Wednesday, July 27, 2016

TPP was specifically protected in the July 2016 Democrat Party platform which was controlled by Hillary, 'a string of trade union presidents,' and the DNC. So Terry McAuliffe saying Hillary supports TPP just restates the record-Politico, NBC News

 
The July 2016 Democrat Platform meeting, controlled by Hillary, made sure TPP was left intact: "Both the Clinton campaign and the DNC were whipping members to oppose stronger anti-TPP language." 7/9/16. If Hillary opposed TPP, the platform would've reflected that, which it didn't.
.......... 
7/26/16, "Clinton friend McAuliffe says Clinton will flip on TPP, then walks it back," Politico, Annie Karni, Philadelphia 

"Terry McAuliffe tells POLITICO the Democratic nominee will support a deal with tweaks that Sanders' supporters hate. But the Clinton campaign calls the comments 'flat wrong.'"

 
“I worry that if we don’t do TPP, at some point China’s going to break the rules -- but Hillary understands this,” he said in an interview after his speech on the main stage at the Democratic National Convention. Once the election’s over, and we sit down on trade, people understand a couple things we want to fix on it but going forward we got to build a global economy.

Pressed on whether Clinton would turn around and support the trade deal she opposed during the heat of the primary fight against Bernie Sanders, McAuliffe said: “Yes. Listen, she was in support of it. There were specific things in it she wants fixed.”

Later, McAuliffe’s spokesman sought to clarify the governor’s remarks after this story published, saying he was simply expressing what he wants Clinton to do if she is elected president. “While Governor McAuliffe is a supporter of the TPP, he has no expectation Secretary Clinton would change her position on the legislation and she has never told him anything to that effect.”

A top Clinton campaign official said the Democratic nominee never told McAuliffe she would be open to changing her position on TPP -- and campaign chairman John Podesta confirmed to POLITICO she never said anything like that to her longtime ally. “Love Gov. McAuliffe, but he got this one flat wrong,” Podesta tweeted. 

“Hillary opposes TPP BEFORE and AFTER the election. Period. Full stop.” 

But Trump’s campaign immediately seized on the comments.This should surprise nobody!” tweeted Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort. 

The battle over TPP was one of the most notable to erupt on the floor of the convention Monday, as Sanders delegates protested the fact that language opposing the trade deal was excluded from the party platform.

Sanders delegates started a cheer, “No TPP!” as Rep. Elijah Cummings was speaking and hoisted a banner that read “Economic Justice, Climate Justice, Trade Justice.” 

And McAuliffe’s comments played directly into the image of Clinton that infuriates Sanders' delegates -- especially after her selection of Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine as her running mate, who vocally supports the Obama-backed trade deal.

"I have no confidence she's against TPP," said Christine Pellegrino, a Sanders delegate from New York. "I haven't made up my mind about what options exist at the convention.”

McAuliffe said he feels confident Democrats will win back the Senate and even win back 30 seats in the House and be able to pass a tweaked version of the trade deal supported by President Obama. “If we get enough things done, enough opportunities to change TPP, I’m optimistic going forward,” he said. "We cannot let China write these rules for 11 other countries.”

Even as protesters headed for the exits of the Wells Fargo Center after the roll call made Clinton's nomination official, McAuliffe insisted the party was still on the road to unity. 

"Sen. Sanders was a true champion," McAuliffe said. "He sent out texts, his speech last night said we have to come together. He's done everything we've asked him to do. This is a hard business, it just takes time. I think this convention made a lot of progress.""
.........

==============

Added: 7/9/16, Democrat Party Platform leaves TPP intact:

"Sanders' side warned that Donald Trump could outflank Democrats on trade, claiming the Republican Party could include stronger language against the TPP than Democrats had in their platform." (11th parag. from end) Crony labor union chiefs lined up against American workers and in support of globalist profiteers: "It was clear as a string of trade union presidents lined up at the microphone to oppose the Sanders amendments that his forces were outmatched." (parag. 11) Bernie Sanders means nothing to globalists.

7/9/16, "Bernie Sanders Defeated on Trade in Democratic Platform Fight," NBC News, Alex Seitz-Wald, Orlando, Fla.

"In a major defeat during an otherwise fruitful process for him, Bernie Sanders failed to get strong language opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership inserted in the draft Democratic platform at a party meeting here Saturday.

Instead, the committee approved an amendment backed by a large swath of labor unions that called for tough restrictions on trade deals, but did not explicitly oppose the trade pact with a dozen Pacific Rim nations (TPP) that liberals say would hurt workers."...

[Ed. note: It's not a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue. Those labels no longer apply. Labor union officials are supposedly "liberal," are on record that TPP would hurt workers, but strongly support TPP for their own reasons. As the article describes, "
the labor unions acted as a political shield for the White House" making sure no language against TPP appeared in the Democrat platform.]

(continuing): ""We are proud to stand with our friends in organized labor in passing a strong amendment to the Democratic platform on all trade deals, including the TPP," said Clinton aide Maya Harris, who is quarterbacking her campaign's platform efforts....Both Sanders and Hillary Clinton oppose the TPP"...

[Ed. note: Misleading if not false about Hillary.
She promoted TPP on at least 45 occasions as Secretary of State. CNN, 6/15/2015. Only in mid 2015 did she partially flip flop under pressure. At the time of the flip flop, she spoke of deferring to Obama and congress and/or changing "some specifics" of the deal. This simply isn't possible for a deal that's thousands of pages long that no one has read except in small portions:

(CNN) "President Obama has been pushing hard for the deal, while Democrats in the House of Representatives on Friday revolted and voted against a key part of the legislation. One told me, "there was a very strong concern about the lost jobs and growing income inequality," adding, pointedly: "Ms. Clinton should take notice." She clearly did. After first dodging the issue, on Sunday in Iowa, Clinton said that "the President should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with (House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, who have expressed their concerns....Clinton said, "there are some specifics in there that could and should be changed. So I am hoping that's what happens now -- let's take the lemons and turn it into lemonade." But as members of the Obama administration can attest, Clinton was one of the leading drivers of the TPP when Secretary of State."

Terry McAuliffe is far from the first to say Hillary will support TPP.  Wall St. knows her very well and is backing her: Insiders all expect her to "pivot" back to her normal globalist position (7/2/16 report).]

(continuing): "
but the Obama administration supports it, and the desire to avoid embarrassing the president carried the day, with the labor unions acting as a political shield for the White House."...

Delegates twice Saturday morning voted down stronger opposition language as Sanders supporters booed and chanted "sellout." Some eventually walked out of the meeting entirely.

Many said they doubted Clinton's stated opposition to the TPP and saw her delegates' votes here as a sign she intends to backtrack during a potential vote on the TPP during the lame-duck session of Congress later this year. Harris strongly denied that, saying her boss opposes the TPP "before or after the election." 

 
The actual terms of the debate were often obfuscated on Clinton's side, however, as no one speaking on behalf of the labor-backed amendment mentioned offending the president. Instead, they simply said their amendment went far enough or claimed adding anti-TPP language would make the plank too narrow, since it wouldn't mention future trade deals.

"We've had no speech here in favor of TPP, but we can't bring ourselves to say we oppose TPP," said Sanders delegate Robert Kraig. 

But it was clear as a string of trade union presidents lined up at the microphone to oppose the Sanders amendments that his forces were outmatched....

Both the Clinton campaign and the DNC were whipping members to oppose stronger anti-TPP language, as a courtesy to Obama."...

[Ed. note: Obama? Obama will be gone in a few months.  Doesn't the author wonder why a Democrat platform to go into effect after Obama is gone has to be what Obama would've wanted?]  
 

(continuing): "Most votes occurred along party lines, with a handful of defections on both sides depending on the vote.

AFSCME President Lee Saunders, acting on behalf of pro-Clinton labor unions, which make up the vast majority of the labor movement, proposed the amendment that ultimately succeeded.
 
The 452-word amendment, which labor leaders felt went as far as possible without running afoul of the White House, lays out numerous restrictions desired for trade deals. But it does not oppose the TPP....

Former NAACP Chairman Ben Jealous, another Sanders ally, tried to add a secondary amendment to Saunders' that simply added the language "and that's why we oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership." It was voted down 106-74.

Sanders' side warned that Donald Trump could outflank Democrats on trade, claiming the Republican Party could include stronger language against the TPP than Democrats had in their platform.

A final Sanders amendment, proposed by activist Jim Hightower, failed 104-77.

The first draft of the platform, produced by 15-member working group, essentially punted on trade. That left plenty of room for non-Sanders forces [globalist profiteers] to argue they had made major additions to the platform....

Sanders is expected to endorse Clinton on Tuesday in New Hampshire."...


---------------------

Comment: Sanders helped the Democrat Party out of a bind. They needed to appear to have someone running "against" Mrs. Bill Clinton. At the first "debate," Sanders almost blew it when he melted and said he didn't want to talk about emails. Nice to be able to run unopposed.

.....................

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Priest beheaded in France, killers shout Allahu Akbar. One Islamic killer wore electronic tag having been jailed in France for trying to travel to Syria in 2015-UK Daily Mail. If so, laissez-faire French gov. beheaded that priest by allowing Islamist already jailed to roam free with 'electronic tag surveillance.' Hollande must resign and check himself into prison

.
"Francois Hollande says France is at war with ISIS after Islamist knifemen chanting 'Allahu Akbar' beheaded a French priest and left a nun fighting for her life - before police shot them both dead.

The 86-year-old priest was butchered while two nuns and two parishioners were held by assailants who raided the church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray near Rouen in Normandy during morning mass at 9am.

The clergyman, named as Jacques Hamel, is believed to have been beheaded during the attack while another hostage, said to be a nun, is fighting for life in hospital.

The two attackers were 'neutralised' by marksmen as they emerged from the building, which is now being searched for explosives. French president Francois Hollande said France is 'at war' with ISIS while the terror group has claimed responsibility for the killing.

There were reports the attackers shouted 'Allahu Akbar' as they ran out of the church while at least one of the men was dressed in Islamic clothing.

It comes as it emerged that the building was one of a number of Catholic churches on a terrorist 'hit list' found on a suspected ISIS extremist last April.

There are also reports that one of the attackers was a local resident who was under electronic tag surveillance having been jailed in France for trying to travel to Syria in 2015. His bail terms allowed him to be unsupervised between 8.30am and 12.30pm - the attack happened between 9am and 11.am."... 



.................


4th bloody attack in a week in Germany: Syrian refugee bomber had announced 'revenge' against Germany 'for standing in the way of Islam,' but was given asylum in Bulgaria and allowed to live in Germany for a period of time-NBC News

.
A Syrian refugee who blew himself up Sunday night outside a music festival in Germany had pledged allegiance to ISIS in a video, Bavaria's interior minister said. 

Fifteen people were injured — four of them seriously — in the blast, which occurred just two days after a gunman killed nine people at a mall in Munich. 

The 27-year-old was turned away from the event by security workers in Ansbach, a town of 40,000 people southwest of Nuremberg that is also home to a U.S. Army base. He was wearing a backpack carrying explosives and metal projectiles. 

Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann said a video was found on the bomber's phone showing him pledging allegiance to ISIS and announcing "revenge" against Germany "for standing in the way of Islam."

Officials said the bomber's request for asylum in Germany was rejected a year ago because he had already been granted leave to remain by Bulgaria. The hotel where he had been staying was raided early Monday by police looking for evidence. 

Roman Fertinger, the deputy police chief in nearby Nuremberg, said more casualties were likely if the bomber had managed to enter the open-air concert venue....

Hermann said the man had been under psychiatric treatment after at least two previous suicide attempts. 

"It's terrible...that someone who came into our country to seek shelter has now committed such a heinous act and injured a large number of people who are at home here, some seriously," he told a news conference. 

"It's a further, horrific attack that will increase the already growing security concerns of our citizens. We must do everything possible to prevent the spread of such violence in our country by people who came here to ask for asylum." 

Ansbach mayor Carda Seidel said the bomber was one of 644 refugees living in the town, and confirmed reports that he was due to be deported back to Bulgaria imminently. 

Earlier Sunday, another Syrian man seeking asylum used a machete to kill a woman after an argument at the central Omnibus station in Reutlingen, about 22 miles south of Stuttgart, local police said.

The 21-year-old attacker injured another woman and a man before he was arrested a few minutes later close to the crime scene. 

Reutlingen is 130 miles west of Munich, where nine people were killed by an 18-year-old gunman in a city shopping center Friday."






.................

Even Putin might blush at Soviet style Ministry of Propaganda and Collusion practices of Democrats and CBS News Polls to benefit Wall St's candidate, Mrs. Bill Clinton. With trillions of Wall St. dollars at stake and voters needing to be deceived, CBS News allows DNC to write presidential poll narrative

.
May 2016, DNC dictates talking points of CBS News presidential poll in normal course of business:
...........
"May 20, 2016

From: Mark Paustenbach, DNC.org
To: Luis Miranda, DNC.org 
Subject: Take a look

"We'd like to replace the second bullet under the CBS poll with this bullet. The "note" in the new bullet indicates the problem that we don't have the right data. It's a long bullet but it's factually correct. Thoughts?"...(Suggested copy follows)




















....................



Trump up 2, Hillary down 5 in Ohio July 22-24, 2016. Trump leads in Ohio 42-39, Public Policy Poll

.
Trump 42
Hillary 39
Johnson 6
Stein 2

Poll dates July 22-24, 2016. 1334 registered Ohio voters, error margin 2.7.  80% "by phone," 20% internet. D39 R38, I23. White 83, African American 12, Other 5. Voted for Obama 50, voted for Romney 41. 53 Female, 47 male (p. 5)

Hillary down 5 points, Trump up 2 from June 2016 Ohio poll, Clinton 44, Trump 40

7/25/16, "Trump Gets Modest Boost in Ohio After Convention," Public Policy Poll 

"PPP's new Ohio poll finds Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton 42-39 in the state, with Gary Johnson at 6% and Jill Stein at 2%. Voters who support either Johnson or Stein or are undecided in the full field go to Clinton by an 18 point margin if they had to pick between just Clinton and Trump, making the head to head match up a 45/45 tie.

When PPP last polled Ohio in June Clinton led 44/40. The tightening of the race has come completely thanks to Trump consolidating his support among Republican voters. Where he had only a 66/15 advantage with them in June, he's now ahead 82/9....Independents have remained completely steady- Clinton was up 39/38 with them in June, and she's up 41/40 with them now.

[Ed. note: Page 21 regarding independent voters, Trump and Hillary are in a statistical tie, 41-40, though PPP describes it as "she's up." Margin of error is 2.7 for the total poll. Even using a 2.7 error margin on the 23% independent subset, Trump could be 42.7, Hillary could be 38.3. Why say twice that one is "up" over another with only a one point lead? The Poll includes 23% self-identified independent voters, compared to 39D and 38R. It's customary for error margins for smaller subsets to be greater than for an overall poll. This poll only mentions an error margin for the overall poll.]  

(continuing): "There's one big finding in this poll that bodes quite well for Clinton moving forward. 48% of voters in the state say they'd choose Barack Obama if the choice was between him and Trump, to only 44% who say they'd go with Trump....That suggests that...the President may be the best surrogate she has out on the campaign trail.

The convention does seem to have been a success in Ohio though- 43% of voters in the state think it was a success for the GOP to 38% who think it was a failure. And 68% of voters in the state are glad the convention was held in Ohio to only 13% who wish it would have been held somewhere. One clear takeaway from our post convention polling is that Trump's family may be the best surrogates he has. Trump's children get a collective 51/21 favorability rating from voters in Ohio, and voters appear to be pretty nonplussed by Melania's plagiarism scandal as she comes in at 43/30 favorability. Among the political figures who spoke at the convention Ben Carson (49/34 favorability) and Rudy Giuliani (45/33) fare well with Ohioans while Newt Gingrich (38/42) and Chris Christie (32/46) don't do as hot.

The biggest loser from the convention is Ted Cruz though. He has an 18/65 favorability rating with Ohio voters, making him by far and away the least popular figure in our poll. Even among Republicans he's at just 23/61. We asked GOP voters who they would support in a hypothetical primary contest between Trump and Cruz, and Trump wins out 61-19....
..........
Mike Pence didn't make a strong impression on voters in Ohio one way or another. A 40% plurality came out of the convention with no opinion. Among those who do have one, 33% see him favorably to 27% with a negative view. 53% of voters say Pence's selection has no bearing on their likelihood to vote for Trump one way or another, with 21% saying Pence makes them more likely to vote for Trump and 22% less likely. That just makes Pence normal in the pantheon of Vice Presidential selections, which rarely have much impact on the race....Full results here."

============

Added: For the race crowd, Hillary and Trump only 3 points apart in "other:"

PPP poll page 25, Race "other" than White or African American: Hillary 39, Trump 36
.......

................................


Monday, July 25, 2016

Trump takes lead in CNN ORC national poll, up 6 points, leads Hillary 44 to 39, July 22-24, 2016. Trump has huge lead among independents, 46 to 28 over Hillary, also holds double digit leads in handling the economy and terrorism. 68% say Hillary not trustworthy-CNN

.
Trump 44
Hillary 39
Johnson 9
Stein 3 (p. 3)
................
Among Independents

Trump 46
Hillary 28
Johnson 15
Stein 4 (p. 23)

July 22-24, 2016 national poll of 882 registered voters, error margin 3.5%. 60% land line, 40% cell phone. Link to poll.

7/25/16, "Donald Trump bounces into the lead," CNN, Jennifer Agiesta

"Donald Trump comes out of his convention ahead of Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House, topping her 44% to 39% in a four-way matchup including Gary Johnson (9%) and Jill Stein (3%) and by three points in a two-way head-to-head, 48% to 45%. That latter finding represents a 6-point convention bounce for Trump, which are traditionally measured in two-way matchups....
...........
The new findings mark Trump's best showing in a CNN/ORC Poll against Clinton since September 2015. Trump's new edge rests largely on increased support among independents, 43% of whom said that Trump's convention in Cleveland left them more likely to back him, while 41% were dissuaded. Pre-convention, independents split 34% Clinton to 31% Trump, with sizable numbers behind Johnson (22%) and Stein (10%). Now, 46% say they back Trump, 28% Clinton, 15% Johnson and 4% Stein.[p. 23]...
...........
Beyond boosting his overall support, Trump's favorability rating is also on the rise (46% of registered voters say they have a positive view, up from 39% pre-convention), while his advantage over Clinton on handling top issues climbs. He now holds double-digit margins over Clinton as more trusted on the economy and terrorism. Trump also cut into Clinton's edge on managing foreign policy (50% said they trusted her more, down from 57% pre-convention).
............
The convention also helped Trump make strides in his personal image. A majority (52%) now say Trump is running for president for the good of the country rather than personal gain, just 44% say the same about Clinton. He's increased the share who call him honest and trustworthy (from 38% to 43%), and who would be proud to have him as president (from 32% to 39%). And nearly half now say he's in touch with the problems ordinary Americans face in their daily lives (46% say so, 37% did before the convention).
...........
Despite Democratic criticism of the Republican convention's message as divisive, the percentage who say Trump will unite the country rather than divide it has increased to 42%, compared with 34% pre-convention.
........
Clinton's ratings on these same measures took a hit, though in most cases her drop-off was not quite as large as Trump's gain. Perhaps most troubling for the Clinton supporters gathering in Philadelphia this week: 68% now say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, her worst rating on that measure in CNN/ORC polling....
.........
Two prominent convention speakers saw their stock rise post-convention as well. Favorability ratings for Trump's wife, Melania, climbed from 27% pre-convention to 43% post-convention, despite news that her Monday night speech contained passages lifted from Michelle Obama's 2008 Democratic convention speech. Vice Presidential nominee Mike Pence, whose Wednesday speaking slot was largely overshadowed following Ted Cruz's defiant stand on the convention stage, also bolstered the electorate's impression of him, landing at a 39% favorable rating overall, up from 26% pre-convention.

Cruz's move, however, appears to have backfired. While 60% of Republican voters had a positive impression of the former presidential candidate before the convention, just 33% have one now....
........
The CNN/ORC Poll was conducted by telephone July 22-24 among a random national sample of 1,001 adults. Results for the sample of 882 registered voters have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points." Link to poll.
...........





Sunday, July 24, 2016

Trump takes lead in national poll, 45.1 to 41.7, through July 23, 2016. USC Dornsife LA Times Presidential Election Poll, US adults aged 18+

.



Hillary 41.7  

7 day average through July 23, 2016. National poll of 3000+ US citizens over age 18. The 2016 USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Poll
 

 










Through July 23, 2016.

"Understanding America Study"

The USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll


"The 2016 USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Poll represents a pioneering approach to tracking changes in Americans' opinions throughout a campaign for the White House. Around 3000 respondents in our representative panel are asked questions on a regular basis on what they care about most in the election, and on their attitudes toward their preferred candidates. The "Daybreak poll" is updated just after midnight every day of the week."

"Presidential Election Vote

This chart tracks our best estimate, over time, of how America plans to vote in November

The final blue and red figures on the right side of the chart represent our most recent estimates of Hillary Clinton's vote (blue squares) and Donald Trump's (red diamonds). These estimates represent weighted averages of all responses in the prior week. The gray band is a "95-percent confidence interval". Figures lying outside the gray band mean that we are at least 95% confident that the candidate with the highest percentage will win the popular vote. 


About the Survey:

The USC Dornsife/LA Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll is part of the ongoing Understanding America Study: (UAS) at the University of Southern California’s (USC) Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research, in partnership with the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics and the Los Angeles Times. Every day, we invite one-seventh of the members of the UAS election panel to answer three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that… (1) you will vote in the presidential election? (2) you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else? and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win? As their answers come in, we update the charts daily (just after midnight) with an average of all of the prior week’s responses. To find out more about what lies behind the vote, each week we also ask respondents one or two extra questions about their preferences and values. The team responsible for the USC Dornsife/LA Times Presidential Election Poll four years ago developed the successful RAND Continuous Presidential Election Poll, which was based on the same methodology."
.........
"Survey Methods" (tab)

"The Daybreak Poll is based on an internet probability panel survey. Daybreak Poll members are participants in the ongoing UAS internet probability panel of about 4500 U.S. residents who were randomly selected from among all households in the United States. Members of recruited households that did not have internet access were provided with tablets and internet service. The UAS panel is still growing. We project it will reach about 6000 members in the coming months. 

More than 3200 UAS panel members so far (July 2016) have agreed to participate in answering questions about the election, and we expect that number will increase over time. Each day, 1/7th of those who have agreed to participate (more than 400 per day) are invited to answer three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that... (1) you will vote in the presidential election? (2) if you were to vote, you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else (percentages add to 100) and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win (percentages add to 100). The order of the candidates in the questions is randomized so that about half of the respondents see Clinton as the first choice and half of the respondents see Trump as the first choice. 

Each night, Daybreak Poll results are weighted to match demographic characteristics (such as race and gender) from the U.S. Census Current Population Survey, and aligned to the 2012 presidential election outcome using how respondents tell us how they voted in that election. Then the latest results, averages of all of the prior week’s responses, are posted online at https://election.usc.edu and on the LATimes.com Politics site shortly after midnight.

In particular, to obtain the values shown in the election forecast chart, we weight each respondent's likelihood of voting for a candidate with their likelihood of voting in the presidential election. Next we calculate the mean of that number for all respondents during the last 7 days, taking into account respondent level weights based on demographics and past voting behavior. 

This is the estimated fraction of the population that will vote for the candidate. The graph shows the estimated fraction of the votes that a candidate will get, which is computed by dividing the estimated fraction of the population that will vote for the candidate by the estimated fraction of the population that will vote for any candidate. The latter is analogously obtained as the weighted mean of the respondents' likelihood of voting in the presidential election.

To find out more about what lies behind the vote, each week we also ask respondents one or two extra questions about their preferences and values. Links to documents detailing question text, sample sizes, response rates and other information for these separate surveys are provided in the detailed information section below, linked to stories or press releases where the results were disseminated. 

The Daybreak Poll began on July 4, 2016, and will run through the November election. 

More information about UAS panel methodology, the panel management and survey software we developed, or our publicly available datasets are available in the links here or at the UAS site (https://uasdata.usc.edu). For other questions, or to inquire about how you can conduct surveys with the UAS panel, contact us.
Summary of links to more detailed information about the UAS Panel and the Daybreak Poll:
UAS Panel Recruitment
UAS Panel sampling
UAS Panel Weighting 

 
Temporarily unavailable:
Screen shots of the 3 weekly vote questions (note order of candidates is randomized)
Details of weighting the Daybreak Poll
Detailed survey methods pages for stories and releases based on additional questions

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Do you use a likely voter model?
A: No, the respondents provide us with their own subjective probability of voting and we use that to weight their responses.


Q: Who is eligible to participate in the Daybreak poll?
A: Relevant references for the Daybreak Poll's probabilistic approach to election estimation:

  1. Delavande, Adeline, and Charles F. Manski. 2010. Probabilistic polling and voting in the 2008 presidential election: Evidence from the American Life Panel. Public Opinion Quarterly 74:433–459. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfq019
  2. Gutsche, T. L., Kapteyn, A., Meijer, E., & Weerman, B. (2014). The RAND Continuous 2012 Presidential Election Poll. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78, 233–254. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfu009
  3. Kapteyn, A., Meijer, E., & Weerman, B. (2012). Methodology of the RAND Continuous 2012 Presidential Election Poll (Working Paper No. WR-961). RAND Corporation. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2146149
Daybreak Poll methodology differs from the methods described in these references in a few ways: The sample continues to grow so sample size will increase as election day nears. In relation to the growing sample size, weights are applied daily to create rolling 7 day averages, and we are using improved standard error calculations (survey bootstrap with replication weights)."


..................

Koch Brothers finalize their support for Democrat Hillary Clinton, Action Fund pulls $2 million in ads for Republican Sen. Ron Johnson in Wisconsin after he spoke at RNC convention in support of Trump-Eric Zuesse, Zero Hedge (Great! Good riddance to the globalist Koch Brothers)

.
4/24/2016, "Charles Koch Says He Could Possibly Support Hillary Clinton," NY Times, Michael Barbaro 
-----------------------------

7/23/16, "Koch Brothers Now Supporting "Often Confused" Hillary Clinton," Zero Hedge, authored by Eric Zuesse

"On July 20th, a Republican U.S. Senator (Ron Johnson of Wisconsin) lost his main financial backers for having urged Republicans to vote for Donald Trump instead of for Hillary Clinton.

The Koch brothers speak with their words, which can’t be trusted, but they also speak with their money, their investments, which are always honest expressions of their actual beliefs and desires. This time, the Kochs spoke with their money, just a day after that Senator spoke with his words.

They spoke with their investments on July 19th, when they yanked their money [a Freedom Partners Action Fund media buy] from a U.S. Senator whom they had always financially backed, until now; and they did it immediately after that Senator not only went to the Republican National Convention where Donald Trump was to be nominated, but he gave there a powerful argument for Republicans to vote for Trump.

U.S. Senator Ron Johnson, from Wisconsin, told the assembled Convention (and the far larger number of people outside the Convention), on July 19th (and this is what the Kochs abandoned him over):

Let me repeat that — RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS — slaughtering and brutalizing their innocent victims.
So the question is, when will America actually confront this terrible reality?

We certainly won’t if Democrats win in November. …

Hillary Clinton is asking America to give her Obama’s third term.

The world is simply too dangerous to elect either of them [either Democrat Russ Feingold who is running to win the Republican Johnson’s Senate seat, or Hillary Clinton].
Instead, America needs strong leadership. Leaders who will jumpstart our economy, secure our borders, strengthen our military, and accomplish the goal President Obama set over twenty-two months ago [but failed to fulfill]: We must defeat ISIS, and then remain fully committed to destroying Islamic terrorists wherever they hide. …
It is a fight we absolutely must win.
Donald Trump and Mike Pence understand that these must be America’s top priorities. They will be strong leaders, working with Republicans in the House and Senate to achieve a goal that can unite us all: A safe, prosperous, and secure America.
Our future hangs in the balance. We must unify, work tirelessly, and together, save this great nation....

Johnson was now actually campaigning for Trump against Hillary.

The next day, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel bannered “Koch brothers pull ad buy backing Ron Johnsonand reported that, “A day after U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin spoke at the Republican National Convention, a group affiliated with the conservative Koch brothers pulled more than $2 million in ad time in the Badger State.”

In other words: immediately after one of their owned Senators campaigned for Trump, they cut off his main monetary lifeline.
This is a warning to any other Republican who might still be considering to campaign for Trump; it says, loud and clear: If you do that, you lose us."...

["The dropped ads come at a time when Johnson had hoped to get more attention because of the national exposure he was getting from speaking at the convention in Cleveland. Johnson for weeks had said he would not attend the convention but reversed course in recent days.

In a poll this month by Marquette University Law School, Feingold led Johnson 49% to 45% among likely voters."]

(continuing): "The Koch-led contingent of Republican billionaires and centi-millionaires is one of two Republican financial-backer contingents. 

The other is led by Karl Rove.

The Koch-led network of billionaires (who rely upon hiring academia and media for manipulating voters), and the Rove-led network of billionaires (who rely far more heavily upon garnering Wall Street money and Evangelical clergy for manipulating voters), have long been the two financial mainstays of the Republican Party. The Kochs have now made unmistakably clear that they want Hillary Clinton to become the next President (and, thus, academics and the media will overwhelmingly support Hillary).

Previously, there was question as to whether the Kochs would go so far as to help a Democrat; but, now, there is no serious doubt about it: they already do (though as quietly as possible, and not in their own — often lying — mere words).

The Rove-led billionaires’ faction are also strongly inclined to prefer Hillary, but can’t afford to alienate the Republican electorate, and so they will continue to support other Republicans but not Trump. (Consequently, Ron Johnson, for example, still can get their money.) They aren’t as emphatic about their backing of Hillary as the Koch-led faction is. They won’t withdraw their financial support from Republicans (such as Johnson) who campaign for Trump. They aren’t really pro-Hillary; but the Koch-contingent now are.

And then, of course, there’s Rupert Murdoch. On 17 May 2016, Gabriel Sherman headlined in New York magazine, “Why Rupert Murdoch Decided to Back Trump”, and he wrote: “According to one Fox News producer, the channel’s ratings dip whenever an anti-Trump segment airs.... However, Sherman also noted that Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal was supporting Hillary. Murdoch has long been fond of her; and, in the pages of the WSJ, he still enjoys the freedom to shape the ‘news’ to favor her (something that would lose him audience if he were to do it at Fox). (He also supports both Obama and the Bushes. In one photo at a lobbyists’ dinner, he’s surrounded at his left by Obama’s longtime aide Valerie Jarret, and at his right by Jeb Bush, all three smiling like friends....At the top in American society, there is real bipartisanship)....

Even as early as October 2015, it was clear that the Republican Party’s mega-donors were already contributing more money to Hillary Clinton’s campaign than to Donald Trump’s....In the ultimate 17-candidate Republican field, Hillary was already getting more of the 2012 Romney donors’ money than was each campaign of Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, and (the least of all, they donated to) Jim Gilmore. So, if she were added to that 17-candidate Republican-candidate list, she’d have been #7 out of the 18 recipients of Republican money. (And that’s not even counting the money from Democratic-Party megadonors — virtually all of whom donated and donate only to Clinton.)

Perhaps Trump is hoping to get lots more contributions from Democratic donors than previous Republican Presidential nominees have. But he certainly won’t be able to come even close to matching Hillary’s campaign warchest, which is widely expected to break all previous records."...



.................