ABC and WaPo pay for a poll--and initially bury the "totally unexpected" result way down in it

Well well well...The leftist, pro-Democrat, Trump-hating rag The Washington Post joined hands with the leftist, Disney-owned, pro-Democrat, Trump-hating network ABC to do an opinion poll.

ABC wrote up the results a few days ago, with the headline "Biden expected to coast to victory in 2024 as economy is forecast to boom!"

Just kidding--it wasn't *quite* that fawning, but close.  But then a few people actually bothered to *read* the whole ABC piece.  And after 17 'grafs of "Race shows biden slightly ahead," way down in the 18th 'graf readers found that the poll actually showed something no one expected--least of all the WaPo and ABC:

Americans said they preferred Trump over biden by...wait, this can't be right!  I mean, we were prepared for 49-48 Trump, but the buried result says...wait for it...Trump by 51-42 ??

A NINE-point lead??

ABC and the Post couldn't believe it either, so ABC spent over half the article explaining why this result was absolutely meaningless.  Seriously.

The poll found that 44% percent of those surveyed said they were in worse shape financially than when Trump was in office.  That's the highest percentage for any president in these polls in 37 years. But ABC was convinced the people saying this didn't really understand their own finances, but were just complaining.

Just 37% of those polled approved of biden's job performance, while 56% disapproved.  And just 30% approved of Biden's performance on the economy.  But of course that's surely because people always complain that they're underpaid, eh?

From what you're allowed to see in the Mainstream Media, you'd think most Americans approve of biden/garland's handling of what ABC and the WaPo coyly call "immigration"--the massive invasion that's seen 5 million illegals from 100 different countries cross the U.S.-Mexico border since Joe was installed.  (Sounds so much better to call it "immigration" instead of what it is, eh?)  But only 23% approve of biden/garland's handling of that.

Despite all those negatives, 20% of those polled strongly approve of biden's overall job performance, while 45% strongly disapprove.

74% say he's too old for a second term--up 6 percentage points since May.  But ABC quickly reassures Democrats that half of poll respondents said that Trump is also too old to run.  Based on Trump's far greater energy and mental sharpness compared to Porridge, most people thought Trump was at least ten years younger than Joe, but he's not.  So see?  The age issue isn't really a problem!

ABC's propagandists hastened to tell readers that when Trump left office, only 38% of Americans said they approved of his performance--essentially tied with biden's 37% approval rating today.  So, see?  Trump still beez hugely unpopular wif' duh American pipo!

But amusingly, when the poll asked people now how they thought Trump had done as president, 48% said they approved of Trump's performance.  Gee, can't imagine what changed their minds!

ABC makes sure to tell readers that "most Americans continue to reject [Trump's] assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Sixty percent of Americans instead say Biden legitimately won.

I'm pretty sure that's bullshit.  The polls I've seen found that over half of all Americans--and even a third of Democrats!--said the election was stolen.  No one can be sure.

ABC hastens to tell us that it's way too early to attach any significance to these results.  Just WAY too early, citizen!  So much can happen before election day, eh?  The economy could boom even more than it's booming today!  At least the Media claim it's booming.  And if you work in government or for BlackRock or JPMorgan Chase or Meta it's booming, eh?

Yeah.  Meanwhile, back in real-world ABC says "a remarkable 62% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say the party should nominate someone other than Biden" for 2024; just a third support Biden. Desire for a different candidate is at a numerical high, but also consistent with past results (56 to 58%) over the past year.

Wait..."consistent with past results over the past year"?  The phrase "consistent with" leads the casual reader to believe that only a third of Dems and leaning independents supporting the incumbent is totally normal.  But what they really mean is that this figure has stayed constant for biden for a year, suggesting it's pretty accurate.

But who do Dems like if not Biden?  ABC assures us that there's plenty of support for other Dems:  8% prefer Kamala Harris, 8% prefer Bernie Sanders and 7% prefer Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  20% said "Anyone but biden."  Hmmm....  But dis' *totally normal,* citizen.

Finally, after 17 paragraphs of head fakes, rationalizations and assurances that it's way too early to be concerned about what a silly poll says, we get to the news ABC originally carefully buried deep in the piece before being blasted by readers:  In a head-to-head matchup Americans preferred Trump 51-42.

ABC then quickly assures readers that compared to the same poll in February, even though Trump is up 3 points while biden is down 2 points, "these shifts are not statistically significant."  And of course in February they assured you that the 48-44 Trump lead was similarly "not statistically significant."

If Trump goes up another 3 points, and biden down another 2, they'll say the same thing: "These shifts are not statistically significant."  But at that point Trump would be leading 54-40, which has usually been considered a landslide.  But as long as you only focus on the *changes* from a few months ago, indeed the *changes* are less than the "margin of error."

If you think I'm being too harsh, consider this quote from the ABC piece:

There's even less change from the most recent ABC/Post poll in May, which had the race at 49-42%. 

Totally reassuring, eh--because they're telling you to just look at the *changes,* which are indeed small.  But the lead is now up to nine percentage points.

ABC then goes to work to convince readers that "A variety of factors" may be causing this totally unexpected result.  ABC claims "economic discontent, the immigration crisis and doubts about his age" "have been the subject of extensive recent news coverage, focusing public discourse on negatives for the president.

Really?  I follow economic news *very* closely, and the jobs reports for the past six months have been grim, sometimes less than half of what "experts" forecast.  But that news *never* makes it into the Mainstream Media.  One reason is that the initial report isn't too bad--but then a month later it's "revised," always sharply downward.

biden's age?  Every single story I've seen in the Mainstream Media immediately follows with "Trump is almost the same age."  Hard to see how that's hurting biden.  What's clobbering biden is that the when he freezes up mid-sentence, or praises the "black caucus" when speaking to the Hispanic Caucus, people post those vids on the internet.  You never see 'em on the Mainstream Media.

Oh, the Media are totally aware of those hundreds of clips, but just ignore 'em, since most people get their news from...ABC and friends, so never see the clips.

Here's another lie from ABC:

"Trump, meanwhile, enjoys positive coverage of his GOP front-runner status."

"Positive coverage"?  Cite one example.  There is NO positive coverage of Trump in the Mainstream Media AT ALL.  He's climbed to the 51-42 lead without ANY fawning or coverup from the Media.

Finally we get this "way down the page" admission from the pollster:

>>"Question order can be a factor.  As is customary at this still-early stage of an election cycle, this survey asked first about Biden's and Trump's performance, economic sentiment...and a handful of other issues ([like] abortion and a government shutdown) before candidate preferences.  That's because these questions are more germane than candidate support in an election so far off. Since many results are negative toward Biden, it follows that he's lagging in 2024 support.

That's seductive but misleading: It's been well proven that the *order in which questions are asked* has a huge impact on the choice of candidates.  For example, if a poll asked about the border situation, drug deaths, child sex trafficking and whether schools should be able to talk kids into changing sex while keeping that info from parents, who do ya think would get more support for president?

By contrast, if a polls asks whether Roe v. Wade should be a federal law again; whether global warming is a serious problem that will kill people if not halted; whether it's fair that the wealthy often pay a smaller percentage of their income in federal tax than secretaries; whether the U.S. should have tougher gun laws, and whether the U.S. should have free medical care for all, who do ya think would get more support for president?

SO...honest polls are supposed to ask all "prep questions" in totally random order, to prevent this type of bias.  I have no idea whether they did that, but because the polling outfit wants to keep their lucrative contract with the Post and ABC, it wouldn't be unusual for them to "accidentally" forget to randomize the prep questions, producing a better result for...um...who knows, eh?  Cuz the Post and ABC are SO honest and unbiased, eh?

Hey, we're just scratching the surface on the excuses for the nine point Trump lead!  Here's another:

Another possible factor is message-sending.  [Asking who the voter prefers] 14 months before an election *predicts nothing;* it's [merely] an opportunity for the public to express its like or dislike of the candidates.... [Regardless of who they end up voting for in 2024,] "a substantial number of Americans today are taking the opportunity to express their displeasure."

See, citizen?  Deez results predict NOTHING!  Duh pipo we polled are merely "taking the opportunity to express their displeasure."  Sure.  So when you ask one of the 1,006 people polled who they want for president, they really want biden, but to express their displeasure they cunningly say the other guy!

Yeh, dat's it!  Happens all duh time!  Want an example?  Here ya go:

In one example of message-sending, among people who say Trump should be prohibited by the U.S. Constitution from serving again as president, 18% also support him over Biden for 2024. Such people seem to be expressing their antipathy toward Biden, not their support for Trump.

Notice how deftly the pollster (who wrote the article for ABC) slipped in "people who say Trump should be prohibited *by the Constitution* from serving again as president." Nice work!  No propaganda there, eh?  And of course this bit of propaganda is in virtually every Mainstream Media article about Trump.

One honest correlation the pollster cites is that respondents who say they voted in 2020 voted 50-46 for biden, very close to the *official* result, claimed to be 51-47%.  But the poll included people who didn't vote, and even those who aren't currently registered to vote.

This is yet another explanation for why ABC is comfortable claiming the nine point lead found by the survey is meaningless, because people who didn't vote in the last presidential election are less likely to vote in 2024.

But when all *registered voters* are considered, Trump's lead increases by one more point, 52-42.  Hmmm...

The article does note that among Hispanics, Trump leads biden 50-44, though with a small sample so a larger margin of error.

But here's a hoot:

Among 18- to 35-year-olds Trump has a slight 53-38% advantage (marginally significant at this sample size).  Still, that essentially matches what it was in May, and Trump also was numerically ahead in this group (albeit not significantly) by 50-43% in February.

WHOA!  The author claims a lead of 53-38 for Trump among young people is only *"marginally significant"?*  And it matches the May result, and slightly better for Trump than the 50-43 result in February.  The consistency of Trump's lead suggests it's not a polling error.  But more significant, this suggests many in this age group may well vote GOP for decades.  Interesting!  And that's buried in the 38th 'graf.

biden's consistent policies denigrating White males (see how jarring the upper-case W is?  Yet the capitalization of Black is part of the New York Times and AP style books) and appointing totally unqualified people like Harris, energy secretary Jennifer Granholm, Interior secretary Deb Haaland, and Supreme Court "justice" Kattanji Brown-Jackson to powerful posts have produced the result one could have predicted:  Trump leads 61-34 among all white males.

Among non-college-educated white men Trump's support is even higher: 79-20.

Among people who voted for Trump in 2020, 96% still support him.  88% of those who voted for biden in 2020 still support him, but 7% of those who voted for the Big Guy say they now support Trump.  That's huge.
 
Among people who say they did not vote in 2020, Trump leads 57-32, which is up from 52-31 in May.

The poll found that 62% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents oppose Biden being the party's nominee, and 16% say they'd vote for Trump over Biden.

Of course we're over a year away from the election, and everything could turn in biden's favor:  Ukraine could defeat Russia.  Interest rates could fall!  The cost of gasoline, electricity and heating oil could go back to pre-biden levels!  Microsoft could release Windoze-12!  The price of oil could fall back from $90 to $70 per barrel!

One thing you can count on:  Even if none of those things happen (care to bet?), almost every poll will show the race getting tighter as next July approaches.  In the highly unlikely event the Dem party nominates Porridgebrain again, the week before the election many polls will show the race virtually tied.

That will be utter propaganda, of course, designed to motivate Democrat voters to do whatever it takes to win.  (You'd think conservatives would be similarly motivated, but our side doesn't do election fraud, cuz of those silly things called "laws," which were once considered pretty important.

By contrast, if my predicted scenario from a couple of weeks ago is correct, and the Dems kick out BOTH biden and Harris, to install Newsom and a young black female VP (AOC?  Ayana Presley?  Stacy Abrams?  Just kidding about the last two), OR if the Dems succeed in keeping Trump off the ballot, they have a better than even chance of winning.

Newsome has to promise to nominate a black female to avoid losing the black vote.

[If you click this link to read the ABC article, keep in mind it's a huge re-write after they got blasted for burying the result in the 18th 'graf!]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=103436611