Wednesday, September 28, 2016


Media Matters, a site that leans waaaay left, flatly declares online polls to be "garbage" and cites the more professionally conducted CNN poll, which broke for Hillary, as a better example of polling. Trouble is, CNN was honest enough to reveal that its sample of 521 registered voters, who were polled by phone, skewed heavily Democrat. Can't say that that makes CNN's effort any more legitimate than that of the snap polls.

Video commentary here. Be sure to read the comments.

Scott Adams (whose blog you should be reading) offers his hour-long debate postmortem. TL;DW: he still gives it to Trump in a landslide, like our resident King Baeksu. Maybe I'm in denial, but I'm still not seeing a landslide. I am, however, creeping slowly over to the less-negative camp when it comes to evaluating Trump's prospects. My rate of creep seems about the same as the rate of change of the numbers at 538, where Trump's probability of election has gone from single digits to 40-something percent.

UPDATE: Michael Moore, no friend to righties, calls the debate (and the election) for Trump. Scott Adams, in the above-linked video commentary, says that Moore, who works in film, probably reads people the same way Adams does, i.e., through the lens of the art of persuasion, a lens that provides a very different picture from the one offered through conventional debate and political analysis. Read Adams if you aren't already doing so.


Nathan B. said...

I don't believe a major poll with a large sample size and proper methodology has been done, yet, but I'm sure one will in the next few days.

King Baeksu said...

Media Matters has been exposed as a money-laundering scam:

It must also be stressed that Media Matters has been funded by evil globalist and international fugitive from justice George Soros:

Let's recall that it was George Soros who was hugely to blame for the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998, which South Koreans wrongly describe as the "IMF Crisis." Think of how many lives in South Korea were ruined by this wicked man, who literally profits from the suffering of others and largely games the system rather than actually generating productive wealth himself.

In short, Media Matters takes dirty money and then pockets a fair share of it for itself while at the same time corrupting the controlled MSM with its neoliberal, neoconservative globalist message. Fuck these people, seriously.

Finally, you may find this discussion of interest:

"Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton | Presidential Debate Analysis"

King Baeksu said...

Solid debate analysis from prominent Alt-Rightist:

Trump vs. Hillary - Game Summary

King Baeksu said...

Last comment on the first debate for now:

I think Trump accomplished two important feats that are a testament to his genius at marketing, perception management and mass-media messaging.

First of all, he hammered Clinton hard on foreign trade during the first thirty minutes or so, especially NAFTA and the TPP, and seems to have won decisively on that issue according to post-debate interviews with ordinary voters. It was important that he did so at the start of the debate, rather than at the end when many viewers lost interest and switched channels or hit the sack for the night. I also think he intentionally held back on his signature immigration issue, because that would have distracted from the trade message that he wanted to drive home the first time around. No doubt, he will work that in next time. You don't want to overwhelm people confusing mixed messaging, after all. Again, that's Marketing 101.

The second thing he accomplished was appearing restrained and measured, and thereby neutralizing the perception that he is a loose cannon or wild card who would be a "dangerous" occupant of the Oval Office. Many are confused as to why he held back so often when there were numerous openings for him to go after Clinton aggressively and decisively. I think his conscious strategy was to project an image of cautious restraint, which was a more important messaging war to win than any more limited-scale battle victories on policy points. As a consequence, he now appears much less "scary" to the crucial female demographic and other undecided voters. At one point, he even essentially copped to this strategy, when he commented that he could easily go after Clinton on a certain issue but didn't want to "stoop so low" or "be too mean." It was a pretty smart maneuver: He simultaneously attacked Clinton via sly innuendo while also underscoring his ability to rein himself in at will.

In short, Trump won on the trade issue, and also went a long way towards neutralizing the perception that he is temperamentally unfit for the presidency. Both of those issues are "huge." And what did Clinton accomplish? For the most part, she signaled to the various minority constituencies that comprise her base that she is fully on board with the social-justice program. But America is still two-thirds white, so that kind of messaging is going to be rather alienating for a great many of them (no doubt, to quite a few it simply sounds like higher taxes and more of the "blame game"), and indeed even many blacks, Latinos and Asians are getting fed up with the whole political-correctness thing as well. So perhaps she shored up support with her base, but that's about it. Meanwhile, Trump expanded his appeal to a whole host of undecideds and independent voters. For this reason, I revise my previous assessment of the debate: Trump's victory was more than just by a hair, but was actually quite decisive. And again, this assessment is reflected by the numerous online polls that appeared immediately afterwards.