October 10, 2016

Dishonest Hits on Trump Followed by Spectacularly Dishonest Poll (UPDATE: Conducted by a Group Under Contract With a Clinton Super PAC!)

An obviously rushed NBC/Wall Street Journal poll done over just two days on a weekend (which is automatically non-representative) to deliberately exclude reactions to last night’s debate and only reflect the late Friday hits on Donald Trump shows Hillary Clinton with a 14-point lead.

The biggest problem among many major ones, including the ridiculously small sample size of 500, which in and of itself should cause it to be laughed out of serious discussion, is this — Those polled supported Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by 13 points four years ago:


So after the Friday hits, Trump is only slightly behind where Mitt Romney, who pulled 3 percent less of the popular vote than Obama did, ended up four years ago.

Additionally, how many people beyond the normal 90 percent who don’t participate in or finish these polls said “bleep you” when NBC/WSJ asked them to participate — and who do you think those people are backing?


UPDATE: The following demonstrated conflicted dealings by the organization which did the legwork in conducting the poll utterly destroys any reason to believe it

Mr. Geoff Garin, the President of Hart Research and Associates, is currently working as “a strategic adviser for Priorities USA in support of Hillary Clinton’s election.”  Gee, I wonder why the media never tells us that part?

… $220,500.00 in the month of September alone paid by Hillary Clinton’s Priorities USA Super-PAC to Hart Research Associates.

The President of Hart Research Associates, Geoff Garin, is (per his Hart bio) working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

The characterization that Garin is working for “Hillary Clinton’s campaign” would be technically false — if the Clinton campaign were following the law:

Another startling discovery from the “Podesta Emails” seems to indicate that the Clinton campaign openly coordinated with the “Correct The Record” Super PAC run by David Brock…which we believe is technically a felony.

Oh, that’s nonsense. Everyone knows that laws only apply to the left’s political opponents and little people (that’s sarcasm, folks).

Now to be clear, the Priorities USA super PAC is different from “Correct the Record.” But the obvious openness to ignoring laws against coordination is there, and there’s little reason to believe that such coordination isn’t pervasive across the entire operation.

The only thing mildly surprising about this is that Hart’s Garin included his super PAC involvement in his bio — but apparently these people think they’re so untouchable that it doesn’t matter.



  1. Yes, and Public Opinion Strategies is a largely Republican polling company that probably works for the RNC or a Super PAC aligned with them.


    It’s an outlier poll and only has meaning if combined with all the other polls coming out this week. Rasmussen had a sharp shift towards Clinton, so did UPI. Others have barely moved. It looks like the whole tape thing has cost Trump maybe 1-2 or 3 percentage points.

    Comment by Anonymous — October 11, 2016 @ 11:22 am

  2. You’re going to have to do better than “probably” on your claim — and what media polls is POS doing the legwork for? (There may be some, but the point of the post is that Hart whose director clearly is down with the agenda of one side and in a very public way, is polling for NBC-WSJ and pretending it has no skin in the game.

    From what I can tell, the POS client list has some corporate and trade association PACs and plenty of direct work for candidates, but no listing of candidate-tied or vaguely named super PACs.

    The poll’s only purpose was to feed a “Trummp is finished” narrative.

    Comment by Tom — October 11, 2016 @ 3:13 pm

  3. “…what media polls is POS doing the legwork for?”

    You’ve clearly not paid attention: POS did part of the legwork for the poll you are so outraged about.

    Comment by Anonymous — October 11, 2016 @ 4:04 pm

  4. Ok, I’m sorry I missed that because the post I referenced concentrated on Hart.

    Having acknowledged that it’s a joint Hart/POS effort, then we have a clearly conflicted outfit working in tandem with one that hasn’t been shown to be. That not particularly comforting.

    If Hart’s people are the ones that did the calling and compiling, POS’s name on the poll wouldn’t be relevant. Of course you could make the reverse argument, but the Dem-Obama voter skewing would appear to have Hart’s fingerprints all over it.

    Comment by Tom — October 11, 2016 @ 5:15 pm

  5. “the post I referenced concentrated on Hart.”

    Yes, because investigating the partner pollster and their clear ties to the Republican party would have undermined the argument by theconservativetreehouse.com

    Comment by Anonymous — October 11, 2016 @ 5:31 pm

  6. That’s a potentially fair criticism of CTH (maybe they didn’t find bad info about POS and chose not to say “we didn’t find bad info about POS,” or maybe they didn’t look; you can ask them if the question burns so brightly with you).

    But we still don’t have a demonstrated candidate super PAC conflict of interest with POS. Hart clearly does, and at the very least should have disclosed it; you must surely agree with that. If POS has a conflict, which it appears not to, it should have disclosed it too.

    The whole idea of using either firm if it has such an obvious conflict of interest is a real breach of duty on the part of NBC and WSJ, who deserve egg on their faces for this.

    Comment by Tom — October 11, 2016 @ 5:44 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.