Surprise Fail – Reuters Announces Poll Changes To Help Lift Hillary Clinton…

sleepygifDon’t say we didn’t previously predict this EXACT SCENARIO was coming as soon as the Clinton Convention was over.


After Reuters polling showed a 17 point (two week) swing to benefit Donald Trump something urgently needed to be changed.

(Via Reuters) […] In a presidential campaign notable for its negativity, the option of “Neither” candidate appears to be an appealing alternative, at least to participants in the Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll.

Many voters on both sides have been ambivalent in their support for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, complicating the task of the pollsters trying to track the race.

That sentiment may help explain an apparent skew that recently emerged in the Reuters/Ipsos poll results. Given the choice, a relatively large group of voters opted for “Neither/Other” candidate compared with other major polls, leading to an under reporting of several percentage points for one or other of the two major contenders at times in the race.

As a result, Reuters/Ipsos is amending the wording of the choice and eliminating the word “Neither,” bringing the option in line with other polls.

The amended Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll will be published later Friday, available at

From the beginning of June until the middle of July, the Reuters/Ipsos survey showed consistently lower support for Trump than other polls were capturing. At times, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed Clinton with a lead over Trump as wide as about 12 percentage points among registered voters – five percentage points higher than Clinton’s lead in some other comparable polls.

[…]  During the period analyzed, the historically high antipathy for both major candidates, paired with the option of selecting “Neither/Other,” meant the Reuters/Ipsos poll probably under reported Trump’s support before the Republican convention, perhaps by 3 to 5 percentage points.

So why the need to switch and correct now?.. Well, as Reuters openly admits, they need to help Hillary Clinton:

[…]  More recently, the “Neither/Other” option appeared to lead to an under reporting of Clinton’s support in the run-up to the Democratic convention, said Cliff Young, pollster and president of Ipsos Public Affairs, which partners with Reuters on the poll. The pollsters estimated the Clinton shortfall at 2 to 4 percentage points.

Tom W. Smith, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Society at the University of Chicago, said the earlier Trump numbers in the Reuters/Ipsos poll could have indicated a softness of support for Trump among a relatively small group of conservative voters who had yet to come to terms with his candidacy.

It is plausible that a similar effect among Democratic voters may be hitting Clinton now when presented with the option of “Neither,” he said. [snip]

Since the convention, however, Trump’s support seems to have solidified among wary supporters. Now, the “Neither” issue appears to be affecting Clinton in the survey.  (read more)

Oh, OK… Gotcha.  The problem was OK before – because it was making Donald Trump’s polled support look bad.   However, now that the issue has the potential to make Hillary Clinton’s polling bad, now,… NOW it needs to be fixed.

Hillary Clinton press we can 2

Hey, look on the bright side; at least Reuters is honest about their dishonesty…. 

Methinks they deserve the Triple Penguin Award !

humor-in-nature8Humor in Naturehumor-in-nature8

This entry was posted in Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, Election 2016, media bias, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

218 Responses to Surprise Fail – Reuters Announces Poll Changes To Help Lift Hillary Clinton…

  1. Rob says:

    The explanation offered by Reuters makes no sense whatsoever. If taken at its word, it’s an admission that their polling methodology is fatally flawed and NOT scientific. Because if it were a truly random poll, as it must be to be scientific, the larger than normal “neither” sentiment would be measured as accurately as any specific candidate sentiment. It’s as if they’re admitting that they wouldn’t be able to poll accurately in a 3-person race.

    And sundance’s question is spot-on: why would their poll “under report” Trump only BEFORE the GOP convention, and then suddenly – without explanation – start “under reporting” Clinton now?

    As the article points out, we know the answers to these questions – and they have nothing to do with polling.

    Liked by 2 people

    • yy4u says:

      Our former designations don’t work this year. This race is between UniParty — Hillary Clinton, Outsider — Donald Trump, Green and Libertarian. The Greens and Libertarians in my estimation will take from the UniParty. Whether they take enough from the UniParty for Trump to win remains to be seen. So far as polling goes, how can Reuters or anyone else poll the monster vote? I heard someone point out yesterday on Fox Business (all I watch these days) that the polls got the Brexit vote wrong because people who had never voted registered and voted. I think this is what will happen in this election, and if it does, this vote will go to Trump. Reuters can’t poll that, especially if you add in the people like me who would lie and tell them I’m undecided because I’m so cynical about the tentacles of the government that I don’t want a pollster to know for whom I’m voting, not with my name and telephone number attached to it. Also how many Gen Xers and Millennials still have landlines? Are they polling cell phones? If so,mine hasn’t rung.


      • Jonah Thomas says:

        “Reuters can’t poll that, especially if you add in the people like me who would lie and tell them I’m undecided because I’m so cynical about the tentacles of the government that I don’t want a pollster to know for whom I’m voting, not with my name and telephone number attached to it.”

        A whole lot of people tell Reuters they’re undecided now, or refuse to answer these questions. I can’t be sure what it means because they refuse to say…. But Reuters at least tells you what fraction of people are doing that.

        “Also how many Gen Xers and Millennials still have landlines? Are they polling cell phones?”

        Most polls now call a fraction of landlines and a fraction of cell phones. Some of them have lists of people who have only landlines, people who have only cell phones, and people who have both, and take fractions from all three groups.

        Still they get far more old people than they ought to, more whites than they ought to, more conservatives than they ought to. So they weigh the votes heavier from groups they don’t get enough of. However, that does not solve the bias problem. Imagine there’s something specific that happens that results in them getting more old white conservatives than they ought to. Very likely young black liberals they get will also tend to be that way, and won’t be representative of other young black liberals.

        But Reuters is different. They contact voters online and get them to fill out polls. This is not as bad as polls where voters volunteer, but it only samples people who go online. It is so much cheaper than other polls that they can update quicker and use better statistics. But it has this bias that keeps it from fitting in with the other polls.


        • yy4u says:


          Excellent post. You obviously know something about polling — which I do not. That said, weren’t the polls wrong in a number of recent elections? Israel, the last Brit election, Brexit, another European poll they totally missed — can’t remember which country now, the recent KY gov election?

          If that’s the case, what is the explanation? I’m curious. In the past, polls were extremely accurate. I seem to remember, however, in 2004, the exit polls had John Kerry winning the election and yet Bush won pretty easily. Were people lying to the pollsters on exit? What did the Brexit exit polls show? Do you know?

          I’m only asking because you apparently know a lot about polls.


          • kpom1 says:

            There were no exit polls for Brexit because the pollsters admitted that they lacked a good methodology for one (usually exit polls are calibrated against previous elections, but the last national referendum in the UK was in the 1970s). However, the last regular poll (released after the polls closed) showed Remain winning 52-48. The actual result was the opposite.


        • Bert Darrell says:

          Reuters, the AP and the alphabet TV stations have sided with the leftists/globalists for so long that, instead of lying to them when they call to poll, I hung up and save my breath. Who believes anything they say or report, anyway?


      • moosebytes says:

        And, as you’d expect…RCP added the “revised”poll” to their RCP average …giving Her Thighness the lead!LOL! They must think that were dumber than the dirt they are!


  2. wodiej says:

    They can’t skew the polls enough to give her a win. Even Bernie supporters are getting behind Trump now. They are MAD! Some even said that Trump’s views aligned w Bernie on some things. obama endorsing her is not a plus especially since he spent most of the time talking about himself. I hear the two Clinton movies are doing quite well.


  3. jjan67 says:

    Seems to me that the polling changes now are intended to hide the massive voter fraud that is coming up.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. Jimtom says:

    Remember the FL poll that had trump down and he cancelled some OH rallies?

    Same old story: We want Crooked Hillary up – now how do we word the question to get our result?

    I have never been called and if they did call me I would lie bcs I see it as a personal issue in how I vote

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Jeffrey Coley says:

    The only poll that matters is the one on election day.

    Polls taken months ahead of the election are basically meaningless, which is why polling organizations can use them for propaganda. The closer we get to the election the more the pollsters care about getting it right: Their credibility depends on it, so they leave off the funny business.

    One thing I caution against is the “polls are wrong” mantra if they show something you don’t like/don’t want to believe in the days leading up to the election. If the pollsters are saying the race is “too close to call” then that’s reason for optimism – they’ll never want to admit Trump is ahead, but at the same time they don’t want to call it for him. If they have Clinton ahead, “Monster Vote” notwithstanding, then that’s bad news. No matter how badly they want to influence the outcome they can’t afford to be completely wrong.

    If the polls have Trump ahead, then it’s reason to celebrate.

    But again, the only poll that matters is the one on election day.


  6. Angry Dumbo says:

    No lift? The more we see of Hillary the less we like her. Why? Her experience her greatest asset? No, it is her greatest weakness. Corruption, nepotism, waste, and inefficiency, she has been in Washington, D.C. since 1992 and she is a change agent? (I guess that is why she is collecting so much from Wall St. investment banks – because she is an agent of change. She is going to hold the banks accountable for bad loans? Sure. Hillary is NOT to big to fail.)

    To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often. Winston Churchill
    Read more at:

    Washington, D.C. has not changed over the years, crooked H has been there for it all. Her experience has been feeding the corruption and selling influence – through the Clinton Foundation.

    President Trump has changed the GOP, forever. Thank you. The phony culture wars are over. President Trump scares the Hell out of Washington, D.C. because he is a real change agent. Trump will change Washington, D.C. forever and that is why he is so dangerous to the status quo.

    If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time – a tremendous whack. Winston Churchill
    Read more at:

    Trump is vulgar? Good!


    • yy4u says:

      “Trump is vulgar?”

      I get this all the time from my anti-Trump friends. What is vulgar about Trump? I hear Hillary has a mouth like a sewer but I never hear that she’s vulgar. Bill has raped at least one woman and groped a couple more according to their testimony, yet I never hear him called “vulgar”. Is it language. Because he uses hell and damn in speeches? What EXACTLY has he said that is vulgar. Has anyone seen examples. I know the media present him as same, but they don’t give examples. I’ve listened and watched a number of his rallies and speeches and I’ve never heard him say anything that I don’t say regularly (and I’m a 77 year old southern lady). Or is it like the media always asking Ivanka about her father’s treatment of women but never asking Chelsea the same thing?


  7. jameswlee2014 says:

    As for Hillary not getting the big bounce after the convention. that’s down to the old marketing adage:

    “Nothing kills a bad product faster than good advertising.”

    Liked by 2 people

  8. AghastInFL says:

    I’m just going to post this comment from BB here, it is from screen name ‘Dave” and I asked for attribution but thus far he has failed to respond, it might be true, it might be fanciful, it could just be my personal CD that finds it so believable, you decide:
    “I didn’t understand a damn thing you idiots wrote. But a poll taken recently in the US by a private group polled 1186 voters broke into thirds. One Third GOP, One third Dem and one third Independent. However the one third democrat actually had 23 more people than the other two groups.
    The results were as follows:
    68% Trump
    21% Clinton
    11% undecided
    GOP skewed 96% for Trump with 4% Undecided
    Democrats – 14% Trump, 65% Clinton and 18% Undecided
    Sanders voters (If Bernie lost) 34% Trump, 46% Won’t vote, 20% Undecided
    That was group of business people that decided to conduct their own poll, which took place before conventions.”


  9. Pam says:


  10. dammadf says:

    “In the nearly five years Reuters/Ipsos has been offering the “Neither/Other” option to respondents in presidential polling, it has never yielded such a skew.” Ahh, and it doesn’t now no matter how much spin you try to put on it. Liberals are liars always have been and always will be because they deny reality as can be seen here.

    In court, this would be admitting to sufficient facts.


  11. n3angus says:

    Brazil has more anti-government corruption ethics than our FBI! Good thing for Hillary she is not Brazilian!


  12. Howie says:

    DDD Report: Before the rigged adjustment Trump was ahead by 4. After the rigging Clinton by 6. A total of 10. This is evidence the DDD Add Ten to Trump is valid. Always add ten to the polls for Trump. This will get close to reality.


    • yy4u says:

      I don’t know how I feel about polls. Everyone else seems to take them as gospel, but my gut tells me that the more they underestimate Trump, the better it is for Trump. The media are outing themselves but they’d rather keep up the illusion that they are “fair and balanced” so I think they’ll do only what they have to do in order to defeat them. If they believe the polls are in Hillary’s favor, they might back off; if they think Trump might win, they’ll double down. Anyone else feel that way. After Scarborough’s rant, I was dishearted for a little while, but then the cold anger kicked in and I reminded myself that were it not Trump running and Jeb instead, we really wouldn’t have any choice at all; it would be Clinton-Bush machine or Bush-Clinton machine. We the People and small business get screwed either way. Winners and losers would have been chosen out of the crony capitalist corral.


      • Sherlock says:

        If Bush was running, he would be down 20 points at least at this point. He would have been probably the worst of the lot to run. He got 3 whole delegates for a reason. To paraphrase B.B. King, “Nobody loves Jeb but his momma, and she could be jivin’ too.”


  13. JenMG says:

    Here you go!!

    Dems are up 6 points thanks to that “new wording” (quoted from the article!)!!!!

    Reminds of of what I teach my children: just because you hear it in the media (gay marriage/transgender good, abortion good, monogamy and self-sufficiency bad, etc.) does NOT make it true. I hope more people will be thinking for themselves this election season.


  14. Rodney Plonker says:

    I think this will backfire on Democrats. If their voters think Hillary is going to clearly win, then they’ll not bother turning out on the day.


  15. smartaleck says:

    I’m pretty sure Mr. Neither is not running this year.


  16. intense48 says:

    Thank God for Sundance’s analysis. I would have been bonkers over this if I had not been warned of polling contortions.


  17. Pam says:


  18. eric says:

    I’m still amazed at just how much crookedness is being exposed by Trump’s run for President…they would NEVER do this so publicly if they weren’t so outraged that the American people aren’t doing what they think we’re supposed to….AND scared to death of losing their influence…I LOVE IT!!!!!


  19. kittycat77 says:

    Too bad there’s not a way we can trick them on their stupid polls. Don’t know how to go about it, though. Have to put some thought into it.


  20. Steve O says:

    Maybe they’re doing it to help them cheat, but it is an important aspect to capture. The election could be decided on how the group ultimately splits.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s