Mainstream media is run by the Deep State. Pollsters followed media storylines and, like lemmings, they all rushed over the cliff of election propaganda for Kamala Harris.
The Democrat National Convention ended on the 22nd of August. The day those doors closed American and foreign mainstream media began to write headline stories trumpeting Kamala Harris will win the election. Their stories included pollster predictions of a 3.5% jump in positive voter sentiment for the Harris/Walz ticket.
Legacy media outlets are controlled by the Deep State, so their reporters had to ignore months of Trump’s monster rallies. They could not compare those rallies against the sparsely attended gatherings for Kamala Harris as a measure of voter enthusiasm. Instead, newspapers, TV and online media drooled over Kamala, explaining away her word salad speeches and extolling her promise to bolstering border walls and increase fracking. The media does not mention those policies have been steadfastly opposed by the Biden administration for the last four years – including Vice President Kamala.
Pollsters immediately provided the media with strangely uniform predictions of a Kamala victory. A sampling of those poll-based headlines:
Kamala Harris Opens up Biggest Lead Over Trump in 538 Polling Aggregate “FiveThirtyEight's poll tracker, which complies the results of national and statewide polls and weights them according to reliability, shows that nationally Harris is on average ahead of Trump by 3.3 points, with 47 percent to the Republican’s 43.7 percent.” Newsweek, 22 August
Harris has a 3.6% lead based on 133 polls. In those 133 polls, the media website also mentions ActiVote, Outward Intelligence and the Rasmussen Reports. The Hill, 25 August
Harris, Trump dead even in Pennsylvania, according to RCP poll Real Clear Politics, 24 August
Harris Leads By 4 Points In Post-DNC Survey Forbes, 27 August
After DNC, Harris Seeks to Maintain Momentum “As of Aug. 23, she holds a 3.6-point lead over Trump in FiveThirtyEight’s national polling average and is gaining on the former president in many battleground states.” Epoch Times, 24 August
Why did the media write those headlines? Was it to pump up Kamala’s standing in the polls to psychologically prepare us for the ballot harvesting that will steal the November election? Is it 2020 all over again?
The answer is that the CIA, FBI, DOD and their Deep State co-conspirators do not much like Trump, as we saw at the Butler Pennsylvania rally. They missed him that time, but they still control the mainstream media with money, threats and blackmail. CIA’s Operation MOCKINGBIRD is still alive and well despite statements to the contrary.
By the way, if you still don’t believe the Deep State controls legacy media, here is a montage of headlines promoting the Kamala Harris “Joy” propaganda line that sounds like the Nazi slogan, “Strength Through Joy.” To that she is now adding “Forward,” the communist favorite of Fidel Castro and Obama. (The image below is from a recent post by the indomitable Elizabeth Nickson.)
Last month Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, confessed in testimony before Congress that the Deep State’s FBI and the Biden administration forced Facebook to suppress satire about the Covid jabs as well as news about the Biden family’s relationship with Ukraine’s corrupt Burisma company – before and after the 2020 elections.
Let’s take a retrospective peek at what the pollsters predicting Kamala will defeat Trump in 2024 predicted for the 2016 election.
Hillary Clinton Leads Donald Trump by 14 Points Nationally in New Poll “Hillary Clinton has widened her lead over Donald Trump, polling 14 percentage points ahead nationally, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll, which comes 12 days before the presidential election.” Time
Clinton has 90 percent chance of winning: Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation Project Reuters, 7 November 2016
Every poll showed Clinton ahead right up to election day (except the LA Times /USC Tracking poll). An analysis by Real Clear Politics in November 2016
The poll of polls 2016 Election Forecast had Hillary’s chance of winning at 71.4% and Trump’s chance at 28.6% (even allowing for the electoral college votes) FiveThirtyEight November 2016
I could go on showing all the other pollsters who predicted Hillary Clinton would win, but that would only confirm that in 2016 the Deep State propaganda machine was working overtime to elect Hillary. Nevertheless, as this is being written, there are a few signs that indicate the pollster tide favoring Harris may yet turn.
Before the August flurry of pollsters favoring Harris, in late in July Fox News, Rasmussen, CNBC and HarrisX polls put Trump ahead of Kamala. James Howard Kunstler of the Substack site Clusterfuck Nation, noted that on August 29th statistician Nate Silver, founder of the FiveThirtyEight poll of polls, put Kamala’s chance of winning down at 42.7 % versus Trump’s 56.7%.
Kunster added, “Voters have begun to notice that the candidate represents nothing except whatever happened the past four years in Biden-Land — which is to say, open borders, war for the sake of arms profiteers, flagrant censorship, inflation, cratering business activity, and overt DOJ political persecutions.” Also, Martin Armstrong (founder of ArmstrongEconomics), has estimated Kamala Harris’s true poll numbers are well below Trump’s.
Even Kamala supporter CNN is recognizing that Kamala Harris is having trouble. CNN’s pollster, David Chalian, found that his sampling of a key demographic cohort – white voters without a college degree in swing states -- favors Trump by huge margins. See the video here.
Government polls and estimates are almost always wrong because they are politicized. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) had to revise the Biden administration’s brag of creating 3,140,000 new jobs in 2023. It was revised downward by 749,000 jobs! The BLS also punched a hole in the Biden administration’s brag of creating millions of jobs in 2024. On August 21st the BLS reported that the U.S. economy created 818,000 fewer jobs than originally reported in the 12-month period through March 2024.
Something is not quite right with the number crunching skills at BLS, or were those downward revisions of new jobs meant to bolster the Federal Reserve’s decision to lower interest rates in an election year?
If government data can’t be trusted, why should pollsters be trusted? That leads to the question of how are polls conducted these days. Despite the polling process being rather simple it is subject to many variables, and variables can be manipulated.
Before I begin describing the reality of how polling results are generated, let’s review what pollsters usually state when releasing a poll. It’s something like: “Findings are based on calling a representative sample of 2,000 Americans and, after adjustments, has a margin of error of plus or minus 2%.” That’s the beginning of the scam, because the vast majority of pollsters no longer work that way, and they have not done so for more than 20 years.
In December of 2023, Courtney Kennedy, the Pew Research Center’s vice president of methods and innovation, reported that of 69 polling organization only 6 still polled the old way. She said, “There’s a huge gap between the public understanding and where the survey field actually is.” The truth is that most polls are taken from people in huge survey panels. Many organizations have constructed those panels: Pew’s own American Trends Panel has more than 10,000 adults; The Gallup Panel has 100,000 members; the University of Chicago’s NORC panel has 54,000 members.
To avoid countless and expensive hours calling random respondents who might not want to be surveyed, pollsters today assemble a collection of willing responders to form a panel, large or small, of members who provide their demographic profiles. Those demographic profiles come in handy when, say, the number of 50-year-olds in a survey is less than in the national population. In that case a pollster would give the number of 50-year-olds in his survey a bit more weight. That modeling and weighting process is also done for other demographic variables like education, party affiliation, income, etc. The pollster then describes the final panel he used as a “representative sample” of the American population. And there’s the rub – unless the pollster discloses the demographics of the panel members, and exactly how they were weighted, you cannot trust his result.
The inherent flaws in the majority of today’s political polling systems were seen in the polls leading up to the 2016 and 2020 elections – and in today’s polls of Kamala versus Trump. The problem with the accuracy of political polls includes the demographic methodology of the panel system, but there are other problems with their accuracy.
The way poll questions are asked can manipulate the answers. An example of a question that could generate an unreliable answer is, “Do you intend to vote for Trump?” What if the respondent is a Democrat who intends to vote for Trump but is afraid to say so fear of winding up on a Democrat list of white extremist terrorists? Or what if the respondent does not know whom he intends to vote for, but has seen other polls that say Trump will lose. Who wants to vote for a loser? Bottom line -- the person who ultimately sees the poll result does not see the list of questions.
Poll accuracy is also subject to the well-known problem of sampling and assumptions. Should the respondents taken from the huge panel all be citizens? Should they be registered voters? Should they be infrequent or frequent voters? Does the panel’s demographic data even have such information?
Then there is the fact that pollsters know that small changes in assumptions can skew the poll’s results. Playing around with sampling and assumptions allows an unscrupulous or biased pollster to make the numbers dance to his tune. If biased pollsters are then able to place their skewed poll in a “respected” media outlet, and it doesn’t go against the accepted tide, that’s a win for their relationship with their client and, of course, their bottom line.
Did we see the pollster herd instinct at work in August? It certainly was seen back in 1948, when the CIA was just being born and the FBI wasn’t politicized, so there was no excuse then – like Deep State manipulation of “respected” mainstream media.
Let’s not fall for today’s “scientific” polls. We saw what happened when we fell for a new and “scientific” vaccine.
Read next: Trump and Kennedy Placing Patients First
Email Us | Reader Friendly | Comments
