Polls lie. “Why We Shouldn’t Believe Polling About Trump” Lloyd Pettigrew


"The reason why we shouldn’t believe most of the current or future polling results about President Trump can be summarized in two words: Social Desirability.

Social desirability is a concept first advanced by psychologist Allen L. Edwards in 1953. It advances the idea that when asked about an issue in a social setting, people will always answer in a socially desirable manner whether or not they really believe it. Political polling, whether by telephone or online, is a social setting. Respondents know that there is an audience who are posing the questions and monitoring their response. As a result, despite a respondent’s true belief, many will answer polling questions in what may appear to be a more socially desirable way, or not answer at all. 

When it comes to President Trump, the mainstream media and academics have led us to believe that it is not socially desirable (or politically correct) to support him. When up against such sizable odds, most conservatives will do one of three things: 1) Say we support someone else when we really support the president (lie); 2) tell the truth despite the social undesirability of that response; 3) Not participate in the poll (nonresponse bias).

This situation has several real consequences for Trump polling. First, for those in the initial voter sample unwilling to participate, the pollster must replace them with people willing to take the poll. Assuming this segment is made up largely of pro-Trump supporters, finding representative replacements can be expensive, time-consuming and doing so increases the sampling error rate (SER) while decreasing the validity of the poll. Sampling error rate is the gold standard statistic in polling. It means that the results of a particular poll will vary by no more than +x% than if the entire voter population was surveyed. All else being equal, a poll with a sampling error rate of +2% is more believable than one of +4% because it has a larger sample. Immediate polling on issues like President Trump’s impeachment may provide support to journalists with a point of view to broadcast, but with a small sample and high sampling error rates, the results aren’t worthy of one’s time and consideration."  


I watched today as the crypto lefty Michael Smerconish interviewed Jason Miller from the Trump campaign.  He insisted that Miller "face up to the bad recent poll results" on Trump.  What he wanted was for Miller to concede defeat in the November election.  Miller pointed out that all the polls cited by MS consistently under sample Republicans by more than 10%.  The typical Republican sample size is between 25 and 30% in these polls.  MS simply ignored that and went on making his case for Trump's coming defeat.

MS's weekly on air poll asked the question "Is the election over? "  He was visibly disappointed wen his mostly liberal audience replied "no"  by 69% of a 16000 vote sample.  pl


This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Polls lie. “Why We Shouldn’t Believe Polling About Trump” Lloyd Pettigrew

  1. Terence Gore says:

    All over the news last night…. Not that I saw
    18 officers hurt

  2. Leith says:

    I don’t believe the polls, neither neutral pollsters, nor anybody else’s regardless of which way they lean politically. With Caller-ID so prevalent today, nobody I know answers the phone anymore unless they recognize the number. Especially for 800 #s. I have NoMoRobo installed on my landline that automatically cuts off all computerized autodial calls. I need to get something similar for my cell phone.
    As for on-air polls, they are complete BS, more like fairy tale genre for four year olds. Doesn’t matter whether they are done by MSNBC or Fox or any other TV network or radio station.

  3. AK says:

    I’ve long wondered what the numbers would look like if the pollsters cataloged every response along the lines of “go f*** yourself” as a vote for Trump…

  4. BillWade says:

    For those of you who don’t watch CNN, I’m in that category, I urge you to watch it on election night, it’s pure bliss watching Wolf Blitzer twitch and burn.

  5. akaPatience says:

    Anymore, I never answer a number that’s unfamiliar. And I’ve hung up on pollsters in the past since their questions invade my privacy. On the other hand, my leftist husband is eager to talk to pollsters and is enjoying recent results that tell him what he wants to hear. IF Trump wins again, no doubt my poor husband’s face will blanch, his lips will quiver, and his jaw will drop in horror just like they did in 2016.
    It will be interesting to see poll results a few days before the November election, as that’ll be when many pollsters try to bolster their reputations by presenting results using the best methodologies they’re capable of. We witnessed this in 2016 when final polling suddenly indicated a tight race.
    Most polls are commissioned or sponsored by the MSM. Enough said I guess…

  6. Deap says:

    Doxxing threats now effectively suppress free speech; but not yet the power of the secret ballot on election day. Except vote by mail is no longer secret, nor is heavily partisan public employees charged with vote counting.
    I recall this was called the “Bradley Effect” after a high profile Los Angles mayor’s race when the first black man, Tom Bradley, was running for this office.The public polls got the projected outcome all wrong.

  7. blue peacock says:

    IMO it is way too early to handicap the presidential election. In any case national polls are essentially meaningless when the presidency is decided by a handful of states. I think 2020 presidency will be decided by Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin. Trump won some of these states by narrow margins in 2016.
    I think the one big difference for Trump in 2020 is that Jared is completely running the campaign, whereas in 2016 Bannon was at the helm during the home stretch while Jared & Parscale managed the Facebook platform.
    While this election should have been a home-run for Trump, his campaign has faltered since the spring and as voter attention grows in the next couple months does he have the right people managing the campaign? Especially since 2020 will be unique – probably the first virtual campaign. Biden will not be doing any debates and will have only fully scripted moments that will be broadcast. And Trump rallies will likely be curtailed as older people the main voting demographic will not show up in numbers.
    Of course the Senate will be the crucial election with the Democrats only needing a gain of 4 to get the majority.

  8. Fred says:

    Having successfully driven the “MAGA” hat out of public view by repeated acts of violence and de-platformed and dis-employed many by anti-Trump discrimination and social ostracisation the left now acts like nothing happens and people would truthfully answer anonymous calls claiming to be legitimate polls? Even Smerconsh can’t be that stupid. Jason Miller is undoubtable correct, and I’m sure he’s spending far more to get accurate results given the problems polling faces.
    As an observation I believe some on the right is starting to term this election an “extinction event”, i.e. if they lose to the left open borders, open deplatforming and disemployment and open race based discrimination, vote by mail ballot harvesting, ‘crime’ reform and a slew of other lefty ideals would be implemented by the neo-bolshevicks.
    Terrance, If it’s not an the msm it must not have happened. Nice phalanx of anti-first amendment folks in black. All those masks have a way of helping them remain anonymous while they reek their destruction, don’t they? I’m sure the Mayor of Chicago will be able to arrest people for attending church without a mask, these folks will never see the inside of a courtroom, however.

  9. Terence Gore says:

    I don’t understand with all the surveillance equipment available, the leaders of that phalanx are not identified and arrested.
    I’ve come to the conclusion they are getting active support by government officials on the local, state, and federal level in their efforts to break,destroy and injure.

  10. JamesT says:

    The polls in 2016 were off by 2-3 percent, but Trump is behind by a larger margin than that in the polls that I have seen. Covid has been a godsend for Biden. I think Biden is going to win in November, but these things tend to be closer than partisans on either side expect.

  11. Deap says:

    Sigh ……MAGA 2020 ……Hip……. hip……. hooray ……………….
    Love to see what Trump could really do if he had a full term, where he was not sabotaged six ways against Sunday. He is owed one. Americans still have an innate sense of fair play, and he was played badly. He deserves a clean slate and a do-over.
    Looking back, this entire four years of deep state establishment shockwaves was now predictable. No one from the outside could have prevented or handled it with more finesse .I see a GW Bush term two, who had little to recommend for his second term either but did resonate with a still viable and important segment of the US population – traditionalists and/or conservatives.
    In a few more years they will be out-numbered by a new and uninvested generation with no ties or links to our US history. They came to take advantage of everything America had been; only to destroy what it was. What will they rebuild in its place and are we seeing the seeds of their future in our streets right now?
    I suspect similar questions were asked during the 1960’s, when our nation’s own locally born and raised children wanted to tear everything down. We no longer have that legacy connection to our past. We handed it over to those who have a false image about America, but no roots in what it took to create it.
    I am sorry slavery was ever part of our history. I suspect Europe also regrets their few decades of colonialism as well as they too see major cultural shifts well outside their own centuries of inbred traditionalism. Rome fell. Byzantium was crushed and Europe was saved from itself twice in the last century. What is now our long line of history? If one claims Northern European stock. A stranger in their own land is my own best description.

  12. Seamus Padraig says:

    In Britain they’ve been calling this the ‘Shy Tory Effect.’ They use it to explain why the Tories often outperform their own polling results on election day: because many voters are afraid to confess an un-PC opinion to pollsters.

  13. turcopolier says:

    terence Gore
    Do not double post.

  14. Flavius says:

    “…. because many voters are afraid to confess an un-PC opinion to pollsters.”
    This is undoubtedly true and troubling in itself about where our politics in the west has arrived a full generation after the end of the Cold War. The town in which I live presents itself as exclusively Left and is immensely proud of its intolerance. A merchant in town was visited by a long time customer and asked to display a blm sign in his shop window. He politely declined. She accused him of being a racist and said she would never again return to his store. The FBI now employs SWAT teams for early morning arrests of politicians charged with non-violent crimes and produces the wherewithall to horse collar an elected President. A Federal Judge is in near defiance of his superior court because he has been instructed to follow legal precedent in making a decision that the law requires but he believes gets the politics wrong.
    What next when these people wield total power? the midnight knock on the door because you were denounced by a neighbor for having voted for Trump? Who isn’t going to cover his tracks when talking with a pollster. There is literally nothing in it for him but potential trouble.

  15. Bill H says:

    Yes, the polls are more heavily against Trump now than they were in 2016. But leftist anti-Trump rhetoric and, more to the point, violence is several orders of magnitude greater. This gives Trump supporters vastly greater reason to stay in the weeds and not show their colors until they can do so in the secrecy of the voting booth.
    In 2016 public support of Trump might subject one to some unpleasant jeers. Today such support will frequently subject one to serious verbal abuse and no small liklihood of violence.

  16. Deap says:

    If one over-samples the popular votes in NY and California, you do not get a picture of the electoral college vote. Which is why the 2016 polls were so very wrong.
    Founders wisely did their best to protect this country from mob rule. No, the US is not a pure democracy. Neither was Ancient Greece. We are better than that.

  17. BillWade says:

    It might be a good idea for county/city elections officials to consider police protection at the voting booths this coming November.

  18. Diana Croissant says:

    Well, I for one love to get a poll call. Last night I got one in regard to a state election between our mealy mouthed ex Governern Hickenlooper is running for Senate against our current Senator Gardner.
    I had so very much fun NOT answering his quesions in a way he could write them down easily. He was actually a pretty nice guy because he soon figured out that I was playing with him, trying to make it impossible for him to mark my answer in any way except the way I wanted it to be ansered. I even brought up Hickenlooper’s primary opponent, Andrew Romonoff.
    Whenever I took my newspaper students to the state High School Journalism Convention, Romonoff was just an up and comer young guy politician who would walk around the convention flirting with the young girls and trying to impress the boys with his importance.
    I kept that poll taker, who was obviously calling for Hickenlooper, on the line far longer than he was supposed to, I think. I even got him lauging once. He read an endorsement for Hickenlooper from the Aurora Daily Sentinel. I made comments about the fact that Aurora is so “libtard” (my made-up word) that it would be hard to read through all the crap without waders; so a quick quoting from it wouldn’t convince me of anything it printed.
    I think he was thankful for the break from the probably mind-numbing single word responses and angry people who answered. He got a few laughs and so did I.
    In the end, he knew I was not for Hickenlooper OR Romonoff.

  19. Deap says:

    BillWade, this one if for you and anyone else who wants a very satisfying diversion during their Fauci ginned-up lock down quarantine today: CNN 2016 Election Night coverage.
    Yes, Wolf Blitzer frantically does a TotenTanz that night:

  20. Jim says:

    Thank you Col. Lang for posting portions of the Pettegrew essay.
    I’m taking the liberty to clarify Pettegrew essay.
    [[Sampling error rate is the gold standard statistic in polling. It means that the results of a particular poll will vary by no more than +x% than if the entire voter population was surveyed. All else being equal, a poll with a sampling error rate of +2% is more believable than one of +4% because it has a larger sample.]]
    First, inference may be drawn from a poll ONLY when [IF] there is an actual random sample.
    Thus random sample creates condition for inference [prediction]; this does not guarantee it.
    Second, the inference is a snapshot, at a point in time, not a motion picture, thus any value days or weeks later may be nil.
    This is why polls done weekly or monthly, and if they are done daily, one may perceive a trend, more easily.
    [[Sampling Error rate is the gold standard statistic in polling]]
    SE is the difference between what is actual, from the entire population, versus what a sample – what the sampled data says.
    There is no way to know this ahead of time. This is why there are polls.
    Polls attempt to know this, within a certain range, usually expressed in percentages.
    Polls are supposed to be designed to keep bias as low as possible; because it is bias that distorts them.
    How to measure and/or cure this? There is the tried and true method.
    The problem with polls is an age-old one: are data truly taken from a random sample; or not?
    Most these days are not, for many reasons. And pollsters come up with all sorts of models [often using junk science] to try and get around this elephant in the room as it were.
    Some polls may be less non random than others.
    This is the problem.
    This polling problem is compounded by non response.
    Non response is related to problem — simply because prior to polling, a random sample is selected ahead of time.
    The sample selected may in fact be random; non response destroys the randomness simply because for each individual who does not respond, the rigor of the poll is diminished.
    Even one or two people not responding greatly erodes the rigor of a random sample. [A poll of 500 people to represent a nation of more than 300 million.]
    What actually happens is a polling company may have designed an experiment — and selected a random sample of 1,000, or 2,000, or more.
    Often they get about 2 percent response rate!
    Thus, they have 20 responses; from which no inference can be drawn.
    So they re poll and re poll, and might get 400 responses, or more, eventually.
    This is where the problems begin. It is a huge problem, from the perspective of trying to draw inference [prediction] – because what began as an attempt to poll a random sample is no longer a random sample.
    This particular phenomena – is a different problem [which is not to say this is not related to] the fact that many Trump supporters either do not participate in answering pollsters; or, on purpose lie to them because — owing to lack of random sample and pollster bias – i.e., the pollsters may have a political agenda, or a perceived political agenda. . . as opposed to conducting a poll that is the public interest.
    [[“Political polling, whether by telephone or online, is a social setting.”]] Pettegrew states.
    Social setting only involve physical interaction; the nature of social is person to person. This is beyond dispute.
    “Social desirability” as Pettegrew frames it, as a factor to potentially distort polling data is an interesting thesis; however, polling organizations are supposed to and are expected to have trained questioners and well-designed questions, and ways of asking to adequately address what this phenomena actually is: plain old “bias.” [This training and apropriate framing of questions reduces bias or at least is supposed to.]
    In fact, interviewing someone in person, asking a person questions for a poll, this method – which is actual social interaction – is not done because it is time consuming and expensive.
    However, expert questioners are much more able to get honest answers, when done in person, for obvious reasons.
    The most obvious one is that someone is not going to sit down and be asked questions unless they want to.
    Since they want to, there is no reason to want to lie, on the face of it.
    This person sits down because they believe that their opinion matters.
    [[Sampling error rate is the gold standard statistic in polling. It means that the results of a particular poll will vary by no more than +x% than if the entire voter population was surveyed. All else being equal, a poll with a sampling error rate of +2% is more believable than one of +4% because it has a larger sample.]]
    1] Thus sampling error is the difference between what a total population actually thinks/believes; and what a survey, via a sample of them say – which cannot be known.
    The SE itself is a guess, and there is no way to verify if it is right or wrong; random sample can be used to obtain a good approximation – to address this conundrum.
    2] SE does not mean “that the results of a particular poll will vary by no more than [plus or minus] + or – x% than if the entire voter population was surveyed.”
    This refers to something else actually.
    It is called the Confidence Interval.
    Typical CI is 95 percent [less common CI for polling are 90 percent, and 99 percent].
    The plus or minus percent [the range] Pettegrew refers to is a function of
    A] the sample size
    B] the confidence interval
    The higher the confidence interval, the greater the plus or minus range – what Pettegrew refers to as: “It means that the results of a particular poll will vary by no more than +x%”
    A 99 percent CI means that if a sample surveyed was done 100 times, 99 of those times it would be within this plus or minus range.
    95 percent CI means 19 out of 20 times.
    90 percent CI means 9 out of 10 times.
    In other words: As the confidence level increases, the margin of error increases – that is to say, the “+x%” is greater, to use Pettegrew’s terminology.
    The x becomes a larger percent as confidence interval increases.
    With a 90 percent CI, there is always a one in ten chance the data from the sample is a total bust, for example.
    Statisticsshowto.com says it this way: [[A margin of error tells you how many percentage points your results will differ from the real population value. For example, a 95% confidence interval with a 4 percent margin of error means that your statistic will be within 4 percentage points of the real population value 95% of the time.]]
    This means the “+x%” will be within this/the range: 19 out of 20 attempts at sampling.
    Pettegrew says [[All else being equal, a poll with a sampling error rate of +2% is more believable than one of +4% because it has a larger sample]]
    This is because: The Central Limit Theory says that the greater the number of participants in a random sample, the closer the statistic obtained [from the sample] will be to the actual population parameter. [Also, the larger the sample size, the more its distribution approaches a normal probability distribution – the bell curve – and this is key for inference or attempts at inference from data from a random sample: because inference is a function of probability.]
    Since the actual population universe is not known, the actual parameter is unknown, thus a statistic from a sample can [potentially] mimic or come close to reality, assuming it is from an actual random sample.
    A quick note on the man most responsible for developing and making modern statistics and probability a worthwhile and excellent system and advancing the field of knowledge.
    This man is as important to the science of modern statistics and probability as Jesus Christ and St. Joan are to Christianity, and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King is too – to the spirit of freedom and dignity [as opposed to fraudulence and propaganda and parstisan-ism – all enemies of knowledge and the human spirit] — Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, is to the science of statistics and probability.
    Because of Fisher’s painstaking work, the design of scientific experiments, especially the use of inference, became a great advance in human knowledge and science.
    Because of Fisher, the field of medicine and disease prevention expanded and blossomed.
    Random drug trials, for example, all use the pioneering work of Fisher, his conception of the absolute necessity of random samples from which inference may be drawn from designed experiments to test medicines — using probability.
    A window honoring him was recently removed from a college at University of Cambridge.
    Feel free to read this story [link below], which, sad to say, though it includes the basics of what just happened, fails to underscore in any way shape or form the perfidy of it all, this malice, the evil behind it.
    A symbolic crucifixion, as it were.
    This, the moral turpitude of this counter cultural revolution and their myriad agents – and all that this implies in western civilization here and now.
    Fisher was born February 17, 1890, East Finchley, London; died July 29, 1962, Adelaide, Australia.
    Reason . . . –55 years ago, Barrington Moore Jr. noted that it always hangs in the balance, on the verge of being murdered, destroyed. This scum trying to destroy us [and themselves — they are stuck on self-destruction] is a project to destroy Reason. Plain and simple.
    “Science is tolerant of reason; relentlessly intolerant of unreason and sham. A flickering light in our darkness it is, as Morris Cohen once said, but the only one we have, and woe to him who would put it out.”

  21. likbez says:

    Polls are designed to influence public opinion, not so much to inform. This is especially true for MSNBC and CNN polls. They are just a powerful tool to win the election by projecting the aura of invincibility over Creepy Joe and thus influencing undecided voters and voters who look for a winner.
    I think that the increase in polarization of the USA society after the “Summer of love” favors Trump. Neoliberal Dems burned all the bridges, so to speak. Now they symbolize an abysmal failure during the “summer of love,” including CHAZ fiasco and the recent Chicago riot — attempt to topple the Columbus statue.
    I wonder how many Americans watched the video with the view from above (probably from a drone) embedded in WGN TV News twit referenced in the article below. It is clear from this video that this was a well-organized attack by a determined group of rioters.
    also at
    WGN TV News
    Protesters launch fireworks and other items at Chicago police officers guarding Columbus statue in Grant Park
    8:41 PM · Jul 17, 2020
    Looks like a typical Soros staged spectacle with hired guns/thugs coordinating with neoliberal MSM, who is running the show.
    Add to this the fallout from Russiagate/Obamagate that probably is coming in some form later and, possibly, from Maxwell scandal (where Clinton was probably involved and needs to be questioned )

  22. Vegetius says:

    This is also known as preference falsification. That is to say, lying from fear.
    It will be an example of the “Bradley Effect” only if this transparent effort to depress turn-out succeeds and Trump supporters stay home because they think his re-election is hopeless.
    However, unless what we are seeing is some kind of rope-a-dope, the President’s own behavior so far may depress the votes among those who in 2016 put him over the top. I am one of these.
    The list is long and growing: his erratic response to this pandemic, his pathetic non-response to this globalist/deep state color revolution, his continued reliance on anti-white and anti-American Israelis like Kushner, his apparent willingness to grant amnesty for criminal Mexicans and go along with idiotic GOP calls to end relief for those thrown out of work, etc, etc.

  23. JamesT says:

    Bill H
    If someone calls you on the phone and tells you they work for a polling company – you are going to be afraid? It seems I am going to be the anti-Travis for 2020 on SST. Travis was impressive as heck in his arguments and reasoning for how Trump was going to win in 2016.
    I think that my prediction that Trump will lose in 2020 will also be proven right – but I don’t think I can argue for this prediction as eloquently as Travis did.

  24. likbez says:

    @Vegetius | 19 July 2020 at 12:55 PM

    It will be an example of the “Bradley Effect” only if this transparent effort to depress turn-out succeeds and Trump supporters stay home because they think his re-election is hopeless.
    However, unless what we are seeing is some kind of rope-a-dope, the President’s own behavior so far may depress the votes among those who in 2016 put him over the top. I am one of these.

    That’s true that Trump was a disappointment for many (probably majority) of low and middle income voters who voted for him in 2016. But I think more powerful factors are now in play that can override Trump inaptness and his betrayal of voters and his election promises.
    The BLM movement codified the prejudices of black ethno-nationalists and is fully supported by neoliberal Dems as the last desperate attempt to topple Trump. Kind of “stage three” of the Purple color revolution (with Russiagate and Ukrainegate as previous two).
    Effectively, neoliberal Dems decided that ethno-narcissism and in-group preference can serve as a smoke screen of their coziness to Wall Street and their utter disregard of the interests of common Americans in having decent jobs and stemming the sliding standard of living (which led a large part of working class to vote for Trump in 2016).
    They bet that can became the new ideology of Democratic Party creating rag tag coalition from disaffected minorities and East and West Coast financial and technocratic elite as well as selected groups of professionals. In short the groups who are net winners from neoliberal globalization and are not that affected by outsourcing of jobs. I think this is a huge mistake.
    IMHO this might became a very powerful, may be the decisive factor that favors Trump in 2020 re-election.
    In fact, I suspect that BLM enablers in the neoliberal MSM actually are working for Trump re-election. In no way the rest of America will throw their support behind ethno-narcissism and BLM bigoted underbelly with the new Red Guards running amok.
    These catch-all buzzwords about racial justice make it perfectly OK for rioters to tear down public monuments, loot and pillage stores and businesses, beat others who do not conform to their views, lay siege to police stations, and take up arms against the state. If you disagree with this, however, you’re the racist. This trick will not work.
    Truth be told, the USA criminal justice system, for all its faults, has been reasonably fair and effective in creating a harmonious environment for the various tribes that exist in modern USA.
    And it egregious to call the USA a racist country, if we compare it for example with Israel or even Russia, to say nothing about various “stans”, or China.

  25. Jack says:

    I agree that the Senate is the more consequential race with Republicans defending twice as many seats as the Democrats.
    Arizona will be a pivotal state. Astronaut and navy pilot with combat experience in the Gulf, Kelly, is running a strong race for the Senate as a Democrat. He could drag Biden to a win in a traditionally Republican leaning state.
    You are right that the presidency will be decided by a handful of states. Jared is rather inexperienced to run such a close race and it appears doesn’t have the killer instinct for a vicious battle. You can see it as the campaign hasn’t taken advantage of the Antifa fat pitch. Trump needs someone like Lee Atwater or Bannon who brought home the bacon in 2016, IMO. You’re also right that this campaign could be very different from 2016 when Trump came into the general with a lot of momentum from winning the primary and was a fresh candidate. What will the campaigns look like with many states shutting down gatherings and the Wuhan virus continuing to dominate the media coverage? Will there be any conventions and debates? Will there be large rallies?

  26. Mark Logan says:

    re: “…as the campaign hasn’t taken advantage of the Antifa fat pitch.”
    I believe they intend to do that, the federal operators in Portland seem to be targeting protesters in black, the ones that fit the Antifa profile almost exclusively. They appear to be only interested in that one type when they roam about the city hunting. In fact the evidence of Antifa as the primary driver of the protests is thin. They lack names and mug shots of perps and this seems to be an expedition crafted to obtain some.

  27. BillWade says:

    Deap, thanks!
    Jack, Trump decided to not hold rallies in light of the panic.

  28. Deap says:

    Vegitius wrote: “ The list is long and growing:
    —-his erratic response to this pandemic,
    —- his pathetic non-response to this globalist/deep state color revolution,
    —-his continued reliance on anti-white and anti-American Israelis like Kushner,
    —-his apparent willingness to grant amnesty for criminal Mexicans and
    —-go along with idiotic GOP calls to end relief for those thrown out of work, etc, etc.

    Sorry, none of these have any traction with 2020 Trump supporters. Trump is 2020 by entirely different yardsticks. The first one is Trump is not Joe Biden and he is not a Democrat. There are other positives as well. Sorry you can’t see them.
    But “covid” is not going to take Trump down because “covid” exposed the failings of the deep state and Democrat state leadership more than anything else. Medicare for All, after this string of Fauci and CDC stunts, is DOA.

  29. likbez says:

    —-his continued reliance on anti-white and anti-American Israelis like Kushner,

    Sorry, none of these have any traction with 2020 Trump supporters.

    What is interesting is that why pathetic Zionist stooge Kushner really discredits and drags down Trump, Trump pro-Zionist stance is now slightly more understandable and, may be, even slightly more acceptable than before BLM/Antifa riots.
    What would you do if a minority does not want to integrate and asks for an undeserved preferential treatment? And which stages riots increasing social tension and wantonly looting and destroying property (that’s what “peaceful protester” during “summer of love” actually do ) .

  30. Vegetius says:

    I’ve been saying that black is the new orange (revolution) but purple works to.
    It’s hard to know what is going on any more because the only people who talk politics are yelling about it while the people I am most interested in hearing from in my personal life have gone silent.
    I think the neoliberals are more afraid of losing institutional control than they are losing this or that election. Thus Trump’s haplessness has been reassuring to them. If I were a globalist, I would want Democrats to take the senate and Trump to win a narrow election that I could say was illegitimate.
    One thing I am interested in knowing is if/how divided the security and intelligence agencies are about all of this. There are wild rumors going around to the effect that the CIA is anti-Trump but the NSA is pro-Trump.
    Personally, I have come reluctantly but now immovably to the idea that white identity politics are inevitable and that whites must begin waging them en masse sooner rather than later. The age of ideology is over and the demographic age has begun. The globalists understand this (indeed, they arranged it), as do non-white elites. It is only the corrupt and incompetent white elite that either can’t or won’t see this.
    The institutional GOP is the biggest gatekeeper to a pro-white politics, and so it must either be subverted, seized or destroyed. The clown car that is late-stage conservatism must be diminished to the same stature as, say, the Fourth International over at wsws.org.
    Those who want the GOP to remain a gate-keeping exercise – think Israelis like Hazony – are now trying to concoct a sham called “national conservatism” to keep whites on the conservative plantation but there are too many who already see this for what it is and so I expect it to go nowhere.
    It may be that normal people are so appalled by this globaist-sponsored and Democrat-abetted violence that a backlash is building. If so, I can’t see it.

  31. Deap says:

    likbez: The only “purple revolution” we are now experiencing in the US is the purple tee-shirted SEIU types and the teachers unions against the blue line police unions.
    This is simply a public sector union turf war we are now experiencing.
    Covid hysteria reduced the tax dollar pie which long supported all three of them. Not they are fighting over the size of the slices of the pie – with the police unions long getting the largest slices. Defund the police –and divert those same funds, not back to the taxpayers, but to teachers and other government support employee unions tells you all you need to know.
    Using this lens to view events of the past few months in the US and everything finally makes sense: Internecine public sector turf war.
    Even WSJ editorial today admits Gov Newsom, when he speaks, is merely representing the demands of the state teachers unions (CTA). Truth be told, and this is an existential election year for the 44 million public sector union members – 99% all Democrats. OrangeMan must be defeated., by any means necessary. They have all their skin in this game.

Comments are closed.