bill's issues being brought up so much anyhow? If Hillary were accused of rape that would be a lot more relevant (but still wouldn't negate what Trump is like at all). Even if there were any reason to think that that Hillary knew that Bill raped a woman and doesn't care, that would hold some water. But there is no evidence of that. So I am not really sure how the story is supposed to reflect badly on Hillary Clinton unless someone has proof that she has proof that Bill raped someone and that Hillary doesn't mind.

Let's be real. Even if the proof, shit a video of him rapping, you guys would still come out with some excuse. Just as its been the case all along.

You are off the reservation here...your hatred of Clinton seems to be eroding your ability to think rationally.

Free said:

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

Say it 'ain't so.

Thought polls didn't matter? Ask Bernie, he knows, he lost. He's a loser.

This idiot continues to defend Clinton on sort of personal level. He continues to use the same line about Sanders as if it's somehow a personal insult against those who supported Sanders. A grown adult acting like a fucking promo queen. Kind of sad, but funny at the same time.

Yeah...I was wondering who feelwings he trying to hurt. Bernie lost, Bernie a loser in every thread.

Boxes&Books

JC29856 said:

tonifig8 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

rgambs said:

tonifig8 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I assume Hillary doesn't believe Bill's accuser at all... If that is the case I am not really sure what to think of the repeated reference to something Bill Clinton did (something that hasn't been proven any more than Trump's child rape accusation has been), as though it has some bearing on what Donald Trump said. Is it supposed to change how we feel about Trump's misogyny or what? And why are Bill's issues being brought up so much anyhow? If Hillary were accused of rape that would be a lot more relevant (but still wouldn't negate what Trump is like at all). Even if there were any reason to think that that Hillary knew that Bill raped a woman and doesn't care, that would hold some water. But there is no evidence of that. So I am not really sure how the story is supposed to reflect badly on Hillary Clinton unless someone has proof that she has proof that Bill raped someone and that Hillary doesn't mind.

Let's be real. Even if the proof, shit a video of him rapping, you guys would still come out with some excuse. Just as its been the case all along.

You are off the reservation here...your hatred of Clinton seems to be eroding your ability to think rationally.

Free said:

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

Say it 'ain't so.

Thought polls didn't matter? Ask Bernie, he knows, he lost. He's a loser.

This idiot continues to defend Clinton on sort of personal level. He continues to use the same line about Sanders as if it's somehow a personal insult against those who supported Sanders. A grown adult acting like a fucking promo queen. Kind of sad, but funny at the same time.

Yeah...I was wondering who feelwings he trying to hurt. Bernie lost, Bernie a loser in every thread.

I thought it was kind of funny the first 1000 times, but then I realized this was a grown man. Shit.

Hey man keep up the great fucking work on those leaks and fighting for liberty. Your post go a long way and many of the info is shared and passed around to inform others.

Much appreciated

JC29856

tonifig8 said:

JC29856 said:

tonifig8 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

rgambs said:

tonifig8 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I assume Hillary doesn't believe Bill's accuser at all... If that is the case I am not really sure what to think of the repeated reference to something Bill Clinton did (something that hasn't been proven any more than Trump's child rape accusation has been), as though it has some bearing on what Donald Trump said. Is it supposed to change how we feel about Trump's misogyny or what? And why are Bill's issues being brought up so much anyhow? If Hillary were accused of rape that would be a lot more relevant (but still wouldn't negate what Trump is like at all). Even if there were any reason to think that that Hillary knew that Bill raped a woman and doesn't care, that would hold some water. But there is no evidence of that. So I am not really sure how the story is supposed to reflect badly on Hillary Clinton unless someone has proof that she has proof that Bill raped someone and that Hillary doesn't mind.

Let's be real. Even if the proof, shit a video of him rapping, you guys would still come out with some excuse. Just as its been the case all along.

You are off the reservation here...your hatred of Clinton seems to be eroding your ability to think rationally.

Free said:

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

Say it 'ain't so.

Thought polls didn't matter? Ask Bernie, he knows, he lost. He's a loser.

This idiot continues to defend Clinton on sort of personal level. He continues to use the same line about Sanders as if it's somehow a personal insult against those who supported Sanders. A grown adult acting like a fucking promo queen. Kind of sad, but funny at the same time.

Yeah...I was wondering who feelwings he trying to hurt. Bernie lost, Bernie a loser in every thread.

I thought it was kind of funny the first 1000 times, but then I realized this was a grown man. Shit.

Hey man keep up the great fucking work on those leaks and fighting for liberty. Your post go a long way and many of the info is shared and passed around to inform others.

Much appreciated

Dynamic and mod friendly!

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

You do know that campaigns and PACS hire their own polling companies, right? Look at the rest of their client lists which includes the DNSCC, governors, congressmen, special interest groups, etc. And they are a heavily Democratic polling company, with a few Republican sprinkled in. Priorities is even listed as a client on the marketing page. They aren't hiding it. No one does their own actual polling and analysis. That's what these companies do professionally. Geez. I'm not speaking to the weighting of the population and whether that is biased or not. I have no idea. But this connection alone is not nefarious.

Halifax2TheMax

tonifig8 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

rgambs said:

tonifig8 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I assume Hillary doesn't believe Bill's accuser at all... If that is the case I am not really sure what to think of the repeated reference to something Bill Clinton did (something that hasn't been proven any more than Trump's child rape accusation has been), as though it has some bearing on what Donald Trump said. Is it supposed to change how we feel about Trump's misogyny or what? And why are Bill's issues being brought up so much anyhow? If Hillary were accused of rape that would be a lot more relevant (but still wouldn't negate what Trump is like at all). Even if there were any reason to think that that Hillary knew that Bill raped a woman and doesn't care, that would hold some water. But there is no evidence of that. So I am not really sure how the story is supposed to reflect badly on Hillary Clinton unless someone has proof that she has proof that Bill raped someone and that Hillary doesn't mind.

Let's be real. Even if the proof, shit a video of him rapping, you guys would still come out with some excuse. Just as its been the case all along.

You are off the reservation here...your hatred of Clinton seems to be eroding your ability to think rationally.

Free said:

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

Say it 'ain't so.

Thought polls didn't matter? Ask Bernie, he knows, he lost. He's a loser.

This idiot continues to defend Clinton on sort of personal level. He continues to use the same line about Sanders as if it's somehow a personal insult against those who supported Sanders. A grown adult acting like a fucking promo queen. Kind of sad, but funny at the same time.

Add idiot to the list of names I've been called but it's kind of telling how you guys who continually insult those of us with differing views get all up in arms when presented with facts. What of my statement is not factual? You infer that I think all Bernie bros are losers too? That's on you. Glad I made you laugh.

Halifax2TheMax

Yup, you guys are going to save the republic, with all you're freedom fighting and shit. Shedding light on all the darkness about our democracy, changing a mind at a time. Pretty soon it's gonna be a movement. Can't wait to watch the revolution on my phone.

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

You do know that campaigns and PACS hire their own polling companies, right? Look at the rest of their client lists which includes the DNSCC, governors, congressmen, special interest groups, etc. And they are a heavily Democratic polling company, with a few Republican sprinkled in. Priorities is even listed as a client on the marketing page. They aren't hiding it. No one does their own actual polling and analysis. That's what these companies do professionally. Geez. I'm not speaking to the weighting of the population and whether that is biased or not. I have no idea. But this connection alone is not nefarious.

I'm not saying they are hiding it or why aren't they disclosing it I'm saying which is a different issue I'm saying...
If it's common knowledge that the polls reported by major networks and news publications use polling companies that are on the payroll of pacs and super pacs, then yes I'm uncommon, ignorant and very naive.
Someone should start a poll on here asking that very question, I'm curious to the responses.

JC29856

JC29856 said:

Proof pudding?

http://hartresearch.com/team/geoff-garin/

http://realtime.influenceexplorer.com/filings/1096176/SB/

Learn something new everyday.

Bold maybe was a giveaway but I answered anyway.
-mod friendly

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

You do know that campaigns and PACS hire their own polling companies, right? Look at the rest of their client lists which includes the DNSCC, governors, congressmen, special interest groups, etc. And they are a heavily Democratic polling company, with a few Republican sprinkled in. Priorities is even listed as a client on the marketing page. They aren't hiding it. No one does their own actual polling and analysis. That's what these companies do professionally. Geez. I'm not speaking to the weighting of the population and whether that is biased or not. I have no idea. But this connection alone is not nefarious.

I'm not saying they are hiding it or why aren't they disclosing it I'm saying which is a different issue I'm saying...
If it's common knowledge that the polls reported by major networks and news publications use polling companies that are on the payroll of pacs and super pacs, then yes I'm uncommon, ignorant and very naive.
Someone should start a poll on here asking that very question, I'm curious to the responses.

I'm sure no one has given it a thought. But think about it. You are in charge of media buys for a super pac and you want to know where to spend a million bucks on a tv buy for your specialty issue.... Obamacare. You need research to find out which swing state has the most undecided on this issue, or perhaps where this is a very important issue so you can drive turnout. You won't have your own internal poll team, that's too expensive and not your expertise. You would hire a company to do it. And you would hire a company that specializes in political research. This is exactly what Kellyanne Conway's company does too, except it specializes in GOP issues.

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

You do know that campaigns and PACS hire their own polling companies, right? Look at the rest of their client lists which includes the DNSCC, governors, congressmen, special interest groups, etc. And they are a heavily Democratic polling company, with a few Republican sprinkled in. Priorities is even listed as a client on the marketing page. They aren't hiding it. No one does their own actual polling and analysis. That's what these companies do professionally. Geez. I'm not speaking to the weighting of the population and whether that is biased or not. I have no idea. But this connection alone is not nefarious.

I'm not saying they are hiding it or why aren't they disclosing it I'm saying which is a different issue I'm saying...
If it's common knowledge that the polls reported by major networks and news publications use polling companies that are on the payroll of pacs and super pacs, then yes I'm uncommon, ignorant and very naive.
Someone should start a poll on here asking that very question, I'm curious to the responses.

I'm sure no one has given it a thought. But think about it. You are in charge of media buys for a super pac and you want to know where to spend a million bucks on a tv buy for your specialty issue.... Obamacare. You need research to find out which swing state has the most undecided on this issue, or perhaps where this is a very important issue so you can drive turnout. You won't have your own internal poll team, that's too expensive and not your expertise. You would hire a company to do it. And you would hire a company that specializes in political research. This is exactly what Kellyanne Conway's company does too, except it specializes in GOP issues.

Yeah I agree but I'm not taking about specialty issues, I'm not talking about political research, I'm taking about presidential polling numbers that major networks and news publications share with "viewers" for public interest. I'd be very surprised if most thought believed presidential polling numbers used by major networks and news publications were not done by independent pollsters.
Weren't most on here surprised to learn that polls only have to sample 500 respondents? which I thought was common knowledge.

Go Beavers

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

You do know that campaigns and PACS hire their own polling companies, right? Look at the rest of their client lists which includes the DNSCC, governors, congressmen, special interest groups, etc. And they are a heavily Democratic polling company, with a few Republican sprinkled in. Priorities is even listed as a client on the marketing page. They aren't hiding it. No one does their own actual polling and analysis. That's what these companies do professionally. Geez. I'm not speaking to the weighting of the population and whether that is biased or not. I have no idea. But this connection alone is not nefarious.

I'm not saying they are hiding it or why aren't they disclosing it I'm saying which is a different issue I'm saying...
If it's common knowledge that the polls reported by major networks and news publications use polling companies that are on the payroll of pacs and super pacs, then yes I'm uncommon, ignorant and very naive.
Someone should start a poll on here asking that very question, I'm curious to the responses.

I'm sure no one has given it a thought. But think about it. You are in charge of media buys for a super pac and you want to know where to spend a million bucks on a tv buy for your specialty issue.... Obamacare. You need research to find out which swing state has the most undecided on this issue, or perhaps where this is a very important issue so you can drive turnout. You won't have your own internal poll team, that's too expensive and not your expertise. You would hire a company to do it. And you would hire a company that specializes in political research. This is exactly what Kellyanne Conway's company does too, except it specializes in GOP issues.

Yeah I agree but I'm not taking about specialty issues, I'm not talking about political research, I'm taking about presidential polling numbers that major networks and news publications share with "viewers" for public interest. I'd be very surprised if most thought believed presidential polling numbers used by major networks and news publications were not done by independent pollsters.
Weren't most on here surprised to learn that polls only have to sample 500 respondents? which I thought was common knowledge.

What's the significance of the 500 respondents to you?

BS44325

rgambs said:

tonifig8 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I assume Hillary doesn't believe Bill's accuser at all... If that is the case I am not really sure what to think of the repeated reference to something Bill Clinton did (something that hasn't been proven any more than Trump's child rape accusation has been), as though it has some bearing on what Donald Trump said. Is it supposed to change how we feel about Trump's misogyny or what? And why are Bill's issues being brought up so much anyhow? If Hillary were accused of rape that would be a lot more relevant (but still wouldn't negate what Trump is like at all). Even if there were any reason to think that that Hillary knew that Bill raped a woman and doesn't care, that would hold some water. But there is no evidence of that. So I am not really sure how the story is supposed to reflect badly on Hillary Clinton unless someone has proof that she has proof that Bill raped someone and that Hillary doesn't mind.

Let's be real. Even if the proof, shit a video of him rapping, you guys would still come out with some excuse. Just as its been the case all along.

You are off the reservation here...your hatred of Clinton seems to be eroding your ability to think rationally.

"Off the reservation" is considered by most to be a racist phrase. Let's call a "spade a spade" here.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

You do know that campaigns and PACS hire their own polling companies, right? Look at the rest of their client lists which includes the DNSCC, governors, congressmen, special interest groups, etc. And they are a heavily Democratic polling company, with a few Republican sprinkled in. Priorities is even listed as a client on the marketing page. They aren't hiding it. No one does their own actual polling and analysis. That's what these companies do professionally. Geez. I'm not speaking to the weighting of the population and whether that is biased or not. I have no idea. But this connection alone is not nefarious.

I'm not saying they are hiding it or why aren't they disclosing it I'm saying which is a different issue I'm saying...
If it's common knowledge that the polls reported by major networks and news publications use polling companies that are on the payroll of pacs and super pacs, then yes I'm uncommon, ignorant and very naive.
Someone should start a poll on here asking that very question, I'm curious to the responses.

I'm sure no one has given it a thought. But think about it. You are in charge of media buys for a super pac and you want to know where to spend a million bucks on a tv buy for your specialty issue.... Obamacare. You need research to find out which swing state has the most undecided on this issue, or perhaps where this is a very important issue so you can drive turnout. You won't have your own internal poll team, that's too expensive and not your expertise. You would hire a company to do it. And you would hire a company that specializes in political research. This is exactly what Kellyanne Conway's company does too, except it specializes in GOP issues.

Yeah I agree but I'm not taking about specialty issues, I'm not talking about political research, I'm taking about presidential polling numbers that major networks and news publications share with "viewers" for public interest. I'd be very surprised if most thought believed presidential polling numbers used by major networks and news publications were not done by independent pollsters.
Weren't most on here surprised to learn that polls only have to sample 500 respondents? which I thought was common knowledge.

But the same companies do both. It's the same skill set.
And what does independent mean to you? They don't just have one client. You wouldn't be in business very long. These companies don't ramp up every four years and then shut down.

Bentleyspop

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

You do know that campaigns and PACS hire their own polling companies, right? Look at the rest of their client lists which includes the DNSCC, governors, congressmen, special interest groups, etc. And they are a heavily Democratic polling company, with a few Republican sprinkled in. Priorities is even listed as a client on the marketing page. They aren't hiding it. No one does their own actual polling and analysis. That's what these companies do professionally. Geez. I'm not speaking to the weighting of the population and whether that is biased or not. I have no idea. But this connection alone is not nefarious.

I'm not saying they are hiding it or why aren't they disclosing it I'm saying which is a different issue I'm saying...
If it's common knowledge that the polls reported by major networks and news publications use polling companies that are on the payroll of pacs and super pacs, then yes I'm uncommon, ignorant and very naive.
Someone should start a poll on here asking that very question, I'm curious to the responses.

I'm sure no one has given it a thought. But think about it. You are in charge of media buys for a super pac and you want to know where to spend a million bucks on a tv buy for your specialty issue.... Obamacare. You need research to find out which swing state has the most undecided on this issue, or perhaps where this is a very important issue so you can drive turnout. You won't have your own internal poll team, that's too expensive and not your expertise. You would hire a company to do it. And you would hire a company that specializes in political research. This is exactly what Kellyanne Conway's company does too, except it specializes in GOP issues.

Yeah I agree but I'm not taking about specialty issues, I'm not talking about political research, I'm taking about presidential polling numbers that major networks and news publications share with "viewers" for public interest. I'd be very surprised if most thought believed presidential polling numbers used by major networks and news publications were not done by independent pollsters.
Weren't most on here surprised to learn that polls only have to sample 500 respondents? which I thought was common knowledge.

But the same companies do both. It's the same skill set.
And what does independent mean to you? They don't just have one client. You wouldn't be in business very long. These companies don't ramp up every four years and then shut down.

You seriously need to stop coming on here posting facts and making sense.

JC29856

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

You do know that campaigns and PACS hire their own polling companies, right? Look at the rest of their client lists which includes the DNSCC, governors, congressmen, special interest groups, etc. And they are a heavily Democratic polling company, with a few Republican sprinkled in. Priorities is even listed as a client on the marketing page. They aren't hiding it. No one does their own actual polling and analysis. That's what these companies do professionally. Geez. I'm not speaking to the weighting of the population and whether that is biased or not. I have no idea. But this connection alone is not nefarious.

I'm not saying they are hiding it or why aren't they disclosing it I'm saying which is a different issue I'm saying...
If it's common knowledge that the polls reported by major networks and news publications use polling companies that are on the payroll of pacs and super pacs, then yes I'm uncommon, ignorant and very naive.
Someone should start a poll on here asking that very question, I'm curious to the responses.

I'm sure no one has given it a thought. But think about it. You are in charge of media buys for a super pac and you want to know where to spend a million bucks on a tv buy for your specialty issue.... Obamacare. You need research to find out which swing state has the most undecided on this issue, or perhaps where this is a very important issue so you can drive turnout. You won't have your own internal poll team, that's too expensive and not your expertise. You would hire a company to do it. And you would hire a company that specializes in political research. This is exactly what Kellyanne Conway's company does too, except it specializes in GOP issues.

Yeah I agree but I'm not taking about specialty issues, I'm not talking about political research, I'm taking about presidential polling numbers that major networks and news publications share with "viewers" for public interest. I'd be very surprised if most thought believed presidential polling numbers used by major networks and news publications were not done by independent pollsters.
Weren't most on here surprised to learn that polls only have to sample 500 respondents? which I thought was common knowledge.

What's the significance of the 500 respondents to you?

No significance to me, some on here were surprised to learn that the polling data often only includes 400 or 500 respondents. I was making reference and comparing it to pacs and super pacs paying a polling company $391k in 3 months for their polling numbers and those numbers being used by nbc and wsj.

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

You do know that campaigns and PACS hire their own polling companies, right? Look at the rest of their client lists which includes the DNSCC, governors, congressmen, special interest groups, etc. And they are a heavily Democratic polling company, with a few Republican sprinkled in. Priorities is even listed as a client on the marketing page. They aren't hiding it. No one does their own actual polling and analysis. That's what these companies do professionally. Geez. I'm not speaking to the weighting of the population and whether that is biased or not. I have no idea. But this connection alone is not nefarious.

I'm not saying they are hiding it or why aren't they disclosing it I'm saying which is a different issue I'm saying...
If it's common knowledge that the polls reported by major networks and news publications use polling companies that are on the payroll of pacs and super pacs, then yes I'm uncommon, ignorant and very naive.
Someone should start a poll on here asking that very question, I'm curious to the responses.

I'm sure no one has given it a thought. But think about it. You are in charge of media buys for a super pac and you want to know where to spend a million bucks on a tv buy for your specialty issue.... Obamacare. You need research to find out which swing state has the most undecided on this issue, or perhaps where this is a very important issue so you can drive turnout. You won't have your own internal poll team, that's too expensive and not your expertise. You would hire a company to do it. And you would hire a company that specializes in political research. This is exactly what Kellyanne Conway's company does too, except it specializes in GOP issues.

Yeah I agree but I'm not taking about specialty issues, I'm not talking about political research, I'm taking about presidential polling numbers that major networks and news publications share with "viewers" for public interest. I'd be very surprised if most thought believed presidential polling numbers used by major networks and news publications were not done by independent pollsters.
Weren't most on here surprised to learn that polls only have to sample 500 respondents? which I thought was common knowledge.

But the same companies do both. It's the same skill set.
And what does independent mean to you? They don't just have one client. You wouldn't be in business very long. These companies don't ramp up every four years and then shut down.

More extremism and exaggeration

Independent: not supported by a political party not influenced or affected by others in appearance or in fact.

Distort and distract

I'm not discussing the polling business and their clients, I'm saying it's surprising to me that the polling data that nbc wsj use come from polling companys that are paid hundreds of thoudands of dollars from pacs and super pacs.
Polling and research companies can have only pacs and super pacs as their clients, it it doesn't mean nbc and wsj have to use them.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

You do know that campaigns and PACS hire their own polling companies, right? Look at the rest of their client lists which includes the DNSCC, governors, congressmen, special interest groups, etc. And they are a heavily Democratic polling company, with a few Republican sprinkled in. Priorities is even listed as a client on the marketing page. They aren't hiding it. No one does their own actual polling and analysis. That's what these companies do professionally. Geez. I'm not speaking to the weighting of the population and whether that is biased or not. I have no idea. But this connection alone is not nefarious.

I'm not saying they are hiding it or why aren't they disclosing it I'm saying which is a different issue I'm saying...
If it's common knowledge that the polls reported by major networks and news publications use polling companies that are on the payroll of pacs and super pacs, then yes I'm uncommon, ignorant and very naive.
Someone should start a poll on here asking that very question, I'm curious to the responses.

I'm sure no one has given it a thought. But think about it. You are in charge of media buys for a super pac and you want to know where to spend a million bucks on a tv buy for your specialty issue.... Obamacare. You need research to find out which swing state has the most undecided on this issue, or perhaps where this is a very important issue so you can drive turnout. You won't have your own internal poll team, that's too expensive and not your expertise. You would hire a company to do it. And you would hire a company that specializes in political research. This is exactly what Kellyanne Conway's company does too, except it specializes in GOP issues.

Yeah I agree but I'm not taking about specialty issues, I'm not talking about political research, I'm taking about presidential polling numbers that major networks and news publications share with "viewers" for public interest. I'd be very surprised if most thought believed presidential polling numbers used by major networks and news publications were not done by independent pollsters.
Weren't most on here surprised to learn that polls only have to sample 500 respondents? which I thought was common knowledge.

What's the significance of the 500 respondents to you?

No significance to me, some on here were surprised to learn that the polling data often only includes 400 or 500 respondents. I was making reference and comparing it to pacs and super pacs paying a polling company $391k in 3 months for their polling numbers and those numbers being used by nbc and wsj.

I can't say what people here do and do not know, but a 500 person sample is pretty damn good. 1k is overkill and I wouldn't pay for it myself. I still don't think there is anything nefarious about the fact that Priorities hires this firm for research and polling. I think it's over stated to call it "on the payroll". It's B2B work. Anyway, I have no idea if Priorities corrupts the polling. I'm saying this relationship is not evidence of it.

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

You do know that campaigns and PACS hire their own polling companies, right? Look at the rest of their client lists which includes the DNSCC, governors, congressmen, special interest groups, etc. And they are a heavily Democratic polling company, with a few Republican sprinkled in. Priorities is even listed as a client on the marketing page. They aren't hiding it. No one does their own actual polling and analysis. That's what these companies do professionally. Geez. I'm not speaking to the weighting of the population and whether that is biased or not. I have no idea. But this connection alone is not nefarious.

I'm not saying they are hiding it or why aren't they disclosing it I'm saying which is a different issue I'm saying...
If it's common knowledge that the polls reported by major networks and news publications use polling companies that are on the payroll of pacs and super pacs, then yes I'm uncommon, ignorant and very naive.
Someone should start a poll on here asking that very question, I'm curious to the responses.

I'm sure no one has given it a thought. But think about it. You are in charge of media buys for a super pac and you want to know where to spend a million bucks on a tv buy for your specialty issue.... Obamacare. You need research to find out which swing state has the most undecided on this issue, or perhaps where this is a very important issue so you can drive turnout. You won't have your own internal poll team, that's too expensive and not your expertise. You would hire a company to do it. And you would hire a company that specializes in political research. This is exactly what Kellyanne Conway's company does too, except it specializes in GOP issues.

Yeah I agree but I'm not taking about specialty issues, I'm not talking about political research, I'm taking about presidential polling numbers that major networks and news publications share with "viewers" for public interest. I'd be very surprised if most thought believed presidential polling numbers used by major networks and news publications were not done by independent pollsters.
Weren't most on here surprised to learn that polls only have to sample 500 respondents? which I thought was common knowledge.

What's the significance of the 500 respondents to you?

No significance to me, some on here were surprised to learn that the polling data often only includes 400 or 500 respondents. I was making reference and comparing it to pacs and super pacs paying a polling company $391k in 3 months for their polling numbers and those numbers being used by nbc and wsj.

I can't say what people here do and do not know, but a 500 person sample is pretty damn good. 1k is overkill and I wouldn't pay for it myself. I still don't think there is anything nefarious about the fact that Priorities hires this firm for research and polling. I think it's over stated to call it "on the payroll". It's B2B work. Anyway, I have no idea if Priorities corrupts the polling. I'm saying this relationship is not evidence of it.

Distort and distract

The issue isn't that priorities hired the Polling firm, the issue is that nbc and wsj use the polling firm that is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars from a pac

I never said the polling firm is corrupted or influenced by priorities, I said I was surprised to know that nbc and wsj use a polling firm that accepts hundreds of thousand of dollars from pacs and super pac.
I repeat..you learn something new everyday.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

Hart research poll received $391k from priorities usa pac July thru Sept just happens to be the poll used by nbc wsj. This can't be. Clinton pacs giving money to pollsters? Any debunkers out there, I can't find much.
Guy named Geoffrey Garin comes up.

You do know that campaigns and PACS hire their own polling companies, right? Look at the rest of their client lists which includes the DNSCC, governors, congressmen, special interest groups, etc. And they are a heavily Democratic polling company, with a few Republican sprinkled in. Priorities is even listed as a client on the marketing page. They aren't hiding it. No one does their own actual polling and analysis. That's what these companies do professionally. Geez. I'm not speaking to the weighting of the population and whether that is biased or not. I have no idea. But this connection alone is not nefarious.

I'm not saying they are hiding it or why aren't they disclosing it I'm saying which is a different issue I'm saying...
If it's common knowledge that the polls reported by major networks and news publications use polling companies that are on the payroll of pacs and super pacs, then yes I'm uncommon, ignorant and very naive.
Someone should start a poll on here asking that very question, I'm curious to the responses.

I'm sure no one has given it a thought. But think about it. You are in charge of media buys for a super pac and you want to know where to spend a million bucks on a tv buy for your specialty issue.... Obamacare. You need research to find out which swing state has the most undecided on this issue, or perhaps where this is a very important issue so you can drive turnout. You won't have your own internal poll team, that's too expensive and not your expertise. You would hire a company to do it. And you would hire a company that specializes in political research. This is exactly what Kellyanne Conway's company does too, except it specializes in GOP issues.

Yeah I agree but I'm not taking about specialty issues, I'm not talking about political research, I'm taking about presidential polling numbers that major networks and news publications share with "viewers" for public interest. I'd be very surprised if most thought believed presidential polling numbers used by major networks and news publications were not done by independent pollsters.
Weren't most on here surprised to learn that polls only have to sample 500 respondents? which I thought was common knowledge.

What's the significance of the 500 respondents to you?

No significance to me, some on here were surprised to learn that the polling data often only includes 400 or 500 respondents. I was making reference and comparing it to pacs and super pacs paying a polling company $391k in 3 months for their polling numbers and those numbers being used by nbc and wsj.

I can't say what people here do and do not know, but a 500 person sample is pretty damn good. 1k is overkill and I wouldn't pay for it myself. I still don't think there is anything nefarious about the fact that Priorities hires this firm for research and polling. I think it's over stated to call it "on the payroll". It's B2B work. Anyway, I have no idea if Priorities corrupts the polling. I'm saying this relationship is not evidence of it.

Distort and distract

The issue isn't that priorities hired the Polling firm, the issue is that nbc and wsj use the polling firm that is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars from a pac

I never said the polling firm is corrupted or influenced by priorities, I said I was surprised to know that nbc and wsj use a polling firm that accepts hundreds of thousand of dollars from pacs and super pac.
I repeat..you learn something new everyday.

Why do you have to turn a fine discussion into something negative? How am I distorting and distracting by explaining my perspective and understanding?