NBC Caught Manipulating Poll Results Released Today….

An NBC/WSJ Poll was released today.  Within the article NBC is caught “red handed” manipulating the results to favor a preferred narrative.   The polled result is so blatantly opposite of the conclusions presented there can only be one reason, intentional bias.

Media Lying

Here is the way NBC presented the data on the Democrat side:

NBC […]  In the Democratic race, Hillary Clinton is the first choice of 42 percent of primary voters, Sanders is in second at 35 percent and Joe Biden third at 17 percent. No other Democrat gets more than 1 percent. 

biden hillary nbc

When Biden – who is still mulling a campaign – is removed from the field, Clinton’s lead over Sanders grows to 15 points, 53 percent to 38 percent, which suggests that Biden’s entry would hurt Clinton more than Sanders. (link)

Do you spot the transparent lie?

Look closely at the poll construct and wording for the second segment:

(IF BIDEN THEN ASK)” Clearly stating if the person being questioned has chosen Joe Biden in the original question, the pollster is prompted to ask them: “If Joe Biden does not seek the democrat nomination which candidate would you favor“.

So the second question is only pertaining to the 17% of the (256) respondents who answered Joe Biden in the original question ONLY THOSE WHO ANSWERED JOE BIDEN, not everyone.

Yet NBC Mark Murray then claims:

“When Biden – who is still mulling a campaign – is removed from the field, Clinton’s lead over Sanders grows to 15 points, 53 percent to 38 percent”

No, that’s not accurate at all.  That’s not what the poll says at all.  What the poll says is that 53% of Biden Supporters would change to supporting Clinton; and 38% of Biden Supporters would change to supporting Sanders.

biden hillary nbc 2

With 256 people polled, and 17% supporting Biden, that means 44 people picked Biden in the original question.

OF THOSE 44 Biden people, 23 would support Hillary (53% of 44), AND OF THOSE 44 people, 17 (38% of 44) would support Sanders – the second question.

The original question with 256 respondents:

  • Hillary 42% (108)
  • Sanders 36% (90)

Adding the numbers from the second question (23 for Hillary, and 17 for Sanders) back into the original question of 256 people polled you find:

A total of 131 Supporting Hillary Clinton and 107 Supporting Sanders.  That’s 51% Clinton and 42% Sanders.

It is not 53% to 38% with a 15 point spread.  As claimed by Murray That’s false.

It IS 51% to 42% with a 9 point spread.  That’s True.

Now ask yourself why would NBC/WSJ want to manipulate the polling more favorably to Hillary Clinton?

I think you’ll find the answer goes back to what we’ve continued to outline.  The MSM, in this case the ideology of Mark Murry, is part of the machine working diligently to deliver:

clinton bush

Dr_Phil_teen_youtube_beating

 

 

 

This entry was posted in Bernie Sanders, Clinton(s), Desperately Seeking Hillary, Election 2016, media bias. Bookmark the permalink.

140 Responses to NBC Caught Manipulating Poll Results Released Today….

  1. ZurichMike says:

    And what about the NBC poll showing Trump’s lead vanishing? I am bad at math, but I think the margin of error makes the overall poll unreliable.

    Liked by 12 people

    • sundance says:

      I’m looking at that side now😉

      Liked by 13 people

    • shiloh1973 says:

      I believe everything they do is unreliable! Rotten liars.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Matt Musson says:

        I don’t know that they are lying. I think they may be too stupid to interpret their own poll data.

        Liked by 2 people

        • freepetta says:

          While I agree they’re stupid, I believe they are agenda driven and evil like 0bama. I always enjoy the so called “mistakes” when in reality we know it wasn’t a mistake at all.

          Liked by 8 people

        • Bella Ballou says:

          My best friend, years ago, was a doctoral candidate in “communication” (or– how we speak to one another). She and her advisor were discussing how disappointed they were in the data from a study and I distinctly heard him say to “change it if you don’t like it.” I was stunned, but said nothing. Now, years later, having had my conservative awakening, I see this for exactly what it was. Typical democrats making every effort to get their way. I do not doubt in any way this poll was presented as it was to show the results that they wanted. Also, a 250ish person poll is in no way indicative of anything in the USA.

          Liked by 2 people

          • And in another venue, you get evidence for the devastating outcomes of man-made climate change.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Arkindole says:

            I can tell you for a fact that that occurs. Fraud is rampant. “Ya see what you want to see and you find what you’re looking for”.

            Ask the candidate who the advisor recommended to be on supervisory committee; and ask the candidate why? The advisor is chair of the supervisory committee and the advisor always approves the committee members. The candidate will tell you why the members were selected. It could be “they never ask any questions”; it could be “they never read the dissertation”; it could be “they won’t understand the analyses”; it could be “they never ask students to run more experiments to resolve the confounds”. It usually is that they are just members of the same dirty club.

            The clinker comes when some university graduate colleges assign an unknown “outside (the department)” committee member to a supervisory committee–usually the 5th member. That’s when they can be caught and keelhauled. It happens, but rarely because of internal politics.

            What I’m getting at here is that the ethical violators love to stick together–their students grow up under a family tree of “academic grandparents” who have soured the entire system.

            Liked by 2 people

        • bertdilbert says:

          It is liberal math, the brain works differently.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Acres of Statuary says:

          Almost. More correctly: journalists are innumerate.

          Liked by 2 people

      • Hell is enlarging itself bit time for all liars will enter eternity in hell. Not my words but Almighty God’s words. Read it in the Holy Bible.

        Like

        • ” For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

          And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:18-19

          Like

    • kathyca says:

      I generally don’t look at anything that’s not less than 3% plus or minus — my math stinks, too, but I do remember that from college.

      Liked by 7 people

    • Bildung says:

      Even if the internals aren’t manipulated they may be corrupted–ie, the respondents almost cherry picked.

      Very possible with such a small sample.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Arkindole says:

        All of the above.

        Kathyca is on to it. There has been ONE poll result that is statistically significant, meaning that Trump’s point was statistically different from the next lower point. One. Every other poll is non significant, meaning that for a population estimate don’t bet your paycheck that the numbers will be different.

        Ask Karl Rove about those blown population estimates.

        Like

    • Murse says:

      Given the outright bias by the MSM for the establishment status quo, I would not be surprised if the poll takers deliberately and falsely tally respondents answers.

      Liked by 2 people

    • TS says:

      It doesn’t say that he’s lost any ground, just that Ben Carson has nearly caught up to him. Ben Carson? Are they kidding? That’s just not believable.

      Like

    • Trump’s share of the vote is up 10% from the last poll, while Carson and Fiorina saw significant gains by picking up the votes Walker and Bush lost.

      Like

    • JAS says:

      I gave up on MSM Polls a long time ago, for the obvious reasons. Well, not quite. I still look at Reuters’s poll about once a week and adjust the dates on the top.

      http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/dates/20150901-20150925/collapsed/false

      Like

    • joyiris says:

      I am wondering whether the WSJ was simply careless? After all, they do have a very conservative Opinion section and always have.

      Like

    • joyiris says:

      I don’t rust polls, but I would not be surprised if Trump is dropping in popularity. I think his style is wearing thin. I know it is for me.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. shiloh1973 says:

    Oh what a tangled web they weave. To tell the truth it is bordering on criminal.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. kathyca says:

    Good catch. With the math to back it up (yay, ’cause I stink at math!) I posted in the other thread, I wondered why we’re seeing pics of the poll questions and answers, but the rest of the poll won’t be out until tomorrow. Hmmm.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. freepetta says:

    Just confirmed what we knew all along. Liars liars pants on fire. That sample is not even large enough to be accurate.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. sundance says:

    Mark Murray is the senior political editor for NBC News

    Liked by 19 people

  6. Backspin says:

    Well , Mark Murray can keep Brian Williams company at the JV network. Buh -Bye.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Tazz55 says:

    well the fact that 230 republicans participated with a moe of 6.5 says this poll stinks

    Liked by 3 people

  8. hocuspocus13 says:

    Maybe they are too stupid to add and subtract 😎

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Masterdeviance says:

    Beyond just the manipulation and deceptive language behind the reporting of the Democratic poll, the Republican poll is laughable.

    Sample size of 230 is laughable. Coupled with a 6.7% margin of error, and we can safely throw this junk poll out.

    I’m sure Murdoch being owner of the WSJ didn’t affect the methodology at all….😉

    Liked by 4 people

    • Doodahdaze says:

      FOX will seize on this hoax for a week.

      Liked by 2 people

    • VegasGuy says:

      Yeah the sample size is relatively small for an accurate result to be gleened from. But, more importantly, what were the demographics…..? This poll was from “…registered voters who said they would vote ….blah blah…”

      If you “target” your poll responders, you induce a bias, & you can get any result you desire.

      Kinda like “polling” a Bar for likability. Do you poll 100 drinking people in a particular Bar that are presently there & drinking, or do you poll 50 in the Bar & 50 who walk past (but are still considered drinkers & frequent that same Bar)

      See, same “poll sample” but with the bias somewhat deminished. Hence, the result a bit more accurate.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. SPQR_US@yahoo.com says:

    I’m confused what then is the Trump result? He’s over 33% or close to 40% in honest polls. I just assumed the WSJ (Murdoch) NBC (CoC) operation was flat out lying. Anyone looked further?

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Doodahdaze says:

    Simple. It is a bad poll. A push poll. It is a media talking points play. Endorsed immediately by RCP as legit. They are in total panic. It is a campaign commercial for the uniparty. The desired outcome is Boooosh v. Clinton.

    http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/rdrenka/Renka_papers/polls.htm

    Liked by 3 people

    • peachteachr says:

      Besides which, on day one in college, one of your professors will tell you that statistics can be made to support any stand you wish. At least in the 70’s, that would be important information on day one of college. But, back then, there was no English or Math 99 or 98. You either learned those things in high school or didn’t go to college.

      Like

  12. Nanny G says:

    Note the UNparallel groups in the same poll:
    The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Sept. 20-24 of 256 Democratic voters (which has a margin of error of plus-minus 6.1 percentage points) and 230 GOP primary voters.
    Merely registered Dems on one side.
    Registered Reps (who had voted in previous primaries) on the other side.
    Skew much?

    Liked by 1 person

  13. flawesttexas says:

    My stats professor would give you an A for the whole course! Good catch on that manipulation

    Liked by 3 people

  14. John G says:

    Even if the math is done correctly, is that the same thing as asking the original question without Biden? The numbers would probably be very similar.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. mazziflol says:

    When I saw a news broadcast clip where they indicated that Biden had 17% I had to stop and check to see if I missed the part where he entered the ring. They make it sound like he is already running. I thought that there was shenanigans to boot.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. The Boss says:

    I think Dick Morris would opine that NBC is in the tank for Hillary AND Jeb! With all the easily discerned biases at NBC, Fox and the rest, I will opine that they are all stuck in the tank – with Mike Dukakis. Looking like LOSERS! How are those ratings going guys??

    Like

  17. PerryC says:

    While I get that the Establishment wants a Clinton/Bush matchup, why would they have a problem with Biden/Bush? Not much difference between Biden and Clinton. If anything, I’d expect Biden to be more like Obama, which I’d think would be solidly appealing to the Dems.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. So shouldn’t we question the one that came out having Trump and Carson tied..to have increase his numbers that dramatically depending on the poll sounds a little skewed to me. I hate polls..because it all matters how the question is asked.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Doodahdaze says:

      Just look at the resignation of Bonehead. They will replace him with McCarthy. What a joke. That is like Kukla quitting and Ollie taking over the show. Gimmeabreak.

      Liked by 2 people

  19. tychesd says:

    Fivethirtyeight pollster Nate Silver has rated all of the pollsters based on accuracy and methodology. He’s widely thought of as an expert, but I believe he is a Democrat. http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/ Philip Bump in today’s Washington Post also made the point that not all polls are equal. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/27/donald-trump-is-free-to-cherry-pick-his-polls-but-his-decline-is-clear/

    But it’s the headline of the poll that drives the narrative. Dave Weigel noted this today when NBC poll came out. Trump actually gained 2 points from the last time they ran this poll, but the headline was how Carson and Trump were tied, Fiorina and Rubio had risen and Bush had declined.

    Most everyone in the political business goes by the Real Clear Politics average. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html The RCP average shows Trump down. The pollster that Trump himself often cites is at HuffPost Pollster. They show his average down too. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary Ryan Lizza from New Yorker says Trump rate of descent is about the same as his climb – a couple of points per week.

    In my opinion, Trump needs to hire a professional pollster to do internal polling for himself. That way he wouldn’t be so obsessed about these outside polls. He would know where he was at. Roger Stone has recommended this as well, but Trump apparently doesn’t want to spend the money. But all campaigns have internal polls.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Doodahdaze says:

      Why bother? It is months til the real polls. Voting. The polls now are talking points for the estab. They are the ones paying for them. They do not seek the truth. They seek media talking points.

      Liked by 3 people

      • smiley says:

        I really believe they are crafted to psych people out and confuse them.
        its ALL manipulation.
        fickle, biased, incomplete, inaccurate.
        you’re 100% correct ..the real poll = the votes.
        if the election is hi-jacked…..well….(fill in the blank).

        Liked by 1 person

      • SharonKinDC says:

        I also think that those who are Trump supporters are very solid support. They’re not going anywhere and certainly aren’t going to fall over for RINO Fiorina or Rubio, even if they aren’t political junkies and don’t know the ins/outs of those candidates history. I think Carson IS getting a bump with his more direct talk about Islam. However, I also think that support may well waver upon closer inspection of Carson’s other positions, experience.

        The funny thing, is while I’m grateful Carson is not backing down and finally raising issues which should be discussed, I also think, especially in a general, that much openness will be viewed as ‘too extreme’. Trump, OTOH, looks less fire-breathing on this issue, but has discussed it honestly, too, without getting into the weeds. So for those (rightly) concerned about the Islamophilia running rampant, they know he’s ‘good’ on the topic, without making it a feature of his campaign.

        Like

    • SharonKinDC says:

      RCP is owned by D Larry Sabato, I read. They do not use as many polls. Huff Po does, although not dodgy ones. Sabato was honest enough to admit the online polls are likely more accurate. The problem w/ phone polls is some only use land lines, which is going to skew older. Even ones w/ cell phones are likely flawed as so many people are blocking calls, not answering unknown numbers…and this is for both land line and cell phones. A man who created the firm which pioneered use of phone polls, said the party’s over for phone polls. However, online polls, where people register to participate may also be an issue, as that is a somewhat self-selecting audience of people willing to participate.

      Bush people, after the Cucinelli loss by a narrow margin, created a new polling firm w/ new algos/methodogy to try to prevent what happened in VA. It showed Cuccinelli way behind, which clearly wasn’t true.

      Probably some outfit will try to come up w/ a method which incorporates SM traffic, but… how to weed out troll posts and negative mentions?

      My guess is that at first, the polls showed a real burst for Trump. Now, with others having more exposure, I am not sure what the picture will tell, nor if it is a reasonable approximation of the truth. Remember Romney doing well? Ooops. Was that false hope? Dodgy sample sizes and demos? Accurate but not reflected about who showed up to vote? Accurate but dodgy voting shenanigans? IDK.

      Then there is the real, concerted effort by MSM enablers to take down Trump. Hence Fox showing a skewed poll for a WEEK! What I do know is Trump can pack them in to large venues in a way no other candidate can. I also think those post debate snap polls, may be more accurate than given credit for. Perhaps, not in total numbers as big fans can open new private browsers for each new vote, but in general, showing far larger support for Trump, for example, and less than sterling success for Fiorina, who was pumped as the Trump slayer. Other than an outlier Gravis poll, which must have been taken late at night as it came out the next morning, and dodgy CNN poll, Fiorina, while she gained share, didn’t slay anything, other than Jeb in any of the other polls.

      One final note: up until the second debate, almost all of the polls showed a similar patter w/ each candidate in a range of a couple points. One outlier had Huckabee up by a lot, which was a freak result. Since the debate, we’ve had several polls with very big differences in results, which is out of norms from the past two months. Makes me think there is monkey business going on.

      Liked by 1 person

      • stringy theory says:

        As yourself who can fill a football stadium, a basketball arena, pull thousands at the Iowa and Oklahoma state fairs. Is it Hillary, jebito, rubio, or any of the other GOPe losers? I think the answer is that Trump is kicking ass then and now and to hell with the phony polls. I know I don’t answer the phone unless I know the caller and I’m as Trump as it gets and so are members of my family who can and will vote. All polls depend on a model that “guesses” at what the actual distribution will be as to D, R, I, etc. No matter how many they contact, they still need a turnout model and that’s all guess work. Keep your eyes on the target–destroying the GOPe and don’t be mislead by garbage like the CNN poll that faux hyped for a week, or this idiotic NBC poll. How well did pollsters do last time around? Ask rover how his white board predictions turned out. Go Trump.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Oh please no! Next thing after that he’ll have to hire a consultant to tell him what people want to hear. And then focus groups. Etc., etc., until he ends up sounding like every other politician.

      Like

  20. tychesd says:

    You may be right, and the establishment and the media are trying to shape opinion as well as measure it. But Trump bragging about polls that experts don’t consider reliable makes him look like a rookie. I like the fact that he’s an outsider. But I don’t think he wants to look like a rookie.

    He needs to hire an internal pollster. He won’t tell us what his internal polls say, but he will know and will be able to adjust.

    Like

    • bofh says:

      Do you think for one moment that he doesn’t already have one? The Trump campaign is anything but the loose-cannon event portrayed by the media.

      Liked by 2 people

    • stringy theory says:

      I’m sure he has his own trusted advisers and understands polling. I don’t think he looks like a rookie at all. Nor do the thousands who converge on his events. All we need to know is that the GOPe is out to screw us. Trump knows that absolutely.

      Like

  21. georgiafl says:

    Rumor – Jindal is quitting the race.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. SouthCentralPA says:

    True as far as it goes, but that would suggest that they’re more wedded to persons than to their agenda. That doesn’t quite ring true to me somehow.

    Like

  23. Backspin says:

    Trump should take this fake poll proof and use it as an ad .NBC has been lying for years , crush them and their sponsors.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. kinthenorthwest says:

    Aren’t decent polls supposed to have a thousand or more???

    Liked by 2 people

    • coeurdaleneman says:

      Yes. See my comment below.

      An honest pollster would be like Rassmussen, publishing percentages on a regular daily schedule, based upon a rolling average of the last 3 days.

      Liked by 2 people

  25. lovemyAmerica says:

    first post here. Feels like home and I have learned so much.
    I think
    Mr. Trump DOES have his internal pollsters. and absolutely has a plan. I believe he can play the GAME better than anyone.
    The day of 9/11 I switched to Faux news. Now I see that Faux news has changed to be part of the GOPe machine . Sad.
    I see Mr. Trump shoving back, and I see the MSM imploding…it is fun to watch.
    Trump 2016
    Thank you everyone and SD for your insightful posts.

    Liked by 4 people

  26. jackdeth72 says:

    I believe the last time NBC was a credible, believable News Network was when “Dewey Defeats Truman:!

    Oh, wait!

    Like

  27. coeurdaleneman says:

    It is my contention that mainstream news outfits poll every day, just like Rassmussen. And that they reach 350 to 450 respondents every day.

    Generally, most pollsters release results based upon a 3-day sample that includes about 1,000 respondents, thus yielding a small error percentage.

    I also contend that MSM outlet will cherry-pick what 3 day totals to use, in order to optimize their their biased liberal talking points. In other words, they will not publish results on a consistent schedule (like every Wednesday, for example).

    And in this case, I contend that they were soooooo desperate to ding Trump that they threw aside their normal 1,000 +/- respondent sample in order to use a queer outlier. I’d bet a ton that their bigger samples consistently show result waaaay more favorable to Trump.

    Liked by 3 people

  28. hunter429 says:

    The analysis of the Democrat polls misses the fact that 3 percentage points out of Biden’s original 17 went to other than Clinton or Sanders.

    Like

  29. DennyOR says:

    How come my favorite candidate, Native American Elizabeth Warren, wasn’t in the list of choices?

    Liked by 2 people

  30. oddsoxx says:

    Not convinced NBC is in error here here.
    The 2nd table is titled “Recalculated First Choice (without Joe Biden).
    So how were the totals were recalculated?
    –Figure 17% of the 256 sample liked Joe Biden = 43.
    –And 42% of the 256 sample liked Hillary = 107
    –Next, Biden’s 43 were asked to choose again without him.
    –And in the 2nd table 53% end up liking Hillary first, that’s 135 of 256, = +28.

    In order to get Hillary from 42% to 53% she’d have to pick up 28 of 43 of Biden’s people, or 65%
    Not an impossible number.

    Liked by 1 person

    • oddsoxx says:

      I’ll add that if Biden’s people are simply removed from the survey without the follow up question, we’d see Hillary 107 of 213 = 50%
      Sanders 89 of 213 = 42%
      …so that’s not what’s happening here.

      Like

    • sundance says:

      “(IF BIDEN THEN ASK)”

      Clear as day. “IF BIDEN” means only if previous response was Biden.

      Liked by 3 people

      • oddsoxx says:

        That’s how I see it, too.
        So looks like Biden’s 43 people were asked who’d they pick and 28 said Hillary.

        Liked by 1 person

        • sundance says:

          53% of 44 = 23 said Hillary. But yeah,

          Liked by 1 person

          • The wording of this thing is a bit of a trap. I thought it was fishy, too. The juxtaposition of the qualifier about IF NOT BIDEN, THEN ASK and the actual numbers (with 53%) is misleading unless you notice RECALCULATED. I also assumed that those were the results for the Biden group – not for the whole. It was only when I looked at the whole thing much more closely for other reasons that I saw RECALCULATED, and figured out that the whole second table isn’t a poll answer, but a construction from two questions not asked uniformly.

            I think what’s really interesting is that they are not revealing openly the percentages of the results for the “IF NOT BIDEN, BECAUSE YOU VOTED BIDEN” group.

            This is subtle, but I think that oddsoxx’s analysis shows WHY they went to all these lengths to reconstruct a poll question that wasn’t actually asked. They resubmerged that horrible-looking 65% back into the rest of the results, and then said that it “suggests” Biden hurts Hillary worse, when they most obviously admit to numbers which show this without any doubt whatsoever, and by a striking magnitude.

            One last point, somewhat related. I know that one can “assume” that one doesn’t need to ask the “no Biden” question to everybody, but WHY THE F*** NOT? As a scientist, it just bothers the heck out of me that they could have gotten empirical results for both Clinton-Biden-Sanders and Clinton-Sanders from the whole group – and yet they chose not to do so. Yes, perhaps you can assume that only the Biden people will change their answer, but I think the number of “don’t-have-to-switch switchers” is an intensely interesting number, even if small.

            And one more last thing (😉 ) – Trump needs to watch out on accusations of bad polling. I think they’re targeting that as a Kurds/Quds point of weakness. He should expect some “good” polls that are presented to look like bad polls. Just sayin’……

            Liked by 1 person

            • oddsoxx says:

              Yes — tyrannocankles, that’s it.
              Also, you mention the 2nd table is constructed “from two questions not asked uniformly.”
              That’s right — this is really a non-parametric sequential sampling design, which accounts for the high margin of error pointed out by others upthread.
              They really should have used a larger sample.

              Liked by 1 person

          • oddsoxx says:

            No, Sundance, that’s not what I’m saying. I don’t think that’s what the “Recalculated” table says either.
            The 43 or 44 Biden respondents are asked for their 2nd choice.
            Then their answers are added to the others’ first choices.
            They used the whole 256 sample again for the 2nd table.
            And Hillary now gets 53% of the whole 256, so she picked up 28 of the Biden people.

            At least, I think that’s how they did it.
            I asked for confirmation in remarks posted on the Meet The Press site, but haven’t heard back from anyone except one hater-troll.

            Liked by 1 person

  31. hp says:

    NBC should have been put out of its misery when they were caught red handed trying to frame Zimmerman by doctoring those audio tapes..

    Liked by 1 person

    • They also had very funky numbers during the shutdown. I was suspicious of the numbers then – I’m even more suspicious now that I realize the whole dramatic production was some form of deception by the Uniparty/media complex.

      Like

  32. JAS says:

    It is a boldface lie and glad you showed it here SD!

    All of the MSM does this to polls. It’s called “filtering”. They filter polls to a subset of respondents to supports their narrative. They have been doing it to Trump since the last debate.

    In this case though it is an outright lie. The filters went out the window because even with those the numbers did not support their narrative.

    Like

  33. IrishMutt says:

    What I found ill-boding for Hillary in those numbers was that on June 15th HRC would pick up 5 times as many Biden voters as would Sanders if Biden doesn’t run. One month later, on July 15th, that advantage dropped to roughly 2.4 times as many. Now, that edge has dropped to only 1.4.

    The real message is her potential gains from a sidelined Biden were significant in June, but have subsequently shrunk substantially, and if the trend continues those once material potential gains could easily become potential losses.

    It might not be long before we hear the Clintons encouraging Uncle Joe to run!

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Don Charisma says:

    NBC lying … just wow really !

    Cheers

    Don Charisma

    Like

  35. Pingback: GLEANINGS FROM THE PASSING SCENE … (Politically Uncorrected) | jcurtisblog

  36. coops50 says:

    I wonder how many other so called “reputable” polls are being manipulated to make Trump and/or Republicans look bad.

    Like

  37. FairTaxer says:

    Could they be lying? Sure. ARE they lying? Who knows?! My guess is, they’re simply too stupid to properly interpret their own data. Could it not be possible that they asked the question of every voter, regardless of the “(IF BIDEN, THEN ASK)” phrase? I don’t think that would be unheard of.

    Another (less likely) possibility may be that the results shown were actually recalculated before they were posted, as the “RECALCULATED FIRST CHOICE (WITHOUT BIDEN)” implies. If that’s the case, then 136 would have voted for H and 97 for BS, as opposed to 108 and 90 respectively. However, without doing the rest of the calculations I’m not going to verify this.

    I’m not standing up for #Liberal or #MSM in any way, just looking at it from other possible angles.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s