Good Point

Of 1,000 voters polled by Rasmussen Reports on October 18 and 19; 65% believe that Clinton broke the law with her use of a private server — and 53% believe that the FBI should have filed criminal charges.

Meanwhile, according to Sunday’s daily IBD/TIPP tracking poll, only 43% of voters support Clinton for president.
H/t Gateway Pundit, who points out that this means that more Americans want Hillary Clinton in prison than as President.


Anonymous said...

Look at the statistics at this post.

Stunning Numbers: Trump Leads Hillary in Rally Attendance by Half a Million People Since August

Nobody is going to see Hillary. Look at the numbers.
If she wins, how can there not be fraud on a massive scale?


Grim said...

Well, to answer the rhetorical question, it's because the enthusiastic and the unenthusiastic both get one vote each (if they want one). The polls do indicate that most voters are really disgusted with their choices this year, so enthusiasm should be a minority position.

Indeed, you might say that, on this score, Trump's huge rallies prove he is going to lose. How could he not be the minority candidate if he's pulling only that group of people who are enthusiastic about this year's election?

Of course, that argument is a little off, since the enthusiastic are sure to vote whereas the unenthusiastic only might. Still, if the numbers are lopsided enough (as they seem to be this year), the possession of enthusiastic support suggests a minority position.

Ymar Sakar said...

To me, that means one third of this country are more treasonous traitors than Edward Snowden ever was or could be.

Then again, that's not surprising given the hardcore Left was always that 20% minority that never went away. They finally did what Islam did, and got their fanatical minority on top of the majority.

As for polls, they're just propaganda weapons designed to manipulate the masses. They don't reflect public opinion, they make public opinion.

Ymar Sakar said...

Hussein got massive rallies in New York, then lost them in the primaries. How did that happen without massive fraud?

Maybe NY was just racist and couldn't stand voting for black people.

Given that the Demoncrats control elections via fraud and blackmail in this country, it almost doesn't matter how many people think there are at rallies. So many Tea Party people marching to DC just ended up being the end and high point of their movement, which is what I expected, given the perception I had of the Left's power at the time. This was, conveniently, before anyone ever realized what the IRS had been doing.

Foresight is not hard to get once a person understands the core of the Left's true nature.

james said...

I wonder how much overlap there is between the two positions. I know, it is inconsistent to say that X should be president and that X should be prisoner, but if you catch somebody on different days after watching different commercials, and ask the questions just a little differently...

jaed said...

How could he not be the minority candidate if he's pulling only that group of people who are enthusiastic about this year's election?

That doesn't sound logical. The fact (arguendo) that Trump gets 95% of the enthusiasts doesn't say anything one way or the other about his percentage of the non-enthusiasts.

Grim said...

Fair point. I'm thinking in terms of rhetoric as much as logic. A campaign is a rhetorical tool. His has fired up a group of people, and they're enthusiastic. But when we look at the broader picture, it looks as if almost no one is fired up. So it seems likely that his campaign is working at firing up a subset of the whole; but that suggests it isn't working as a rhetorical tool on the majority.

I don't feel bad about raising an argument of this sort, because in political science, you don't get the certainty of strict logic. That's a point Aristotle makes near the opening of the Nicomachean Ethics: "Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs."

jaed said...

I'm still not seeing the sense in it. Granted that the proportion of voters who are not enthusiastic about either candidate is unusually large in this election... but the enthusiasts are never a majority. I can't remember an election in which any significant fraction of the electorate attended rallies and cheered for their candidate in person—not even the 2008 election, which was notable for the cult of personality around the winning candidate.

However, visible enthusiasts can increase enthusiasm in the rest of the supporters, by infection as it were—both from seeing rallies (see, there are lots of enthusiastic people!) and from personal contact with those enthusiasts (cousin Jane went to a Trump rally last week and she can't stop talking about him). Enthusiasts are the ones who not only vote, but encourage the lukewarm supporters to vote. Creating and demonstrating enthusiasm is useful even though you're working with a minority of your supporters.

And I can see no sense in believing that high attendance at a candidate's rallies indicate that that candidate is going to lose. All other things being equal, if I saw two candidates and one had large, enthusiastic rallies and the other had small rallies attended by visibly meh supporters, I'd expect the first candidate more likely to win, not the second.

Grim said...

Ordinarily, so would I. But ordinarily, we don't see such marked irritation with both candidates from likely voters.

On the other hand, maybe that's overstated too. Vox ran a poll yesterday that claimed that only 25% of respondents really hate both candidates (although there was also a large refusal to answer the question). Most voters are satisfied with one or the other. That doesn't measure enthusiasm, though, which is what we're talking about.

I only know one really enthusiastic Hillary supporter. But I know a lot of people who are going to vote for her grudgingly. You can't make a rally out of that, but if there are a lot more grudging voters than enthusiastic ones this year, you could still win (without cheating).

Ymar Sakar said...

The Alt Right is substituting the Left's Soros astroturf organizations on get out the vote, with social media networks. Which is why Twitter or Facebook banned some conservatives or pro Trums lately.

They think that'll be enough to counter whatever fraud the Left was engaging in for 2000. But of course the Left has expanded their OFA networks quite farther than that now. As a result, it's hard to predict whether the Alt Right really can overturn the Demoncrat natural advantage of 3+ million extra fake votes in the general.