New poll shows Elizabeth Warren beating Hillary Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire

[Cali_Democrat]

Last edited Wed Feb 11, 2015, 07:18 PM - Edit history (2)

The progressive alliance working to draft Democrat Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 presidential race says 79% of early-state Democratic voters want her to run, though they don’t yet know if they would vote for her over potential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A poll of 800 likely Democratic caucusgoers and primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire shows they like Warren’s economic positions: 97% agree with Warren’s desire to cut student loan rates, 84% agree with her objections to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, and 77% agree with her opposition to the Keystone pipeline.

The online survey by YouGov was sponsored by MoveOn.org and Democracy for America, which have staff and offices in Iowa and New Hampshire working to build support for a Warren candidacy. Its margin of error is 6.7% in Iowa and 6.3% in New Hampshire.

Voters in Iowa favor Warren over Clinton 31% to 24%, although 35% of likely caucusgoers say they are still unsure. In New Hampshire, where Clinton won the Democratic primary in 2008 against Barack Obama, Warren leads Clinton by a smaller margin, 30%-27%, and 31% are unsure

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/02/11/draft-warren-group-says-she-has-support-in-early-states/

------------------------

Edit:

It's been brought to my attention that this poll may be FLAWED.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/11/this-terrible-poll-shows-elizabeth-warren-beating-hillary-clinton/

[winter is coming]

1. Interesting, but a lot can happen in the next year. n/t

[cascadiance]

26. Yep, Gallup and other major polls showed Clinton with a BIG lead over Obama at this stage in 2008

... and you can see how much name recognition didn't help her nearly as much later in the campaign.

[jen1980]

85. Exactly! Her winning margin could reach even greater heights!

[benz380]

2. I am afraid you may have just summoned the Great Wall of Text. n/t

[Fumesucker]

4. <snort>

[Phlem]

48. Dude!

[Enthusiast]

60. Pffft!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Bobbie Jo]

89. That's nothing

Apparently you haven't been subjected to the Blue Links of Madness.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6181290

[MohRokTah]

3. Margin of error.

'Nuff said.

[tkmorris]

6. LOL really?

[MohRokTah]

22. "Its margin of error is 6.7% in Iowa and 6.3% in New Hampshire."

Garbage polls.

[DonViejo]

28. Aren't these the results of the push poll folks were discussing last week or the week before...

this one, to be exact:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026156160

[MohRokTah]

30. I have no clue as to whether or not this poll was a push poll, but the results are garbage.

Can't be trusted either way with that MOE.

I'd love to see a PPP poll between the two, though.

[cascadiance]

43. It's interesting that David Brock since this quoted thread has just left the Clinton campaign...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/david-brock-resigns-priorities-usa-action-115028.html

... given that his quotes critiquing the previous poll are a majority of what's quoted in this thread.

[DonViejo]

63. No, he hasn't left the campaign, he left the PAC...

but, he also is the head of at least one, possibly two PACs he created in support of Hillary. The Pac he resigned from was a coalition of Pacs, he pulled his out but, there's this news:

Activist David Brock considers rejoining pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA

A clash that threatened to fracture a network of independent groups mobilizing to back a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential run was partially defused late Monday when liberal activist David Brock agreed to consider rejoining the board of a pro-Clinton super PAC.

The conciliatory gesture came hours after Brock fired off an e-mail angrily resigning from the board of Priorities USA Action, accusing officials with the super PAC of providing material for a damaging New York Times story about his groups’ fundraising practices.

That prompted a flurry of outreach to him by several members of the Priorities board, including former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, longtime Clinton adviser Harold Ickes, and veteran Democratic strategists Charlie Baker and Paul Begala.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/activist-david-brock-considers-rejoining-pro-clinton-super-pac-priorities-usa/2015/02/09/d4fd57b0-b0b1-11e4-827f-93f454140e2b_story.html

[Jackpine Radical]

11. Could you please enlighten me on this "margin of error" of which you speak?

Because it looks to me, in my abysmal ignorance, as if the two results differ by just about 6 points, and the MOE is 6.7 (which means that the SD is approx. 3.3), so you seem to be quibbling about whether the likelihood of the results occurring by chance is 5% (if the difference between the two candidates = 1.95 SD, or maybe 6% if the difference is less than 1.95 SD.

[leftynyc]

14. Anything with a margin of error over

4 (3.5 really) is garbage.

[Jackpine Radical]

56. The MOE referred to by pollsters is calculated directly from the sample size.

The larger the sample size, the smaller the MOE.

(For the purists around here, I know that technically this is incorrect because the MOE is also sensitive to the pq ratio, increasing as it deviates in either direction from .5, but that fact is irrelevant in the present instance.)

[progressoid]

17. Pshaw.

You kids and your new math.

[MohRokTah]

24. That high a margin of error means it's a garbage poll. eom

[cui bono]

32. 'nuff said is right.

But not because of what you said in this particular post.

[MohRokTah]

34. MOEs over about 5% indicate the poll in question cannot be trusted at all.

I'd love to see a real poll of this, though. I don't doubt that Warren could be leading in both, I simply doubt the results of this poll due to the ridiculously high MOE.

[cui bono]

35. That's true. n/t

[NCTraveler]

5. A really good sign.

We have numerous candidates polling very well with respect to favorability. We are in a great position. One party in the primaries will be holding great debates about moving the country forward, the other will be putting on a circus.

[Godhumor]

7. An online poll purchased by a draft Warren campaign

And the results surprise you?

Junk poll.

[Metric System]

8. Push poll. Next.

[LanternWaste]

9. What specifically leads you to the allegation it's a push poll?

What specifically leads you to the allegation it's a push poll?

[benz380]

10. Because the poster is "ready for Hillary"? nt

[LanternWaste]

21. You too, appear to be unaware of the definition of a push poll.

You too, appear to be unaware of the definition of a push poll.

Too much biased foolishness... a premise designed to fit a pre-supposed conclusion is not rational thought, but merely editorial.

[benz380]

29. Why do you copy/paste the title into the body of all of your messages?

Why do you copy/paste the title into the body of all of your messages?
Just curious...
Just curious...

[Phlem]

50. He was joking!

[benz380]

100. Yeah, I was going to tell him it was a joke, but whatever. n/t

[Phlem]

103. Yep. They clinch so tight it bleeds over stupid shit when things like this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6216863

are happening, has happened, and will continue to happen.

I can't stand them and make fun of them too. Good on you!

[HappyMe]

58. Yup.

Any poll where HRH isn't doing will be pooh-poohed as a push poll.

Seems to me Elizabeth Warren does have some of that "name recognition" that the Clintonistas harp on.

[rhett o rick]

13. Currently there is a (C-word T-word) running about suggesting that Warren supporters

hired a pollster to do a push poll showing HRC not doing so well. I think it was Politico pushing the story without any actual sources. ONe might think the CT posse would have stepped in to lock/hide/ban such nonsense but they seem to let it slide when HRC is involved.

[Phlem]

51. yep.

[Godhumor]

15. how about the sponsored by... with offices to draft Warren tag?

An online poll is considered invalid straight off due to selection bias, but then to have a draft Warren sponsor for the poll itself, which then comes up with conclusions designed to make her run... that doesn't strike you at all as a push-poll?

Analytically the poll is meaningless anyway. This was designed with the explicit purpose of putting pressure on Warren to run.

[LanternWaste]

18. Push polls have a specific definition which this poll does not appear to meet.

Push polls have a specific definition which this poll does not appear to meet.

[Godhumor]

23. Have you read the poll?

Issue questions begin and end with statements like, "Senator Warren supports...do you agree with Senator Warren on this issue?"

All you need to know is that it was sponsored by Run Warren Run, it is online (again, online means not analytically valid due to non-random sampling), questions are designed to present Warren in the best light, it had further sampling issues by the population it invited to participate and it is being used to further a draft effort. It is not only a push poll, it is a completely invalid poll.

[OilemFirchen]

37. Here's the poll:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/255461931/YouGov-Poll-Elizabeth-Warren

Start with question 7 (page 2) and work your way down.

[MohRokTah]

38. Yep, that's an invalid poll.

Definitely a push poll. Sets up Warren to be chosen for president.

That she was unable to get into the 40th percentile for president is actually shocking after the first 18 questions.

[treestar]

57. Oh good grief

Anybody who reads the poll is going to support EW by question 19, if they don't, they really are for the other candidate.

[cascadiance]

75. I don't think we can accept this poll as an accurate reflector of what will happen...

... nor should we accept just about any poll at this point, as I noted at the top in another part of this thread, that at this point, Obama was way behind Clinton in Gallup and other mainstream polls at this point in their campaign too, in polls considered more "legitimate".

But take a note at this leading paragraph in the email sent out to Warren followers that describes these polls results..

"We just got the results of a brand new poll our friends at MoveOn commissioned as a part of our Run Warren Run campaign, and one thing is crystal clear: When Democratic Iowa Caucus goers and New Hampshire primary voters get to know Elizabeth Warren, they want to see her to run for president."

I think the point they are trying to make is that this poll was an effort to counterbalance the name recognition factor that so much pollutes other polls today and makes it sound like Hillary Clinton should be ready to be sworn in, when there still is a lot ahead which will eventually break down the name recognition aspect as a factor governing how people will actually vote later in 2016.

They are trying to show if voters are presented with issues and are shown how Warren stands on them, how much there is she stands for that they want to have happen as helping them to "get to know her", and "build name recognition". I think it serves its purpose in showing that if people are given actual stances by the senator to help present a scenario where if she were running later, and people would know her more and her stances in the middle of campaign, that they'd be more apt to support her then. Now, this is completely unscientific, and I would think you can't get any real feel for numbers, but you can get the idea that is important NOW, that the existing polls out there are not accurately reflecting the potential of candidates like Warren, when people haven't gotten to know them yet like they know Clinton. In that respect, this poll serves a purpose.

Perhaps this letter can do a better job of acknowledging that the way it is conducted, it can't be a hard conclusion as an indicator of how people will actually vote when they are using available public information versus what is given to them in this poll, but I think it does show them that what is out there now and what people are trying to claim is a Hillary Clinton landslide is also too premature a conclusion to jump too, and we should wait for the nominating process, and seek out those like Warren that stand for our ideals to encourage them to be a part of that.

[stevenleser]

66. Yep. That's a push poll. nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

74. The sad fact is Hillary holds opposing positions to Warren

Regardless of the polls metrics or bias
Hillary cannot say she holds the same
positions as Elizabeth.

That's what actually matters here.
If given a choice between Hilary's positions
or Elizabeth's positions...
PEOPLE PREFER WARREN.

Hillary cannot say she'll hold Wall st accountable.
Hillary can't say she'll defend Social Security.
But that is what working-class voters want.

The poll shows people aren't interested in Hilary's politics.

[DonViejo]

76. The people responding to the online poll were not...

provided the information regarding where Clinton stood on any issue. Warren's position on issues were the only topic. Also,

Why You Can't Believe These Polls Reporting Warrenmania

"This is not a so-called 'clean' head-to-head ballot question," stated MoveOn in the polling summary, "as voters were provided positive information about Warren but not other potential candidates. It should not be read as reflecting how Iowans or Granite Staters would vote if the caucuses orprimary were held today. Rather, it should be read as an indicator that many voters in these states are 'moveable.'"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026212846

[stevenleser]

83. The fact is, no facts can be gleaned from a poll like that. Push polls are ugly tactics. This one

isnt as bad as some, but it's still considered a disreputable tactic whose results are meaningless.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

12. No surprise there. And Elizabeth's lead will widen as soon as Hillary starts opening her mouth and inserting her foot.

[leftynyc]

16. Are you old enough to

remember McGovern? That's what would happen to Elizabeth Warren (who I would love as Sec of Labor or head of the SEC).

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

19. No, but I remember McLovin in Superbad. Great flick.

[leftynyc]

27. Oy - I must be old

unless you're making that up, I have no idea what you're talking about. But if you are serious. look up what happened to George McGovern. That was an election that should have gone Democratic.

[cui bono]

33. LOL

Superbad is a b-movie that came out years ago. I didn't see it and the post that brought it up wasn't that funny but I have to admit I laughed when I read your response. Not at you... but it cracked me up because the post you were responding to was just pure silliness.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

86. It was meant to be - thought some here might have a lil sense of humor, but maybe I'm wrong about that...

... no fun being serious all the time.

[cui bono]

92. I get it. But I have to say the response to it ended up being funnier.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

36. He carried one state. South Dakota.

His own state.

[leftynyc]

39. Yes, I know

Same thing will happen to Warren.

[DonViejo]

79. No, you're mistaken...

McGovern lost his home state. The only state he won was Massachusetts; results that inflamed Nixon's anti-Kennedy (Ted) illness and infuriated him to the point he started closing military bases in the State. Remember the bumper stickers and saying; "don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts"?

[RiverLover]

78. That's for sure.

Its not if, its when. A duck can only pretend to be a zebra for so long.

[HereSince1628]

20. awfully close to MOE, but at least it speaks to possibility of a challenge

I'd hate to see anyone get the nomination unopposed.

[hatrack]

25. Very interesting, and very early . . .

.

[Man from Pickens]

31. people don't want Clinton

I believe the great mass of voters are going to go for whoever seems the most credible alternative to Clinton. There are a lot of compromises Democrats are going to make before going all-in on "neocon warmonger".

[leftynyc]

40. I'm guessing you don't realize

the attitude about Hillary Clinton on DU in no way shape or form resembles the attitude about her among the majority of Democrats. There are reasons she's so far ahead in every single legitimate poll.

[Man from Pickens]

46. it's a precursor

to what happened in 2008, where as soon as there was a credible alternative, people hit the gates on Hillary so fast you'd have thought they were on fire - Obama came from nowhere to beat her, and another candidate (which may or may not be Warren) will too. Hillary is hard capped in both the primary and the general, she cannot win a competitive race.

[leftynyc]

96. I guess we'll see

I happen to love Elizabeth Warren but she'd lose 40 states. I find it amazing the scorn shown to Hillary when Warren was a republican until very recently but whatever.

[L0oniX]

80. May the best oligarchy pet win.

[Beacool]

95. Hear, hear!!!

But denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Around here they honestly believe that Hillary is not popular with Democrats, regardless of facts.

[leftynyc]

97. I know she was our senator

so support for her is high in NY but not one Democrat I know is against her and many are looking forward to working for her campaign. It's possible she's going to open her office in White Plains which is very close to where I live - I'd volunteer in a heartbeat.

[Beacool]

102. These people that are so virulent against her don't know her.

She's a terrific person. One of the sharpest minds in politics, but also compassionate and has a terrific sense of humor. The Hillary that they portray here is a caricature of the real person. I saw the Right do it since she stepped into the national limelight, and the Left joined them. Sometimes it's hard to tell that this is supposed to be a Democratic site. Depressing.........

[mother earth]

41. Exactly, neither do we want another Clinton vs. Bush...no more repeats and no more centrists...

we need a voice of the people and actual representation of such....one that is willing and able to go up against TPTB in our hijacked democracy.

[Godhumor]

44. From an article on this poll from another thread

"In current polling of the early primary states that does not prep voters with positive Warren statements or black-hat Hillary horror stories, the former Secretary of State leads by an average of 44.8 points (Iowa) and 34.7 points (New Hampshire)."

Think the Democratic establishment wants Clinton.

[mother earth]

45. From what I understand even Howard Dean is saying NOT to think Hillary is inevitable, I'm thinking

there is a progressive waiting in the wings, not sure who that might be or to whom he was alluding to, but I do trust Howard Dean knows a hell of a lot more than we do, esp. at this juncture in time. No one is inevitable, and any poll right now is useless, no matter what they are saying, until all the candidates are declared anything is possible.

[Beacool]

94. That, unfortunately for her detractors within the party, is not true.

This is a very flawed poll and not accurate.

[William769]

42. Yep that poll wasn't skewed like the last one they did against Hillary.

It's a damn good thing Elizabeth Warren is smarter than many of her supporters.

[stevenleser]

69. If Warren didn't want to run before, she definitely won't want to after seeing her supporters do

this.

No reputable politician wants to be associated with push polling or the people who engage in it.

[William769]

81. Amen to that!

[sadoldgirl]

47. It does not matter to me

whether the poll is accurate or bad. One thing seems to occur
though, and that is the rising popularity of Warren.

The question I have for Moveon is: How do we convince her
to run?

Recently I attended one of those Moveon meetings, and nobody
could answer this question. The reason for its importance is that
EW has to decide very soon, if she wants to get sufficient
support.

I hope that she does run, but that does not mean that she will.

[Godhumor]

49. She has said repeatedly she won't run

Don't think you need to worry about her getting in early enough.

[Autumn]

82. It's interesting how high the approval numbers are when they are told what she

believes needs to be done.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/255461931/YouGov-Poll-Elizabeth-Warren

She strikes a chord. I hope she runs but I'm afraid it doesn't look like it

[hrmjustin]

52. The margin of error shows this poll is nothing to right home about.

[SCVDem]

53. I am tired of Iowa and the other little states.

The population of Los Angeles is larger than many of those states combined and in the general election they do not matter.

All this corn fed, tea party kiss ass is past its due date!

Sorry Iowans. No personal offense, just political.

[Jamaal510]

88. I wish they'd have all states

vote in the primaries simultaneously like in the GE so that our votes (CA) would actually matter. Usually by the time it's time for us to vote, the dust has already been cleared.

[treestar]

54. Headline doesn't match story

the respondents want her to run, but are unsure, so saying she would "beat" Hillary in the primary doesn't seem to be a conclusion called for given the content of the article.

[samsingh]

55. this is misleading - equating support for a position to a vote for the candidate

[stevenleser]

67. That's not the problem. The problem is that it's a push poll. nt

[samsingh]

72. well that too .

[Enthusiast]

59. I'll flat out say it. I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Hillary Clinton.

No more, lesser of two evils. That is how we ended up in this predicament.

[One of the 99]

61. So if she wins the nomination

you'd rather a republican win the white house. A lot of people had the same additude toward Al Gore in 2000. That did a lot of good.

[Enthusiast]

65. I supported Al Gore. Al won the election.

I will not support Hillary no matter her opponent.

[One of the 99]

70. So you'd rather see a Republican win in 2016

and select the next several Supreme Court Justices.

[NYC_SKP]

87. Mother may I please vote for Warren in the primary, please?

And then, if Hillary gets the nomination, am I allowed to write in a progressive?

[Go Vols]

91. :/

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Thu Feb 12, 2015, 12:09 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Mother may I please vote for Warren in the primary, please?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6214839

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Don't vote for a DEM in the general, then get off DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Feb 12, 2015, 12:14 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is the silliest alert I have seen in years.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: English is my native language, and for the life of me I cannot understand why on earth this post was alerted. Good golly people, please come back to reality.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: lol at this alert,you just wasted 2 min of my time for no reason.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[One of the 99]

99. Vote for whom you want in the primary and the election

That is your right. But will you take responsibility for a Jeb Bush or Rand Paul winning the election?

[840high]

73. ...^ that

[One of the 99]

62. Here is the part of the article that you dishonestly left out.

A Bloomberg Politics/St. Anselm College poll released Feb. 8 showed Clinton leading Warren 56% to 15% among likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire.

[Cali_Democrat]

64. I didn't dishonestly leave that out

There's a 4 paragraph max limit we can post.

I simply posted the first 4 paragraphs of the article....

[One of the 99]

68. My apologies then.

Didn't know about that rule.

[Logical]

90. You can't publish the whole damn article here. Nt

[AtomicKitten]

71. Newer poll has Elizabeth beating Hillary in

.... my living room.

Black cat, dog, son, and I vote for Elizabeth.

Stripey cat's a felon and can't vote.

[Enthusiast]

98. Pfft!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[sadoldgirl]

77. this is not about the

General Elections.
Many people here on DU want EW to run. We don't
know whether she would or would not win, but it
would be terrific for this country to hear her during
the debates. Actually, imho, it is a necessity for her
as well as Bernie to be heard by the nation.

[wyldwolf]

84. "It's been brought to my attention that this poll may be FLAWED."

MAY be flawed? So far the only polls showing Warren winning anything in 2016 have been push polls and internet polls taken by Warren supporters.

[Beacool]

93. MoveOn commissioned this poll.

Elizabeth Warren would trump Hillary Clinton in a 2016 presidential contest, claims a poll released Wednesday from the liberal-leaning MoveOn.org. The poll, conducted by YouGov, shows Warren besting Clinton 31 percent to 24 percent in Iowa, and 30-27 in New Hampshire, both important stops in any race to the White House.

It's unclear whether the poll results paint a fair picture. Participants were told statements such as "Elizabeth Warren wants to extend the same low interest rates that the federal government gives big Wall Street banks to college students who receive government loans for their education" and "Sen. Warren says, 'I came out of a hardworking, middle-class family. I came from an America that created opportunities for people like me, and I now see an America where the government works for people who already have money and power. ... We need to remind politicians that they don’t work for the big banks -- they work for us.' "

The Washington Post made fun of the poll with an article headlined "This terrible poll shows Elizabeth Warren beating Hillary Clinton." The article read: "The takeaway here: If Warren runs for president and is somehow able to run a campaign in which she is the only candidate allowed to share positive information about herself, then she might -- emphasis on might -- have a chance of beating Clinton. If anything, this poll should discourage Warren from changing her mind and running."

http://www.ibtimes.com/elizabeth-warren-president-poll-claims-she-could-beat-hillary-clinton-iowa-new-1813032


MoveOn Commissions Flawed Poll Showing Warren Leading Clinton in Iowa, NH

There are several headlines around the web today touting a new poll that shows Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) leading Hillary Clinton in early caucus and primary states Iowa and New Hampshire. While this news might “shock” some, a closer look at the questions shows how the YouGov poll, sponsored by big-time Warren supporter MoveOn.org, got the data it wanted for its Run Warren Run campaign.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/moveon-commissions-flawed-poll-showing-warren-leading-clinton-in-iowa-nh/




Here's a Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Iowa poll from February 1.

Hillary Clinton continues to lead the potential field of Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa, capturing a wide majority of support and enjoying sky-high approval ratings among likely caucus goers.

The results of the latest Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Iowa Poll underscore Clinton's dominance a year ahead of Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses and the inability so far of any other potential candidate to crack her aura of inevitability.

Clinton, the former U.S. secretary of state and a fixture in national Democratic politics for more than 20 years, is the first choice for 56 percent of poll respondents. That's 40 points ahead of the next potential contender, liberal populist U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who is the top choice for 16 percent.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2015/01/31/iowa-poll-hillary-clinton-big-lead/22661331/

[betterdemsonly]

101. The polls is completely fair

since it measures the publics opinion based on knowledge of the candidates beliefs so it isn't a measure of fleeting opinion like the pro-Hillary polls.

Whether a bunch of corporatist newspapers call fowl is beside the point.