The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts

Friday, November 4, 2016

Quick Hit: Fox News Busted Again (Hillary Indictment Lie)

Two days ago, I opened an email account and low and behold what do you think was the site's top news headline.

Hillary Clinton Will Be Indicted  

The associated article included words as such: "The FBI reports to Fox News." I immediately closed the page and moved on to a worthwhile search for real news. It took mere seconds to see and recognize the lie. As I moved away from the page, I was curious as to which Fox News demagogue was associated with the story. No, It wasn't Hannity, the Fox News lie machine, it was his frequent propagandist runner-up: Pinocchio Jr.  Brett Baier.

Real Clear Politics reported the following items associated with Fox News's contribution to the 2016 General Election.
1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year. 
2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.  
3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton's secret server on Anthony Weiner's laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.  
4. Sources within the FBI have told Baier that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, "barring some obstruction in some way" from the Justice Department.  
5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information have been taken from it.
Baier's Original report.

As is frequently the case with Fox News. Their mission to provide entertainment all things conservative to their viewers includes a model that relies on outright fabrication.

Baier's admission and retraction follow.

Baier's comment was laced with words that basically stated, "I lied". Is there any wonder so many have bought into the Trump circus. cable news's number one network again busted for an outright lie?


Thursday, October 20, 2016

Presidential Debate III Fact Checks

After the following Twitter post embed, we will run through some third presidential debate fact checks.

"Nasty Woman"


US lost $6 billion unaccounted for in Iraq War?
Trump Hired Undocumented workers?
Who is behind US hacks?  Why would Trump even attempt to defend Russian hackers? Why?
Trump emphatically claimed he did not speak out against nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.
Just in case you did ot follow the embed regarding Trump's comments about nuclear weapons for Japan and south Korea, Newsy offered a piece early in 2016 with those very comments barking from his mouth.

Media Matters and last night;s comments. 
When Trump accused Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton of lying about comments he had made supporting the spread of nuclear weapons to more countries, Clinton responded, “I’m just quoting you.” Trump replied, “you’re not going to find a quote from me. … I didn’t say nuclear” weapons. After the exchange, Wallace asked to move on to the topic of the economy.



MSNBC also offer 38 fact checks of the debate. Yes, Clinton was also fact-checked with a result less than full "Ture", but i am certain you can imagine the check-in was skewered to the Right.

Let's take a quick look and listen to a few before the posted page link (below).

Fact checking Trump's foreign policy claims via @nbcnews

Question:  Why do you think Trump continues to rail about not announcing military missions against ISIS strongholds?  He has been beaten up on the issue by a previous debate host. yet, he continues to comment about such in a war located I pure desert and flat terrain.  His lack of leadership relative to advise from experts is astonishing. 

Why 'surprise' isn't the only attack strategy via @nbcnews

Many news sources have or are fact-checking the debate.  Here is the promised link from MSNBC.

Life Hack offers a veritable encyclopedia of third debate fact-checks.


Thursday, September 29, 2016

PPP: Polling Accuracy In A World Of Online Polling

During times when GOP trolls littered the internet with multiple votes, refresh the browser and more votes for Trump as winner of the Monday night debate, we find the latest Public Policy Polling survey results a breathe of veracity and welcome truisms. 

I will defer comment beyond a series of charts and graphics from MSNBC 

Public Policy Polling surveyed 1,002 debate watchers, who had been pre screened as planning to watch the debate and willing to answer a poll immediately after the debate about their thoughts, on September 26th. The margin of error is +/-3.1%. 80% of participants, selected through a list based sample, responded via the phone, while 20% of respondents who did not have landlines conducted the survey over the internet through an opt-in internet panel.]

One can not help but wonder the degree to which Trump's handlers can tweak his natural instincts and normal behavior to appear ready to lead the United States of America.


Saturday, July 2, 2016

Clinton: "No charges"

Apparently, mere hours after Hillary Clinton's voluntary interview with the FBI, the law enforcement agency announced (albeit it nonpublic) she would not face any charges related to her ill-advised use of a home server as Secretary of State.


Clinton Calmly Responds to Reports She Won’t Face Charges: ‘This Is Entirely Up to the Department’

by J.D. Durkin | 7:03 pm, July 2nd, 2016

On the same day when Hillary Clinton voluntarily sat for 3.5 hours with the FBI as part of their investigation into her handling of classified material, the former Secretary of State received — perhaps — a bit of unexpected good news during a live interview on MSNBC.

The surprise interview with Chuck Todd came just hours after Clinton wrapped up her meeting with FBI investigators at her house in Washington D.C. “I’ve been eager to do it,” she told Todd about finally sitting with the FBI. She remarked that she was looking forward to bringing the investigation, “to a conclusion.”

However, it was at the tail end of the live broadcast that Todd addressed the early reports that were fast coming in to several newsrooms on this Saturday: that Clinton will not be facing any charges.

“As we were talking, there are news reporters that indicate no charges may be brought against you and a final decision in a couple weeks,” said Todd in the waning seconds of the hit. “Were you given that indication today? That no charges would be filed and are you confident no charges would be filed?”

“Chuck I am not going to comment on the process,” replied Clinton. “I have no knowledge of any timeline. This is entirely up to the Department.” Just yesterday Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that the Justice Department would receive the full recommendation from the FBI and director James Comey; while no specific window of time has been announced, the coming weeks will prove to be very important in the development and release of the findings.

Sensing that he had already run over the allotted five minutes, Todd wrapped up his interview there.

You can check out the full interview above from MSNBC; the exchange about the newly-reports can be heard around the 7:00 mark.

J.D. Durkin (@jiveDurkey) is an editorial producer and columnist at Mediaite.
[image via screengrab]

Monday, March 7, 2016

Don Lemon Tripped-up Dem Candidates; Sanders Virtually Disappeared

Racial Blindspots?

During las night's Democrat debate, CNN's Don Lemon asked a question that I personally found inane and inconsequential. The question as posed in the video below was actually stated and re-stated via the debate co-host. While the question seemed almost GOPish, I discovered the manner in which both candidates responded somewhat revealing.

I have listed part of Bernie Sander's response because it is actually the genesis of this piece. Sander has to do better. Yet, I will add Clinton's answer was only marginally better, but without obvious (without a clue) stumble.

Lemon's (double) question.

"I want to ask both of you this question. I appreciate you responding to that question, but I want to ask both of you again. In a speech about policing, the FBI director James Comey borrowed a phrase from the Broadway show Avenue Q, saying, "Everyone is a little bit racist." What racial blind spot do you have? Secretary Clinton, you first."
Sander's answer in part:

Watch the full video of both answers linked here or below:
This is not a piece extolling the virtues of Clinton while criticizing Sanders. It is a personal observation with relevance to the primary campaign and the eventual winner.

Campaigning serves multiple purposes under one all-encompassing umbrella. Win a nomination orGeneral Election via convincing voters and contributions you are the best person as a recipient of their "gifts" (money and vote). First and over-ridding purpose; understood.

An even more basic consideration in the run-up for the final voting is candidate performance on the campaign trial. Watch the childishness and silliness of last week's GOP campaign week to understand this point. The long road to the White House is akin to running a marathon. A challenge that not only involves talent and skills, it requires preparation and in many cases a strong (back-office) team. Sander's via his claims of civil rights protest int he 1960s really should have a more circa 2016 manner of speech regarding issues of ethnicity. 

Yes, of course, he is from 99.9 percent white Vermont. Nonetheless, he is a sitting Democrat US Senator (many terms over) and the language in the one sentence (above) denotes inherent indifference that leads to inappropriate comments. 

Let's take the matter on step further. Ghettos as a staging area for his final solution? 

Since we know Sanders is aware that "poor" is a social economic abyss common across all ethnic groups in the US, we will not comment on the poorly stated sentence.

The salient point is, Sanders not only lives with an effect of a very elderly man (Non-verbals in particular), he at times shows the dangerous state of indifference based in life's experiences. Life in the 1960s is not life since the 19690s. Many so-called revolutionaries, hippies, peaceniks and militants grew to different lives than their lives in the 1960s.

While I am not a strong supporter of either Clinton or Sanders, I will be voting blue in the fall. Yet, I feel it important for Democrats (of which Sanders has recently claimed) must be cognizant of, and properly, equipped with language inherent in most progressives (liberals).

There is one saving grace in the question and debate interchange. No host from US media would dare ask such a question of the GOP candidates...and that is a shame.


Monday, July 27, 2015

Clinton Vs The Field?

The Statistikhengst has again visited the TPI with an update of CLINTON against the FIELD (Democrat and Republican)

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond

23 JULY 2015

2015-07-022 PPP (D) national poll

On the heels of the first part of an ABC/WAPO poll showing Clinton at +6 over Jeb Bush and +16 over him in a theoretical three-way race with Donald Trump as an Independent, PPP (D), undisputably the best pollster from 2012, has released it's latest national poll, and it is interesting.

This .pdf is 108 pages long. I recommend that you download the .pdf and view it with a program like Adobe in order to find the page numbers more quickly.

pp 1-2: General Summary
pp.3-61: GOP nomination
pp. 62-73: DEM nomination
pp. 74-end: General election and assorted additional internals

1,087 RV for the GE matchups, MoE = +/-3.0
Republican nomination: 524 RRV, MoE = +/-4.3
Democratic nomination: 496 DRV, MoE = +/-4.4

There is a lot of information from this poll to glean.  

Two caveats, just to save time:

1.) It's just one poll, but it is the 85th national poll since the 1st poll was released on December 5, 2012, more than 2.5 years ago. There have now been, including this PPP (D) poll, a sum-total of 365 head-to-head matchups from the 85 polls, and Hillary has won 356 of them (97.53% of all matchups), the GOP has won 6 matchups (1.64% of all matchups) and there were 3 absolute ties (0.83%). Virtually all of the Clinton wins have been outside the MoE of any given poll, and the vast majority of them have been +5 or well above.  So, yes, it's just one poll, but it is well in-line with 2.5 of electoral polling history. No candidate in our entire history has been polled in the early phase for a presidential cycle as much as Hillary Clinton. That is a historical fact.

2.) Any statement I make, based on the data from the poll, automatically means "according to this PPP (D) poll". I'm not going to write it every time, that just wastes time and energy. Everyone knows that I am referring to this poll.

Why so much information? Well, because no other pollster is willing to release so many internals as PPP.

In a nutshell: Hillary's favorability is bad (-10), but it is so far better than favorability for the majority of GOP candidates so that it is as if it plays no role.  In DEM nomination polling, as expected, Hillary easily sweeps the field of 5 declared candidates. In GOP nomination polling, Donald Trump is on top of a very large field. But in GE election polling, where Hillary wins over every single candidate with whom she is matched up, from +3 to +13, Donald Trump does absolutely the worst, at -13 behind Hillary. And in a theoretical 3-way matchup: Clinton / Bush / Trump, she beats Bush by +18 and Trump is almost tied with Bush, ala 1992 and 1912, but with a much, much, much larger margin.

That was the nutshell. Now, here are the specifics.



among Democrats: Fav 69 / unfav 22, +47 (p. 62 of the .pdf)
by gender among Democrats: women - fav 72 / unfav 19, +53, men - fav 65 / unfav 27, +38

However, among all voters, Hillary is deeply underwater: Fav 41 / unfav 51, -10 (p.74, pdf)
That is a bad fav rating to have and normally would indicate that a candidate is losing, and badly at that. This is mostly because while we expect her to triumph in the Liberal vote and get crushed in the conservative vote (which is the case), she is deeply underwater in the moderate vote:

Fav 39 / unfav 48, -9 (p.83, .pdf)

Only, most of the Republican candidates are doing far, far worse than Hillary in favorability ratings among the same general election RVs:

Carson: Fav 31 / unfav 34, -3
Walker: Fav 31 / unfav 38, -7
Rubio: Fav 31 / unfav 40, -9
Fiorina: Fav 21 / unfav 33, -12
Cruz: Fav 27 / unfav 45, -18
Paul: Fav 27 / unfav 45, -18
Huckabee: Fav 27 / unfav 49, -22
Bush: Fav 26 / unfav 52, -26
Trump: Fav 29 / unfav 60, -31
Christie: Fav 19 / unfav 61, -42

So, all of the GOP candidates are also underwater, but 7 of those 10 are doing worse than Hillary. If you think that Trump's fav deficit is the largest, you are wrong. At -31, that is a terrible statistic for any candidate, but Chris Christie is doing far worse, at -42. And the level of deficit does not correspond to any hard data in the general election matchups (see: below). For instance, Carson is only at -3, but still loses to Clinton by 8 points in the GE. Both Paul and Cruz are at -18 in fav/unfav and yet, Paul does very well against Clinton, is usually in low single digits behind her, where Cruz does considerably worse. This tells me that fav/unfav is only one consideration in the voters' mind and that fav/unfav does not translate 1:1 to electability/unelectability.

Back to Hillary's national fav/unfav: 41 / 51, -10. Among women, nationally, all GE voters, she is also underwater, 44 / 48, -4, but remember, she was way up among Democratic women, which means she is getting crushed among Conservative women and probably also underwater among moderate women in order to get to this statistic. Among men, she is at -15 (39 / 54), and yet, she wins every single matchup against all GOP comers and often is also ahead in the men's vote as well. That is an important data point, will be detailed later.

So, fav/unfav ratings only play a subordinate role in all of this. The data shows it very clearly.

You can see the gender internals for all candidates in this rubrik starting on p.86 of the .pdf.

DEM nomination

Clinton 57
Sanders 22
undecided 12
Webb 5
Chafee 3
O'Malley 2

Margin: Clinton +35

The polling shows a slight gain for Sanders, but a +35 margin is still a crushing blowout margin and Clinton's topline remains right up there close to the 60 mark, where it has been pretty much all the time. This race is non-competitive.

GOP nomination
Trump 19
Walker 17
Bush, Jeb 12
Rubio 10
Carson 10
Huckabee 8
Paul 4
Cruz 4
Fiorina 4
Christie 3
Kasich 3
Undecided 2
Perry 1
Santorum 1
Jindal 1
Gilmore, Graham and Pataki 0

Margin: Trump +2

With a MoE of +/-4.3, this is actually a statistical tie between Trump and Walker. Whether or not this is a post-announcement bounce for Walker remains to be seen. But only five GOP candidates of 17 are in double digits. Paul has lost steam, but Fiorina has actually ticked-up a bit. This is one of the first times that Kasich has been polled and he clocks in at 3 for a start, let's see where he goes.

General Election matchups

values in parentheses are from the previous PPP poll, from June 16, 2015, where applicable.

Clinton 45 (47) / Paul 42 (40), margin = Clinton +3 (+7)
Clinton 46 (46) / Rubio 41 (43), margin = Clinton +5 (+3)
Clinton 46 (45) / Bush 41 (41), margin = Clinton +5 (+4)
Clinton 46 (46) / Walker 41 (42), margin = Clinton +5 (+4)
Clinton 46 (47) / Huckabee 40 (42), margin = Clinton +6 (+5)Clinton 47 (46) / Carson 39 (41), margin = Clinton +8 (+5)
Clinton 48 (48) / Cruz 40 (42), margin = Clinton +8 (+2)
Clinton 46 (45) / Christie 38 (41), margin = Clinton +8 (+4)
Clinton 47 (46) / Fiorina 37 (40), margin = Clinton +10 (+6)
Clinton 50  / Trump 37margin = Clinton +13

And a three-way matchup, with Trump running as a possible Independent:

Clinton 45 Bush 25 / Trump 23, margin = Clinton +18

That is the second three-way matchup released in as many days. If we compared that to the ABC/WAPO matchup from July 20th, 2015:

Clinton 46 Bush 30 / Trump 20, margin = Clinton +16

First, in all ten one-to-one matchups, Hillary wins all of them, and only one win, against Rand Paul, is right at the cusp of the MoE (+/-3.0). She wins with margins from +3 to +13. Three of those margins are +5, 3 of them are +8. 9of those ten margins are better than President Obama's 2012 win, and five of them are also better than Obama's 2008 win. Clinton's winning margin compared to the last PPP (D) has improved in 9 of 10 matchups, the exception being the Clinton/Paul matchup, where Paul comes the closest to her, but has really slipped in GOP nomination polling, the first piece of evidence for the "Trumpian Divide"

The second piece of evidence are Trump's numbers themselves: Trump is at the top of the poll for the Republican nomination, or better put, at a statistical tie with Scott Walker, but is absolutely at the bottom in presidential matchups and this is not the first poll to show this, either. This is now the sixth poll to show Trump far behind Hillary in GE-matchups, and indeed, by a large double digit margin. That being said, this losing margin is smaller than the margins recorded in the Suffolk Poll (-17), the CNN poll (-24), the The FOX NEWS poll (-17), but larger than the yougov/Economist poll (-11).m There was also a Quinnipiac taken 3 weeks before Trump's entry into the race (-18).

And just for comparison, although I am sure that Bernie Sanders (D) is not going to get the Democratic nomination, in a matchup against Trump, Sanders also wins by +10, 47/37. That says something.

In all of these matchups, there is a story to be told in womens' vote vs. the men's vote, and it is a story not quite what people expect to hear. The numbers show that Hillary still has room to grow in the women's vote, where she has often been at +20 above her GOP challengers, but way behind in the men's vote. But here, often, the men's vote margins are smaller than usual, and she is often AHEAD in the men's vote, which is the bad message for the GOP.

Hillary vs. GOP, women's vote vs. mens vote:

vs. Bush: women +9, men -1
vs. Carson: women +11, men +5
vs. Christie: women +12, men +4
vs. Cruz: women +10, men +6
vs. Fiorina: women +16, men +2
vs. Huckabee: women +7, men +5
vs. Paul: women +10, men -4
vs. Rubio: women +7, men +3
vs. Trump: women +21, men +4
vs. Walker: women +11, men -1

Those internals can be found starting on p. 88 of the .pdf.

In only 3 of 10 matchups does Clinton lose in the men's vote. This is critical, because it means that the healthy margins we are seeing for the former Secretary of State are not just being generated by large margins in the women's vote. In fact, 5 of those margins (vs. Bush, Huckabee, Rubio, Cruz and Paul) are SMALLER than Obama's +11 in the womens' vote from 2012. Obama lost in the male vote in 2012. If this statistic maintains over the next year, then the GOP has a real problem on it's hand, because the assumption is that in order to at least make the race competitive, the GOP needs to win the men's vote handily.

What is missing from the matchups, what I would like to have seen, would have been a Clinton / Kasich matchup and still, a Clinton / Perry matchup.

AFTER all matchup questions, PPP asked the following:

33. Do you agree or disagree with the comments Donald Trump made about John McCain over
the weekend?

Agree 16 / disagree 60 / don't know 23, margin = disagree +44

So, the long and short of it is that Hillary is still easily cruising to the DEM nomination, the GOP field is still unsettled, but 5 candidates appear to have nestled themselves into the top tier, Clinton easily beats the GOP field in GE matchups and the double paradox exists within the GOP field: the guy likely to come the closest to Hillary is tanking in GOP nomination polling, and the guy who is at the top of GOP polling does the worst against Hillary, aka, the Trumpian Divide.

More internals at the poll.  Again, it is just one poll, but it says alot.