PPP = PimPed-Out Polling?

[reformist2]

So this Correct-the-Record SUPERPAC run by DAVID BROCK paid PPP to conduct a tailor-made poll and turn the results around mere minutes after the debate was over... Talk about turning tricks, PPP you've got some fast moves, baby!


"PPP interviewed 510 Democratic primary voters nationally by telephone after the debate who had been pre-screened on Thursday and Friday as planning to watch the debate and willing to give their opinions about it afterward. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.3%. This research was conducted on behalf of Correct The Record."

[jfern]

1. Their polls were already suspiciously pro Hillary this cycle

But the fact that the SuperPAC that is in direct coordination with her campaign is paying for polls on who won a debate means I won't be paying any more attention to their pro Hillary propaganda.

[Adrahil]

22. Unskewed Polls! Amiright?

You sound like the GOP in 2012. The polls are biased! Yeah, sure.... You keep telling yourself that.

[jfern]

25. No, most other pollsters don't seem to be pro Hillary hacks.

[Adrahil]

26. I sitting here looking at the aggregate polls... you are whistling int he dark. nt

[jfern]

28. PPP has been rather consistently one of the most pro Hillary

[Adrahil]

29. We'll see how they perform.

They are a professional polling outfit. If their models suck, then their reputation will taker a hit, and they won;t do as well business wise.

I do NOT believe they are in the tank for Clinton. They have nothing to gain from that.

[jfern]

30. They have money from Correct the Record to gain from it

[Adrahil]

32. You don't throw away your entire business for one client...

Especially for what was no doubt a kind of pissant contract. People are way overthinking this... seeing conspiracies everywhere.

[jfern]

33. Even disregarding this poll, PPP has been quite pro Hillary with their primary polls

[Adrahil]

34. Read the above posts...

If their model sucks and they get it wrong, they will take a reputation hit, and won;t do as well business-wise. The thing about political polling firms is that there is a check on them... the actual results.

[jfern]

35. Well, the two other polls of this debate are far less pro Hillary

But anyways, PPP will know to stop being so hackish near the actual elections. They'll make sure their polls are much more in agreement with other pollsters so that they can appear to be a good pollster. See this article for more.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/

[Adrahil]

36. Man, you are SERIOUSLY in the tank for Bernie.

Hey man, that's fine. See you at the polls.

[jfern]

37. Just read that 538 article. PPP has a habit of suddenly being closer to the polling average

near the election.

[moobu2]

39. All the polls are pro Hillary because she's way ahead of Bernie

[jfern]

40. I mean compared to other polls

[Juicy_Bellows]

2. The Pfabulous Pfolling with A Pfunny name. nt.

[silenttigersong]

3. OK I GET IT

they polled a focus group that said polls influence them, then they polled certain Hillary leaning voters. .

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. It's more than likely what Brock has done with ALL the Corporate Owned MSM polls.

The man has no morals. And he works for Hillary.

[winter is coming]

9. I do find myself wondering about that. n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. Brock knows everyone from his work with Media Matters and from his days as a GOP HIT MAN. I DON'T

Doubt for one minute he Contacted Corporate Owned pollsters and made it worth their while to post bogus poll results. Every Corporate Owned pollster poll released since the first debate has appeared BOGUS to me. Hillary did not win that debate, yet every Corporate Owned talking head and Corporate Owned pollster said she did? Uh, no. Something nefarious is going on.

We saw what Brock did with leaking that hit job to the ETHICAL Huffpo journalist who exposed exactly what he did. He's capable of anything.
The Clintons have obviously decided if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. They hang with the Bush Crime Family and hired one of the most corrupt and unethical people in D.C., David Brock. They're playing the GOP game. Win at all costs. Lie, cheat or steal. Believe nothing that comes from that campaign.

[reformist2]

23. I think its quite likely. People always laugh at such insinuations until someone blows the whistle!

[jeff47]

5. Problems from their poll

1) Their methodology does not say how they got a random sample....heavily implying they did not get one.
2) They did not publish their screening questions.
3) They did not rotate the candidate's names. That's standard practice since the first name always does better.
4) The answer for Q1 is really weird. 100% of their sample watched the debate. No one had something else come up?

[jfern]

7. They choose 510 Hillary friendly voters on a previous day to call today

[Cheese Sandwich]

6. But will the media report it as a paid poll or just call it a poll...

I'm wondering that

[Thinkingabout]

8. If PPP had listed Sanders as the winner this would be praised. Saying nasty statements about PPP is

not going to change the results. Is the FIX a pimped out polling?

[winter is coming]

11. If PPP had listed Sanders a the winner we'd be laughing our asses off

because one of Hillary's superPACs had paid for the bad news.

[Thinkingabout]

15. Yes I am laughing off the FIX poll who listed Sanders as the winner.

[jeff47]

12. Their methodology does not show how they got a random sample.

That heavily implies they did not get a random sample. You say how you got your random sample when you get a random sample.

And that's just one of the problems.

If this showed Sanders as the winner, I'd be happy until I read their report and saw the massive problems.

[CoffeeCat]

16. The issue is who is behind the poll...

...and who funds the poll.

Clearly, there are Clinton interests linked to this poll.

Not cool.

Again, more smoke and mirrors from Hillary. Apparently, smoke and mirrors are the foundation of her campaign.

You have to wonder what other polls are questionable too...and just exactly how much support she really has.

This happened in Iowa in 2008. We were told that she was inevitable. And she was leading in most polls. Then, she came in third in the Iowa caucuses. What a pickle she gets herself in with all of this fakery (fake polls, planted questioners in Iowa audiences, hiring PR firms to give her positive mentions on message boards and in article comment sections, etc.).

You just have to wonder--how much of her campaign is hot air?

[Thinkingabout]

31. Since her poll numbers are high it is difficult to get people who are not connected.

[Bread and Circus]

10. but...but... it is so scientific! @#scientific.com.org

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. Pre screened Hillary supporters?

[jeff47]

14. Well, they didn't publish the screening questions.... (nt)

[reformist2]

24. Do you have a cell phone - No? Great, you're a member of our focus group!

[RiverLover]

18. R&K!

Thanks for posting this. We need to know how we're being manipulated...

[Persondem]

19. So how was the poll "tailor made"??

[BumRushDaShow]

20. Unless it favors someone else

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251549386

[brooklynite]

21. Something to consider: elections end

...but polling continues. Is PPP gong to risk it's integrity with other clients for the sake of ONE election poll?

[Adrahil]

27. The answer is NO. But stop it with your reason!

[d_legendary1]

38. The keep polling the same stiffs

But mind you this is a scientific poll.