Donald Trump

OMG, No: Negative Opinion Polls Are Not Fake News

Even if pollsters have whiffed on a bunch of recent elections


According to the leader of the free world, any poll that finds less than a majority of Americans supporting him or his preferred policies is "fake news."

He's right about one thing: Pollsters whiffed badly when it came to predicting the outcome of last November's election. In fact, the polls have been wrong a lot lately, and last year in Reason I reported on some of the reasons for the industry's sudden crisis. If the president had read my piece, however, he'd know that the main problem with "horserace polling" is how hard it is to predict ahead of time what an electorate will look like.

Because it's no longer possible to get a truly random (and therefore representative) sample, pollsters compensate by making complicated statistical adjustments to their data. If you know your poll reached too few young people, you might "weight up" the millennial results you did get. But this involves making some crucial assumptions about how many voters on Election Day will hail from different demographic groups.

We can't know ahead of time what the true electorate will look like, so pollsters have to guess. In 2012, some right-of-center polling outfits posited that young voters and African Americans would be less motivated to turn out than they had been four years earlier. That assumption turned out to be wrong, and their predictions about who would win were wrong along with it.

Pre-election polling has become very difficult to get right precisely because we can't know for sure the demographic makeup of the people who will actually show up to the polls until after the fact. If you weight your data on the assumption that a large number of African Americans will stay home, and that assumption turns out to be wrong, everything else will be, too. Meanwhile, if you assume that Democrats will turn out in the same numbers to support Hillary Clinton as they did to support Barack Obama, and that turns out to be wrong…well, you can end up expecting a Clinton victory and getting Donald Trump instead.

But public opinion polling of the kind Trump is talking about—gauging Americans' views on a policy issue or even on the president—doesn't suffer from this weakness. We know the demographic characteristics of the population as a whole, so pollsters can be confident when they adjust their data that they're doing it right. No predictions about some future state need to be made in order to measure what people believe right now.

So there's little justification for Trump's claim that the polls are methodologically flawed when, for example, they find that a plurality of Americans strongly disapprove of his job handling, a majority of Americans oppose his immigration order, and fully 6 in 10 Americans do not want a border wall.

Tweaks to the way a question is asked can alter the results you get, and it definitely still makes sense to focus on the overall picture painted by the totality of the research that's out there, as opposed to singling in on any one data point. For instance, it would be safer to say that the public is roughly split on the immigration order than to say the people have rejected it outright. On the other hand, it's indisputable at this point that Trump's approval rating is underwater.

NEXT: Trust the Media? Yes—And No

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do


    2. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do


  1. ROFLMAO, another dope who still believes these fraudulent JournoList polls are legitimate.

    1. “Our product is totally legit – just ask us!”

      1. I wonder if these people took a lesson from the AGW scientific community which routinely needs to “massage” data to make it say what the narrative wants, and decided to “massage” the distribution in their polls to produce the results they wanted…

    2. Another fake commenter.

  2. From the linked polls:

    Among the entire sample, 29% described themselves as Democrats, 25% described themselves as Republicans, and 45% described themselves as independents or members of another party.

    From Gallup: 4% I, 28% R and 25% D.

    Yeah. If your polling weights do not reflect party identification totals, it’s fake news. This is one of the many reasons that the election polls were also fake news.

      1. Not to mention, the demographic of people willing to take a telephone survey on these issues is self-selecting to some point as well.

    1. I couldn’t believe the odds the UK bookies were laying on the election (or Brexit, for that matter) Trump was better than 3-to-1 at one point. If I’d had the money, I’d have put down up to $1k on that. Not that I was positive that Trump would win, just certain that the odds on offer didn’t come close to the actuality.

    2. So 45% libertarians. Moment. Achieved.

  3. Again, as I’ve said before his approval ratings are not underwater; it’s simply heavily divided on party lines. His base seems to love what he’s done the first two weeks, and at least in the beginning of a presidency, that’s the only thing that should matter to him. It’s good business in general to appeal to your most loyal voters first before you appeal to the moderates.

    1. What if you’re president and your most loyal voters like it when you behave like an insane man-baby?

      1. Is this your campaign pitch for 2020?

      2. Did he win? If yes, then he’s acting per the will of the people. I would have thought that such a huge proponent of democracy as yourself would get that.

        1. I never said democracy produces the best outcomes. I said I would rather the people decide than a cabal of libertarians, since libertarians are basically defined as people who think they’re much smarter than they are.

          Not that Trump won any kind of democratic contest.

          1. Yes, Tony, libertarians want others to be ruled by a cabal.

          2. I said I would rather the people decide

            And they did, so get over it.

          3. Not that Trump won any kind of democratic contest.

            In a series of 50 democratic contests, he won 30 of them.

            1. No no FS, it is imperative that the Will Of The People? of the State of California alone decide who the president is.

              1. And then only if their will reflects what the left wants… otherwise, fuck what they want.

      3. You’d oil up Melania and bend her over. At least that’s what I’d do.

    2. His approval splitting along party lines is one thing, but when none-of-the-above is the largest political affiliation in the US, it doesn’t really matter. Most people are neither Democrat or Republican. That doesn’t fit into the media narrative however.

  4. Yeah but don’t pretend those numbers are not manipulated. Like with the crowd sizes. I’ll bet that Trump has a negative rating on the way to winning his 2nd term.

    Oh and how nice of the media to finally re-discover the Labor Force Participation Rate after Obama leaves office.

    1. In general, Trump is IMO the wrong president to try to use approval polls as a measure of his success. That doesn’t mean that leftist journalists will stop doing it, since it will always fit their narrative, but Trump is a real “change candidate” both in rhetoric and action, and humans in general fear unpredictable more than bad.

      1. How long will it take democrats and their media pals to realize that conventional political analysis that has generally been correct for the past 20 years does not work anymore? Or should I ask, how many elections will they lose before this happens?

        1. It won’t simply take more losses for leftists to realize this fact, but rather a true landslide, either a 2018 GOP supermajority or a McGovern-esque 2020 election. Only then will the light bulb go off in their heads.

    2. “Oh and how nice of the media to finally re-discover the Labor Force Participation Rate after Obama leaves office.”

      They found it in a dusty corner lying next to the separation of powers.

      1. And global trade, too!

      2. Under a moth-eaten t-shirt about the Air Force holding a bake sale, no doubt.

        This is why so many people don’t trust the media. It’s not just outright lying; it’s creative editing, it’s disingenuous headlines, it’s cherry picking what stories to cover, it’s the marketing of a viewpoint or a narrative as opposed to the dispassionate reporting of facts. I’ve been around long enough to see how a newspaper or a network will spin coverage one way or another to favor one candidate over another, or push an agenda, or attack or support a politician. It’s disgusting.

        1. it’s the marketing of a viewpoint or a narrative as opposed to the dispassionate reporting of facts

          I would add that it’s also the marketing of a narrative or viewpoint while claiming to be dispassionate. If the Times or Post or whatever had some kind of editorial statement that declared, all things being equal, they favored progressive policies and would support them in their reporting, I could live with that.

          That’s how most papers in the 19th century operated.

        2. I ran a little media experiment of my own. I bought two newspapers, one conservative and one liberal. Then I looked at major wire stories (written by an outsider and syndicated to the paper who can then do any editing needed) in both.

          You would have thought the stories were about two completely different things. What was cut, what adjectives were inserted (or maybe cut – that I can’t tell since I didn’t have the original). It was a consistent difference in all but one of the stories, which was a pretty bland piece about an actor or some such.

      3. I think it was under all the homeless people they couldn’t find for 8 years…

    3. I’ll bet that Trump has a negative rating on the way to winning his 2nd term.

      That doesn’t necessarily mean that the polls are wrong. I suspect they are skewed (though probably not because of deliberate bias for the most part). But it is pretty common for people to vote for candidates they don’t approve of because they think the other one is worse. In this recent election I suspect that was particularly common.

      1. It was certainly a phenomenon in the 2016 election, but I don’t think it will be in 2020. Most of the “unpopularity” among independent types came because of style and rhetoric and not on actual issues. Trump’s positions may not be libertarian, but they certainly are mainstream for the most part, and if he actually takes action on his campaign promises unlike the typical politician, he’ll get more independents on his side whether the promise was libertarian or not.

        1. That’s going to depend on whether the Democrats can get their shit together too.

          But I think you are probably right about 2020. Trump will be popular if his policies don’t fuck up the economy and things look pretty good, or unpopular if he does fuck up the economy (or it goes bad for other reasons) or starts an unpopular war or something.

          1. This says a lot about how awful and toxic leftism truly is as a political philosophy, but the more milquetoast and centrist the Dem candidates are, the more successful that they will be as an opposition party. To use an example from the recent election, if they ran more Kanders and less Kamalas at the base of the party, they would have had far more success at the state level.

            1. The left has captured the Democratic Party. They wouldn’t allow a revival of the Blue Dogs/centrist wing, even though that got them the Clinton presidency in the 1990s.

  5. We know the demographic characteristics of the population as a whole, so pollsters can be confident when they adjust their data that they’re doing it right.

    Having actually worked in polling for social issues in university and taken multiple stats courses (oh boy, watching social science majors learn math, fun times), I can tell you that ‘adjustment of the data’ can go in a lot of different directions (9/10 statisticians will tell you that. The tenth is lying). Not sure on the pollsters’ current methodology but I can safely say that you can’t entirely trust statistics until you know how they were produced. That’s not to say that Trump is right, but the idea that you can’t use ‘adjustments’ to manipulate polling data is incorrect.

    1. Slade has a BA in economics. She should be well aware of this.

      1. Then I’d really appreciate a breakdown of their adjustment methodology and exactly why it’s warranted. You know, to support the actual argument being made.

        1. When the polling question asked is: Boy, does this asshole Trump totally suck, or what?”
          It isn’t hard to see why his poll numbers aren’t too good.

  6. On the other hand, it’s indisputable at this point that Trump’s approval rating is underwater.

    Monday, February 06, 2017

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-seven percent (47%) disapprove.

    The latest figures include 39% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 38% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +1. (See Trends).

    1. *disclosures =
      1) i don’t give a fuck about his approval ratings. mine is ‘mildly amused’. what i think is fucking stupid and indefensible is saying that something is “Indisputable” when it clearly isn’t.

      2) i ran a consumer research group @ a consulting firm for 10 years, and did polls/surveys/focus groups/a zillion kinds of opinion-measuring every single week and can tell you will exhausted certainty (and the conviction to never do that shit again) that the actual reliability/value of that sort of information is somewhere between “wet toilet paper” and “liquid dogshit”

      if opinion polling isn’t ‘not wrong’, very rarely is it actually ‘right’ about anything significant.

      Meaning = binary up/down question data often tends to fall in a grey area of 60/40(and that’s construed as very different!)-to-55/45 (construed as very close!).. once you’ve actually gauged your error-margins, its impossible to distinguish whether the difference actually means anything.

      Experts who use this stuff do not use it the way journalists do. The headline conclusions of any single snapshot are meaningless. what matters are not absolute #s, but the directional trend over *long* periods of time (year to year), and “where” the change is taking place (young women? old hispanics? former hillary voters?). No one cares about the difference between (sad face) slightly below average approval and (happy face) slightly above average. they care about whose minds they might be changing.

      1. I’m not at all educated on statistics and polling, but is it also true that you can write questions in a manner that gets more people to write “virtue-signaling” answers? It seems like opinion polling would be extremely prone to this phenomenon.

        1. I used to do polls on Mechanical Turk for some extra beer money and it was, far more often than not, blatantly fucking obvious what responses they were looking for in advance. Ah, university sociology departments, and my tax dollars paying for the student loans of people producing such tripe…

        2. Sure, if you look at poll items you sometimes see exactly what you’re talking about but I’m not sure that’s the case here. Could be though.

          1. “That’s not how the reputable firms do it. But there aren’t many of those.”

            One of the funniest shows ever made.

        3. is it also true that you can write questions in a manner that gets more people to write “virtue-signaling” answers? It seems like opinion polling would be extremely prone to this phenomenon.

          of course.

          Pew/Gallup/Rasmussen et al (all of which are just one kind of opinon-polling) all have their own methodology and slight differences in the kinds of questions they ask and how they normalize their data, which is why you see differences in what they come up with for ‘similar’ questions. (e.g. “job approval” vs.”favorability”)

          the thing they care about is consistency – because as I said, the real value IS NOT in any single snapshot in time, or the ‘absolute levels’… but the degree and rates of change over periods of time.

          the sources Stephanie links to are CNN/CBS etc (news media) polls, which are less consistent (it depends on who does them, and whether they’re the same sources over comparable periods, and whether they blend their collection methods).

          I also don’t give news media any credence at all compared to the Pew/Gallup types when it comes to political-opinion gathering. at best they just provide ancillary support for a trend.

          the people who do the most “polling to get results they want” are obviously marketers. I would say 1/3 the research i conducted for corporations was to “get answers they already knew” because they simply wanted the data to justify the budgets/approval they were trying to get for their project.

      2. I have answered a couple of political opinion phone polls. When I said that I was a registered Libertarian, they hung up.

    1. ikr

    1. ikr

    1. ikr

    1. ikr

    1. ikr

    1. ROFLMAO.

    2. OMG OMG

    3. ikr

  7. Tell me when OMG looks like a good title for an article. #notyourmillenial

  8. So presumably opinion polls that find a majority in favor of Trump’s policies would be fake news too, right?

    1. Those are above reproach.

    2. It is funny to me that Trump is looking like the opposite of Obama: whereas Obama polled higher than his policies, Trump’s policies are polling higher than him.

  9. So presumably opinion polls that find a majority in favor of Trump’s policies would be fake news too, right?

    1. Somebody neglected to poll the squirrels, it appears, and they are feeling left out.

  10. “Pre-election polling has become very difficult to get right precisely because we can’t know for sure the demographic makeup of the people who will actually show up to the polls until after the fact . . . . but public opinion polling of the kind Trump is talking about?gauging Americans’ views on a policy issue or even on the president?doesn’t suffer from this weakness.”

    Your conclusion is based on a bad premise.

    The reason it’s hard to poll people isn’t just because the demographics of the people who actually show up are hard to gauge. It’s also because the kinds of people who bother to answer the phone for unknown numbers or who bother to take the time to answer questions from surveyors are giving us a poll of a certain personality type–probably a personality type that seeks approval from strangers.

    When those people think that supporting Donald Trump is socially unacceptable, they tend to tell they survey what they think the people conducting the survey want to hear. And that bias in the survey is transferable to “gauging Americans’ views on a policy issues”. If people think banning asylum seekers or building a wall along the Mexican border is socially unacceptable, you can bet that support for those things is likely to be underrepresented in the polls.

    1. Being a Trump supporter is the new punk, and the first legitimate counter-culture movement in a very long time (late-2000s/early-2010s Hipsters never fit the counter-culture definition IMO, because it emphasized conformity rather than actual rebellion). It’s a counter-culture precisely because society treats them like wrong-thinking pariahs.

    2. In the past I actually answered a few pollsters. From what I learned about polling in college. i can always tell when the questions are geared to end up with a predetermined outcome or if you answer a certain way they can make the claim that certain persons of certain political persuasion are of a certain type, normally not in the positive outlook either. i no longer answer pols of any type since i know they are all manipulatable either up or down.

      1. I got an election poll call, and answered it truthfully. I don’t regret that, since they had GJ in the mix. (They did initially ask only about the top two, though). Nevertheless, I hit the wrong button and ended the call before I meant to. I don’t know if they included me.

        1. Rest assured, they didn’t.

    3. I love to take polling calls and answer in a bad accent exactly the way I think the stereotypical person of that accent would answer. God knows what it does to their numbers….but really….that’s what they get for bothering me with an unsolicited phone call.

    4. FWIW, if you read the feature story I linked to above (it’s from the February 2016 issue of the magazine) you’d see that I actually already accounted for this fact. Data weighting is how pollsters address the problem of response bias. But if you don’t know what the population you’re weighting to looks like, it can still fail you.

      1. IOW, it’s not “fake news”, it’s “fake” “news”…

  11. They are fake news if they’re manipulated garbage. I’d drill down into the sample demographics and the wording of the individual survey items before I made a determination either way.

    1. ikr

  12. Doesn’t matter if they are 100% accurate. The blatent lying and hyperbole by the media have destroyed what little credibility they had left especially when it comes to their reporting on Trump. They can be pissed about it all they want but they’ve no one else to blame but themselves. Trump did not inoculate himself from their criticism, they did that for him. I’m sure he’s grateful.

  13. Yet at the same time many opinion polls are fake news. bold statements that are easily proven false only hurt Reason’s credibility and makes Reason a part of the Fake news meme. its really sad i used to come here for a balance view from the libertarian perspective but all I see lately is Trump Bad and basing that opinion on false narratives. trump may end up being an ass but we will never know with all of the sky is falling articles. Someday Trump may start WWIII but no one will listen to the news proclaiming it.

    1. And why shouldn’t a libertarian publication give the blatantly authoritarian sack of putrescent tangerines currently occupying the Oval Office the benefit of the doubt, just like it did his predecessor?

    2. Yeah, I was talking about this over the weekend. Compared to a regular Joe, he’s a narcissistic asshole child. Compared to Hitler though, he’s a pretty nice guy. So what does everyone do? They act like he’s Hitler and everyday is now the Holocaust. So they make an asshole look like a nice guy and screw their credibility at the same time. Not shitting their pants would have taken them a lot further.

      1. I would just like to see someone get 1/1,000,000th as upset over his killing a Navy SEAL and a child through sheer incompetence as they did over Benghazi.

        1. I would, too, but any condemnation of that atrocity will only be done by disingenuous hacks who closed their eyes for eight years and are now pretending to care in order to score cheap political points against TEAM RED.

        2. One event: terrorist attack on embassy killing ambassador

          Second event: commando raid on a terrorist killing a seal and civilian

          Not the same.

        3. I’d like you to acknowledge that Obama murderdroned an American citizen without due process. Maybe then I’ll believe your outrage over this.

          (and let’s completely ignore that, supposedly, the entire operation was set up under Obama’s watch but executed a few days after Trump’s inauguration.)

          1. Never mind an American citizen; Obama’s drone program has killed how many civilians? Even were you to say that there’s some magic ratio of civilians to terrorists killed that makes it morally acceptable, it hasn’t had a noticeable impact on terrorism globally (except perhaps to expand recruiting), has had no positive effect domestically if you don’t work for a defense contractor, and in the case of Yemen has been used as a cat’s paw by the Saudis. So spare me the sudden outrage, progs.

    3. Crying wolf and eventually getting eaten when people ignore you is the new driving force in political analysis it seems.

    4. Yep. I didn’t even vote for Trump but I find myself reflexively defending him because so many of his attackers begin with the premise, “OMG, Donald Trump is the WORST,” and then drop some tidbit they heard on MSNBC. I mean, Trump is an unknown factor, certainly unprecedented in our lifetimes I would think, so it seems to me that the best way to handle him is to accurately assess what he does in order to realistically evaluate the effects and more successfully predict what might happen moving forward. Just obsessively chanting “FUCK TRUMP” every time he says or does anything makes him look like the adult in the room.

    5. Trump is bad. Hillary would be worse.

  14. Anyone who runs is a VC. Anyone who stands still is a well-disciplined VC.

    Polls that disagree with me are fake. Polls that agree with me are excellent.

  15. “… the leader of the free world…”

    If it’s got a leader, it’s not free.

    1. ikr

      1. WTF IS IKR??

  16. “Fake News” seems to be the latest term to lose all meaning. The term originally referred to stories that were simply fabricated and put out there by people who knew they were made up.

    There is lots of reason to question polls and plenty of bias to be found in most news media. But that is a whole different matter from “fake news”.

    1. You are correct, but this is one I’m not going to feel bad about losing. The “fake news” panic was being used to drum up paranoia and shut down disagreement with the MSM’s preferred talking points. Within 24 hours of “fake news” entering our collective vernacular, we had articles by supposedly respectable publications condemning various conservative outlets of being such. (All the while, presumably “real news” enterprises running such gems as WaPo’s “Trump’s Election Killed My Desire to Find a Partner” and USAToday’s fact-check of Trump’s Twitter that Meryl Streep is overrated.)

      I’m fine with “fake news” becoming a meaningless term, personally.

      1. I’d be fine if it meant that people would stop using it. I just want people on all sides to stop being stupid and dishonest. Of course, that’s not going to happen, so I’ll just continue saying what I think about all of them.

      2. Trump’s election killed my desire to move back to the USSA. Hillary’s election would have resulted in a plea to China and the Norks to nuke the USA.

  17. The pollsters didn’t whiff badly during the election. They didn’t fail to predict the outcome, they attempted to manipulate it in an effort to tilt the election towards Clinton. They are fundamentally dishonest and their poll results fall into the category of propaganda. Why would they stop doing that just because they are polling about something different? Sorry Stephanie but Trump is right.

    1. I can’t understand why anyone would change their vote based on polling. But I guess I’m the weird one.

      I can also think of a number of reasons why they would have gotten it wrong besides deliberate manipulation. You may well be right. But I remain unconvinced. There are a lot of factors right now that make accurate polling quite difficult.

      Here’s an idea. If Trump wants to show how these polls are biased propaganda, why doesn’t he hire someone to conduct an honest poll that isn’t?

      1. It would be pointless, no one would every believe a Trump financed poll was unbiased

      2. I can’t understand why anyone would change their vote based on polling.

        Some voters are more motivated to vote for a candidate if they think the polling indicates a close race, thinking that they’ll have some impact on the race one way or another. Some voters will stay home if it seems like a sure thing. Strangely, some voters torn between two candidates will vote for whoever’s polling better so they can say they were part of the winning team, so to speak.

  18. OMG!

    Did I stumble into the Huffington Post? Where am I? What’s going on here?

  19. Unless these “polls” give us what questions were asked, who they asked and where…..i don’t really take any of them seriously

    1. Fat chance of that.

  20. …. “you might “weight up” the “xxx” results”.

    A totally subjective manuever.

    Exactly why these are FAKE polls. Doomed to yield faulty results.

    1. Feature, not a bug.

  21. I personally think revealed preferences are more enlightening imo.

  22. RE: OMG, No: Negative Opinion Polls Are Not Fake News
    Even if pollsters have whiffed on a bunch of recent elections

    Either the reports the news make public are factual, or they are not.
    Its that simple.

  23. Polls don’t have consequences.

  24. Polls don’t predict. Polls reflect sentiment at that moment in time as expressed by the participant.

  25. Um, they are not inherently fake news no. That said public opinion polling has been largely fake for the last couple of decades anyway as each agency that engages in it clearly does so not with the goal of determining the actual mood of the public but rather of developing a narrative to sell to news makers. Sure the truth may or may not exist in the raw data but the only thing that matters is the story you can tell with it.

    So Trump is half right. The polls which go against him are fake news, the problem is so are the ones that go in his favor

  26. Noted that no SPECIFIC polls are cited for these allegations while there are others that have specific polls that contradict the “findings” of this rant.

  27. trump long ago realized the secret of any successful politician…never overestimate the intelligence of the average voter.

    1. +1 chickenhead

  28. Polls may be fake or true or anything in between. It seems to me that using poll results as “news” is the issue. They try to tell us what the people are thinking at any given moment. It’s polls that seem to me that have ruined the GOP for years. “OMG, they don’ like X, I better change my opinion.”

    It’s basically a part of whats broken today.

    Trump for all his lies and prevarications simply does a bit of ignoring and downgrading of them. Calling them fake is his way of telling is supporters to ignore them. And pissing off those the others.

    Polls have two major flaws in my view. In many ways they are a trailing indicator not a leader. And a statistically falsifiable indicator. Let me pick the question. I can get thhe answer I want.

    Depending on the question; I hate Trump, I think he as made major mistakes, some of his cabinet pick ain’t bad, I am glad he isn’t picking egg heads to head the government, some of his advisers are a lot worse than Obamas’s. And I could go on. Unless you are an Ultra you aren’t going to fit a polls results. theway the news reports want us to believe.

  29. whiff:

    a smell that is only smelled briefly or faintly

  30. Stephanie Slade you’re being deceitful. It’s just NOT true that “the public is roughly split on the immigration order”

    49% to 41% is NOT “roughly split”. The very numerous reports of the Reuters/Ipsos poll, whether they did or did not try to bury the inconvenient truth, all say that 49 percent of Americans agreed with the order and 41 percent disagreed with ten percent undecided. So opinion polls show considerably more Americans agree with his extreme vetting policy than disagree”.

    When Reason starts trying to deceive the public as you do here, we just lose trust in Reason rather like people have lost trust in regular politicians and the educational system…

    Shame on you!

  31. Note the majority American approval of his extreme vetting stance is a far higher percentage than the 3 more million votes gained by Clinton. And the pretense that Clinton won the US vote is also deceitful reporting since Trump won 2,600 of 3,141 Counties, while Clinton won just 500. America is a constitutional republic not just a democracy and the Electoral College worked exactly as it was designed to……..39430.html

  32. I see what you mean… Jesse `s postlng is neat… on monday I bought a top of the range Jaguar E-type after I been earnin $7477 this-last/4 weeks and-even more than, 10-k last-munth . no-doubt about it, this really is the most comfortable job Ive had . I started this seven months/ago and right away was making more than $73 per-hr . go right here…

  33. I don’t comment much but as you say the polls are accurate and can easily be extrapolated to the entire demographic, why is there such a discrepancy between robo-caller polls and person caller polls? It has been suggested for some time that there is a bias of people not admitting to their support due to social stigma, this data point would seem to support that.

  34. IDGAF was never an answer to these polls.

  35. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!

  36. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..

  37. Reason is now Leftist Propaganda. Remember when the polls predicted a 93%+ win for Hillary. This is all fraud.

  38. If public opinion polls were anything but fake news President hillary would be selling off whatever she could find in DC.

  39. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do


  40. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbor told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do>>


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.