>racist (again, no more evidence needed, he said it all)

You're wrong, and I think you know it. Liberals have used the racist word against anybody who was winning an argument with them for too many years. It ends now.

Trump has more support of black and hispanic people than any other Republican presidential nominee. [1] He has that because the ones who speak English (not getting their news only from Univision) understand that he wants to help Americans of all ethnic groups.

The co-opting of minority votes by the democratic machine is legendary, but it's over. Those minority AMERICANS that are getting the message undistorted by the media are understanding that their lives are made worse by liberal policies, not better.

It's not racist to wish to enforce current immigration law. It's not racist to wish to protect the jobs and lives of American citizens. If you're reading HN, I know you actually understand this, but choose to spit venom anyway.

[1] http://truthfeed.com/trump-surging-with-black-americans-beat...

Trump is not doing better than other recent Republicans among blacks or Hispanics according to most polling, which shows him doing far worse than other recent GOP nominees with these groups.

The only way you can defend this kind of claim is cherry picking a high outlier poll against the comparable-time polling consensus (or low outliers) for previous GOP nominees.

Yes, thank you for demonstrating my point about taking a single outlier poll.

Listen fella, I'm not going to do your googling for you. For any others playing, here is another poll from a different date.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/donald-trump-continu...

Is it your contention that any poll that doesn't support your thesis is an "outlier poll"?

Have you not heard any of the criticisms about this poll yet[1]? Also, FYI, it's the same poll in both those links. It's an LA Times tracking poll, which means the same people are asked over and over to track change over time. The TL;DR of the problem is that they "weight" ethnic groups to get a more indicative stance of how that group will vote, and there's a major outlier in this poll that does not correspond to how his ethnic group generally votes, but is weighted very heavily. That has resulted in this poll being ~3-5 points higher for Trump consistently over time.

1: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upshot/how-one-19-year-old...

Have you not heard that all the other polls oversample democrats by a larger ratio than they put Clinton ahead by?

You can actually read the sampling percentages yourself, on most of them.

Anyway, I'll just leave this here. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/actuarial-review-of-...

Okay, I just started reading that link, and so far, the two rabbit holes I've gone down have been fairly crazy webs of partisan blogs reporting on the "findings" of other partisan blogs.

Truthfeed pointed out that NBC/WSJ didn’t mention that the poll was created by a Hillary Super PAC.

The sourced article does not prove that. It proves that the polling organization that did the polling received money. Now, as a rational person, I might think that was money required to actually run a poll, since they aren't free, and cost money to run. Zero consideration was given to this, no follow up was done with the polling organization to ask them what this money was for, nor to ask them if they received money from other organizations (from ones supporting Trump, for example).

A partisan blog is very low journalistic standards sourcing its news from another blog with both low journalistic and low investigative standards should not be your source of news. Seriously, how can you put forward a link like this with a straight face? Did you actually look into this at all, or did you just take what was written on random blogs as de facto truth, and completely suspend all disbelief?

It’s also well known that the Monmouth University poll is run by a Hillary Huckster who recently was caught manipulating a poll and then lied about it.

Already off to a good start! Such unbiased reporting, referring to a "Hillary Huckster". This claim, that they only weighted based on party affiliate, is easily proven false. I downloaded the PDF with the poll results in question[1], located the tables references, and ran some numbers. No weighting is immediately apparent by gender, but the gender breakdown is close to the actual makeup of the country/region, so none may have been needed (or it may have been small enough to be undetectable). There is definitely weighting by age and race, and of course past political affiliation. The claims that only political affiliation were weighted for are provably false. Even by the data shown in the blog, if anyone had bothered to actually look, rather than just take what was said at face value.

With all the liberal distortions and dishonesty we decided to have a small team of actuarial and statistics professionals take a look at a couple of the recent polls to get their take on the reliability of these polls.

Good! That sounds like a good way to investigate this. So who are these actuaries and statisticians? They aren't ever identified. See, this is where a real journalist would be called out for sloppy reporting. Are these actuarial and statistician professionals "self-professed", or are they recognized in their fields? Do they even really exist? We have no way to know for sure, beyond "this blog referenced them".

By selecting more Dems the polls are designed to provide a Dem result.

Actually, that's what the weighting is for. You know, the thing this blog recently calling out as unfair? The whole purpose is to account for random sampling error. If the population was split evenly at 50% Democrat and 50% Republican, but your sample showed of the 100 people you asked a question, 45 were Democrat and 55 were Republican, due purely to chance and the fact you are sampling, not asking every person, how do you propose we would adjust for that to account for how we think it would really break down on election day? We weight the Democrats up to 50%, and the Republicans down to 50%. In reality, it's not obviously not 50%, but that's the point of weighting a poll.

Let me put it very simply. If your news sources refer to Clinton as "Crooked Hillary" or alternatively to Trump as "The Donald", or refers to "The Democrats" or "The Republicans" as a singular force that can be corrupt, or make blanket statements like "Let’s face it NOBODY likes Hillary and NOBODY trusts Hillary" or reference blogs as their source that do any of those things, you can't really trust them to give you an honest, impartial view of anything. You may think the MSM is biased, but usually what I hear as evidence of that assertion is that they aren't reporting on "news" such as this, when it's very cleat this isn't "news", by any journalistic standard. The MSM might be somewhat biased, but I think it's clear they are definitively less biased than the source you referenced, which ranges between referencing other sources that are plain wrong and itself making unsubstantiated statements without evidence.

If you want info on polls to trust, it's not too hard to find people willing to look into them with a more balanced approach[2].

1: https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthP... PDF at bottom.

2: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

> very anti free media (at his rallys, media is cordoned off and he gets the crowd to yell at them for minutes. that is if the outlet hasn't been banned for reporting the truth. I wonder why the media is anti Trump...)

I guess you haven't been paying attention. Trump was, for many years, a celebrity, making millions of dollars for NBC with his TV shows. Everything about him that they complain about now they happily accepted then, when it suited them.

For example, where was this 11-year-old video during the primaries? Answer that question and you will begin to understand what's going on here.

This "anti-free-media" claim is weird when you compare it to Clinton's campaign. For nearly a year she had zero press conferences--not even giving the media a chance. Now we find that her campaign specifically wanted to avoid answering any questions, to prevent the media from having a chance to question her about inconvenient stories. And we discover that the mainstream media is actively colluding with her campaign, giving them veto power over stories and quotes, etc.

So shouldn't you at least claim that she is as anti-free-media as he is?

> But that more than 40% would even consider voting for Trump scares me.

There is much more at stake here than these two individual people running for the office. The real contest here is between the movements they represent.

One of these two campaigns has been co-opted by a candidate who is not even a member of it. How did this candidate do so? With the help of the media, which vehemently attacked all other candidates during the primaries.

Now that same media is trying to destroy that candidate. That candidate is virtually a strawman candidate, set up for the sake of being torn down.

So, what does that tell you? Based on that, which candidate--which movement--should one vote for?

> And we discover that the mainstream media is actively colluding with her campaign, giving them veto power over stories and quotes, etc.

Seriously, can you provide references to back up some of this? The only thing I've heard about it so far is that in a profile piece, a portion was talked about off the record, and the reporter requested the use of some of the off the record material, and gave them a chance to review what could be used, since it was at their discretion it be used at all. The same reporter explained that there was a portion of his profile of Trump earlier he didn't use because it was off the record as well. The reporter is on record explaining this[1].

If there are other instances, please explain them, otherwise people are going to assume you are referring to this, which I think is pretty well explained. This is the reason people keep asking for sources. Without sources, it's just hearsay.

1: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-medi...

> Seriously, can you provide references to back up some of this?

How about Jake Tapper of CNN describing one of the events described in the emails about a question being leaked to the clinton campaign as "Journalistically it’s horrifying"?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/...

Whether a single person passed along information they shouldn't have to the Clinton campaign, for unknown reasons (in the hopes of garnering favor? Because of opposition to Trump? We don't know) does not constitute "the mainstream media" actively colluding with her campaign. It constitutes a single person possibly colluding with her campaign. Even then, Brazile says it wasn't about the presidential debate (and that she didn't have access to questions for that)[1], but about a separate panel she was participating on:

A Democratic Party official suggested the question was actually prep for a panel Brazile was set to appear on, saying Brazile normally checked with both Democratic candidates for their positions. The day after the email was sent, Brazile appeared on ABC's "This Week" as a panelist.

Now, this isn't the best excuse, so I'm not sure I believe it, but I'm also not sure what I'm supposed to expect the Clinton campaign to have done. Loudly proclaim they got a town hall question beforehand when Brazile may have been misinterpreted, or wrong? Denounce her afterwards when they had already benefited from the knowledge, so people would vilify them anyway? If this was as bad as it looks, I'm still left concluding it was, until proven otherwise, and isolated incident, and one in which I think the campaign may have benefited, but ultimately didn't act in any way I wouldn't have expected them to (barring further information, such as them pumping her for more info). I also don't harbor any fantasies that the Trump campaign would have acted any differently.

Finally, I agree, it is journalistically horrifying. That's because journalism has it's own standards and ethics to consider. It was horrible for a journalist. But Clinton and her staff aren't journalists, they are politicians, and while it would be great if it wasn't true, we expect less from them. That's why journalism is so important and why it's protected under the first amendment, because it keeps politicians in check.

1: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-email-hack-c...

How about the fact that journalists have contributed $400,000 to Clinton's campaign, while journalists have contributed $14,000 to Trump's.

Of course that's not indicative of a problem--they're just exercising their free speech rights, right? They're not biased at all...

(And before you go all wikipedia on me with "sources, sources! hearsay!", just google "journalist campaign contributions" and do your own homework.)