Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren Thinks Her Own Network’s Polls Are Liberally Biased

In the aftermath of a well-received Democratic National Convention and Donald Trump absolutely imploding over the past few days has led to some astonishing polls this week. While a post-convention bounce was always in the cards for Hillary Clinton, no one would have expected the huge swings we’ve seen. That is, until Trump picked a fight with a dead soldier’s family and caused Republicans to start questioning his mental competence.

One of the polls that showed Clinton surging to a double-digit lead was conducted by Fox News. Yep, the Fair and Balanced ‘news’ network has Hillary up ten points on Trump, 49% to 39%. The survey isn’t an outlier, either. CNN and NBC have Hillary +9 while McClatchy shows The Donald trailing by a whopping 15 points. The newest battleground state polls also show a large shift towards the Democratic nominee.

However, one person isn’t all that convinced that the latest numbers are on the up and up. Going the whole ‘skewed polls’ route, Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren took to her program Thursday night to question the accuracy of her own network’s poll. Apparently, she thinks that Fox News is liberally biased and in the tank for Hillary. (It should be noted that Greta has been one of the network’s biggest Trump backers.)

And what’s her proof that the polls are wrong? Well, Trump is getting big crowds at his rallies, that’s how!

From Media Matters’ transcript of On The Record:

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN (HOST): I see the rallies and they’re big, and I see the poll numbers, and he’s slipping in the polls, but I wonder how many people receive a phone call from some stranger saying who’re going to vote for and everybody — you probably don’t want to say, well, we’re going to vote for the guy who uses bad language, so they say something else. I’m not so sure how accurate these polls are. I guess that during the primary they give us some indication, but how many people, when they go behind the closed curtain, are they going to vote for Trump?

So people who would normally be for Trump are lying to Fox News pollsters because after a year-plus they are NOW embarrassed by him? That seems to be Van Susteren’s hot take.

The best part is yet to come, though. After claiming the numbers are misleading, Karl Rove — he of the Republican math and 2012 Election Night meltdown — had to talk sense to Van Susteren about poll numbers and rally crowds.

KARL ROVE: Well, what you are suggesting, and I’m not saying it’s not worth considering this, but you’re assuming first of all, the polls are not reliable — all of them — and second of all, that a better test this is the size of the crowds he gets at his rallies, which are big and enthusiastic. But I would remind you in the closing days in the 1984 presidential campaign, Walter Mondale was drawing large and enthusiastic rallies as he went on to narrowly win one state. When George McGovern was in the final stages in the 1972 campaign against Richard Nixon, the crowds were unbelievably large and enthusiastic. In 1996, Bob Dole was actually drawing good crowds as he came down the closing stretch, but none of that mattered. None of that mattered at the end of the day. There’s a difference between who shows up at a rally and who turns out to vote and right today I wouldn’t be betting that all of those polls showing — I wouldn’t bet the Fox News poll is wrong that says he’s ten points down.

We have now just gone through the looking glass. Karl F’N Rove just had to tell someone else how math works.

Below is video of the segment, courtesy of Fox News: