The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher’s Council Results

http://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/C.sf.,_castelli,_carmine_gentile,_ovale_con_allegoria_dell%27accademia_degli_illuminati,_1730-1750.JPG?resize=550%2C454

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.

““The way that I look at it, you take the two officers in New York. I was heart-broken because I knew for sure that these officers had nothing to do with the killing of Eric Garner. You can’t generally be anti-police, because if you become completely anti-police, then criminals are going to take over. When we see these killings, the general thought here is that two wrongs don’t make a right.” – Former gang leader Arthur Reed, AKA ‘Silky Slim’

“… Black Lives Matter never protests when every 14 hours somebody is killed in Chicago, probably 70-80% of the time (by) a black person. Where are they then? Where are they when a young black child is killed?” – Rudy Giuliani

“Kill the Pigs! Fry ’em like bacon!” – Popular #blacklives matter chant.

Stately McDaniel Manor

This weeks’ winning essay is Stately McDanial Manor’s Dallas: An Explosive Use Of Police Force. In it, he examines the legal and practical issues that come to bear when deadly force is used by police with a professional’s eye as a former policemen, what determinations a policeman has to make in seconds in order todo his or her job and how these standaqrds apply when it comes to personal self defense. Here’s a slice of this well written, informative post:

Police use of force is very much in the news these days. On one hand, Social Justice warriors and Democrat politicians (yes; I know I repeat myself) argue that virtually any use of force against favored victim groups–these days, primarily young black males–is not only illegitimate, but inherently racist and criminal. On the other, most people haven’t a clue about the legal issues revolving around the use of deadly force.

The social justice cry is particularly loud when the criminal was not carrying a gun. In such cases, the Michael Brown case being an obvious contemporary example, the cry “unarmed black man” reverberates throughout the media and blogosphere as though those three words say all that need be said, and unquestionably prove any and everything Black Lives Matter cracktivists assert.
In reality, a criminal relying only on his hands and feet can present a deadly threat, a threat justifying an entirely lawful lethal response, whether done by any member of the public or a police officer. This was exactly the case with Michael Brown. It was also the case with Trayvon Martin. Both are continually cited as unarmed, black, holy social justice martyrs, despite the fact that both criminals died while under the influence of drugs, in the act of trying to kill others–classic cases of self-defense–and no police officers were involved in Martin’s death.

Johnson

Those wishing to explore the “unarmed” issue in more depth might visit an August, 2015 article: Police Shoot Unarmed Man.


One contemporary case of great significance is the ambush murders of Dallas police officers. Everything about that case effectively refutes the arguments of the social justice crowd. The black killer was very well armed and trained, and was absolutely a racist. We know because during brief negotiations, he expressly said he wanted to kill white police officers, and intended to kill as many as he could.

credit: kxan.com

Even so, some are crying excessive use of police force because the Dallas Police used explosives–reportedly C4, a military grade plastic explosive–delivered by a remote-controlled robot, to actually blow the shooter to bits. And after all, he was black, so the police must be racist somehow. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline reports:

When the Dallas police finally took out Micah Johnson, they used a robot with a bomb — a device that can be compared to a drone. I considered this great police work but, remarkably, killing Johnson in this way proved to be controversial.

Some apparently believed that the officers engaged in the standoff with Johnson, and who had tried unsuccessfully to persuade him to surrender, needed to come close enough to Johnson (who had already killed multiple officers) to be shot at before they would be justified in killing him. As it was, said one law professor, only the robot was in danger.

This kind of commentary proves primarily one thing: even the overwhelming majority of lawyers have no understanding of deadly force law.

When cop killers are willing to die in order to take out police officers in gun battles, we are in uncharted territory. Police departments need to find ways to fight back without accommodating the killers’ desire for a fire fight.

Actually, Mirengoff is partially incorrect. We are not in uncharted territory, as I’ll explain, but first, two important preliminary issues: anyone interested in this topic, or who carries a concealed weapon, must have Andrew Branca’s The Law of Self Defense, an indispensable book. Branca and I often cover national cases such as the Martin case, and currently, the prosecution of the Baltimore officers, he at Legal Insurrection. Also, we must have an understanding of the issues–triggers, if you will–relating to the use of force, and particularly deadly force.

Each state has its own very specific laws on these issues, and it’s an individual duty to be familiar with those laws. When force has been used, particularly deadly force, those laws will be applied to determine whether that defense was lawful self-defense–justifiable homicide–or some degree of murder.

More at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Sultan Knish with Exploiting Dead Cops to Promote Their Killers submitted by The Daley Gator.

This one’s very much in line with the meme of this week’s Council category. Do read it.

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum.

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

View original post here: 

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher’s Council Results


Article written by: Tom White

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher’s Council Results

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/C.sf.,_castelli,_carmine_gentile,_ovale_con_allegoria_dell%27accademia_degli_illuminati,_1730-1750.JPG

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.

““The way that I look at it, you take the two officers in New York. I was heart-broken because I knew for sure that these officers had nothing to do with the killing of Eric Garner. You can’t generally be anti-police, because if you become completely anti-police, then criminals are going to take over. When we see these killings, the general thought here is that two wrongs don’t make a right.” – Former gang leader Arthur Reed, AKA ‘Silky Slim’

“… Black Lives Matter never protests when every 14 hours somebody is killed in Chicago, probably 70-80% of the time (by) a black person. Where are they then? Where are they when a young black child is killed?” – Rudy Giuliani

“Kill the Pigs! Fry ’em like bacon!” – Popular #blacklives matter chant.

Stately McDaniel Manor

This weeks’ winning essay is Stately McDanial Manor’s Dallas: An Explosive Use Of Police Force. In it, he examines the legal and practical issues that come to bear when deadly force is used by police with a professional’s eye as a former policemen, what determinations a policeman has to make in seconds in order todo his or her job and how these standaqrds apply when it comes to personal self defense. Here’s a slice of this well written, informative post:

Police use of force is very much in the news these days. On one hand, Social Justice warriors and Democrat politicians (yes; I know I repeat myself) argue that virtually any use of force against favored victim groups–these days, primarily young black males–is not only illegitimate, but inherently racist and criminal. On the other, most people haven’t a clue about the legal issues revolving around the use of deadly force.

The social justice cry is particularly loud when the criminal was not carrying a gun. In such cases, the Michael Brown case being an obvious contemporary example, the cry “unarmed black man” reverberates throughout the media and blogosphere as though those three words say all that need be said, and unquestionably prove any and everything Black Lives Matter cracktivists assert.
In reality, a criminal relying only on his hands and feet can present a deadly threat, a threat justifying an entirely lawful lethal response, whether done by any member of the public or a police officer. This was exactly the case with Michael Brown. It was also the case with Trayvon Martin. Both are continually cited as unarmed, black, holy social justice martyrs, despite the fact that both criminals died while under the influence of drugs, in the act of trying to kill others–classic cases of self-defense–and no police officers were involved in Martin’s death.

 Johnson

Those wishing to explore the “unarmed” issue in more depth might visit an August, 2015 article: Police Shoot Unarmed Man.


One contemporary case of great significance is the ambush murders of Dallas police officers. Everything about that case effectively refutes the arguments of the social justice crowd. The black killer was very well armed and trained, and was absolutely a racist. We know because during brief negotiations, he expressly said he wanted to kill white police officers, and intended to kill as many as he could.

 credit: kxan.com

Even so, some are crying excessive use of police force because the Dallas Police used explosives–reportedly C4, a military grade plastic explosive–delivered by a remote-controlled robot, to actually blow the shooter to bits. And after all, he was black, so the police must be racist somehow. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline reports:

When the Dallas police finally took out Micah Johnson, they used a robot with a bomb — a device that can be compared to a drone. I considered this great police work but, remarkably, killing Johnson in this way proved to be controversial.

Some apparently believed that the officers engaged in the standoff with Johnson, and who had tried unsuccessfully to persuade him to surrender, needed to come close enough to Johnson (who had already killed multiple officers) to be shot at before they would be justified in killing him. As it was, said one law professor, only the robot was in danger.

This kind of commentary proves primarily one thing: even the overwhelming majority of lawyers have no understanding of deadly force law.

When cop killers are willing to die in order to take out police officers in gun battles, we are in uncharted territory. Police departments need to find ways to fight back without accommodating the killers’ desire for a fire fight.

Actually, Mirengoff is partially incorrect. We are not in uncharted territory, as I’ll explain, but first, two important preliminary issues: anyone interested in this topic, or who carries a concealed weapon, must have Andrew Branca’s The Law of Self Defense, an indispensable book. Branca and I often cover national cases such as the Martin case, and currently, the prosecution of the Baltimore officers, he at Legal Insurrection.  Also, we must have an understanding of the issues–triggers, if you will–relating to the use of force, and particularly deadly force.

Each state has its own very specific laws on these issues, and it’s an individual duty to be familiar with those laws. When force has been used, particularly deadly force, those laws will be applied to determine whether that defense was lawful self-defense–justifiable homicide–or some degree of murder.

More at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Sultan Knish with Exploiting Dead Cops to Promote Their Killers submitted by The Daley Gator.

This one’s very much in line with the meme of this week’s Council category. Do read it.

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum.

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

IRONY of IRONIES: Scotland’s (Odious) Named Person law Struck Down by UK Supreme Court (wait for it!) Because it COULD Violate the Euro Human Rights Law!

I love ironic humor and this story is ironic humor inside of ironic humor perhaps inside of ironic humor:

The Scottish Parliament (Hereafter called Holyrood for the area of Edinburgh that the parliament meets at) passed this terrible law (The Children and Young People Act) that subjected every Scottish child AT BIRTH to have a “named person” to oversee him or her until they become an adult – regardless of the virtue or lack thereof of their natural parents.

The law was rightly criticized (and at this blog as an example of the potential reach of the UN Child Treaty) as an invasion of parental rights (look here at parental-rights.org) but it was not struck down for that – but as the BBC article indicates, it is contrary to the European Covenant on Human Rights!  (The British court asked for further briefing to determine what the remedy is but the Scottish government will not enforce it in the interim.)

Judges say some proposals breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court said the aim of the Act, which is intended to promote and safeguard the rights and wellbeing of children and young people, was “unquestionably legitimate and benign”.

However, judges said specific proposals about information-sharing “are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”.

Now I disagree with the court’s finding that this act is in any way legitimate and benign.  It is a nanny state law striking at the heart of the parent-child/family relationship.  It would likely be struck down by an American court (unless we ratify the UN Child Treaty) under the Pierce v. Society of Sisters decision in the 1920s that forbad the teaching of children in private schools and the Meyer v. Nebraska decision that struck down a law forbidding the teaching of young children the German (or any other language).

Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control: as often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.

By the way, Pierce is cited with approval by the UK court and even implies that the UN Child Treaty protects the same liberty interest.  (See slip opinion p. 33)  Of course it does not (See this from the testimony of the Commissioner for Children and Young People in 2013 for the smoking gun evidence that the SNP government believes this is to implement the Child Treaty) but even if it did, the US government or any state or local government cannot be placed in a legal construct that requires it to answer to foreign law as supreme.

However, the irony I promised is coming!  Here is the holding of the UK Supreme Court (Slip opinion p. 46):

In summary, we conclude that the information-sharing provisions of Part 4 of the Act (a) do not relate to reserved matters, namely the subject matter of the DPA and the Directive, (b) are incompatible with the rights of children, young persons and parents under article 8 of the ECHR because they are not “in accordance with the law” as that article requires, (c) may in practice result in a disproportionate interference with the article 8 rights of many children, young persons and their parents, through the sharing of private information, and (d) are not incompatible with EU law in any way which goes beyond their incompatibility with article 8 of the ECHR. We are satisfied that it is not possible to remedy this defect by reading down the provisions under section101 of the Scotland Act 1998. Conclusion (b) therefore means that the information-sharing provisions of Part 4 of the Act are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
It is very limited to privacy but the UK court held that the ECHR – the European Human Rights “Constitution” that the SNP wants to be under or remain under as part of the European Union and EU law as well forbids this law so it is beyond the authority of Holyrood to pass. Only the UK government can pass it.
So an independent Scotland could enforce this law – maybe – if the EU did not force it to be struck down – but as it is – only if the UK LEAVES the EU can Scotland enforce this law.  Don’t you love the compound irony?
So I ask the Scottish people:  Which one do you want?  Be independent or be part of the EU?  You can’t be both.  That is one reason why the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union.  But Scotland wants to be independent  – in large part so it can be part of the EU and be subject to its laws.  So I ask again:  Which one is it?  (And remember I am a friend of Scottish independence!)
What Scotland needs to do is vote in a true libertarian party that advocates independence and liberty!  Here is the website of the Scottish Libertarian Party (I love that person you see first when you enter the site and it shows one example of the international reach of the ideals of Dr. Ron Paul!) for your viewing pleasure.

Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Why I am for Del. Rob Bell for Attorney General

Paul Blumstein commented:

This article isn’t up to your normal standards. From what you say, the only reason your prefer Bell over Adams is that you promised him your help? No other reason?

Excellent comment!  (Glad you came by Paul and that you were civil about it!)

So I do want first to go back into the vault and talk about why I like Del. Bell for Attorney General.  His bill to authorize grand juries that cross county lines in human trafficking cases was signed by Governor McDonnell and he also supports my long time concept for a capital litigation office:

Dear Sandy:

I would strongly support an effort to establish a Capital Litigation Unit that could directly assist prosecutors who are trying capital cases.  Currently there is an advisory role, but no ability to be involved in a day-to-day way.  As you know, many prosecutors, especially those in smaller jurisdictions, have never tried a capital case when one occurs in their county.  They are forced to try what is of course the most serious — and also most complicated — criminal case without ever having done one before.  Meanwhile, death penalty opponents are often very experienced and specialized.  I think it would make sense to have the same level of specialization on the prosecution side, and it would make sense to organize this through the AG’s office.
Rob
Also in this article were words that turned out to be prophetic (written in 2013):
The AG must follow and enforce the law as it is written.
The present one has not done very well there.  Also from another article of mine:
Well, I met Del. Bell last year at the Mechanicsville TP meeting and I immediately liked him.  He has gotten bills passed (in at least one house) to help with voting rights (The real voting rights party is the GOP of course in that they respect the franchise enough to require security at polling places!), property rights, tried to fight Agenda 21 and has worked to assist AG Cuccinelli in fighting human trafficking.  (It does not hurt that Sen. Obenshain voted against my favorite bill – SB 738 – the appellate defender!)  I just discussed with Del. Bell the idea about a special capital litigation unit in the Attorney General’s office which is much needed to balance the hordes of liberals who oppose capital punishment for willful murder.  (As my readers know I am a bit conflicted about capital punishment mainly due to the tremendous cost of litigation, however now that the so-called human rights advocates are now taking on life without parole, I must take a stand:  Death penalty is just, moral and appropriate for certain willful murders.)
Del. Bell was one author of a state constitutional amendment that reined in local government use (sometimes abuse) of eminent domain law.  See this article from the Volokh Conpsiracy (an eminent legal blog – forgive the pun!) on Del. Bell’s efforts.
There are other reasons you may find on Bell’s AG campaign website.
I said it before and I’ll say it again:  Either John Adams or Rob Bell will be better than the incumbent.  But if I go to the 2017 convention, I am voting on the first ballot for Del. Rob Bell for Attorney General.  Thanks to Paul Blumstein for his rebuke and suggestion!

 

 

 


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – Honeymoon In DC Edition

How sweet it’s going to be!

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

Stay tuned for an important announcement regarding big changes in the Watcher’s Council!

This week, Vox Populi, The Independent Sentinel, Don Surber and Seraphic Secret earned honorable mention status with some great articles.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (mandatory, but of course it won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning

Simple, no?

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let’s see what we have for you this week….

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Enjoy! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that!And don’t forget to tune in Friday for the results!

Continued here: 

Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – Honeymoon In DC Edition


Article written by: Tom White

Our Watcher’s Council Nominations – Honeymoon In DC Edition

How sweet it’s going to be!

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

Stay tuned for an important announcement regarding big changes in the Watcher’s Council!

This week, Vox Populi, The Independent Sentinel, Don Surber and Seraphic Secret earned honorable mention status with some great articles.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (mandatory, but of course it won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning

Simple, no?

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let’s see what we have for you this week….

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Enjoy! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that!And don’t forget to tune in Friday for the results!

WikiLeaks Emails: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Sends Invite to Event. Dems Responses show Party Division! BIG TIME!

Still going through the WikiLeaks Emails that were leaked from the DNC.

I get these same emails from both sides and they are infuriating at times. But I figured nobody would actually read the snarky response if I were to send one, so I just hit delete.

Apparently, the DNC reads the responses. Or at least some of them.

How much do the Democrats hate thee Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary? Well, here are a couple of responses to the May 6th invite to join Debbie in Knoxville, TN.

The Wasserman-Schultz email invitation:

Friend–

As of this week, Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee. The contrast between his values and the values our Democratic candidates defend every day could not be more stark. As Democrats, we have a lot on the line. It is crucial that we push back on the backwards GOP rhetoric and make our voices heard this election cycle.

Please join me for a reception in Knoxville, Tennessee on Friday, June 3rd.

This is your chance to ask me questions about what the DNC is doing to fight back and to strategize together about how to win in November.

You can RSVP through the following link: https://finance.democrats.org/KnoxvilleReception

Thank you for all you do, and I look forward to seeing you in Knoxville!

Debbie

Ok. Go spend some time with Debbie. What Democrat wouldn’t?

Nick Seminerio, a member of the DNC Finance team is apparently the guy that drew the short straw and had to read the responses. He forwarded some of the responses to Scott Comer, the Finance Chief of Staff at the Democratic National Committee. Seminerio‘s sarcastic comment on the responses was “Great start!”

Here are some of the responses he got that elicited that sarcasm.

From: Julie Scardiglia [mailto:jscardiglia@earthlink.net]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 2:45 PM

To: Seminerio, Nick

Subject: RE: Join me in Knoxville June 3rd!

DWS, you’re almost as corrupt as $hillary Clinton. I’ve already left the Democratic party—after 32 years. Lots of us have. And you and your direction for the Democratic party are a large reason why. HRC is the other reason.

It’s coming—the shock you will feel when MILLIONS of us won’t vote for Shillary–PERIOD.

Fuck you.

And:

From: Michael Vukmir [mailto:mike.vukmir@eeserv.com]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 3:07 PM

To: Seminerio, Nick Subject:

RE: Join me in Knoxville June 3rd!

I wouldn’t join the DNC in Knoxville unless Debbie steps down along with Hilary.

You have lost every inch of my support so fuck off Debbie along with your bitch Hilary.

FEEL THE Bern BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mike

Ouch!


Article written by: Tom White

WikiLeaks Emails: DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda Looking for a ‘F*ck You’ Emoji

JuFred Lucasst digging through the DNC emails posted on WikiLeaks for anything interesting. Man. There are a lot of email there that give a keen insight into the childish minds and filthy, unprofessional attitudes of the people running the DNC. As I find interesting things, I will post them.

Below is an email exchange from a free lance reporter Fred Lucas. Lucas has worked for Fox News and is the Washington Correspondent for The Blaze. Back in mid May, Donald Trump was calling Hillary Clinton Bill’s enabler. It is pretty much common knowledge that Hillary helped shape the responses to all of the infidelities her husband was accused of. So Fred Lucas was doing a story for Fox News and asked the DNC for a response. (Click here to see the story about Trump that Lucas is referring to.)

So Lucas called the DNC and spoke to “someone” and had a couple of follow up questions he wanted answered for his story. So he emailed the questions and requested a response. He was giving the DNC an opportunity to balance the story with the “other side” which I take as an effort to be fair and balanced.

The DNC Press email was forwarded to the DNC’s Communications Director Luis Miranda seeking an official response from the DNC with the note  “FYI- This reporter has a 4pm deadline today.” the email was sent at 2:08 PM.

Here is Fred Lucas’ email that was forwarded to Miranda:


Article written by: Tom White

Badly Skewed Economist/YouGov Poll is +11 Democrats and Hillary Only Leads by 2 Points

A brand new Economist/YouGov Poll shows Hillart with a 2 point lead in a 4 way race (with the other 2 parties). Sorry pollsters, this poll is, in my opinion, of little use. You are predicting that the turnout for Hillary will be almost double the turnout for Obama. That is simply not going to happen without massive voter fraud.

The totals reported are unweighted, meaning they did not correct the sample for over polling of Democrats.

And according to the numbers in the polls, they asked 406 Democrats, 364 Independents and only 287 Republicans who they would vote for if the election were held today. Percentages break down to 38% Democrats, 27% Republicans and 34% Independents. Democrats made up 38% of the turnout in 2012 and Republicans 32% – a 6 point spread. Independents were 29%. This poll has 11% more Democrats.

Even in 2008, Obama’s best election he only had a +7% Democrat turnout.

The other polls released today show a +4 Democrat advantage or a just about evenly split divide. Does anyone believe Hillary will see more enthusiasm for her than Obama received in 2008? By 5 or 6 points?

If the turnout is, as most expect, no more than a +4 advantage, this poll should remove 7 points from Hillary and ass them to Trump giving Trump a 49% to 40% lead.

But this poll will help counter the Trump surge in the averages, which is the only reason I can think of for a +11 Democrat poll for Hillary.

 

 


Article written by: Tom White

New CNN Poll Shows Trump with +5 Lead and the Poll is Unbiased! CBS Poll Not So Much

A Tale of Two Polls

I wrote a piece a couple of days ago on understanding the Presidential Polls. Far too often, polls attempt to sway opinion rather than measure it.and trust me, I am constantly on the look out for that type of bias.

One of the things the polls like to do is show their favorite candidate ahead and the lead climbing between polls. But often, nothing has really changed, or their candidate (usually the Democrat) has actually fallen, but they sample more and more Democrats to make it appear that the opposite is true.

Let’s look at two brand new polls by CNN and CBS.

New CNN Poll

There is a brand new CNN poll out this morning that shows Donald Trump with a 5 point lead over Hillary if you add in the other candidates running. This poll was taken July 22-24 2016. Which means that this poll was taken completely following the Republican Convention, so it should show the convention “bounce”. Interestingly, there has been no convention bounce that lasted beyond a few days since 2000.

The CNN Poll shows Donald Trump with a10 point bounce going from Clinton +5 to Trump +5.

I am always suspicious of polls and like to look at the numbers behind the polls.

What I was looking for is if CNN is being consistent in their polls, or are they planning to drive some narrative? Did they sample more Republicans this time to show a Trump “bounce” planning to oversample Democrats after the Democratic convention to show a bounce for Hillary?

The answer is no! I looked at the last 3 CNN Polls and all three are amazingly consistent. While many polls are using turnout models predicting the turnout for Hillary will be better than the turnout for Barack Obama his last two elections, CNN is not. Their polls are almost evenly split between Republicans and Democrats with the GOP respondents a point or so ahead of the Democrats. Most polls, regardless of bias, are showing Republicans are far more enthusiastic this time and Democrats are not excited at all. So predicting a turnout model of slightly more Democrats – up to 4 or 5 points more, is not too unreasonable an assumption. CNN seems to be predicting a pretty even split.

We won’t know the exact D to R ratio until after the election, so no matter who is polling, there is always going to be a certain amount of guesswork.

Why I love this poll

What I really like about this CNN Poll series is that the ratio of Democrats and Democrat leaning Independents to Republicans and Republican leaning Independents has been consistent in (at least) the last 3 polls. Which means that while we may not know precisely the exact turnout on November 8th, this poll should be amazing accurate at tracking the trends. What I mean by that is if a poll samples 40% Democrats to 30% Republicans this week and then next week shows Democrats pulling ahead by 5 points over the previous poll, but they sampled 43% Democrats and 28% Republicans this time, are we really seeing an increase in Democrat support? Probably not. Had the samples been the same ratio, there would likely have been no movement at all.

But the CNN Polls have been a constant. Clinton had a +4 lead in the mid June poll and a +5 lead in the mid July poll. And that has now, after the GOP Convention, gone the other way. We now see a +5 point lead for Donald Trump. That is a 10 point swing towards Donald Trump. And the sample ratio of Dems and Republicans have been constant. So while we can’t be confident that if the election were held today Hillary would get 39% and Trump would get 44%, what we can say with a fair amount of confidence is that Donald Trump gained 10 points on Hillary in a week.

The CBS Poll – Not So Much Apples to Apples

So while the CNN Poll has kept a constant R to D ratio through at least 3 polls, the last poll being post GOP Convention, CBS has not kept things the same.

A poll conducted by CBS after the GOP Convention shows Trump with a 1 point lead. A poll they took July 8-12, prior to the Convention shows a Tie. So the lead story for the CBS Poll is Trump only got a 1 point bounce from the Convention.

But when we look at the weighted numbers, after CBS “corrected” for sampling errors, the post Convention poll sampled Democrats 4% more than Republicans and Trump leads by 1%. But in the prior poll earlier in the month, the “weighted” numbers favored Democrats by +6 points and showed a tie. And the one prior to that taken last month had a +7 Democrat advantage and Hillary was up by +6.

So the CBS Poll shows Trump moving from a 7 point underdog in June to a tie in July to a 1 point lead in the post Convention poll. That would seem to be an 8 point “bounce” since June, but none of these polls used the same sample ratio of D’s to R’s. So instead of an 8 point bounce in a month, Trump is probably looking at just a 5 point bounce.

But the real news in the CBS poll is that CBS itself is adjusting their Republican to Democrat ratio, moving them closer to 50-50 with each poll.

CNN is already expecting a 50-50 ratio.

Conclusion

It should be noted that both of these polls are of Registered Voters and not Likely Voters. LV’s tend to show the Republican candidate a bit higher. So that is good news for Donald Trump.

I will have to look at some other polls to see if they are creeping closer to the reality that Hillary is not going to inspire the type of turnout that Barack Obama had in 2008 and 2012. These pollsters watch one another and they all want to be remembered for nailing the election in the end, even the partisan players. Trending towards Trump this early is significant. CNN is looking at an even GOP and Democrat turnout which would probably mean a Trump landslide victory because the Independents are breaking for Trump and the trend has usually been that undecideds move to the party out of power the last few days.

Both the numbers and the trends of both the polls and the pollsters themselves are looking good for a GOP victory.


Article written by: Tom White