A number of polls showing Hillary Clinton dominating in the polls this election have been sensationalized, but had the media spent as much time analyzing those polls as they did reporting them, even they may have to reconsider.
Consider a poll released on October 10th by NBC news, showing Hillary up by an unprecedented 11 points against Trump, with a 46-35 lead in a four way race (and an even larger lead of 52-38) in a two way race. That means that we’re supposed to believe that Clinton is leading by as many as 14 points.
This came just days after Trump’s campaign was hit by scandal when audio of sexually explicit comments he had made in 2005 were leaked by the Washington Post. If the poll was accurate, it only proved that the media focused exclusively on Trump’s scandal – and not the contents of Wikileaks ongoing document dump from the Democrat establishment.
So how did pollster get those results? By loading the poll up with Democrats, of course. As the Conservative Tree House reported, “Transparently the poll is manipulated with: a) a small sample (500); and b) the following ideological make-up.”
By itself that ideological snapshot is silly. Nationally the party registration is roughly 27 percent (R), 32 percent (D), and 40 percent (I) – SEE HERE – However, the polling sample is the least of the issues for this deconstruction.
Not only that, the poll was conducted by Hart Research Associates, a firm which received $220,500 in September alone by Hillary Clinton’s Priorities USA SuperPAC. It’s rare that it’s the SuperPAC handing out money, no?
Well, you can expect most polls to be bogus, because it’s part of the Hillary camp’s strategy. As the Gateway Pundit reported:
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.
This was always their plan.
They want to fool the American public into thinking that it’s such a guarantee that Hillary will win, that they won’t even bother to get out and vote for Trump.
I doubt it’s going to work. If anything, the satisfaction of sticking it to the media after a Trump victory should be motivation enough to get out and vote this November.