Don's Tuesday Column

            THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   10/25/2016

         Question polls; race “tight as a tick”

What if all, even most, of the polls are wrong? The better question is “What if the polling averages and poll-driven narratives are biased—more importantly, intentionally skewed to the point of inaccuracy?” What is the likelihood that such skewing is designed to portray a seemingly insurmountable lead for Hillary Clinton; and that the dispirited reaction among Republican voters and conservative thought-leaders is actually the intended result?

Hang in for a few revelations on polling. I then want to focus on what, to majorities of voters, are the manifest disqualifications of Hillary Clinton to hold office. Vast numbers of Democrats, while agreeing in the particulars, dismiss the logical conclusions of the manifest flaws in her character and record. In general, most voters, including many Democrats, simply don’t trust Clinton, consider her to be duplicitous and cannot name a single major accomplishment—not from her time as First Lady, her U.S. Senate term nor her reign as the architect, the Secretary of State, of America’s foreign policy.

First, I’ll summarize hours of mathematical dissection of NBC (with the Wall Street Journal or Survey Monkey), ABC/Washington Post, and Quinnipiac University polls. They are over-sampling Democrats (by 20 to 30 percent), women over men (53 to 47 percent), union-households (at 21 percent, twice the actual rate of unionized workers), and minorities; and they somehow marginalize the tendency of Independents to favor Trump.

Just one revealing question in an NBC poll, on page 24 question F1b/c, asks for whom they voted in 2012. The sample of voters, used by NBC, voted for Obama 59 percent, to 41 percent for Romney (after removing those who didn’t know or voted for someone else). Obama won by 4 points, 51 to 47 percent. So we are supposed to think that Hillary Clinton is way ahead based on survey respondents who voted overwhelmingly for Obama in the last election.

In the Quinnipiac University poll, Hillary was ahead by 6 points but Trump was heavily favored by Republicans and Independents. When I adjusted and equalized the number of respondents, Hillary was only ahead by 2 points. They “over-sampled” Democrats for Hillary’s lead.

The most accurate polling (out of 18 pollsters rated by 538’s Nate Silver) last election was by Investor’s Business Daily, which had Trump ahead by 2 (Sat.), ahead 1 (Sun.), and tied on Monday. “LA Times/USC Tracking” polling was done by RAND, the 4^th most accurate pollster in 2012. That poll has had a small lead for Trump alternating with, as on Monday, a 1 point Clinton lead. Rasmussen and Reuters polling has shown a 1 or 2 point Trump lead for most of the last week. Folks, the race is neck and neck, within the margin of error, or “tighter than a tick” as folksy Dan Rather (who peddled phony anti-George Bush documents) would say.

Here are a few facts for you to take to heart before you even think about voting for Hillary Clinton (please remember that liberals in general, Robert Minch in particular, think you are insane, unintelligent or both to vote for Donald Trump). In addition to placing untold amounts of top secret, classified information on unsecured servers and devices and in hack-able emails, Hillary compromised methods, assets and undercover agents in brutal countries. An ambassador and 3 Americans died because she dismissed hundreds of requests for additional protection. She lied to the faces of their families and lied about the phony culpability of an anti-Muslim video.

As if to emphasize her flagrant disregard for classified information, Hillary Clinton revealed in the last debate the never-before-publicized secret “time to respond” to a nuclear threat. National security experts across the nation were shocked at such irresponsibility.

Look up “Hillary Clinton’s Insidious Threat to Traditional Christianity” by Tyler O’Neil. “Last April, Clinton infamously declared that ‘deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed’ in order to make way for abortion and other forms of ‘reproductive health care.’” That is despotic, “vee vill make you” language about accepting all abortions, at every stage of pregnancy up to a day before delivery, paid by taxpayers, performed in church-owned hospitals—or else.

If you are Catholic, numerous statements hateful to your faith have been made public. “Clinton and her associates have demonstrated a contempt for traditional religious beliefs and an insidious effort to change them by whatever means necessary.” Sandy Newman (Voices for Progress) wrote to John Podesta in February 2012, wanting a “Catholic Spring,” as if the reluctance to accept “gender equality” (described elsewhere as “severely backwards gender relations” i.e. traditional marriage) and the Pope-centric “middle ages dictatorship” needed overthrowing—like the backward Muslim practices of the Middle East. Podesta bragged that he’d already tried to induce the rejection of longstanding doctrine through the George Soros-funded Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

“In a speech given in December 2011, Clinton openly compared religious opposition to the LGBT agenda to honor killings, widow burning and female genital mutilation.” Similar beliefs were in emails from 2011 and 2012, and speeches in 2011 and 2015. Clinton told the LGBT magazine, The Advocate, this year that she will fight against laws written to protect religious conscience objections to transgender agenda acceptance. You will be made to agree.

I urge you to look up “Hillary Clinton: Architect of Failure” by Lt. General (retired) Keith Kellogg. He makes the irrefutable case against her horrendous foreign policy record.