afcjets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

So it proves out exactly.
One flipping poll out of multiple. And one that turned around. Probably had bias in the questions. It didn't exist in a vacuum, Congress and the Tea Party hit rock bottom at the same time and yes it was released on CNN when done by them in October.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -cnn-poll/

Most other polls including the ones I listed below only had it at 40-42% during this anomoly of a poll. However since you are a one site person, I am sure one poll is all you care about.

No, it wasn't reported by CNN. The link you provide mentions another poll where Obama had a 37% approval rating, this time by CBS on 11/20/13, which was more than a month after the government shutdown, so it is clearly not an anomaly (other than it was his low). Also, this was buried on a blog on their website, I doubt Wolf Blitzer reported it every 10 minutes like he did for Bush, and I would be surprised if it was mentioned even one time by any CNN anchor.

So you are whining about ONE poll because Fox news told you to whine about it? It was reported on a website in a blog, and probably mentioned on a show. Was it not scrolled across your screen in blinking highlights? Do you not know about google search? You are missing the forest for the weed that is Fox news.

casinterest wrote:

So you are whining about ONE poll because Fox news told you to whine about it? It was reported on a website in a blog, and probably mentioned on a show. Was it not scrolled across your screen in blinking highlights? Do you not know about google search? You are missing the forest for the weed that is Fox news.

You are the one who keeps whining and making excuses about polls where Obama got 37% approval ratings. Like the TA, I am almost sorry I posted. If I had known it was going to upset and confuse you that much, I probably wouldn't have.

afcjets wrote:

casinterest wrote:

So you are whining about ONE poll because Fox news told you to whine about it? It was reported on a website in a blog, and probably mentioned on a show. Was it not scrolled across your screen in blinking highlights? Do you not know about google search? You are missing the forest for the weed that is Fox news.

You are the one who keeps whining and making excuses about polls where Obama got 37% approval ratings. Like the TA, I am almost sorry I posted. If I had known it was going to upset and confuse you that much, I probably wouldn't have.

It only confuses me, because like the TA you are so upset about ONE statistic. You are not upset about the fact that Fox news and it's deceptive staff coddle the toddler baby we currently have as President that has averaged below Obama's one blip in terms of Presidential Approval. Fox news lies and throws out racist bait about Obama, or lies and throws out sexist comments about Clinton. Fox worries about a decision Clinton was never a part of, but ignores the President's lies about his "Best Staff" and his continuing need to fire them to be replaced by the new "Best Staff" all while ignoring Putin who did interfere in the elections and ignoring the fact that he keeps lying about multiple items including personal.

Be my guest to die on the hill of a 37% approval being missed by the Mainstream media amidst a shutdown caused by congress. But in doing so, you are just a part of the web of lies and deception being laid by Fox News and the current administration.

Please, neither CNN nor Fox nor MSNBC are trustworthy news sources.

The BBC and Al Jazeera are far more trustworthy than any of these. The New York Times is today about 40% journalism and 60% mind-clouds / imagination also. My problem is I have some actual experience writing articles for a small market newspaper. Unfortunately, that experience taught me the grammatical requirements of journalism, versus analysis, versus imagination. And then there is clickbait.

So, with just this minimal amount of experience, it's already hard for me to enjoy this "stuff" on TV or printed in the form of articles nowadays. Most of it is bunkum that various editors are trying to pump you all full of. And it's working. One theory I have is the unprecedented data analysis happening in the media is allowing them to formulate extra-potent bunkum nonsense articles and "news programming" that people find irresistible.

stratosphere wrote:

salttee wrote:

I disagree with the accusation that CNN is biased either right or left. CNN is the same as it always was, a shallow news service purely after ratings. FOX News has become the mouthpiece for the Trump administration however and this is only fitting because FOX is the midwife for the Trump presidency.

Talk about delusional. You do not think CNN is biased is because you share those same biases as does MSNBC. FOX does present a side more receptive to Trump but they slam him from time to time as well but you guys ALWAYS slam him and CNN will very rarely show any news coverage that doesn't fit their narrative. Now to be fair CNN didn't used to be that way. At one time I looked to CNN as kind of the neutral place to go for news when MSNBC and FOX were doing their usual thing. But CNN has devolved into a total left wing news organization.

What is this "You guys" nonsense? Where does it say this poster works for CNN ? Also CNN has apologized for intentionally glorifying Trump during the elections because more people watched it, so yes, they are just chasing the ratings. But now the tide in America has turned against trump so CNN is too. Also, stop making excuses for Fox, they are literally reporting solely to promote Trump. Watch this video and come back --https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPolitics/videos/1964232273608253/
Im conservative BTW

CCGPV wrote:

I get what you're saying but 30% of what is said on CNN is also false according to that site. Not a good thing.

The difference being that Fox would need to fire hosts to improve, CNN would need to uninvite guests to improve.

Michele Bachmann telling pants of fire lies on CNN is something different than Hanity doing so on Fox.

CNN had a pundit during the election that was forbidden to say anything bad about Trump via his contract with Trump and they let him on the air all the freaking time.

CNN is about as far right as a station can be without making lies their main product.

Heck... Ari Melber on MSBC often gives credit where credit is due even to the biggest nut, I.e. Chris Christie on his great stand on Americans being American regardless of religion. Imagine that on Fox.

CNN international, what we Europeans and the rest of the world get to see, is somewhat liberal, but US CNN is about as far right of CNN int. as Paul Ryan is from Bernie Sanders.

I would not be surprised if Fox News is as much build on Russian Mob money as Facebook, I.e. financed at the behest of Putin, and in.that sense is like Pravda.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I get what you're saying but 30% of what is said on CNN is also false according to that site. Not a good thing.

The difference being that Fox would need to fire hosts to improve, CNN would need to uninvite guests to improve.

Michele Bachmann telling pants of fire lies on CNN is something different than Hanity doing so on Fox.

CNN had a pundit during the election that was forbidden to say anything bad about Trump via his contract with Trump and they let him on the air all the freaking time.

CNN is about as far right as a station can be without making lies their main product.

Heck... Ari Melber on MSBC often gives credit where credit is due even to the biggest nut, I.e. Chris Christie on his great stand on Americans being American regardless of religion. Imagine that on Fox.

CNN international, what we Europeans and the rest of the world get to see, is somewhat liberal, but US CNN is about as far right of CNN int. as Paul Ryan is from Bernie Sanders.

I would not be surprised if Fox News is as much build on Russian Mob money as Facebook, I.e. financed at the behest of Putin, and in.that sense is like Pravda.

Best regards
Thomas

All good points. Politics in general is more to the right in the USA than elsewhere. Deep down we are still a nation of puritans.

Also, I don't think they are involved in anything Russia. They've just found a demographic that watches a heck of a lot of TV (old conservative people) and have pushed the envelope of "cable news" as far as they can. They're just better at exploiting the ignorance of their viewers than the others are.

And it's not just Fox, the Sinclair Broadcasting group is in lockstep with Fox in being Trump's mouthpiece; Sinclair is owned by the family of the founder Julian Sinclair Smith. Though Sinclair became public the Smith family still retains a majority financial interest, and all four sons of Julian Smith serve as executives or directors – with David D. Smith currently heading the company as Executive Chairman.

Sinclair has faced scrutiny from media critics, as well as some of its station employees, for the conservative slant of their stations' local news reporting and other programming decisions, and how the company's rapid growth has aided its dissemination of content that appeal to these views. Sinclair has also faced criticism over business practices that circumvent concentration of media ownership rules, particularly the use of local marketing agreements and similar arrangements to take over stations on behalf of preferred third-parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group

This link will bring you a must watch video compilation of over thirty (local) TV news stations across the country broadcasting identical propaganda that originated from the mouth of Donald Trump.
http://ktla.com/2018/04/01/sinclair-bro ... oes-viral/

The KTLA site tells the story.

I am appalled, I think you will be too.

salttee wrote:

And it's not just Fox, the Sinclair Broadcasting group is in lockstep with Fox in being Trump's mouthpiece; Sinclair is owned by the family of the founder Julian Sinclair Smith. Though Sinclair became public the Smith family still retains a majority financial interest, and all four sons of Julian Smith serve as executives or directors – with David D. Smith currently heading the company as Executive Chairman.

Sinclair has faced scrutiny from media critics, as well as some of its station employees, for the conservative slant of their stations' local news reporting and other programming decisions, and how the company's rapid growth has aided its dissemination of content that appeal to these views. Sinclair has also faced criticism over business practices that circumvent concentration of media ownership rules, particularly the use of local marketing agreements and similar arrangements to take over stations on behalf of preferred third-parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group

This link will bring you a must watch video compilation of over thirty (local) TV news stations across the country broadcasting identical propaganda that originated from the mouth of Donald Trump.
http://ktla.com/2018/04/01/sinclair-bro ... oes-viral/

The KTLA site tells the story.

I am appalled, I think you will be too.

It's interesting seeing this seems to be the only mention I can see on a.net of that (Don't really want to look through all the April Fools crap if someone else posted it)

Reading this thread, and the one on Laura Ingraham really makes this all the more relevant. Luckily it's going beyond viral on reddit and other sites, so it is being seen. It's not a left or right issue. It's an issue for all Americans (Sinclair owns 23 ABC stations, 43 FOX, and 22 NBC, so both "blue" and "red")

Meanwhile the Orange Man says Sinclair news is better than the fake news on CNN and NBC(Of course Sinclair chair David Smith is a Trump friend)

So funny to watch Fake News Networks, among the most dishonest groups of people I have ever dealt with, criticize Sinclair Broadcasting for being biased. Sinclair is far superior to CNN and even more Fake NBC, which is a total joke.”

The irony in the statement they had all the local anchors parrot would be hilarious if it weren't so sad

“Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control ‘exactly what people think’ … This is extremely dangerous to a democracy.”

..Yes, beceause you pushing your agenda over 173 stations (233 if all proposed sales go through) isn't dangerous to democracy at all...

FYI, with everything going on, Foxnews.com currently (as of 12:39 EDT) has a front-page main headline about Trump's new fleet of limousines.

Wow.

And to be clear, I'm not saying you can't have some whimsical or light news on a website, but this is the main banner at the top of page. This is what they want to lead with right now. New Limos.

Their current headline (leaker and Liar) at the Trump Pacifier Network (AKA Fox News) is an attack on Comey and the use of "Slime ball". Nothing like the lowest of low news reporting for the trumpsters..

The cowardly folks at Fox news have bowed to their over payed liar Hannity. There is no integrity at that corrupt network.

tommy1808 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I get what you're saying but 30% of what is said on CNN is also false according to that site. Not a good thing.

The difference being that Fox would need to fire hosts to improve, CNN would need to uninvite guests to improve.

Michele Bachmann telling pants of fire lies on CNN is something different than Hanity doing so on Fox.

CNN had a pundit during the election that was forbidden to say anything bad about Trump via his contract with Trump and they let him on the air all the freaking time.

CNN is about as far right as a station can be without making lies their main product.

Heck... Ari Melber on MSBC often gives credit where credit is due even to the biggest nut, I.e. Chris Christie on his great stand on Americans being American regardless of religion. Imagine that on Fox.

CNN international, what we Europeans and the rest of the world get to see, is somewhat liberal, but US CNN is about as far right of CNN int. as Paul Ryan is from Bernie Sanders.

I would not be surprised if Fox News is as much build on Russian Mob money as Facebook, I.e. financed at the behest of Putin, and in.that sense is like Pravda.

Best regards
Thomas

CNN far right? What are you smoking? Everyday when I watch CNN they consistently roast Trump. At 6pm I usually flip between Erin Burnett on CNN and Martha McCallum on FOX to see what is being reported. Top story yesterday on FOX with Martha they were in depth about the Southwest Airlines incident for quite some time. What was Erin Burnett reporting on? Trumps lawyer Michael Cohen for damn near the whole show. CNN didn't even mention the SW incident until near the end of her show. At one time CNN used to be the go to channel for a somewhat balanced middle of the road broadcast. No more they for sure hold liberal bias as does MCNBC. Like FOX or not there has to be another viewpoint then is offered by the top news outlets today.

stratosphere wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I get what you're saying but 30% of what is said on CNN is also false according to that site. Not a good thing.

The difference being that Fox would need to fire hosts to improve, CNN would need to uninvite guests to improve.

Michele Bachmann telling pants of fire lies on CNN is something different than Hanity doing so on Fox.

CNN had a pundit during the election that was forbidden to say anything bad about Trump via his contract with Trump and they let him on the air all the freaking time.

CNN is about as far right as a station can be without making lies their main product.

Heck... Ari Melber on MSBC often gives credit where credit is due even to the biggest nut, I.e. Chris Christie on his great stand on Americans being American regardless of religion. Imagine that on Fox.

CNN international, what we Europeans and the rest of the world get to see, is somewhat liberal, but US CNN is about as far right of CNN int. as Paul Ryan is from Bernie Sanders.

I would not be surprised if Fox News is as much build on Russian Mob money as Facebook, I.e. financed at the behest of Putin, and in.that sense is like Pravda.

Best regards
Thomas

CNN far right? What are you smoking? Everyday when I watch CNN they consistently roast Trump. At 6pm I usually flip between Erin Burnett on CNN and Martha McCallum on FOX to see what is being reported. Top story yesterday on FOX with Martha they were in depth about the Southwest Airlines incident for quite some time. What was Erin Burnett reporting on? Trumps lawyer Michael Cohen for damn near the whole show. CNN didn't even mention the SW incident until near the end of her show. At one time CNN used to be the go to channel for a somewhat balanced middle of the road broadcast. No more they for sure hold liberal bias as does MCNBC. Like FOX or not there has to be another viewpoint then is offered by the top news outlets today.

Go back and read your post, Stratosphere. First of all, these are not reporters, but opinion tellers. But, beyond that, CNN reporting what the elected government is doing vs. one person dying in a terrible accident. Which is more important? Apparently one person dying.

If this has been said, I apologize, the difference I see between Fox New and Pravda is that Fox broadcasts in English and Pravda in Russian. Other than that, both are propaganda mouthpieces for two different men, one an accomplished Dictator and one a wannabe Dictator. One who has won a sham Democratic election where he is the Dictator and the other one has trouble one year later of accepting the results of an election where he won without winning the support of a majority of the voters. He is President and yet cannot stand the thought that more people disliked him than liked him. Hopefully the dislike voters are increasing so I can watch him realize his bullshit did not work a second time.

WarRI1 wrote:

He is President and yet cannot stand the thought that more people disliked him than liked him. Hopefully the dislike voters are increasing so I can watch him realize his bullshit did not work a second time.

It's working. Despite almost 100% negative press coverage in the mainstream media, slightly more likely voters approve than disapprove of the job he is doing. The same cannot be said for Obama, where despite almost 100% positive press coverage during his entire first term, 5% more disapproved than approved at this same point in his presidency. Trump's approval rating even went up earlier this week even after Cohen became the top news story.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... rack_apr18


Twitter:
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

"Rasmussen just came out at 51% Approval despite the Fake News Media. They were one of the three most accurate on Election Day. Just about the most inaccurate were CNN and ABC News/Washington Post, and they haven’t changed (get new pollsters). Much of the media is a Scam!"

Apr. 17, 2018, 1:59 p.m.

afcjets wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

He is President and yet cannot stand the thought that more people disliked him than liked him. Hopefully the dislike voters are increasing so I can watch him realize his bullshit did not work a second time.

It's working. Despite almost 100% negative press coverage in the mainstream media, slightly more likely voters approve than disapprove of the job he is doing. The same cannot be said for Obama, where despite almost 100% press coverage during his entire first term, 5% more disapproved than approved at this same point in his presidency. Trump's approval rating even went up earlier this week even after Cohen became the top news story.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... rack_apr18
Twitter:
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
"Rasmussen just came out at 51% Approval despite the Fake News Media. They were one of the three most accurate on Election Day. Just about the most inaccurate were CNN and ABC News/Washington Post, and they haven’t changed (get new pollsters). Much of the media is a Scam!"
Apr. 17, 2018, 1:59 p.m.

Silly boy. Rasmussen is a joke among professionals. And only once - in one poll - has Trump "reached" the magic 50% mark... he has rated well below Obama (and most any other US President, since polling began) consistently. The most accurate "poll" is election results; perhaps you haven't been watching the results of recent elections, where Trump has made himself an issue... and lost in previously deep, deep red states and districts.

Perhaps the title of this topic should be, "What's the difference between Fox News and Pravda and Rasmussen polls?", because they all serve as propaganda mouthpieces for the far right powers-that-be.

WarRI1 wrote:

If this has been said, I apologize, the difference I see between Fox New and Pravda is that Fox broadcasts in English and Pravda in Russian. Other than that, both are propaganda mouthpieces for two different men, one an accomplished Dictator and one a wannabe Dictator. One who has won a sham Democratic election where he is the Dictator and the other one has trouble one year later of accepting the results of an election where he won without winning the support of a majority of the voters. He is President and yet cannot stand the thought that more people disliked him than liked him. Hopefully the dislike voters are increasing so I can watch him realize his bullshit did not work a second time.

That... is the best answer to date!

alfa164 wrote:

Rasmussen is a joke among professionals.

"Now that Gallup has quit the field, Rasmussen Reports is the only nationally recognized public opinion firm that still tracks President Trump's job approval ratings on a daily basis."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... rack_apr18

alfa164 wrote:

And only once - in one poll - has Trump "reached" the magic 50% mark.

Try 60 times. In this daily tracking poll Trump reached or surpassed the 50% mark for the first 48 days of his presidency plus 12 more days, including 8 so far in 2018.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ex_history

alfa164 wrote:

The most accurate "poll" is election results; perhaps you haven't been watching the results of recent elections, where Trump has made himself an issue... and lost in previously deep, deep red states and districts.

As for presidential elections, which is what I was responding to, Rasmussen has been the most accurate poll in three of the last four elections, which is only how long they have been around.

"The same critics who called Rasmussen Reports “outliers” during the 2016 presidential campaign for showing a neck-and-neck race are at it again because our daily Presidential Tracking Poll has Trump performing better than many other pollsters do. But Trump defeated Clinton in 2016 in perhaps the greatest electoral upset in U.S. history, and our polling nailed the exact margin between the two candidates."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... rack_apr18

afcjets wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

Rasmussen is a joke among professionals.

"Now that Gallup has quit the field, Rasmussen Reports is the only nationally recognized public opinion firm that still tracks President Trump's job approval ratings on a daily basis."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... rack_apr18

alfa164 wrote:

And only once - in one poll - has Trump "reached" the magic 50% mark.

Try 60 times. In this daily tracking poll Trump reached or surpassed the 50% mark for the first 48 days of his presidency plus 12 more days, including 8 so far in 2018.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ex_history

alfa164 wrote:

The most accurate "poll" is election results; perhaps you haven't been watching the results of recent elections, where Trump has made himself an issue... and lost in previously deep, deep red states and districts.

As for presidential elections, which is what I was responding to, Rasmussen has been the most accurate poll in three of the last four elections, which is only how long they have been around.
"The same critics who called Rasmussen Reports “outliers” during the 2016 presidential campaign for showing a neck-and-neck race are at it again because our daily Presidential Tracking Poll has Trump performing better than many other pollsters do. But Trump defeated Clinton in 2016 in perhaps the greatest electoral upset in U.S. history, and our polling nailed the exact margin between the two candidates."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... rack_apr18

Quoting a blurb from Rasmussen Polls - wherein Rasmussen Polls claims it is the most accurate - is akin to believing Donald Trump will build a great wall - and Mexico will pay for it. But keep drinking the Kool-Aid!

In the meantime, more discerning readers might refer to this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ks-pollin/

They both sell bull, the main difference us that noone takes Pravda seriously, but somehow Fox is taken seriously by a uncomfortably large chunk of their target audience.

alfa164 wrote:

Quoting a blurb from Rasmussen Polls - wherein Rasmussen Polls claims it is the most accurate - is akin to believing Donald Trump will build a great wall - and Mexico will pay for it. But keep drinking the Kool-Aid!

In the meantime, more discerning readers might refer to this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ks-pollin/

Your own link confirms exactly what it says:

"Finally, what to make of Trump’s implication that Rasmussen should be more trusted because it was more accurate than other pollsters about the 2016 election?

The strongest evidence comes from looking at the final pre-election national polls.

According to the rundown in RealClearPolitics, Rasmussen was the only pollster to get the popular vote result -- a two-point Hillary Clinton win -- correct in its final pre-election poll."

afcjets wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

Quoting a blurb from Rasmussen Polls - wherein Rasmussen Polls claims it is the most accurate - is akin to believing Donald Trump will build a great wall - and Mexico will pay for it. But keep drinking the Kool-Aid!
In the meantime, more discerning readers might refer to this:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ks-pollin/

Your own link confirms exactly what it says:
"Finally, what to make of Trump’s implication that Rasmussen should be more trusted because it was more accurate than other pollsters about the 2016 election?
The strongest evidence comes from looking at the final pre-election national polls.
According to the rundown in RealClearPolitics, Rasmussen was the only pollster to get the popular vote result -- a two-point Hillary Clinton win -- correct in its final pre-election poll."

Typical: you, like Rasmussen, just pick and choose one small part of the entire report. Why don't you quote this conclusion:

"First, the polls that had Clinton winning by two or three points were all very close to the mark once margins of error are taken into account. And second, Rasmussen was lucky to have its two-point margin come during the final pre-election poll. During the last week before the election, its daily results were scattered -- Clinton by three, tie, tie, Trump by three, tie, and Clinton by two.

Overall, FiveThirtyEight’s comprehensive pollster ratings gives Rasmussen the mediocre grade of C-plus, and it found a two-point Republican bias in its polls. (This rating did not encompass the entire 2016 campaign, but it did go back earlier; it factored in 657 polls by Rasmussen.)"

Yeah... I didn't think you would... just keep drinking the KoolAid...

alfa164 wrote:

Typical: you, like Rasmussen, just pick and choose one small part of the entire report. Why don't you quote this conclusion:

"First, the polls that had Clinton winning by two or three points were all very close to the mark once margins of error are taken into account. And second, Rasmussen was lucky to have its two-point margin come during the final pre-election poll. During the last week before the election, its daily results were scattered -- Clinton by three, tie, tie, Trump by three, tie, and Clinton by two.

Overall, FiveThirtyEight’s comprehensive pollster ratings gives Rasmussen the mediocre grade of C-plus, and it found a two-point Republican bias in its polls. (This rating did not encompass the entire 2016 campaign, but it did go back earlier; it factored in 657 polls by Rasmussen.)"

Yeah... I didn't think you would... just keep drinking the KoolAid...

Because it is absurd to imply that 2 out of 10 other polls mentioned in the article are just as accurate (which would also have to mean 8 out of 10 weren't) when you factor in their margin of error, and in a close election with many undecided voters and a volatile news cycle, of course the last week's results were scattered. It is not just by mere chance the last past pre-election poll was the most accurate.

But please, keep on believing this poll has no credibility, especially if Hillary forces herself on you a third time because she deserves it since after all she won the popular vote, was cheated on by the Russians, and America needs a female president.

afcjets wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

Typical: you, like Rasmussen, just pick and choose one small part of the entire report. Why don't you quote this conclusion:
"First, the polls that had Clinton winning by two or three points were all very close to the mark once margins of error are taken into account. And second, Rasmussen was lucky to have its two-point margin come during the final pre-election poll. During the last week before the election, its daily results were scattered -- Clinton by three, tie, tie, Trump by three, tie, and Clinton by two.
Overall, FiveThirtyEight’s comprehensive pollster ratings gives Rasmussen the mediocre grade of C-plus, and it found a two-point Republican bias in its polls. (This rating did not encompass the entire 2016 campaign, but it did go back earlier; it factored in 657 polls by Rasmussen.)"
Yeah... I didn't think you would... just keep drinking the KoolAid...

Because it is absurd to imply that 2 out of 10 other polls mentioned in the article are just as accurate (which would also have to mean 8 out of 10 weren't) when you factor in their margin of error, and in a close election with many undecided voters and a volatile news cycle, of course the last week's results were scattered. It is not just by mere chance the last past pre-election poll was the most accurate.
But please, keep on believing this poll has no credibility, especially if Hillary forces herself on you a third time because she deserves it since after all she won the popular vote, was cheated on by the Russians, and America needs a female president.

More typical Kool-Aid... "It's all about Hillary!"

Fox News is propaganda to liberals and leftists.

CNN MSNBC CBS NBC ABC BBC most major papers, the internet and Hollywood are propaganda to conservatives.

So you see, everything is propaganda. Everything is tailored for a specific audience.

The trouble is when you want to shut down my media and my information. That’s cultural Leninism and reeks of censorship.

I will fight for your right to read Democratic underground just as I would appreciate it and respect you more if you would just fight for my right to watch Fox, and read Red State.

But for some people they insist that only THEIR views deserve mass production.

Just as gays correctly said “How does my marrriage affect your relationships?”, one can ask how a couple in Kansas City sitting in their bedroom watching Hannity causes you so much consternation??

texdravid wrote:

Fox News is propaganda to liberals and leftists.

CNN MSNBC CBS NBC ABC BBC most major papers, the internet and Hollywood are propaganda to conservatives.

So you see, everything is propaganda. Everything is tailored for a specific audience.

The trouble is when you want to shut down my media and my information. That’s cultural Leninism and reeks of censorship.

I will fight for your right to read Democratic underground just as I would appreciate it and respect you more if you would just fight for my right to watch Fox, and read Red State.

But for some people they insist that only THEIR views deserve mass production.

Just as gays correctly said “How does my marrriage affect your relationships?”, one can ask how a couple in Kansas City sitting in their bedroom watching Hannity causes you so much consternation??

The old switcheroo. Good technique.

I’m not here to fact check your media or my media or have a veracity contest. In 2018, left and right have their echo chambers and their preferred news and media outlets.

To avoid civil war, leave my viewing habits alone and I’ll leave yours alone. I already do. It is liberals who control >95% of all media who have a bloodlust for Fox et al.

And by doing that, you get Trump.