Reuters/Ipsos Poll: Audit Finds Suspicious Lack of Transparency

Aug. 7, 2016


Let’s turn the tables of massive regulation on the media and Reuters, and see what is found when trying to verify their results with an independent source that has absolutely no financial investment.

Read Poll Internals:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/2016_Reuters_Tracking_-_Core_Political_8.3_.16_FINAL_.pdf

Yesterday, Reuters revealed their findings from an Ipsos poll conducted July 30-August 3.  The Survey was a sample of 1,631 Americans, of which 735 were Democrats (45%), 572 were Republicans (35%), 191 were Independent (12%), and 133 consider themselves ‘Nothing’ or ‘Don’t Know’ (8%).

It Showed Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton ahead of Republican Nominee Donald J. Trump 42-38 among Likely Voters in a Trump / Clinton Head-to-Head, including Gary Johnson & Jill Stein.

First Problem with Poll:  Party Identification

Who didn’t recognize that the Democrat candidate already has a 10 point advantage built into the poll, simply by Ipsos asking 163 more Democrat respondents than Republicans?

So why then does Hillary only have a 4-pt lead?  We’ll get to that, but first I want to go through the identification.

In 2012, Exit polls were conducted by Edison Research of Somerville, New Jersey, for the National Election Pool, a consortium of ABC News, Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NBC News.

Exit Poll Data:  http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls

Exit Poll Data: https://web.archive.org/web/20130126102046/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-exit-poll

By reviewing the Exit Polls of the real 2012 Election, we get a truer glimpse of what party identification was like in a big general presidential election just 4 years ago, and before the Trump movement.

Party Identification:

Democrat:  38
Republican:  32
Independents: 29

Independents in the Exit Poll voted for Romney 50-45, showing a tendency to be fairly down the middle and slightly more Republican.

Four years later – after the Republicans increased their Primary turnout by nearly 70% over 2012, with 10 million new voters brought into the tent by Trump – the Democrats lost 8 million primary voters from their last primary in 2008.

Primary wise, that’s a swing of a net positive 18 million voters in the GOP’s favor

Democrats are losing voters.  The #DemExit movement is impossible to judge in size, but the organizations goal is to have 13 million Democrats de-register their party affiliation.

Republicans meanwhile are obviously doing better than they ever have in Primary turnout.  And that also seems consistent with the incredible number of elections the Republicans have won over Democrats in the House of Representatives, Senate, State Legislatures and Governorships all over the nation, since 2009.

Read More on Republican midterm results since 2009:  https://the-politik.com/2016/08/04/trump_will_win_landslide/

Despite all this, Reuters/Ipsos has increased the Democrat advantage in turnout to 10 points (45-35), not decreased it as one could logically and reasonable expect.

In fact, Reuters has failed to ever give an analysis of how they are okay with a poll sample that gives the Democrats a 10-point advantage, and 45% of the overall total, when Exit Results from 2012 showed far less Democrat turnout.  And that was during an election of a historically meaningful person, Barack Obama, where Democrat turnout was greatly enhanced, simply by having the first African-American President on the ticket.

With a 10 point Democrat weight advantage, how does Hillary only have a 4 point lead?

That will require us looking at the breakout by how each identified party voted.

Hillary scored a 78-10 (+68) advantage with Democrats.
Trump scored a 73-7 (+66) advantage with Republicans.
Independents broke for Trump at 30-25 (+5) with 20% choosing Gary Johnson.

For some reason, Reuters completely left out the section considering themselves ‘Nothing’ or ‘Don’t Know’, even though they made up nearly as much of the poll as those that identified as Independent (191vs 133).

Did they even consider that group in their Likely Voter model?  Who knows, they don’t say officially.

But just looking above, you can see a couple glaring red flags that, lo and behold, work in Clinton’s favor.

Despite the fact that Trump and Hillary have almost identical Party Support, Trump pulls in an advantage with Independents.  Wouldn’t that give him an overall lead?

So why again does Hillary show an overall lead?

Let’s count the suspicious methods:

1.  The 10 point built-in advantage (45-35) the poll has in their responses towards Democrats, in addition to the slight advantage Hillary has in support from her own Party over Trump.  This is the main driver.

2.  In addition to giving the Democrats far too much weight in turnout, they discount the independent vote as only 12% of the poll, when the 2012 exit polls show Independents making up 29% of the electorate.  With Independents giving Trump a 5 point advantage, the Reuters/Ipsos poll devalues their weight by a significant margin, thereby marginalizing Trump’s overall support even more.

3.  The identification that makes up the Nothing or Don’t Know category wasn’t revealed how they voted.  And we’re not even sure they were included in the Likely Voter model.  I tried to work the math backwards and see if I could match Reuters’ results, but I ran into a problem – We only know the breakdown of the total survey of 1,631 respondents.

Conveniently for Reuters, and inconveniently for independent 3rd party sources like me, they don’t tell us how they weight the 1,375 Registered Voters or the 1,072 Likely Voters.

Add it all together, and Reuters is essentially saying, “Trust us, Hillary has a four point lead.”

There to back them up without any explanation is Nate Silver at his FiveThirtyEight site, giving them an A- rating and saying, “Trust me, Reuters is right”

You have Real Clear Politics simply putting it in their Mainstream Media Poll Stew without any question or suspicion.

This crooked system sounds familiar to me.

Are Polls Just like the Housing Bubble?

Regulation, Wall-Street, The Federal Reserve, the big Banks and Congress all worked together in politically global harmony to create a thing called Mortgage Backed Securities, in which they stuffed worthless loan obligations into bonds, while telling everyone that what was in the bonds was actually gold.

The ratings agencies at Moody’s and S&P’s simply gave them AAA ratings without any research or independent scrutiny.

And those bonds were then traded on the market, over and over and over and over, for years, with trillions of dollars being exchanged globally, until it was simply believed that the bonds had to be strong – after all, the system is working and all the experts tell us it’s safe.

Until it wasn’t safe, and the bonds proved to be worthless.  In 2008, it brought down the U.S. housing market and crashed the global economy, killing jobs and wreaking havoc all over the world that we haven’t recovered from.

And why was it “allowed” to happen?  Because everyone that was responsible for watching over it, was financially in on the advantages of rigging the system.

And in the end, the polling oligarchy is the exact same thing as the phony housing market.

  • The polls represent the worthless bonds that were being advertised as rock-solid.
  • Nate Silver and Real Clear Politics, represent Moody’s and S&P, fraudulently giving these bonds (polls) an AAA rating.
  • The media represents themselves, publicizing and socializing this phony garbage.

And with it, the oligarchy tries to manipulate the public with phony information.

I don’t know what’s more dangerous:  The house-of-cards that made up the phony housing market, or the obvious manipulations and coordination of Big Media and Democrats, working to manipulate the U.S. democracy of free elections.

Because let’s face it, had it not been for the manipulated elections the media has contrived over the years, and the complete cover-up of criminal activity, housing bubbles like the ones created by our elected officials wouldn’t have happened.

Conclusion of Reuters Poll

My conclusion is that not much of anything can be made of it, because they intentionally leave out just enough that no one can independently verify their work.

Which is exactly what they want.


 

5 thoughts on “Reuters/Ipsos Poll: Audit Finds Suspicious Lack of Transparency

  1. Why do you peddle this nonsense to your gullible readers? You know that’s only going to make it harder when reality hits. Or do you not care?

    Like the BS spewed about the polls in the Ryan/Nehlen race which turned out to be accurate.

    Like

  2. Very logical analysis, thanks. But one factor may help Hillary that you omitted. Women vs men percentage of sample polled. Hillary has big edge with women according to the untrustworthy polls. I hope you’re right that Trump will win big. But I worry that women rather that blacks could be a sort of voting block that screws up your analysis. Obviously there was no data given by Reuters on the gender factor.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s