Poll shows majority back Kavanaugh when they hear the facts

(note I dont like the title but couldnt fit a good one within the character limit. i wanted it to read "Poll shows dramatic increase in people supporting Kavanaugh comfirmation when told witnesses cant corroborate)

A new Harvard/Harris poll showed me something that I found quite stunning.

In terms of the overall needle, after the testimony was heard, 37 percent say confirm the nomination, 44 percent say reject it, and 18 percent remain undecided, with Democrats going one way and Republicans the other. But once the voters are told that the named witnesses deny any knowledge of the allegation, this shifts to 57 percent who favor confirmation — and that goes up to 60 percent, if the FBI agrees there is no corroboration. Remember, because there is no specific “where” or “when” in Ford’s allegation, Kavanaugh cannot establish an alibi — and that’s why corroboration of other facts is so critical.

Now I am not someone who is big on polls. I think that they can be off based on who is interviewed, etc. So I am not claiming these raw percentages are correct.

However, what interests me is the change of opinion of the exact same people polled when told that the named witnesses deny knowledge of the allegation.

The percentage of people that support kavanaughs conformation jump from 37% to 57%. That number goes even higher, 60% if the fbi doesnt find any corroboration.

That 20% jump must be from people that were unaware the even ford's named witnesses, even her best friend, deny any knowledge of that party, with her friend going even further saying she doesnt know kavanaugh and doesnt remember ever being at a party with him.

With all of the coverage of this story, how can it be that so many people are unaware of the fact the witnesses do not corroborate her story?

The reason is because the MSM and culture such as tv shows, music, celebrities, etc. have been dominated by people insinuated Kavanaughs guilt while withholding key parts of the story.

Here are just a couple of articles on this bias, but these shouldn't be needed to anyone who remotely has paid attention to the media.

www.foxnews.com...

And

Ford claimed that three other people were present at the house where the alleged incident with Kavanaugh took place: Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth, and Leland Keyser. All three eventually issued sworn statements to the judiciary committee denying any recollection of the alleged events. Keyser, who is Ford’s lifelong friend, stated that she never met Kavanaugh.

The statements by the alleged witnesses, despite being central to the story, drew less than five minutes, or less than 2 percent, of total coverage.

“This statistic should embarrass any network which claims to be devoted to fair news coverage,” Noel wrote.

www.theepochtimes.com...

Less than 2% of the extensive coverage even mentioned the witnesses didnt corroborate Fords story? That is appalling!

Its no wonder that so many people changed their mind when told about this; it was probably the first they heard of it!

Not to mention how the media and the rest are using this to divide aling gender lines, implying that somehow women are always to be believed over men.

But they are even trying to shoe horn race into the conversation to attack "white" people.

“Women across this nation should be outraged at what these white men senators are doing to this woman.” -- Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif.

“There has been some discussion of the GOP senators who happened to all be ... white men.” -- Jim Sciutto, CNN correspondent

“What troubles me is now there are ... they’re all white men.” -- Jennifer Granholm, former governor of Michigan, on CNN

”You’re seeing on display a metaphor for what this party is, which is basically ignorant white men.” -- “Morning Joe” contributor Donny Deutsch

“All these white men ... stumbling all over themselves asking her, you know, aggressive and obnoxious questions.” -- Asha Rangappa, CNN analyst

www.anncoulter.com...

The media is a joke. Trump was right to call them out in the rose garden today as just mouth pieces for the democrats.

Most people are reasonable, and if they knew all of the details of the fact there is no evidence, ford's story has changed, and the witnesses she mentions cant back up her story, they are far more likely to not want to use this to affect the decision to confirm kavanaugh.

Luckily for the Dems, the msm and celebrities are working over time to withhold that info from the public as they smear Kavanaugh.

I don't think the outcome of really matters.
The left doesn't want a conservative judge to be appointed and they don't care how he gets rejected.

After this investigation proves nothing, ford will still be a half assed martyr and kavanaugh will still represent all that is evil for the pound me too movement.

a reply to: Grambler

I think this is no longer about Kavanaugh. The true aim is white men (and any race or sex, if you happen to be a conservative).

ABC NEWS: Us white male Christians need to step back and give others room to lead

Read that and tell me you think otherwise.

Ford being a woman in 2018 you just need to believe her no matter what....

a reply to: Grambler


If you could get an interview with Tucker Carlson, would you do it?

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Grambler


If you could get an interview with Tucker Carlson, would you do it?

Oh yeah, I really enjoy Tucker! I would love to do an interview with Tucker.

Dont see that happening though.

The best I could shoot for is getting interviewed by Augustus here on ATS!

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Grambler

I think this is no longer about Kavanaugh. The true aim is white men (and any race or sex, if you happen to be a conservative).

ABC NEWS: Us white male Christians need to step back and give others room to lead

Read that and tell me you think otherwise.

"I just want to say to the men of this country just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change," Senator Mazie Hirono

What's the right thing?

a reply to: Grambler

The best I could shoot for is getting interviewed by Augustus here on ATS!

lol. That might be even better.

But seriously. I think if these media hosts would interview a regular citizen, who has actually followed this story, and does not come off as a radical, it might turn some lightbulbs on for other regular citizens.

I will see what I can do.

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Grambler

The best I could shoot for is getting interviewed by Augustus here on ATS!

lol. That might be even better.

But seriously. I think if these media hosts would interview a regular citizen, who has actually followed this story, and does not come off as a radical, it might turn some lightbulbs on for other regular citizens.

I will see what I can do.

Hey if you have connections I am all for it.

I learn much more from talking to regular people in my life, from far left people to far right, and everything in between, than I do from many of the talking heads.

So I would definitly be game.

And I think Tucker is one of the only media people whose show I find informative and genuine.

a reply to: Grambler

The only poll that matters is the one in November.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: Grambler

The only poll that matters is the one in November.

Liberal media polls are now projecting that Hillary Rodham Clinton will win with over 90% of the vote.

Oh wait.

Nvm

a reply to: Grambler


No connections, just email.


Maybe if enough of us emailed them it might work.

a reply to: Grambler

The reason is because the MSM and culture such as tv shows, music, celebrities, etc. have been dominated by people insinuated Kavanaughs guilt while withholding key parts of the story.

I disagree and I would add that a lot of misstatements have been made regarding this issue, including by Kavanaugh at the hearing which I found a bit disturbing given that he's a seasoned Judge who is being confirmed for a lifelong position on the highest court in the land.

You were careful in the OP not to make the same misstatement and kudos to you.

In his opening statement:

Her trademark line is a good reminder, as we sit here today, some 36 years after the alleged event occurred when there is no corroboration and indeed it is refuted by the people allegedly there.

Two more times in the same opening statement:

Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers. Refuted.

Cruz at the hearing goes even further in his mischaracterization, adding "explicitly":

They have not only not — not corroborated her charges, they have explicitly refuted her charges. That’s significant to a fair-minded fact finder.

I noted it the time:

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Also, he keeps claiming that the other people claimed to be there by Ford have all refuted her claim. That's a lie. They all said they had no recollection. That's not the same thing. He should know this. He's trying to be a SCOTUS justice for life.

I've seen more than a few headlines in the right-wing media and heard far more pundits, politicians and the like repeating this same exact mischaracterization using the term "refute" and in some cases, "reject."

That's not the same thing as you're phrasing — "can't corroborate" — so clearly you recognize the difference and made the distinction.

And, according to another poll:

More noteworthy, 54 percent of Republicans said that they would support confirming Kavanaugh even if it turned out that the sexual assault accusations against him are true.

Only 32 percent of Republican voters disagreed with that sentiment.

www.salon.com...

So, in simpler terms, it doesn't matter to "republicans" (and I assume many others) whether or not he sexually assaulted this woman or any other back then or now.

The sole qualification required is that he is on the Corporations uber alles team.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yes he and others should be more careful with terms.

However, by the correct standard, almost no one can ever "refute" another person unless they were there for the entire episode.

Nonetheless, this is small potatoes, the nuanced differences between not corroborating vs. refuting, compared to the media acting as political advocates for the democrats and ignoring that none of the witnesses corroborate fords story.

Let alone their not reporting on Fords inconsistencies and other things.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
And, according to another poll:

More noteworthy, 54 percent of Republicans said that they would support confirming Kavanaugh even if it turned out that the sexual assault accusations against him are true.

Only 32 percent of Republican voters disagreed with that sentiment.

www.salon.com...

So, in simpler terms, it doesn't matter to "republicans" (and I assume many others) whether or not he sexually assaulted this woman or any other back then or now.

The sole qualification required is that he is on the Corporations uber alles team.

I think the accusations are a big deal if true. many do not.

I dont think its because he is corporate, i think its because they dont think assault from teenage years that would be expunged from his record by now anyways shouldnt matter. Again, i disagree.

Meanwhile, how many democrats, including media people and democratic senators, believe that innocent until guilty no longer apply (as long as its a political opponent)?

a reply to: loam

I think this is no longer about Kavanaugh. The true aim is white men

The true aim of what?

Listen, I take issue with the op-ed. I don't feel compelled personally to "step back" from anything because I'm a straight white male. I think's saying it probably makes the author feel virtuous and all that happy horse# and I understand the thinking behind things like "positive discrimination" but history has provided mix results.

Now, that is not to say that there isn't an issue to begin with. Of course there's an issue — how could there not be? We as white men have run this # from the beginning. I actually started to point out some of this in response to your own statements about equality in a post a few days ago.

Specifically, you made a statement about the US having "foundational principles" for a "peaceful and equitable governance of a diverse culture of people from all walks of life." Do you recall that? The problem with that statement is that it isn't true. Those are not the "foundational principles" of this US. It might be what we now few as ideals but that doesn't retroactively change history.

Here's part of what I omitted from my truncated reply (I notepadded it in case I changed my mind):

How equitable were things prior to say... 1865? 1920? 1965? 2015? Your statement not only disregards historical reality, it's dismissive of the generations of struggle required to bring about equality under the law to a diverse group of people from all walks of life. 1865 - 13th Amendment abolished slavery, 1920 - 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote, 1964-65 - Civil Rights Act & Voting Rights Act end segregation/Jim Crow, 2015 - In Obergefell v. Hodges, SCOTUS rules that samesex couples have the same fundamental right to marry in the largest expansion of civil liberty in this country since the Civil Rights Era and one that was vehemently opposed by the majority of the Right to the bitter end.

This country was founded by white men who intended for it to be governed by white men because that's really the only way they could imagine things going, being products of their time.

So while I disagree with the approach of the author of the op-ed, he's not wrong that the starting condition of our experiment was essentially all levers of power controlled by white (Christian or presumed so) men. And despite the removal of many legal hurdles, things aren't exactly "equitable" are they?

Despite Diverse Demographics, Most Politicians Are Still White Men

Despite white men comprising only 31 percent of the population, 97 percent of all Republican elected officials are white and 76 percent are male. Of all Democratic elected officials, 79 percent are white and 65 percent are male, according to the study.

Would you have less of a problem with the op-ed if the numbers were 100% white men? Would you then say, "Well hell, this is not equitable at all!"

That said, I think things have been slowly getting better for the last couple generations and that they will continue to improve with time and opportunity. In my opinion, and it's just my opinion, the most effective solutions are decent paying jobs, time and awareness.

I don't see # like that in the op-ed to be particularly useful except to make the author feel enlightened.

a reply to: Grambler
The problem is too many Democrats do not listen to (or care about) the "facts". What their favorite liberal media outlet tells them to believe, is all that counts.

What's great, is that Kavanaugh is not in a general election. Only what Republicans in the Senate think, is what will matter when the vote to confirm him is called.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Grambler

I think this is no longer about Kavanaugh. The true aim is white men (and any race or sex, if you happen to be a conservative).

ABC NEWS: Us white male Christians need to step back and give others room to lead

Read that and tell me you think otherwise.

You've hit the nail on the head.

They outright hatred for any White male that doesn't agree with the lefts agenda is not even hidden anymore.

They don't care what they are doing to this man because he is:

1. White
2. Christian
3. Male

It's absolutely disgusting.

a reply to: Grambler

Yes he and others should be more careful with terms.

Careful with terms?

He's a judge - he knows better. He should be dealing with facts - not wishful thinking