More Weirdness with Hillary Pollsters….

Last week we learned that Hillary’s top strategist Mark Penn is wrapped up with highly questionable poll use:

"Penn, Schoen and Berland has played pioneering role in the use of..exit polls to facilitate coups."

So, last night, Hillary supporters posted a poll that suggests that Hillary would actually benefit if Al Gore entered the race. After the above revelations, I decided to dig a little into WHO did the poll. Sure enough, I found that it was directed by one Matt Towery, and guess who Matt Towery is:



It gets better.

DUer ‘charlie’ dug a little deeper into Matt’s political contributions:



So…what’s up with that? Why are far right pollsters working so hard to get Hillary nominated (and discouraging Gore from entering the race)? And why should we believe ANY of the Hillary polls?

of salt; but this puts another slant on the problem, entirely.

Recommended :kick: #1

He's a former politician who now runs his own little polling company.

Republican. Yes.
Businessman. Yes.

Corporate press? Get your slurs straight!

great for big business (NAFTA, CAFTA, ...) bad for Americans.

Plus, after the repubs dump the mess that our country has become onto a DINO (democrat in name only), they can run in 2012 on how the dems didnt fix America (just like Newt did back in 1996).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1910769/posts">Media Ignores Hillary’s Scandals

To: EagleUSA
afdawhitewatervincefosterbillydalecraiglivingstonenoeyecontactcashdonationsinthewhitehouselinconbedroomlesbianguestscondomchristmastreetravelgateronbrownroselawfirmmissingbillingrocrdsinthemaproom1dayafterstatuteran

*snip*


To: EagleUSA
It’s amazing how she gets a pass for having 400 - 900 FBI files in her possession.

During the Watergate era, Charles Colson went to federal prison for having just one FBI files in his possession.
Yet the Queen Bee gets off scot free.

*snip*

To: EagleUSA
To what scandals could the article be referring?
Surely the opposition won't drudge up that old tale of Hillary sharing her sleeping quarters with another woman?

Surely they wouln't accuse Hillary of being responsible for the shameful bombing of Yugoslavia?

They wouldn't want to know what role Craig Livingstone played in the White House and who hired him, would they?

They wouldn't want to know who killed Vince Foster, or why nearly 60 people have been either outright murdered or died under mysterious circumstances when their only common thread was that they had the goods on the Clintons, would they?

Would they want to know why Albright was allowed to hand over the missile guidance secrets to the Chinese Communists?

Would they want to know why the Communist Chinese purchased the Worthen Bank in Little Rock?

Would they want to know why Hillary wouldn't allow eye contact with staffers in the White House walls?

Would they want to know why she abetted her animal husband's raping and fondling innocent women?

Would anyone ask if the old USSR had anything to do with joining these two marxist hillbillys and giving them a mission?

Would anyone ask HRH if she's ever paid for anything in her shoddy life?

Would anyone ask who instructed Sandy Berger to steal classified documents that would prove the Clintons' actions were mainly responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack!

*snip*

Oh Yeah! The neocon republicans and their freeper supporters are champing at the bit of another Clinton Presidency!!

I love that one!

truly substantial difference between Hillary and the rethug candidate. They are all corporatists.

Amazing how many DUers use that term where it just doesn't apply. It's a political philosophy with specific tenets, few of which apply to Freeperdom writ large, some of which dovetail quite well with some of Hillary's stated policy ideas. Freepers are a different kind of conservative from NeoConservatives, so cherry picking posts from freerepublic.com as evidence of - what, actually, Clinton's alleged liberality? - is preposterous.

You got a dem president & a woman at that, so you see, there is no election fraud.

I looked all over for that yesterday, I could have sworn I had one last year.

;) Isn't it grand? I love it!

And if you want a larger photo of it to make a pattern for your pumpkin, Omphaloskepsis enlared the avatar here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=242x16744#16760

:hi:

one would have to be addled to believe these fake poll numbers. It is not shocking at all to see the clintons joined at the hip (or twisting like Aspens) with the GOP. hell they share the same agendas.

If that's the case why don't Mr. Edwards and Senator Obama commission their own poll with an idependent third party pollster since they are the primary victims of the polls showing Hillary handily defeatting them?

If I had a seventy five million dollar war chest as Senator Obama does and my opponent was papering the press with polls showing he or she was blowing me out I'd certainly commission some polls of my own...

:(

Give me a reason to believe that they even bother to establish an apparatus to collect responses.

73% of all published poll results are made up on the spot.

How is your argument any different than the argument that fundamentalists make that "rivers can clap their hands" because the Bible says so?

:D

Obama has seventy five million dollars!!!

I don't think a poll cost that much...


:crazy:

and didn't like the results?
However...how does Edwards afford them?

That he's losing rather badly...

Because having the first woman president is more important than saving our nation from disaster.

Garin-Hart-Yang Research GroupThe Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group, the political division of Peter D. Hart Research Associates, is one of the most respected and successful political polling firms in the country for Democratic candidates. The firm has assisted in more than 400 political campaigns and counts among its current clients 10 members of the U.S. Senate, 16 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and five sitting governors. Garin-Hart-Yang also has been the lead pollster on the influential Women's Monitor national polling projects for EMILY's List over the past four election cycles.

While we enjoyed much success in 2006--helping to unseat an incumbent senator, governor, and a number of House members, among many other victories--Garin-Hart-Yang has a strong record of helping Democratic candidates win under the most difficult circumstances, as well. For example, in the 2004 election cycle, we conducted the polling and provided the strategic advice that helped Governor Easley of North Carolina become the first Democratic governor from the South to be reelected since 1996. In 2002, we helped then-Congressman Rod Blagojevich win an upset victory in the Illinois Democratic primary for governor against two better-known and more experienced opponents, and then we helped him get elected as Illinois' first Democratic governor since 1976. In 2000, we helped the late Governor Frank O'Bannon win a strong reelection victory while George W. Bush was carrying Indiana by 16 points. In 1998, we were the pollsters for little-known Democratic state legislator Jim Hodges' upset victory over Republican Governor David Beasley of South Carolina. And in 1994, we helped the late Governor Lawton Chiles beat back a tough challenge from Jeb Bush in a strong Republican year.

Whether it's a candidate - local or statewide - or a ballot initiative, Garin-Hart-Yang brings a strong background in politics and a deep grounding in the strategic considerations that are essential to a successful campaign.


http://www.hartresearch.com/about/political.html

Polling is generally perceived as objective by the uninformed citizens (and Hillary supporters).
You have just proved the OPs point.
Polls CANNOT be trusted.
They are just another arm of a Paid Political Campaign whose goal is NOT to provide facts, but to sway opinion!

Thanks.

Hillary is the one that the Powers-That-Be want in. For those of us that don't see any good Democratic Presidential Candidates in the running, the current picture is quite clear. bu$h even endorsed Hillary Clinton. It that not a clue? Where is the RW/KR style attack machine against Hillary? It does not exist. Why? Answer that question, why doesn't it?

I just cited Peter Hart to disabuse folks of the inane notion that only pro Hillary pollsters are conducting polls...

Polls are conducted by the media, labour groups, business groups, universities,and other organizations...

Is it your opinion they are all in cahoots?

And if they are all in cahoots why do the results of polls immediately before elections come so remarkly close to predicting the annual winners and percentages?


Muchas Gracias

are nothing more than political campaign tools that take a "business pride" in influencing elections in favor of their candidate.

There does not need to be direct collusion between individual polls.
It is not a stretch to conclude that the individual campaign polling groups would seek the richest source to fill their pockets and establish a good track record for future contracts.

After all, its only business!



BTW:
Thanks for that great source refuting the credibility of campaign polls!
You will see it again on DU, mostly on threads crowing about Hillary's lead in the polls.

but it is interesting to look at the "Democrats" that they helped win
Easley - DLC
Blagojevich - DLC (and they helped him win the primary, against two better known and more experienced opponents (were the opponents also more progressive. Inquiring minds want to know.)
O'Bannon - DLC
Chiles - DLC

But it's not part of a conspiracy. Nothing to see here.

Has her campaign touted any of these polls?

eom

If Hillary Clinton is commisioning manipulated polls to discourage her opponents that's despicable and morally reprehensible...The only thing more despicable and morally reprehensible is the suggestion she has done that when there is not a scintilla of of proof that she has... That's fucked up, new millenium McCarthyism...

That is all

:patriot:


on edit- I answered your original question. I apologize if it went over your head. I think anybody that carefully and dispassionately reviews our exchange can divine that...

It's not my bandwidth...

GTFOMP
Bet you will never get that one either!!

Bet I did, cupcake...


on edit-this is fun...reminds me of my espn posting days...

like the Gop wanting Hillary to be the nominee= Fucked up!
bushes war to make a better splash than Daddy bush=Fucked up!
Hillary allowing the iraqi thing to drag on and on and on.=Fucked up!
Hillary not answering questions by blatantly avoiding the question, or changing the subject. =Fucked up!
Hillary actually answering a question based on the latest poll=Fucked up!
I did not alert on you as I am not a tattle tale. the passion I feel to move our country forward overrides my ability to remain sterile in my choice of words.

:crazy:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

Which ones should she denounce and which ones should she embrace?


:crazy:

Check them again is all that I would ask.

The OP is spot on, and if you could only grasp the concept, you might see what everyone that disagrees with you is saying.

All other polling data seems to suggest that if big Al entered the race, it would cut Hillary's lead - a CONTRADICTION.

The last four published polls show Al Gore polling between 10% and 15%, ergo:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

Now that might change, but as of now the suggestion it will change is a supposition and not a fact...

The poll that is being questioned says that Hillary would do BETTER if Al Gore were in the race.

That is CONTRADICTED by the polls that you keep referring to.

You have it exactly wrong.

call them out on it as I've done and make them say what poll it is or give a link to it so we can judge its credibility. I've seen this coming from many hillbots about polls and they shutup when I ask them what poll(s) they talk of. If they have to twist the truth (nice way of saying to lie) to get their candidate elected then there's something wrong not only with them, but their candidate too.
I could go into accurate slurs on her, but I'll refrain and say that I see nothing good coming from her except smoke and mirrors to try and save face that is in opposition to how she votes and who she gets money from. nuff said.

I'll just quote another DUer, robcon, because I'm lazy:


"So every poll is corrupt, FREEWILL56 ? All in the same direction?

Zogby?
USAToday/Gallup?
ABC/WashPost?
ARG?
AP/Ipsos?
Pew?
Harris?
Fox?
NBC/WSJ?
CNN?
Quinnipiac?
Cook/RT?

Every single one of them shows Clinton in the lead. Not one of them has had any other candidate in the lead at any time in 2007. You don't believe any of them, FREEWILL56? "



http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

She may or may not be in the lead, but I won't vote for her just because of a damn poll. I don't view her as good enough by my standards.

Oh yes, make her into something so wonderfull and say the polls say so.
:eyes: :think:
I'm not stupid as to where this was from and where it was going and it changes nothing in my book about her. If you don't have anything to say or prove about her to me that wasn't spun or twisted or from so called polls then you don't have much in the way of a candidate imho. Address the real issues fully and maybe I'll listen. Tell me she kissed a baby saying I'll give you $5000 for college and the polls praised her for it means shit to me. She skirts real issues and spins when asked about her Iraq and Iran votes among other things. Says she responcable for her vote, but failed to admit her wrongdoing and continues that same wrongdoing in the Iran vote. Don't feed me that line about it means nothing as this same vote occured for Iraq initially also and if it wasn't important why did it get prioty to be voted on and then voted on by her? Does that make me a Hillary hater? NO. It makes me a liar and deceiver hater. None of you that are blindly following her have convinced me of anything as you and her don't address the real issues and concerns of the people or me. If I want spin and lies I'd vote republicon and I don't vote republicon and think DINOs are hypocrites.

I get so tired of conspiracy theories built on other conspiracy theories built on other conspiracy theories and etc etc etc. Ther are other polls from major pollsters that have shown Gore was not hurting Hillary's numbers significantly. So what is surprising about one with a slightly different result, its margin of error, and other normal polling factors, most likely. Not some super propaganda effort to contaminate your drinking water.

at once. I don't think we should except this poll as credible, and even should call him out on it. Good work J.D.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

If they were all flawed the results would be random...It is impossible for all the results to be flawed in the same direction.

And Mark Penn didn't conduct the poll in question nor has he participated in any public polls this primary season since he is working for a candidate...

Well done, thanks.

eom

<div class="excerpt">testing</div>

Replace < > with []

to the right of the message options. You can even just copy and paste so it's pretty easy.

DU rocks!

The mention of Penn is only to bring context to the issue, to help us see that yet another PR guy is pulling for Hillary Clinton in a suspicious fashion.

all of these consultants are mercenaries. Surely you're not saying that because of people like Towery, Obama and Edwards are behind. Polls seek out the opinions of people. Polls do not implant opinions into people. If Towery's polls turn out to be grossly inaccurate, he won't be doing anymore polls.

people's minds while polling them.

Try again.

You are still left with dozens of polls suggesting the same phenomenon...It strains credulity to believe they all could be in cahoots;especially when organizations have been polling for eighty or so years and have an admirable track record...

which I don't believe this is one.

For example: What do you think of Obama? Very favorable, etc...

What would your opinion be if you knew Obama raped newborn babies? Very favorable, etc...

Press release: Obama has the worst approval rating of any candidate in history.

Gotta love those anti-Hillerites!

:eyes:

All polls showing Clinton in the lead are the result of a vast right wing conspiracy?
You people crack me up! :rofl:

eom

that they would leave polling pristine?

And remember: all pollsters use "Correction factors" i.e. they might double the Republican response on a poll to "correct" for the "fact" that Republicans are more likely to hang up on a poll. So where do they get these correction factors? Well, among other places, from the ACTUAL results of elections. So, if elections are rigged....

I'm trying to understand your argument so we can intelligently and rationally discuss it...

Is it your argument that every single published pollster is in cahoots since virtually every published national poll shows Hillary Clinton with a commanding lead, despite the fact that these polls are conducted by organizations as random as the media, universities, and Democratic pollsters with no dog in this fight?

I am convinced that the failure of the DLC to acknowledge Gore's win in 2000 (in fact they blame his "loss" on breaking with the DLC and becoming a populist-i'll post a link below) and their active role in keeping Kerry from challenging Ohio in 2004(thanks to Clinton ally James Carville (also posted below) was calculated as to allow a HRC run in '08. If either would have taken the office they won, then HRC and her corporate cronies would not have had a chance in 2008. Also look how they try to undermine Howard Dean. Anyway, here are some links:

FIRST..GORE BROKE WITH THE DLC TO BECOME A POPULIST:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner
A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

SECOND, AFTER GORE'S WIN THEY BLAME HIS 'LOSS' ON BREAKING WITH THE DLC:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.
Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

AND FINALLY, CLINTON ALLY JAMES CARVILLE'S ROLE IN THE QUICK KERRY CONCESSION:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

RESEARCH THIS FOR YOURSELVES, BEFORE YOU CAST A VOTE FOR ANY DLC CANDIDATE!

If you have evidence that all the pollsters are in cahoots please adduce it so we can discuss it...

That's how we roll in America...

an example of a Republican Operative who should have been disgraced but instead becomes spokeman for Zogby:

Fritz Wenzel (of T.Blade + Coingate fame) Now Working for Zogby


Weird...He allegedly suppresses Coingate story prior to the '04 Election in Ohio and is now working for Zogby. What's up with this?


Saving Ohio

Did a reporter with GOP ties suppress a story that could have cost Bush the White House?

By Bill Frogameni

Pages 1 2


October 6, 2005 | In April 2005, the Blade newspaper of Toledo, Ohio, began publishing a remarkable series of articles about a well-connected Republican donor, Tom Noe, chair of the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign for Lucas County, which encompasses Toledo. The Blade, which had won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting in 2004, discovered that Noe, a Toledo coin dealer, was investing $50 million for the state through the novel practice of coin speculation: buying and selling rare coins to turn a profit. Noe, the Blade revealed, could not account for $10 million to $13 million in the fund.

The paper also divulged that Noe had been placed under federal investigation for allegedly laundering money -- perhaps state money -- to the Bush campaign. The Blade's initial reports on Noe started a chain reaction of related scandals for Ohio's dominant Republicans. Recently, Gov. Bob Taft pleaded no contest to accepting several gifts from influence peddlers -- including Noe -- without reporting them, as law requires. Noe is currently the subject of 13 investigations.

In November 2004, Lucas County was among the most hotly contested areas in the most hotly contested state. Kerry won the county by 45,000 votes, but George W. Bush went on to win Ohio by less than 120,000 votes, which swung the election for him.


But Bush's reelection may have been made possible by a Blade reporter with close ties to the Republican Party who reportedly knew about Noe's potential campaign violations in early 2004 but suppressed the story.

According to several knowledgeable sources, the Blade's chief political columnist, Fritz Wenzel, was told of Noe's potential campaign violations as early as January 2004. But according to Blade editors, Wenzel never gave the paper the all-important tip in early 2004.



-SNIP
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/10/06/ohio/index.html



Zogby International spokesman Fritz Wenzel said that was the case in July when Syracuse Post-Standard reporter Glenn Coin wrote a story about Vice President Cheney’s visit to Utica for a fundraiser for Meier. Wenzel was quoted extensively in the article.

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=13587



However, as it turns out, both Wenzel and his son had personal relationships with the Noes, who even attended the son's wedding.

In fact, in March 2004, a couple of months after Wenzel got the tip, his son was elected to the Lucas County Republican Central Committee, and from April 15, 2005, to the end of May 2005, Wenzel's son was on the payroll of the Ohio Republican Party.

http://www.counterpunch.org/pringle06092006.html

MY POINT IS THERE IS A REASON FOR TAMPERING WITH POLLS AND IT INFLUENCING PUBLIC THOUGHT SUCH AS ELECTIONS.. MANY FOLKS WANT TO VOTE FOR A LEADER WHO IS A HEAD. SO WHETHER IT IS THE DLC OR REPUBLICANS EXPOSING WHY THERE IS TAMPERING IN THE POLLS-TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS OR TO COVER UP FRAUD, IS VERY IMPORTANT.

Based on the expected replies here, I'm coining a new phrase to identify a recently identified illness: LDD - Logic Deficiency Disorder.

:rofl:

CDS = Clinton Derangement Syndrome, where the mere mention of Hillary Clinton drives apparently otherwise rational persons insane with rage? (Not to be confused with CTS, 'Clinton Tourettes Snydrome, where the mere mention of her name triggers negative outbursts: "Ack! Cackle!!", "Argh! Warmonger!!", "Yelp! MSM Loves Her!!"...

being put forth in the MSM during this primary season. Before the races had even begun, we were having Hillary and to a lesser extent Obama shoved down our throats 24/7. I'm tired of hearing, how she is our candidate when the first of the primaries haven't even been decided yet.

To hear the MSM, she was anointed by us from the get go. Who are all these people voting in these so called polls? I know I haven't been polled, or asked. So who precisely is responding to these polls?

Unfortunately over the last 15 years, I've become so freakin suspicious of most things the MSM puts forth as news. I hate what the last 6 years have done to me especially. I use to love the news, but feel I can't trust the majority of them now.

I sincerely mean that, but you missed the point they were trying to convey in this thread was to only push and praise Hillary and it morphed into the polls are right about her being in the lead. They are shoving her down yours and my throats and I don't buy it and i'm glad you don't buy it either. They need to address real issues and make Hillary answerable to the people without spinning or deceiving us. It's all hype and glitter with no real substance to it if one were to look. I almost feel like I'm looking at a republicon campaign the way it's being done along with the blind supporters.

that they're "Hillary pollsters"? Did Clinton commission these polls?

Did Clinton commission all the OTHER polls that show essentially the same thing? Or just another public service brought to us by the Department of Making Shit Up?

so they are helping her.

:shrug:

:shrug:

They are push polls for the most part...otherwise they wouldn't leave certain candidates out.

Hillary Clinton 44

Barack Obama 17

Al Gore 10

John Edwards 9

Bill Richardson 3

Dennis Kucinich 2

Joseph Biden 1

Chris Dodd 1

Mike Gravel -

Unsure 11

Wouldn't Vote 2

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

We don't distiguish ourselves when we make things up...

There's lots of polls and in the lions share of them all the announced candidates are listed....

this "seems" to be your pet site...meh, I have no use for it.
Someone stated upthread EXACTLY what this site was and who the people that ran it were...but hey...knock yourself out.
You are content because it gives you the answers you seek. Rock on.
I prefer reliability.:D

I'm a logical positivist...The more empirical information I have the better:


:crazy:

They've got themselves covered on both sides of the aisle.

Junkdrawer and "charlie." :thumbsup:

to Mitt Romney.

Total for this search: $6,900
Search Criteria:
Donor name: towery
Donor State: GA
Cycle(s) selected: 2008


Contributor
Occupation
Date
Amount
Recipient

TOWERY, MARILEA MRS
ATLANTA,GA 30327
HOMEMAKER
5/24/2007
$2,300
Romney, Mitt

TOWERY, MATT A JR
ATLANTA,GA 30327
TOWERY COMMUNICATIONS/PRESIDENT/ CE
5/29/2007
$2,300
Clinton, Hillary

TOWERY, MATTHEW A MR JR
ATLANTA,GA 30327
STUDENT
5/24/2007
$2,300
Romney, Mitt

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=FVT54&txtName=towery&txtState=GA&txt2008=Y&Order=N

Nice complement to the research posted in the opening post.

that Towery only gave to Hillary Clinton.

They are supporting Romney and Hillary. Two people with completely indistinguishable health plans.

The Inside Advantage Poll confirms recent polls by AP-IPSOS, Gallup, and FOX...

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

Some questions..

Are they all in cahoots?

Do you believe they just made up the results? You know, not even bother to make the calls...

Why is not another pollster coming in to put a lie to this alleged fraud? He would make quite an name for himself...

If you can't defeat your opponents , just make shit up about them...

is a "Hillary pollster." He donated to her campaign. That doesn't mean he fixes polls or that he belongs to Hillary. I see nothing at all that shows "right wing pollsters are working so hard to get Hillary nominated."

Why should we believe in any polls? They have a pretty good record of predicting elections within a few points. There are many polls, so if one was fixed it would stand out against the others. Other polls show Gore coming in around 3rd in a hypothetical race, with Hillary only losing a few of her points to Gore.

If the results are specious the results would be contradicted by surveys of the same vintage...Since the results are not contradicted they must of necessity be correct...

It's sad to see otherwise intelligent people shit all over social science research because they don't like the results in one instance...

the correct statement is "right-wing pollster believes that hillary is a kindred spirit who reflects his values and policies and backs up that belief with his cash."

There, all fixed...

1)Is it your argument that every single published pollster is in cahoots since virtually every published national poll shows Hillary Clinton with a commanding lead, despite the fact that these polls are conducted by organizations as random as the media, universities, and Democratic pollsters with no dog in this fight?

2) If the results of all the polls are flawed, why are all the polls flawed in the same direction?

3) If the results of all the polls are flawed, wouldn't the results be random, as any statistician would suggest?

Let me preface my fourth question by saying I too would want confirmation on any one individual poll...

4) In the present instance you are suggesting the poll is useless because it was conducted by a pollster with dubious sympathies...Do you believe he had the audacity to just make this whole thing up, no calls, no tabulating, nothing...?

But Obama has raised a bit more money...

as well.

I grant that this awful poll alone is not grounds for disbelieving all polls. But, taken with Mark Penn's questionable firm, it looks to me like there is considerable effort on the far right and in Hillary's camp to spin the polls to make Hillary seem invincible.

Moreover, I still see no one wants to touch the weirdness that is Matt Towery's pattern of campaign contributions.

Later....

The former means "Pollsters who conduct polls regarding Hillary", which clearly includes Towery.

I have NOT in either my OP's body or heading said that Hillary has employed or directed Towery.

parties.

As to push polling that refersto how the interview questions are structured abd how the interview itself is structured. Nothing indicated push polling Based on my review.

Pollingreport includes the full question asked wording and each firm discloses the structure of the interviews.

Since you do not seem to know or understandt he concept of "push polling", it is hard to take seriously your theme that all pollsters are being paid to cause their poll's outcome to favor Hillary. No one seems to have evidence that the pollsters are doing anything to influence their outcomes so as to push the political outcome they want too occur. All anyone posting in this thread seems to have as a fact is that many of these pollsters have had in the past non-liberal clients , including more conservative Dems, than those on DU, and and that they gave money to both sides

And - Like $2,300 buys anything these days LOL!

As usual - a GOP theme seems to work on sone DUers

Democrats didn't like/contribute/elect him either.

There is a whole world outside DU

It would split the progressive opposition to her campaign between Gore, Obama and Edwards, which will allow her to win the primaries with 30% of the vote in early states.

I think most of the alleged hillary support would go to a proven winner -- someone who's won the Presidency, Nobel Peace Prize AND an Oscar...

Only the hard core, bitter ender, hillbots would stay with her...

It is my belief that Gore isn't running because of Hillary being in the race.

is more evidence of her relationship with the right. What is questionable is the number of her supporters who worked to destroy her husband!Rupert Murdoch and Gringrich were among the cheif archeitects of the vast RW Conspiracy.The fact that numbers ofconservative Republicand are among her contributors is troubling. Her relationship with Towery only underscores her relationship with Mark Penn, Rupert Murdoch, The National Enquirer, the NY Post, FOX and other questionable news outlets.There have been allegations that her campaign has been associated with media story "plants". regarding other candidates. It is beginning to appear that Hillary has become part of the RW noise machine she allegedly fought.

I can sure agree with you on that. Sometimes five or six new ones a day. I think there is a large rundown office building somewhere full of GOP interns making this stuff up sending it out.

Even more conspiratorial, since the story about "plants" circulated its possible that Hillary is in charge of the right wing smear Hillary industry. She makes herself a victim and gets votes that way. Well, I can ALLEGE it, can't I?

before their eyes and dismiss all evidence.Politics is often a very dirty business and it is one Hillary excels at.I thought that was the reason so many support her.It would not be my reason to support a candidate but many have told me it is their reason to support Hillary.They believe she can go to the gutter to get what she wants and she knows how to "fight" because she has mattered the art of political expedience.

:sarcasm:

on edit- added the sarcasm ...

:silly:

Actor Matt Damon, for example, said that Bush was "kind of like Fredo" (the dimwitted Corleone brother from "The Godfather"): "They didn't even let that guy run the family business, much less the country."

http://archive.salon.com/ent/feature/2000/09/15/concert/index.html

as an environmentalist no less? *cough**cough* Maybe he wants to run against Hillary so he can launch his gigantic smear machine against her and win once they both win the primaries. First, he helps her and then he breaks her into a million pieces in a one on one campaign. He has no morals or scruples. I can see him doing it.

I covered two years ago and he spoke very positively of Hillary.

mind around it anymore. What if she chooses him as her running mate or vice versa? Then we would truly have one party rule and it just wouldn't be right.

Gingrich loved the Clintons so much he tried to throw them out of office..


:crazy:

are a hoot.

Acolyte

:crazy:

Or do you not believe he did that? And he was one of the owrst of the Clinton's enemies.Talk about acolytes.Sheesh.

That is a fact.Perhaps he is just being "polite' but I doubt it.

DemocratSinceBirth, you really need to try harder to keep up.

"Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, has been working alongside the wife of former President Bill Clinton, now a Democratic senator from New York, on a number of issues, and even appeared with her at a press conference on Wednesday to promote - of all things - health care legislation.

But more puzzling than that, Gingrich has been talking up Clinton's presidential prospects in 2008, to the chagrin of conservative loyalists who once regarded him as an iconic figure. Last month, he even suggested she might capture the presidency, saying "any Republican who thinks she's going to be easy to beat has a total amnesia about the history of the Clintons."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/13/news/clinton.php


Just like Bill is now hanging out with Bush41 (of Iran/Contra and Death Squad fame), Hillary and Newt are now cozy with each other.

And who couldn't fail to notice:


Everything now appears to be just peachy between the hard right NeoCons and the Clintons.

He was quite flattering to both Clintons.I do NOT believe that Newt and Co do things like this to be "nice" And the degree of support Ms.Clinton is getting for questionable sources and what the motives are troubles me. But it appears that any who "dare" to question such things is called a "freeper" or worse. And everything posted that is something to be questionedis denied and termed false.Thank you for the Grigrich post.It validates what he had to say.Perhaps some will think about Newt in addition to all the others.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/13/biden_and_brownback_unite_to_push_antiwar_plan/


Ted Kennedy and Dan Quayle worked together on the Job Training Act:


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n19_v40/ai_6670954


And Ted Kennedy was given the "George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service" by all people, George Bush:

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2003/11/03/an_unlikely_awardwin.php

And I keep up with events just fine...Thank you...


:P

I posted positive proof that your claims in the previous posts were, in fact, untrue.

You deflect with some non sequiturs, and never addressed the issue at hand.

Not only do you need to work harder to keep up,
but you should also work harder at staying focused.
Just saying.....

and that's not even her fake smile

When Hillary was done with him they could park a Navigator in it...

this is a good thing in a President how?

DSB

Haven't u noticed how nice they are to her. Even on Faux, they treat her with respect. Or pity! They are helping her fix the polls to give her the big mo! They may even help her steal the primary just so they can run against Dem who has NO CHANCE OF WINNING! Now John Edwards could beat them easily BUT he won't get a chance because Hillary's going to ruin everything!

I wish DU would give prizes...

Ive been saying your point for months now. I have been called crazy. I am glad others are seeing through the smoke screen.:pals: :applause:

And what are you saying, the poll was rigged?
They knew what the answer was going to be before they asked the question?
They wouldn't have publicized it if the result was different?

Matt Towery is a Republican but that doesn't mean he has no credibility as a pollster. He is actually pretty well respected regardless of his political background. It's possible.

And Penn's firm was hired by the US government to do a P.R. job. It's not like they decided to go overthrow a government by themselves.

Some of you all do yourselves a disservice when you react reflexively to emotional triggers. You are putting false ideas out there just to reinforce some pre-conceived agenda, but it's harmful to the process and this community. Get a grip!

And it was his wife and kid that gave to Mitt Romney, but even if it was really Matt, that makes it better how?

Sigh...yeah, yeah, I feel just lousy about myself thinking that we should question the polls.

The evidence keeps mounting.

The Hillary cheerleaders can support her all they want. However, it's obvious that for reasons only
the neocon warmonger know behind closed doors--Hillary is their candidate.

She knew the Iraq war was a lie, yet she did nothing to stop it. The PNACers asked
her husband for war with Iraq, and he declined. The same characters launch the Iraq
war and she says nothing...as usual.

She repeats BushCo's Iran-war talking points. She does nothing to stop the accelerated
PNAC plan, which has its designs set on Iran--as outlined in their plan.

Gingrich was on Meet the Press 2 weeks ago, glorifying Hillary.

Now, we find out that she's surrounded herself with Republican operatives, press
people and strategists.

There is a gaggle of blind Hillary enthusiasts who can't get enough of her. Whatever.

Those of us who have their eyes wide open know exactly what is going on here. We're
not buying it.

I would support any of the current Dem candidates for President, but not Hillary. She's
a wolf in sheep's clothing--a corporatist who can't even take an honest question from
an Iowan without calling him "a plant".

I'll stay home on election day if she's nominated.

proposal is more liberal than any of her opponents except the DK types that openly support single payer - yet Hillary is the corporate shill

It seems a logic 101 refresher may be a useful to some posters - I believe the course starts with know the facts and do not just guess - :-)

hillaryCare 2.0 is the worst of the bunch.

And she couldn't get a Congress to pass a resolution honoring Motherhood...let alone her welfare program for the health insurance mafia...

with total choices.

Getting it passed may be harder than the others because it goes farther (Edwards plan does look very similiar, but Obama's voluntary please buy insurance is very weak, and the others use some or all of Medicare for all, which would be even harder to pass - but which (the DK medicare for all) is my preferred approach).

As to working with others in Congress - a little research will show you that she has a deserved reputation for working well with folks on both sides of the aisle and for getting things passed.

Sad. Sad sad sad sad sad. Has is REALLY come to this?

This isn't right.

Bookmarked.

to get this information out to the average voter. they need to know not to give up fighting for their candidate and that the polls lie.

I have asked that very question here numerous times. NOW you know why.

Great research and post!!! K*R

1)Is it your argument that every single published pollster is in cahoots since virtually every published national poll shows Hillary Clinton with a commanding lead, despite the fact that these polls are conducted by organizations as random as the media, universities, and Democratic pollsters with no dog in this fight?

2) If the results of all the polls are flawed, why are all the polls flawed in the same direction?

3) If the results of all the polls are flawed, wouldn't the results be random, as any statistician would suggest?


4) In the present instance you are suggesting the poll is useless because it was conducted by a pollster with dubious sympathies...Do you believe he had the audacity to just make this whole thing up, no calls, no tabulating, nothing...?

5) The perception that Hillary Clinton is beating her opponents rather badly might become a seld fulfilling prophecy...Presumably, the larger campaigns like Edwards and Obama have their own pollsters...If all the other pollsters are wrong or evil and are publishing polls that make them look like losers why don't they counteract it with polls of their own?

*Since he didn't answer the first time

Basically, I think that the media is using early "name recognition" to create an atmosphere of invincibility around Hillary. The RW media did the same thing for Bush in 1998.

There are multiple ways to skew a poll. Push polling. Dubious "correction factors". etc. etc.

In short, polling is less of a science than an art. And remember these guys sell their results. If they're too far out of the "mainstream", they can't sell their wares. So, in a way, it becomes like punditry - and the "conventional wisdom" effect applies.

I'm not a genius but I think I know a bit about social science research...I know how you can manipulate polls but most pollsters are only interested in being right...If their polls don't match the results they look like jackasses...

I am pretty sure if I was funded I could get any grad school level political science student to conduct a poll, i.e. write the questions, hire the callers, weight the poll for different groups, etcetera and then tabulate the respones...I suspect the results would be pretty much similar to the results we are seeing now ;dozens and dozens of polls, all describing the same phenomenon and that is that Senator Clinton has a commanding lead...

Respectfully, you have done a good job of playing to the crowd in this thread... I think my more learned brethren call it argumentum ad populum...You have convinced them that every published poll is a joke and it my beyond my ken to disabuse them of that notion...

You won...

I guess you just don't understand the complaint in the OP...

The poll that is being questioned says that Hillary would do BETTER if Al Gore were in the race.

That is CONTRADICTED by the polls that you keep referring to.

You have it exactly WRONG!

Junkdrawer suggested, implied, inferred, requested, whatever that we discard the "Insider Advantage" poll because it was "tainted"...

That's why I linked the Gallup, AP-Ipsos and FOX polls which confimed Mr. Towery's findings... In all four polls Ms. Clinton is polling in the forties and Mr. Gore is polling anywhere between ten and fifteen percent, well within the margin of error...

But why are we discussing this... There is a consensus here that all polls are cacka, unless the polls confirms one's prejudices (in the broadest sense of the term as in pre judge)... I'm just getting with the program...You and Junkdrawer won...After reading the arguments here I now think all forms of social scientific inquiry in the form of surveys is pseuedo-science and not to be relied upon...The only polls to be relied on are internet polls of self selected respondents with no controls at all...

"So, last night, Hillary supporters posted a poll that suggests that Hillary would actually benefit if Al Gore entered the race."

Not a single one of your polls corroborates this statement!

DO THEY?