Shock Potential Enormous

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

 

 

Pat Caddell, who first came to prominence as Jimmy Carter’s pollster, looks at current polls and finds that something does not add up:

 

“All of the tracking polls keep holding at Trump being ahead,” he continued. “And then all of these other polls that are one-off polls, or whatever … I don’t know how they’re doing some of these university polls. You just put the name of some university and apparently it becomes credible, whether they know what they’re doing, or not.

Caddell was pointing out the discrepancy between the different types of polls. “But in any event, polling is all over the place…. Something isn’t adding up,” said Caddell.
“Something is going to happen here, I just sense it,” he concluded. Either “Hillary will glide into the White House, or we’re headed for one of the greatest shocks in American politics. I think it’s a very close call. I think the shock potential is enormous.”
Go here to read the rest.  Today IDB/TIPP showed Trump two points ahead.  ABC/Washington Post showed Clinton twelve points ahead.  I cannot recall disparity of that magnitude in polls this late in the race for President.

More to explorer

Eating Their Own

  News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   WASHINGTON, D.C.—Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is busy celebrating her victory over the

13 Comments

  1. Mr. Caddell’s conjectures are interesting. Something else I think is interesting is Mr. Trump’s ability to bubble back up in the polls a week or two after some event pounds his numbers down. Still, I don’t see any evidence of a groundswell of Trump support.
     
    Has anybody here been visited by a pair of cheerful, eager Trump fans going door-to-door in their neighborhood pitching their candidate? I haven’t. I haven’t heard from anybody who has, either. A million man-woman pairs of Trump fans walking their neighborhoods for their candidate would neutralize a lot of attacks and smears on Trump. Where are they?

  2. Drudge has a link to zero hedge which has Podesta emails talking about how they told polling companies to significantly oversample D’s to create these polls. In one example, 9 percent more D’s than R’s, and from ethnicities or taxes highly favored to vote HRC. Podesta explains the point is to demoralize and act as if it’s a done deal.

  3. I think some of these polls that oversample (D) voters are also being used
    to make the results of planned voter fraud more plausible. If I were planning
    to steal an election, it would be handy to have several polls out in advance,
    each showing me with the sort of lead I would have after my fraud.

  4. Just curious- what caused the “Dewey Wins” polling errors?

    Polling was labor-intensive door to door work and not many were taken. I’m not sure there were many pollsters other than Gallup in 1948. The last polls taken were in late September 1948. Public opinion was protean enough at that time that a shift in the viewpoint of 9% of the electorate in 5 weeks was quite unremarkable. As late as 1980, a gap that large opened up between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter in a matter of days. IIRC, Carter’s pollsters informed him of this as it was happening, but it was not known to the public relying on Gallup, Harris, Roper, &c.

    One other thing: more than any other President since, the regard the general public had for Truman was variable, and, while it was on a downward trajectory in general during his administration, there was a great deal of flux. You haven’t seen that with his successors nearly as much.

    It is verrry interesting that Pat Caddell cannot figure out what’s the matter with these polls. Some of it is due to technology – the loss of universality with the landline network. Some of it may be due to a decline in industry standards as an antheap of polls conducted. As recently as 1980, you had about four pollsters whose work was published (Gallup, Harris, Roper, Yankelovich). News organizations were getting into the game, something considered a dubious enterprise at the time as news organizations were with these polls generating news rather than reporting it. Btw, Caddell cut his teeth working for George McGovern and later worked for Gary Hart. He was employed by one of Bill Clinton’s opponents in1992, but I forget which one (Bob Kerrey? Paul Tsongas?).

  5. I think some of these polls that oversample (D) voters are also being used
    to make the results of planned voter fraud more plausible. If I were planning
    to steal an election, it would be handy to have several polls out in advance,
    each showing me with the sort of lead I would have after my fraud.


    The total absence of interest rank-and-file Democrats manifest in frankly criminal behavior is dismaying. The ones you encounter in fora like this just say things like ‘right wing noise machine’ and impugn James O’Keefe’s character. The very few prominent Democrats with some intellectual independence are either erratic in this regard (Michael Kinsley, who is half truth-teller and half apparatchik) or are vocational mavericks (Camille Paglia).

    That having been said, I doubt the Clinton people have managed to suborn the folks at Quinnipiac.

  6. Check this out from ‘The Deus Ex Machina Blog’https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/rise-of-the-agitprop-media-and-fraudulent-polls-part-ii/

    “In yesterday’s post we began to explain how FRAUDULANT POLLS are disseminated and propagated. We observed that these polls that are being produced, have no grounding whatsoever in OBJECTIVE REALITY. We also OBSERVED that there is a “network” of pseudo-journalists who are COLLUDING with the Establishment/DemocraticParty/SickHillaryCampaign to create a VIRTUAL REALITY that does not exist in nature in general and in the US electorate in particular.” con’t.

  7. Anzlyne asked, “Just curious- what caused the “Dewey Wins” polling errors?”

    The method of quota sampling used, designed to sample a representative cross-section of the nation is necessarily prone to error, for one can never be sure that every significant variable has been included in defining the quotas.

    Also, it was the first time telephone polling had been used, but, in 1948, those with telephones were not necessarily a representative sample of the population as a whole, even if they otherwise fitted the quota sampling criteria.

    Art Deco is also right to point to the interval between the conductng of the polls and the election.

  8. People with 401’s, IRA’s etc. in the stock market might consider moving to cash within those programs if they can just prior to the election if they think Trump might win because Wall St. will sell on that news and whether that decline recovers quick is very iffy. Trump is unpredictable in general and Wall St. doesn’t like unpredictability nor does it like his non globalist side.

  9. Still, wouldn’t it be just rich, incredibly rich, like the richest Sumatran coffee you ever ingested, to enjoy the faces of the likes of Anderson Cooper, or Katie Couric, or Martha Raddatz, and all the mefia-zoo, on the “day-after” a Trump victory.

    Just imagine those sad, confused, troubled, no-longer-so-smug faces. 🙂 🙂 🙂

  10. Also, it was the first time telephone polling had been used, but, in 1948, those with telephones were not necessarily a representative sample of the population as a whole, even if they otherwise fitted the quota sampling criteria.

    I do not think they used telephones. Telephone service was quite prevalent (but perhaps not universal) in 1948. It was, however, fairly cumbersome. Most people were on party lines, and phone calls to locations outside cities and adjacent tract development were commonly operator-assisted. Long distance calls were contextually quite expensive as well, so people still preferred telegrams for rapid communication.

Comments are closed.