From September 1 to October 13, the Reuters/Ipsos poll has been gradually and incrementally oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans as a percentage of likely voters:
Note that this isn’t showing a secular change in voter party identification year-after-year. It shows an oversampling bias for one party over a period of weeks. The number of likely voters did not suddenly become 18% more Democrat in six weeks time.
If you can’t see the graph clearly, click here for a zoom-in version.
Why would polling outfits rig their results to favor Hillary “thecunt” Clinton? My theory is the simplest explanation: the people who run the polling companies, and the techies who administer the polls, are in the tank for thecunt. It doesn’t even have to be deliberate; if the personal emotional affinity for thecunt, or the antagonism for Herr Trump, is strong enough it can subconsciously guide pollsters to produce distorted data that is readily rationalized later as, say, “reflecting the changing composition of an electorate in flux”.
Another now-plausible post-WikiLeaks theory: thecunt’s surrogates are bribing pollsters to boost thecunt’s numbers.
The next question is, “how do rigged polls help thecunt? If she’s losing in reality, rigged polls will just make her more blissfully ignorant of her incoming defeat.”
The answer lies in the psychology of humans, and is related to Game and picking up women. If you create a perception of success or desirability, the voters (women) will assume you are going to win (bed them), and will paradoxically make your path to victory smoother.
There is a school of thought that says poll rigging can hurt more than it helps, by instilling in thecunt’s degenerate freak mafia a smug complacency about her inevitable victory, which will depress turnout as her supporters stay home to passively watch her victory unfold. I don’t buy this. It’s a misunderstanding of human nature, specifically the part of human nature which loves to “crush your enemies and see them driven before you”. If thecunt’s supporters feel emboldened by favorable polls, they will be MORE likely to swarm the voting booths to get a chance to participate in the bloodbath.
No, let’s dispel with this notion that the rigged system is a stroke of providence that will hurt thecunt in the end. The rigged system operatives know exactly what they’re doing, and that is why Trump is right to call them out on it.
Big ol’ rigged polls serve thecunt in three ways:
- Perception of desirability/success/inevitability.
- Demoralization of Trump supporters. (Bad polls can depress turnout for the candidate who is behind)
- Most importantly, rigged polls give cover to thecunt conglomerate to engage in vote fraud.
On that last point, the calculus works like this: If the polls are accurate and going into the election there is a small MOE difference between thecunt and Trump, then it would be harder for thecunt to pull off vote fraud without Trump contesting it and shining a light on all the DNC crookedness. If, otoh, the clown world polls are rigged and going into Election Day thecunt leads by double digits, (even if in reality she’s tied with Trump), then committing vote fraud becomes a lot more plausibly deniable, (media hack: “oh come now, trumpenpleb, why would the hillary campaign commit vote fraud when all the polls showed her coasting to victory?”).
This is really the usefulness of the rigged polls to thecunt: demoralization and perception manipulation don’t usually have the massive impact to alter election outcomes in multiple battleground states, but vote fraud….now we’re cooking with gas! It’s easy to understand all the working parts of this rigged system if you keep one thing in mind: the media and all its adjuncts and subsidiaries and information pipelines and channels are a propaganda arm of thecunt campaign.
This is a good time to remember that the polls got it wrong about the GOP landslide in the 2014 midterms. Why? Because the polls were SKEWED TOWARD DEMOCRAT TURNOUT. Which was the SAME GIGO ERROR the pollsters are making now, leading up to America’s Last Election.
Ang Aamer comments,
Actually there is a fairly straightforward explanation of this bias.
Most polls construct their samples based on a subset representative of the population you want information on. We have had two presidential cycles where there has been historic African American participation in the presidential election. Since a pollster would like to sample the voter population that will show up on Nov 8th. The percentages of voters who showed up in 2008 and 2012 would normally be a good guide.
BUT, we are also coming off of historic off year elections in 2010 and 2014 where this African American voting block DID NOT show up to the polls. The effects of these elections are so disparate that pollsters SHOULD find some sample methodology that would be the average of 2008,2010,2012 and 2014.
Now the inside baseball, everyone in politics knows that Killary will NOT get Obama 2008 and 2012 numbers. But they don’t know how close the numbers will be to 2010 and 2014. So they hedge their bets and take a point in the middle.
With me so far? Ok so if you are corrupt and you KNOW that nobody has the answer for the sample percentages what do you do? That’s right you stack the deck with people who will say that 2016 will be like 2012 and 2008!!! You stack the deck so well and convince the sample constructors so much that everyone herds along and puts their sample construction at 2008/2012 numbers.This thumb pressing on the scales is deliberate manipulation at one point in the polling execution that is high impact low deception detection. AND it’s defense-able!! Nobody knows “for sure” that Killary won’t get Obama numbers. So it’s easy to convince the weak minded that she will.
But the killer in all this is the AMOUNT of thumb pressing the sample creators had to do to get Hillary up in their polls!!! Right now the pollsters are assuming a voter population EXACTLY like 2008! They are assuming the first AA president enthusiasm! And they will be wrong. But what may happen is an opposite effect of the enthusiasm going into the R column instead of the D column. This could not only swing the 5 point thumb pressing margin. But add another 5 points in the opposite direction! Which of course would yield a Dilbert Landslide outcome.
THIS is why Killary was shrieking about why she is not ahead by 50 points. She was projecting a very real fear. If 2016 is NOT going have turnouts like 2008 she will need that wide margin in the polls to win. Since she is not ahead by wide margins there IS A REAL possibility that turnout not in keeping with 2008/2012 will lead to defeat.
I have always felt in my “gut” that Scott Adams was right about the landslide. But I always chuckled that such a margin was not possible. And in reality IT SHOULD NOT BE. But if the polls are fudged by the margins I think they are. AND Trump gets the enthusiasm like Obama 2008 in his column. It just might be a landslide of epic proportions, like Regan in 1980. No one saw 1980 coming either.
Revolutions (and enthusiasm gaps) have a nasty habit of messing up the Big Data nerdos’ models and forecasts. And revealing to the world the schemers putting their thumbs on the scales.
Read Full Post »