New Hampshire Shock Poll-Clinton 46% Sanders 25%

[DemocratSinceBirth]

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-new-hampshire-polling-2



ON EDIT- If posters are going to cite Murdoch/Wall Street Journal polls I am going to continue to cite Gravis

[bigdarryl]

1. That's a fucking right wing polling outfit

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. I can't read it. I'm in shock.

[brooklynite]

3. But the RW Wall Street Journal issuing a poll saying Sanders won the debate is OK?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. That's a great point that I would appreciate more if I weren't in shock.

[riversedge]

21. Chuckle.

[Nonhlanhla]

38. Thanks! :-)

There are few actors who do the shock and confused look as well as Keanu Reeves, LOL!
(One of my favorite actors, primarily because he is rumored to be super-nice and kind.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. I liked him in 'My Private idaho", "John Wick" and "Devil's Advocate'

EOM

[Cha]

6. Yes, rupert murdoch's wall street rag is OK.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Gravis= Bad/ Rupert Murdoch/Wall Street Journal =Good

EOM

[Cha]

20. Anything that shows bernie to be less than perfect is bad. Too bad there's so much out there..

they can't hide it all.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. In one of the candidate groups they cited an article where Madame Secretary was referred to...

In one of the candidate groups they cited an article where Madame Secretary was referred to as "Hitlery".

I have also seen polls by groups to the right of the Wall Street Journal cited here as well as anti-Hillary videos from America Rising.

As long as those sources are cited I will cite Gravis.


They want to shut me up. It isn't going to happen.

[Cha]

28. Of course they do.. that's their MO. If they can't shut you up they deride you.. tell you you're

getting "played". Anything to help the bern not look so down in the polls.

He won I tell ya.. lol

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Cha, why is it okay to cite the WSJ and America Rising but not Gravis?

Cha, why is it ok to cite articles where Hillary is referred to as "Hitlery" but not Gravis?


Thank you in advance.

[George II]

27. It depends upon what each says. If Murdock's publication says something positive about....

....Sanders, it's great. If a left-wing publication said something negative about Sanders it's a radical publication.

Besides, it's in the right-wingers and republican interests to boost Sanders - they're terrified of Hillary Clinton, who they see as the biggest threat to them regaining the Presidency.

They would much rather run against Sanders.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. George

Why is it when a right wing article critical of Hillary Clinton is cited here we are told we are not to consider the source and yet when we cite a poll where Hillary is doing well we are told the source makes it not credible?

It seems some people want a war where they get to use all the modern accouterments of war and all we get is bows and arrows.


BTW, that WSJ post debate poll is a complete joke but I didn't intrude on the celebratory threads and whine about it.

[mcar]

60. You just made my brain hurt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. Read this thread...

You would think my citing of a Gravis poll rises to the level of killing a puppy.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

I have lots of problems with Gravis. They are a cheap outfit who out of necessity takes shortcuts but if its results are wrong we will know soon enough.

Here is one way of looking at it.

Their last poll was more or less in line with other polls taken at the time:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html#polls


There hasn't been a poll in NH in a couple of weeks so maybe they caught a trend.

We'll find out soon enough.

[mcar]

62. We will know soon enough

It is the trend over many polls that we will soon see.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. We'll see...This poll is upsetting a lot of people, though.

When Sanders people post a poll they like I generally leave it alone, as not to be seen as a whiner.

[mcar]

64. Truth hurts sometimes

[Bluenorthwest]

17. That's funny. The OP, in 2012, made many posts attacking Gravis

This Gravis Marketing Clown Is A Real Piece Of Work
He puts out a bunch of Republican leaning polls in the swing states and then puts out a poll for Washington that shows the president with a huge lead. Of course Washington isn't a swing state and has never been seriously contested by Romney.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021425136#post3


Gravis was subject of many negative stories on DU including a series by grantcart which drew the attention of Gravis employees to our very own board.

DU Exclusive: Gravis Marketing exposed as a fraud Part I
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021489250#post7


So you were suggesting that others were presenting opinions slanted by convenience of the moment? That's rich, no pun intended.

[PatrynXX]

35. Right Wing sites say Hillary has so ho hum

shock poll. bout as silly as a story I read the other day bone chilling find inside house abandoned a decade ago what did they find calendars hung on the wall from the 50's WTF I thought they'd find a body smh

[Renew Deal]

8. I've seen GFK polls on DU many times since 2004

And I don't remember that complaint. Is there more info? I don't remember GFK being the most accurate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. It's a Gravis poll. But it will either be validated or invalidated by other polls in the coming days

EOM

[Bluenorthwest]

11. I remember complaints about Gravis, from the OP in fact:

This Gravis Marketing Clown Is A Real Piece Of Work
He puts out a bunch of Republican leaning polls in the swing states and then puts out a poll for Washington that shows the president with a huge lead. Of course Washington isn't a swing state and has never been seriously contested by Romney.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021425136#post3

[George II]

30. Back in October when Gravis had Sanders ahead 33-30 it was a GREAT polling outfit!!!

What changed?

[stonecutter357]

5. K&R!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Michael, Mick AND Freddie - State Of Shock (Ultimate Version 2012)

[stonecutter357]

13. pulled out the big guns.

added to my playlist.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. "This Gravis Marketing Clown Is A Real Piece Of Work"- DemocratSinceBirth, September, 2012

This Gravis Marketing Clown Is A Real Piece Of Work
He puts out a bunch of Republican leaning polls in the swing states and then puts out a poll for Washington that shows the president with a huge lead. Of course Washington isn't a swing state and has never been seriously contested by Romney.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021425136#post3


Here is DUer Grantcart who did great work on Gravis and their methods:
Message to FR and other Cons who have jumped into bed with Douglas Kaplan from Gravis Working Group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021598015


What made you leap into Gravis' corner after all that? Some numbers you liked? DU had many, many threads renouncing them as right wing hacks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. If posters are going to fawingly cite polls Commissioned by Rupert Murdoch's

If posters are going to fawningly cite polls commissioned by Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal I am going to cite polls by Gravis.

If you like I will send you a private message with that link as it is a violation of DU rules to call out other posters.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. You posted about Gravis, I remembered the name from you and grantcart in 2012.

It's what you posted then, and it is not at all a violation to cite your own posts. You are the one who informed me about Gravis being a fraud. You and grantcart. Can't have it both ways, cake and eat it too.

You have to own your words. They were right wing clowns, frauds and fakes in 2012, today you celebrate their work. That's stunning to see.

If you don't want to live with your words, don't say them. No one is required to forget what you have said. That's not how life works.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. If folks are going to fawningly cite a Murdoch commissioned poll I will cite a Gravis Poll.

You are not going to bully me into getting an alterable response.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. That's funny, I am merely citing your own work. What changed your mind about Gravis?

In 2012 you were taking credit for helping grantcart expose them. Now you happily promote their work. That is contradictory, you took part in extensive threads which called Gravis fraudulent and laid out long, complex criticisms of their methods and other corruptions. Now you tout them as excellent.

I am not of the opinion that what others do provides me with license of any kind. You condemned Gravis, now you praise Gravis and that's all you, it's not because Johnny did it too. You DSB, have taken two diametrically opposed points of view on Gravis, presented them to DUers and defended each of them with bullshit comments about alerts and rules against quoting and linking. You are going after me here today for agreeing with you in 2012.
So what changed your mind? Tell us.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. I explained it, sir.

If I am in a fight I am not going to confine myself to Marquess of Queensberry rules when my opponent brings a bat.

I have seen Murdoch polls as well as polls commissioned/performed by organizations to the right of Murdoch's Wall Street Journal fawningly posted here. I have seen articles here where Hillary was referred to as "Hitlery." I have even seen videos from America Rising posted here.


As Sister Souljah famously rapped '"two wrongs don't make a right but they damn sure make us even."

[Bluenorthwest]

34. The thing is you are using a weapon you yourself said was corrupt. What others do, that's on them.

I see the ardent nature of your posts against Gravis and now this ardent promotion of Gravis and I ask what changed your mind about Gravis?
You are today citing a polling firm which in the past you took great pains to condemn as fraudulent clowns. That's all you. And what it says about you is that when caught sipping from both cups you claim you are not responsible for your own actions, you blame others for what you do. I say you are accountable for your own actions.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”-Gandhi

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. When a poster here in a protected group...

When a poster here in a protected group cited an article from a far right wing source in which Hillary was referred to "Hitlery" was asked to delete it and didn't, and then survived a 3-4 jury alert, I took it as a a signal that there are no rules, and acted accordingly. I make no apology.

""Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster..." -Friedrich Nietzsche

[Bluenorthwest]

37. Yeah, Nietzsche and I are saying the same thing. Don't become a person quoting frauds you know

to be frauds and are on record condemning at length. You say you are controlled by what others do, that you have no choice but to endorse that which you used to condemn.

You stated opinions about Gravis in 2012. Do you now retract all of that? What changed your mind?

Did your parents teach you that 'Johnny did it first' is an actual guiding ethic? That your own actions should be dictated by shitty things you see other people doing?

Today you tout a polling firm you previously told me was corrupt and run by a right wing clown. This means that what you say tomorrow is not sincere either, just a matter of expedited convenience. It's about you, and how you treat other people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. My parents taught me to defend myself...

Being the only Jew, well half Jew, in a semi-rural Florida junior high school in the 70s those lessons came in handy...Actually, there was one other Jew, a young girl... When she got on the school bus kids made fun of her, especially how she looked. That must have a left a mark on me, all these years later I don't know how that mark influences my actions, but I assume it does.

Who knows what scars are left on a kid to be called a "Christ killer", to be regaled with puerile poetry like "Mary said to Moses that the Jews shall have their noses."

I digress...

Is Gravis a crappy pollster? Maybe, perhaps, we'll know shortly enough...


If I am battling a monster I will become a monster...If I battling a fair person I would like to believe I would battle fairly.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Well you and I are talking here, no 'monsters' and no one who cites crappy sources but you.

I am a fair person, but you keep answering my direct and very valid questions about your change of tune on Gravis with material about other people, as if you have no respect for me at all.

I have almost never seen anyone first claim to expose a fraudulent clown then later cite that same fraudulent clown.

Do you now reject your former views on Gravis? You can't hold both views. Not and be taken seriously by any thinking person.

You have made OP's saying Gravis is horrible, now you tout them. That's pretty contradictory, and it suggests that you would say anything on any given day and just claim the right to do so because other people are also lacking in honesty. I find that to be morally absent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. By point

I am a fair person, but you keep answering my direct and very valid questions about your change of tune on Gravis with material about other people, as if you have no respect for me at all.

I don't think I am being disrespectful. If you feel I am disrespecting you I sincerely apologize.

I have almost never seen anyone first claim to expose a fraudulent clown then later cite that same fraudulent clown.

Do you now reject your former views on Gravis? You can't hold both views. Not and be taken seriously by any thinking person.

They are no more or less crappy a pollster and there results are no more or less suspect than the polls cited here that were commissioned by Murdoch/WSJ and other right wing sources.

You have made OP's saying Gravis is horrible, now you tout them. That's pretty contradictory, and it suggests that you would say anything on any given day and just claim the right to do so because other people are also lacking in honesty. I find that to be morally absent.

When folks here cite polls by right wing sources, cite articles where Hillary is referred to as "Hitlery" , link to videos from America Rising with impunity the rules have been suspended and it is up to every poster to decide how he or she will respond. I have decided to respond in kind.

You seem to be a fair person. When I come about a criticism here or an unfavorable poll to Hillary from a right wing source may I send you a private message so you can hold out the poster who traffics in such tactics for opprobrium and censure.

Thank you in advance.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. The thing is, I would not believe a word you said to me in future, you have said with equal

certainty that Gravis is right wing clowns and that they are polling to take seriously. When asked what changed your mind, your answer was that you abandoned honesty because others abandoned honesty. So if you PM me something, I will have no reason to think you are being sincere, as your ethics are purely situational. You 'informed DU' that Gravis was a right wing clown outfit, but today you present their work as if it was sterling in every way. You endorse today that which you previously condemned.

Your insistence that the actions of other people offers you and excuse to be less than honest is just silly. Johnny does it too. I don't care. I'm talking to you, a person who has said to me two opposite things about the same polling company but refuses to explain why their views are so different from day to day. Gravis was so hated on DU there was a 'DU action group' researching them.

Today you love them, but you used to call them clowns. Explain what changed your opinion of their methods and objectives, I ask yet again that you simply explain your own actions.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. Truth isn't contingent on its teller.

The thing is, I would not believe a word you said to me in future, you have said with equal
certainty that Gravis is right wing clowns and that they are polling to take seriously. When asked what changed your mind, your answer was that you abandoned honesty because others abandoned honesty. So if you PM me something, I will have no reason to think you are being sincere, as your ethics are purely situational. You 'informed DU' that Gravis was a right wing clown outfit, but today you present their work as if it was sterling in every way. You endorse today that which you previously condemned.

Truth isn't contingent on its teller. That's a tu quoque fallacy. A high fiber diet is good for you regardless of whether a nutritionist tells you that or a person with the worst eating habits in the world tell you that.

Respectfully, this seems like a dodge for you to escape the responsibility for censuring people who write things you like while reserving the right to censure people who write things you dislike. It looks like situational ethics is endemic here.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. I call out unfair attacks on Hillary and always have. I oppose the bullshit and double standard

when used by anyone or applied to anyone.
I'm very consistent. I dodge nothing. Now you are just flinging random insults and that's what comes of being so inconsistent, I think. You get walked to the end of a rhetorical plank and all you can do is hurl a few insults. Today you cited to me as excellent sources people you previously told me were right wing clowns, and when asked why you accused me of avoiding accountability. Astonishing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. I didn't insult you.

I just asked you if I could send you instances where fellow members of our community have cited right wing polls or cited right wing sources to depict Hillary Clinton in a negative light so you can censure them and you rejected my entreaty.


I would link them here but I don't want to get a hide and to have the ignominy of being locked out of my own thread and prevented from defending my stellar character.

I make no apologies for using the same tactics of my nemeses.

[Cali_Democrat]

49. You're getting a little too bent out of shape over a poll.

Relax.....take a deep breath and move on.

I'm not much of a fan of Gravis....but I think there are more important things in life than worrying about polls.

LOL.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. What gives you standing to tell me how to conduct myself? Nothing.

The reason I know about Gravis, as those links show, is because this OP and DUer grantcart called them out and exposed them in great, great detail over several weeks in 2012. Today that same OP presents them as sterling and valid for citation.
That's just bullshit. It's profoundly dishonest.

And it is just rude of you to lecture me on a personal basis when your OP pal is the one doing the glaringly dishonest self contradiction tango.

I'm not 'bent out of shape' and telling LGBT people we are too emotional is just such a tired old thing I don't know what to say. It's suddenly a popular retort for straights on DU seeking to avoid accountability for their own actions and those of their cohorts. It's not really acceptable. Tell your friends.

[Cali_Democrat]

65. This is perhaps the worst gotcha in the history of DU

zOMG.....you called out gravis 3 years ago but now you like them!!11!!!2!!!!

Glaringly dishonest contradiction tango?

This is a poll for crying out loud.

Who cares!!!

[NurseJackie]

12. It will be interesting to see how this compares with other polls and the trends that develop.

Last edited Mon Nov 16, 2015, 10:40 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm exceedingly optimistic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. This poll has touched a nerve.

EOM

[Baitball Blogger]

23. You are getting played, Florida style.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. In 2012 DUer Grantcart did a large expose on Gravis. Here is a link and the thread is ironic....

DU Exclusive: Gravis Marketing exposed as a fraud Part I
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021489250

The OP of this thread comments from an entirely different perspective....

[Gothmog]

29. Those are amazing polling numbers for Clinton

Sanders can win both New Hampshire and Iowa and still be denied the Democratic nomination because Sanders is so very very weak in the Super Tuesday states. If Sanders does not win both Iowa and New Hampshire, it is all over for him

[George II]

32. Four of the last five polls release for New Hampshire have Clinton ahead, a couple of them...

...by very large margins!

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-new-hampshire-presidential-democratic-caucus

[Todays_Illusion]

43. They polled more Republicans than Democratic so naturally Hillary won.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. May I please have a citation for your claim.

Thank you in advance.

[Todays_Illusion]

51. Look at the link where they tell you how many republicans they polled 300+ versus 200+ Democratic nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. Republicans were included in the Republican poll and Democrats were included in the Democratic poll

That's SOP

[Todays_Illusion]

55. Ok, I had to read again to find the glich: The sample includes 330 Republican Primary participants,

214 Democrats, and the remainder

***not planning on participating in the primary***


but are planning to vote in the regular elections.


This is used to influence opinion for the primary, but includes people who are not going to vote in the primary. Geeze they are really stretching the limits of truthiness.

[azurnoir]

46. ya go for it continue to site Gravis and PPP too

it'll get ya lot's of attention guaranteed

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. I might stop citing them if Murdoch/WSJ commissions them.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Gravis Marketing PPR'd from DU, 2012

About Gravismarketing

Account status:
Posting Privileges Revoked
Revoked on Oct 7, 2012

Reason : RW shill and scam artist.
For more information see Terms of Service
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=290219&sub=trans

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. I hope you will join me for the PPRing of Rupert Murdoch if he posts here.

EOM

[Bluenorthwest]

58. Jesus, you have no idea. Murdoch?

You seem to see him as having to do mostly with polling at WSJ, you have no idea the history man has with some of us in this world.

Here is Rupert, in 2006 while on wife number 3 and producing such shows as 'Temptation Island' on marriage equality:
"I believe it is wrong. I'm considered homophobic and crazy about these things and old fashioned. But I think that the family - father, mother, children - is fundamental to our civilisation."

Here is from the Advocate just this year, in which Rupert is both homophobic and Hillaryphobic at the same time, a right wing feat first perfected by Pat Buchanan....
http://www.advocate.com/politics/media/2015/06/16/rupert-murdoch-hillary-clinton-almost-fascist-her-lgbt-advocacy


Not sure why you barf Rupert up at me. I'd no more cite him than I'd cite those clowns at Gravis.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. I agree... Rupert Murdoch is a fundamentally bad man.

Why did I bring him up?

Because Murdoch's WSJ outlier post debate poll has been posted in this forum at least twice, as I have been saying in this thread, ad nauseum and ad infinitum.

I know you will disagree with but when I see WSJ polls cited here approvingly I feel I have license to cite Gravis polls, my discrediting of them in the past notwithstanding.

If not rising above the fray is a character flaw then I plead guilty.

In the words of Kevin Costner in the Untouchables "I have foresworn myself. I have broken every law I have sworn to uphold, I have become what I beheld and I am content that I have done right! "