Trump Campaign to Purge Pollsters After Leak of Dismal Results

There is zero inherent conflict between "fired for releasing" and "fired for leaking" unless you want to read the former as the release of information being authorized by the people who then fired the individuals releasing the information.

 

Uh...you are saying that even Trump does not know if he lied.

 

Neither the original headline nor the version typed out in the OP imply that they were fired because of the poor numbers or because of the leaking. They merely reference the timing of the events "fired after release/leak of bad polling data." The article details the rationale.

 

If they weren’t the real polls he wouldn’t be firing the polling firm.

 

And that he fired a company over fake polls, how on earth does that make sense?? If the data was fake why would he think it came from the people with the real data???

 

Which she won in the popular vote. The polls were right. But trump won't win being over 10 points down.

What cracks me up is that almost EVERY democrat beats him. LOL!!!

Trump is also severely underwater in key States that gave him his win. There was a story that the trump campaign is planning to campaign in OREGON!!! OREGON for crying out loud. That is called desperation!

 

FACT: The headline of the article specifically mentioned that they were fired because of the leak of dismal results.
FACT: The OP did not post the headline exactly as the topic header. Something that is REQUIRED on this sub-forum.
FACT: The OP changed the context of the article by stating they were fired "FOR RELEASING DISMAL RESULTS". That implies to anybody with a higher than a 3rd grade reading skill that it was the dismal results that led to the firing.....which is NOT what the other articles state.
FACT: The OP's narrative then goes on to discuss the "dismal results" and not the leaking. He does mention that they were released to the public, but not that they were leaked.

I can not read the NYT article as it is behind a paywall (something else that I believe is not allowed on this sub-forum), so I can not determine how NYT spun this.

 

Cool story so now all national polls are basically a California only poll is what your saying and should not be trusted on who actually wins. For some reason I think you'll post them 1000 times over the next year.

 

Putting the word "fact" in all caps does not help your argument. The original headline said that the groups were fired after the leak of the bad polling data. That is a timeline of events, not a discussion of the rationale behind the firing.

 

Most of Oregon is actually more pro-Trump than they are against him.



Unfortunately, the people in the Portland area are anti-Trump and have a fairly effective "get-out-the vote" campaign. While i do agree that it would likely be an uphill battle for Trump to win Oregon, it is not out of the realm of possibilities. Trump could change Lincoln, Clatsop, and Clackamas County to red, which might change the State, but it would likely still be tight.

 

The same "but the polls showed hillary winning" has been used for three years as a reason to dismiss the polls despite the fact that a) the polls in 2016 were largely accurate and b) the polls in 2018 were also largely accurate.

But yea, there's a reason that national polling data tended to show Hillary winning by ~3 points in 2016. That's because the population of the country that wanted to vote for Hillary was roughly 3% higher.

 

Yes the parts of Oregon that don’t have people, prefer trump.

 

Well, you have shown time and time again that you are not interested in facts, so I am not surprised at your ignoring them again. If you want to make assumptions and portray the timeline as being the rational, I have no doubt you will do so at every opportunity. Some might find that as being intellectually dishonest though....but what else is new.

 

I love it how people think that the red areas are nothing than vacant land. It might not be as densely populated as the urban portion of the State, but it is not really vacant (except for the National Forests areas). Douglas, Marion, Linn, Deschutes, and Jackson County all have significant population for Oregon Counties and voted for Trump.

In Oregon, HC only received 50.07% of popular vote. Trump received about 40% of the vote. The other 10% went to Johnson, Stein, or write-ins. The ones voting for Johnson would likely be more inclined to vote Trump if it was just a HC/Trump ticket. Stein voters would likely go HC.

 

He fired them for 2 separate leaks, not the results. Who sells Leftists these lies that they so easily repeat like sheep?

 

and they probably all signed NDA's so we will never here from them

I wonder how many people this President has silenced with NDA's, sad so many people are not able to talk about their experiences with this President

all NDA's should be null and void when a person becomes President

 

You don't do much business apparently.

I have signed dozens and dozens of NDA's. It is common business practice and for good reason.

 

Trump is not running a business, he is running a country, and what business did he have with Stormy?

Trump abuses NDA's, I think we all know that

if one doesn't want people talking about you that signed NDA's, don't become President

 

All politicians do NDA's as well as business people.

 

no politician makes government employees sign NDA's not to say anythign bad about them, their family or the Trump brand

most NDA's are targeted to technical data, ect.... Trump abuses them

 

Says the people who flew billions of dollars to Iran.

 

I'm not about to give my info to the NY Slimes, so I couldn't read the story, but does it not say in the title there was a LEAK? If that's the case the person should be fired. Sounds like more liberal fake news and misinformation...

 

Let me help you further. My customers are the U.S. Federal Government (Department of Energy, Department of Defense) and most of the nation's nuclear power plants. THEY ALL MAKE US SIGN THEM.

I have signed the virtually identical NDA as Hillary Clinton for my work with the DOE.

You're welcome.

 

Did they really? Looking at the polls taken the day before the election, that comes off as an old wives tale.

The polls taking RCP average of the ten final polls showed Hillary winning the popular by 3 points, she won the popular vote by 2. Well within the margin of error of plus or minus three points. In other words, plain English, the polls were right.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

The only polls outside of the margin of error was the LA Times poll 5 points off and 2 outside the MOE and the Monmouth poll 4 points off and 1 outside the MOE. 8 of the 10 polls got it right, 2 didn't.

As for the electoral college which utilizes polls, the final was 203 Clinton, 164 Trump, 171 tossup. Wisconsin was the only state that was gotten wrong which the polls showed lean Clinton.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

FYI, tossup means - These are the most competitive; either party has a good chance of winning. Lean means - These are considered competitive races, but one party has an advantage. Solid means they will go to the candidate chosen. The race isn't competitive in those states.

 

Interesting observation but it requires reflection/ perspective informed by an understanding of history. Trumped up Republicans unfortunately respond in reactionary hysteria in the moment. Just look at the Trump rallies for insight into mindlessness. Republicans deserve a Trump-like Democratic president but Americans will never again allow such a malignant narcissistic disordered psycho in the White House.

President W Bush put it this way:
“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”