More evidence for the last several weeks of transparent media agenda polling (poll manipulation) surfaces today with the release of a new Rasmussen Poll.

Overall Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton 43/39. With Independent Voters (no party affiliation) Trump leads Clinton 45/27:

However, perhaps the most stunning internal detail in the poll is this:

[…] Trump how holds a 14-point lead among men, while Clinton leads by six among women. The candidates are tied among those under 40, while Trump leads among older voters. Clinton continues to hold a wide lead among blacks. Trump leads among whites and other minority voters. (link)

Yes, Trump leads among Hispanic voters.

The Rasmussen polling details are behind a pay wall and available to paid subscribers only. However, from the text explanation often it’s possible to extract some of the internal data. Example:

[…] Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Trump leads by 18 points, but 28% of these voters like some other candidates or are undecided.

To identify unaffiliated breakdown – Basic Math: Take the 28% undecided from 100 you get 72% remain. If you subtract the Trump lead (18%) from the 72% you are left with 54%. You then split the 54 for each candidate (27) and then add back the Trump lead (18), and you’ve essentially identified the breakdown among “not affiliated“:

Trump 45%

Clinton 27%

Undecided 28%

(Poll Data Link)

As we have continued to follow the people doing the polling for the past several years you’ll note a great disparity between media polls (agenda polls), and professional polling companies not affiliated with media. Therein lies the BIG differences in results between polling that everyone attempts to understand.

The media’s skewed ideological agenda invalidates almost all media polling (agenda polling), and also invalidates the usefulness of the Real Clear Politics average of polling (because RCP includes agenda polling).

Some of the more notorious Agenda Pollsters:

♦ NBC Polling is presented by Mark Murray – Mark is a ridiculously anti-Sanders pollster. Mark advocates for Hillary Clinton and the professional Democrat party in polls and punditry. Mark is always pushing the party line and party candidates. You’ll note NBC often teams up with WSJ (Rupert Murdoch).

♦ Monmouth University Polling is done by Patrick Murray (no relation to Mark) – Patrick is a paid for content pollster who you’ll note consistently drops Monmouth polling around specific dates; usually timed with debates, primary elections, or candidate speeches. He has a terrible track record of inaccuracy, which is so consistent it reflects an intentional objective to mislead.

♦ Fox News Polling is done by Shaw Research – ie. Daron Shaw – Shaw is a former Rick Perry campaign head, and consistently presents polling outcomes to the benefit of the Republican Party (GOPe) agenda. Like Mark Murray for Dems, Daron Shaw’s polling is dependent on whatever the Republicans need. There is absolutely no objectivity in Fox News Polling; and much like Monmouth the track record speaks for itself.

♦ ABC, Washington Post, and CBS (often teamed with YouGov) rarely put a specific person in front of their polling. Instead they prefer to use a shield of research groups. However, as each poll is presented when you follow the research group, you will find that often -not always, but often- the research group also has a financial and ideological attachment to their research outlines.

These last three (ABC, WaPo, CBS) have to be evaluated independently with each release to back-source the analytics. Sometimes CBS does put forth reasonable scientific polls.

♦ Public Policy Polling (PPP) – Actually one of the more fun polling outfits to review. PPP polls are left-leaning, sometimes far left, but they are honest about it. PPP does a good job presenting the entire internal poll data. Their interpretations are usually skewed by their ideology (happy liberals), but at least the entire set of data is available for review and it’s easy to spot the methodological variances that sometimes lead to flawed presentations.

Yup, polls are like a ‘box of chocolates“, depending on who fills the cups – you never know what you’re going to get.