PHILADELPHIA — Advisers to Hillary Clinton are worried that Democratic white men are lying to pollsters and secretly plan to vote for Republican Donald Trump.
Dems fear secret white guy Trump vote

"I worry that there is a bit of a secret Trump vote," said influential pollster Celinda Lake.

She has proof revealed in polls that find more white male support when live people are doing the interviewing and less support for Clinton in anonymous online surveys.

"The pattern is in the online surveys, even if you control for demographics, Trump does three to nine points better than in telephone surveys. So it really does suggest that there is a secret vote for Donald Trump," said Lake.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/revea … le/2597653

From late July:

You can count on a manufactured corporate-media pretense to deliver a carefully scripted narrative giving Hillary Clinton a post convention bounce around 10 to 15 points (+/- 3).

What’s coming is so intensely predictable, that if they don’t do it – we’ll actually eat a plain rice cake.

Take today, as a litmus in a predictive sense.  The Pennsylvania polling from Suffolk U is bizarrely disconnected from current reality.  Also today,  Rasmussen says Clinton leads by 5 points amid “unaffiliated” voters.  Keep in mind just last week the same Rasmussen poll had Trump leading by 20 points (44/24), with those SAME unaffiliated voters. Did unaffiliated Rasmussen voters swing 25 points in a week?… of course not.  That’s silly.  But that’s what they presented today.   The week prior to last week it was Trump +11 (43/32) with the same voters.

Conversely, Donald J Trump did not swing 16 or 17 points in his post GOP convention bounce.  Attributing such pro-Trump polling outcomes to reality is just as flawed as accepting the upcoming pro-hillary polling paint job.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 … n-village/

There are many valid reasons to change the weights. Predicted turnout, how many of each party affiliation in the state, historical likelihood of groups voting etc. What I'd like to know is why they are consistently under sampling and down weighting groups pulling for Trump when there should be no reason to assume so. Their own numbers in the polls show Republican pull for Trump even or surpassing that of democrats. Independents he leads too. The primaries can be a major indicator of turnout. Professor Norpoth remains steadfast on his 90% GOP victory prediction based on those numbers historically.

Now I'm no pollster, but I see a lot of reasons to expect this will be a strong election for the GOP. 30% more people came out to vote compared to 4 years ago, a huge increase, and Democrats are down since 08 by the same margin. Trump may be a highly polarizing character, but who's gonna go out on election day and vote Hillary with a smile on their face? Rallies might not mean much by itself, but when you compare it to those of Hillary the difference in enthusiasm is staggering. That doesn't have to transpire into Trump winning, but I'd like to see a good argument for why almost every pollsters are weighting their polls as if under the assumption that more democrats will turn out in this election. Just about every tangible measurement suggests otherwise; primaries, polls, rallies and social media numbers.

Another curiosity is the huge swings. RNC Trump was ahead, a week later Hillary is crushing. 10-15 point swings. That does not seem very statistically probable.

Of course, none of this is helped by the MSM running a literal Clinton campaign for the last 12 months. Some like CNN flat out admit it. That shouldn't be the case either, but it is. In the face of such obvious corruption I remain skeptical with confidence.

Yes, Monmouth: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 … -about-it/

FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe

The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned.

Justice Department lawyers said last week that the State Department would review and turn over Clinton’s work-related emails to a conservative legal group. The records are among “tens of thousands” of documents found by the FBI in its probe and turned over to the State Department, Justice Department attorney Lisa Ann Olson said Monday in court.

The 14,900 Clinton documents are nearly 50 percent more than the roughly 30,000 emails that Clinton’s lawyers deemed work-related and returned to the department in December 2014.

Lawyers for the State Department and Judicial Watch, the legal group, are negotiating a plan for the release of the emails in a civil public records lawsuit before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington.

In a statement after a hearing at the U.S. district courthouse in Washington, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the group was pleased that Boasberg rejected the department’s proposal to begin releasing documents weekly on Oct. 14, ordering it instead to prioritize Clinton’s emails and to return to court Sept. 22 with a new plan.

“We’re pleased the court accelerated the State Department’s timing,” Fitton said. “We’re trying to work with the State Department here, but let’s be clear: They have slow-walked and stonewalled the release of these records. They’ve had many of them since July 25 ... and not one record has yet been released, and we don’t understand why that’s the case.”

In a statement, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the agency previously agreed voluntarily to hand over emails sent or received by Clinton in her official capacity as secretary from 2009 to 2013 but that tens of thousands of documents would have to be “carefully appraised at State” to separate official records from personal ones.

“State has not yet had the opportunity to complete a review of the documents to determine whether they are agency records or if they are duplicative of documents State has already produced through the Freedom of Information Act,” Toner said. “We cannot comment further as this matter is in ongoing litigation.”

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in May 2015 after disclosures that Clinton had exclusively used a personal email server while secretary of state. Judicial Watch had sought all emails sent or received by Clinton at the State Department in a request made under the federal Freedom of Information Act, which covers the release of public records.

Monday’s hearing comes seven weeks after the Justice Department closed a criminal investigation without charges into the handling of classified material in Clinton’s email setup, which FBI Director James B. Comey called “extremely careless.”
Clinton, then secretary of state, hands off her mobile phone after arriving to meet with Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague. (J. Scott Applewhite/Pool photo via AP)

On Aug. 5, the FBI completed transferring what Comey said were several thousand previously undisclosed work-related Clinton emails that the FBI found in its investigation for the State Department to review and make public. Government lawyers until now had given no details about how many emails the FBI found or when the full set would be released. It is unclear how many documents might be attachments, duplicates or exempt from release for privacy or legal reasons.

Government lawyers disclosed last week that the FBI has turned over eight computer discs of information: one including emails and attachments that were sent directly to or from Clinton, or to or from her at some point in an email chain, and were not previously turned over by her lawyers; a second with classified documents; another with emails returned by Clinton; and five containing materials from other people retrieved by the FBI.

The 14,900 documents at issue now come from the first disc, Fitton said.

In announcing the FBI’s findings in July, Comey said investigators found no evidence that the emails it found “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Like many users, Clinton periodically deleted emails, or they were purged when devices were changed.

Clinton’s lawyers also may have deleted some of the emails as “personal,” Comey said, noting their review relied on header information and search terms, not a line-by-line reading as the FBI conducted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pu … &tid=ss_tw

If you are going to point out GOP bias you should do the same for DNC. Most of the polls over sample Democrats.

Ipsos are supposedly A rated.