Doug Schoen: I am Reassessing my support for Hillary Clinton … I am Not Voting for Hillary Clinton

ONE HAS TO WONDER HOW MANY HONEST THINKING DEMOCRATS, MODERATES AND MIDDLE OF THE ROAD INDEPENDENTS ARE NOT SAYING THE SAME THING?

Yesterday we reported on this and we are again so today because of its importance in such a close presidential race. Longtime Democratic strategist and pollster Doug Schoen announced Sunday that he will no longer be able to support Hillary Clinton for president. Schoen did this because he is putting country ahead of party and a single candidate. I have longed disagreed with Doug Schoen; however, respected him. This is an example of why. I to believe, like Schoen, never should we elect an individual of any party who would simply through the country into chaos and a “constitutional” crisis. Sadly, the Democrat party did just that as they cooked a Democrat primary as seen by the Wikileaks emails as Team Clinton, the DNC and the MSM all colluded against Bernie Sanders. A vote for Hillary Clinton was always a risky vote as one never knew what scandal would blow up again, no matter how hard the Obama DOJ, FBI and Democrat media complex tried to cover for her.

In an op-ed in the Hill, Schoen said that he believed the United States could face a “constitutional crisis” if Clinton is elected president due to the looming FBI investigation into her private email server and the email practices of her aides.

“I say this because regardless of what Secretary Clinton did or didn’t do or what her aide, Huma Abedin, did or didn’t do or even what Anthony Weiner did or didn’t do, I am now convinced that we will be facing the very real possibility of a constitutional crisis with many dimensions and deleterious consequences should Secretary Clinton win the election,” Schoen wrote.

The question that remains is just how many Democrat voters are also having a change of conscience and feel this is just a scandal too far? How many Independents have just had enough? Will the polls reflect it or will the final poll be in the election vote count? With just one week to go, we shall see what the answer truly is.

The Hill:

I made one of the most difficult decisions of my life — not just political, but also personal — last night.

During my weekly show on the “Fox Report” hosted by Harris Faulkner with Pat Caddell and John LeBoutillier, I indicated that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for me to vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8.

Why did I say this?

Not for any small reason.

FBI Director James Comey’s decision to make public the fact that more emails potentially pertinent to the Clinton probe had been found on Anthony Weiner’s computer changes the impact of this election on the future of the country.

I say this because regardless of what Secretary Clinton did or didn’t do or what her aide, Huma Abedin, did or didn’t do or even what Anthony Weiner did or didn’t do, I am now convinced that we will be facing the very real possibility of a constitutional crisis with many dimensions and deleterious consequences should Secretary Clinton win the election.

In the best case scenario, there will be at the very least a criminal investigation of President-elect Clinton. And there will be a criminal investigation of Huma Abedin, which is apparently ongoing. Furthermore, there will be potential investigations into the actions of the Justice Department and most of all the FBI and its director, James Comey.

Project Veritas Action: Rigging the Election – Robert Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Was Personally Involved, Video III

UNREAL …

The corruption is real America, can you handle the truth? If you are so inclined to question the videos and the source, then explain why Scott Foval and Robert Creamer lost their jobs after these videos were published. What you are watching below is a crime folks.

Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. “In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.” It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.” The first video explained the dark secrets and the hidden connections and organizations the Clinton campaign uses to incite violence at Trump rallies. The second video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years. This latest video takes this investigation even further.

91% of Coverage on Evening Newscasts was Negative to Donald Trump

YEAH, THERE IS NO MEDIA BIAS IS THERE, HILLARY CLINTON HAS DONE FAR WORSE THAT WATERGATE AND NIXON, MSM SAYS NOTHING TO REPORT HERE …

From The Politico comes their report from the MRC Study that shows that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile. Imagine that, but of course there is no media bias. How is that possible when the Wikileaks emails consistently show more and more wrong doing and exposed Hillary Clinton for the lying, deceitful and corrupt individual that she is? The Wikileaks emails all but proved every conspiracy that the right claimed against her. However, the media refused to cover anything bad against Hillary. Instead they acted more to defend lying, crooked Hillary. even those at FOX News have joined in the piling on of Trump.

Is the American public actually paying attention and have they finally gotten fed up with the bias and double standard of the media? It is truly shameful that we have come to this point where a media has become nothing more than a propaganda tool for one party.

A whopping 91 percent of news coverage about Donald Trump on the three broadcast nightly newscasts over the past 12 weeks has been ‘hostile’, a new study finds.

The study, conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, found that not only has Trump received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to the study.

In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump, such as his treatment of women, than controversies surrounding Clinton, such as her email practices or the Clinton Foundation.

For the study, MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). Of the total newscasts, the networks devoted 29 percent of their time to the campaign. The study did not include comments from the campaigns or candidates themselves, instead focusing on what the correspondents, anchors, expert commentators, and voters on the street said in order to try and hone in on any sort of slant from the networks.

For the study, MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). Of the total newscasts, the networks devoted 29 percent of their time to the campaign. The study did not include comments from the campaigns or candidates themselves, instead focusing on what the correspondents, anchors, expert commentators, and voters on the street said in order to try and hone in on any sort of slant from the networks.

Though neither candidate was necessarily celebrated, Clinton largely just stayed out of the line of fire.

“Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton — for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her e-mail server — network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage,” the study found. “This was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying “the politics of fear,” or a “dangerous” and “vulgar” “misogynistic bully” who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate.”

Wikileaks Show New Podesta Email Exposes the Democrat Playbook For Rigging Polls Through “Oversamples”

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO STILL DENY DEMOCRAT MANIPULATION OF POLLING DATA AND OVER-SAMPLING COMES THE FOLLOWING …

From Zero Hedege comes the following report on more information coming from Podesta’s emails. This time it is the Democrat play book on how they rig polls by purposely over-sampling to get the outcome they they want. Imagine that? Just recently an ABC/WAPO poll has Clinton up by 12 points over Trump. Really, who honestly believes any candidate would have a 12 point lead? It happens when you skew polling data and over sample by 9 points. So what is this farce intended to do, depress the voting turnout of course and have people believe that Hillary is so far out ahead, there is no reason to vote.

Shameful, simply, corrupt and shameful.

“METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats – Republicans – Independents.”

More from the emails of Podesta and the rigging of polling results:

Now, for all of you out there who still aren’t convinced that the polls are “adjusted”, we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in detail, exactly how to “manufacture” the desired data. The email starts out with a request for recommendations on “oversamples for polling” in order to “maximize what we get out of our media polling.”

I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.

The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations.  In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:

Research, microtargeting & polling projects
-  Over-sample Hispanics
-  Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)
-  Over-sample the Native American population

For Florida, the report recommends “consistently monitoring” samples to makes sure they’re “not too old” and “has enough African American and Hispanic voters.”  Meanwhile, “independent” voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first.

-  Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state.
-  On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.

Meanwhile, it’s suggested that national polls over sample “key districts / regions” and “ethnic” groups “as needed.”

-  General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions
-  Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed
-  Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed

Flashback: Actress & Activist Susan Sarandon Said Hillary Clinton Would be a More Dangerous U.S. President than Donald Trump

FLASHBACK … REMEMBER WHEN ACTRESS AND LIB SUSAN SARANDON SAID THAT HILLARY CLINTON WOULD BE MORE DANGEROUS AS PRESIDENT THAN DONALD TRUMP?

To the Bernie Sanders voters, the democrats who are not happy with Hillary Clinton and to those on the fence, take a moment to pause and think about the comments from the lips of liberal actress Susan Sarandon. She stated that she thought Hillary Clinton would be a far more dangerous president than Donald Trump. Sarandon went on to say that the voters were being fed a line about Trump being dangerous when in reality Sarandon knows that Hillary is not transparent, and “nobody calls her on it.” Food for thought from a liberal regarding Hillary Clinton.

What Difference Does it Makes that I will be a More Dangerous President … All the difference in the world America!

Hollywood actress and activist Susan Sarandon says former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be a more dangerous U.S. president than Donald Trump — provided she’s not indicted first.

Ms. Sarandon, a supporter of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, told a liberal news outlets this week that Mrs. Clinton’s track record portends a much worse future than anything Mr. Trump might catalyze as commander in chief.

“I believe in a way she is more dangerous,” the actress told The Young Turks on Thursday. “They’re both talking to Henry Kissinger, apparently. … She did not learn from Iraq, and she is an interventionist, and she has done horrible things — and very callously. I don’t know if she is overcompensating or what her trip is. That scares me. I think we’ll be in Iran in two seconds.”

The former “Thelma and Louise” star said voters are being “fed” a message that Mr. Trump is “so dangerous” when his promises on illegal immigration amount to a wall being built.

“I don’t know what his policy is. I do know what her policies are, I do know who she is taking money from. I do know that she is not transparent, and I do know that nobody calls her on it,” the Oscar-winning actress continued.

The activist also appeared on MSNBC on Thursday and predicted Mrs. Clinton would be indicted by the Department of Justice for the secret email server she operated out of her New York home as President Obama’s top diplomat.