The media does Trump no favors, and they hope we won’t see their tricks.There are NO credible national polls that have Hillary Clinton ahead, yet the media reports Clinton leading.
Clinton has taken hits in every meaningful category, for example black vote, Latino vote, Millennial vote, yes even the highly sought after Guatemalan midget vote. Every segment is down.
Compound this with the dismal record of her former boss, and you have the recipe for regime change.
All this and Huffington Post questions the polling of one of the most exacting statisticians on the planet? No wonder famous pollster Nate Silver blasts HuffPo, after they question his methodology.
Trending: NO FEAR: AG Barr Sends Signal to Pelosi
Nate Silver runs the popular numbers blog FiveThirtyEight.com. The site predicts presidential outcomes with legendary accuracy. Further, Silver is known for being excruciatingly meticulous about the information he gathers and includes in his forecasts.
Silver’s prediction about how well Trump is doing hit a nerve with Leftist Ryan Grim at the Huffington Post. For Silver daring to rely on math, trends, facts, and reason, Grim accused Silver of “putting his thumb on the scales.”
As I often say of Liberals, they TELL you what they are doing, when they accuse you of doing it.
Earlier this month, the New York real estate mogul said at an event that he does “much better” in elections than in pre-election surveys, making a passing reference to the phenomenon known as the Bradley Effect — coined after the African-American mayor of Los Angeles who led in polls but lost unexpectedly in the 1982 California gubernatorial race. The idea that Trump might be under-polling was echoed again last week, after the United Kingdom voted narrowly to leave the European Union, despite polls showing the referendum to be a tossup — a campaign that centered on many of the same issues that Trump is touting in the U.S. presidential race.
But there’s little evidence that shy Trump voters actually exist. In the Republican primaries, he didn’t outperform his poll numbers relative to his leading challengers — and, until he ran away with the nomination in late April and May, he performed significantly worse than the polls suggested.
Little evidence? The “Never Trump” Weekly Standard sheds light on potential polling irregularities:
Still, there are two ways that the polls could be underestimating Trump’s standing. First, most polls are still of registered voters. Most registered voters ultimately vote in the presidential election, but many do not. If those non-voters are less disposed to Trump than actual voters, the polls right now may be understating his position.
Second, there could still be statistical bias in the polls. The challenge with polling is that it is taking a sample of voters, a population that does not actually exist until Election Day. Pollsters have to make guesses about what that population will look like. While well-informed, those guesses can be wrong.
This has happened several times over the last couple cycles. The final 2014 midterm polls made the race in key states out to be much closer than it actually was. Senate battles in states like Georgia, Iowa, and Kentucky looked to be nail-biters, but Republicans won them easily. On the other hand, the Democrats overperformed the polls in 2010—for instance, in California and Nevada. The 2012 presidential polls were especially strange. The national polls had the race a virtual dead heat for the final month (and the well-regarded Gallup poll showed Mitt Romney ahead the whole month), but the state polls showed President Obama beating Romney fairly comfortably. The state polls turned out to be correct.
One could say that either of these two irregularities could favor Clinton, however astonishingly, they do not. The Leftist pollsters put their thumbs on the scale for Clinton.
Nevertheless, The Weekly Standard gets its shots in, as the article suggests:
One thing is for certain: Crowd sizes, yard signs, and other indications of intensity are irrelevant. Enthusiasm only matters in an election insofar as somebody must be sufficiently interested to come out to vote. After that, the vote of the most diehard supporter counts just as much as the vote of somebody who flipped a coin.
Consider that just a month ago, many pollsters were saying the election was already over and that Clinton had won. The three daily tracking polls – the Los Angeles Times, IBD/TIPP and Rasmussen Reports – consistently have shown a much tighter race. We’re the ones who add new voters to the existing mix every day and don’t just swoop in for a two- or three-day sample. But many in the media – perhaps most prominently the New York Times – began preparing for a second Clinton administration as if the voters had already spoken.
There is no polling a phenomenon, and that’s what Trump sparked. Enthusiasm measures “if” people will come to vote. You can bet the house that Trump voters will come out. Filling stadiums with thousands of people every day is not easy, unless you’re Trump. The polls don’t reflect the phenomenon.