Skip to main content

Are the Polls Telling the Truth part II

In less than two days America will finally decide who, after a long and bitter election battle, the next president of the United States is.
Going into the final weekend however it's anyone's guess what the final result will be. Although, admittedly Clinton does have the edge (the aggregate of polls consistently gives her at least a two point edge). That's not an insurmountable lead, although every presidential nominee since LBG in 1964, who was leading in the polls (no matter how slim the margin) in the last week, won the presidency.
I'm not trying to depress you, that's just the cold hard facts. Still, in a close race the 2000 presidential election is instructional. George W. was a three point favourite on the eve of the election (despite the November surprise that he had a DUI conviction from 1976, and ya, I'm really sure the press only just uncovered that tidbit on Nov 2.) The election, as you may remember, ended with Gore up +1 on the popular vote but George W. winning the Electoral College, after a contentious Florida recount, and eventual Supreme Court decision.
So Hillary could win the popular vote by a hair, and still not win the electoral college. As long as Trump is within 1.5-2.5 points of Hillary going into election day, there's a pretty good chance that at the state level he could carry (assuming he already has Iowa and Ohio in the bag) Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and New Hampshire. Those are the battleground states where he is still trailing Hillary. The margins are as low as .3% in Florida to about 4% in North Carolina. And the latter is shaping up to be the make or break state for Trump.
Less than a week ago the Dems were putting effort into holding onto New Hampshire, but as that state has since just moved closer to the Trump win column, all focus is now mainly on North Carolina, with President Obama urging the black vote to come out for Hillary as they did for him in 2008.
Will North Carolina go Republican, as they did in 2012, or can the Dems halt Trump's unexpectedly competitive race to the White House in the tar heel state? If we are going by the polls then the outlook isn't so good for Trump supporters, again, not trying to depress you, just trying to be realistic.
But, then are the polls telling the truth? Many Republicans will tell you there are shy Trump supporters who aren't being honest with pollsters. While I think this may be an issue, I don't think it's nearly as big a phenomenon as they would like to believe.
There is, however, another polling phenomenon in play. Protest Hillary voters. Up until a few days ago, all national polls were trending in Trump's favour, in the past two days Hillary has gotten a small bump. What on earth could possibly give her any uptick at all, as the news (despite efforts by the MSM to cover it up or find new ways to smear Trump) has all been negative for Hillary, as revelations of Watergate level scandals continue to come out.
The only possible answer for this is that previous polls were finding voters who considered voting Trump in protest, thinking he wouldn't win, but are now reconsidering that vote as the polls narrow. I agree, it seems unlikely, but how else to explain an uptick for Hillary at this point in the election, when she is constantly on the defensive?
Well yes, the other answer is in the face of increasing support for Trump across the board, pollsters, on the national level, are stacking their polls with more reliably Democratic respondents, from states like California, NY, Illinois and Mass, since while Hillary has received a bump in the national polls, we don't see it in the battlefield states of Nevada, Florida, New Hampshire or even Pennsylvania (maybe, depending on the poll, a slight increase in North Carolina).
The upshot is, this election has proven the MSM to be completely in the bag for any Democratic nominee no matter how loathsome he or she might be. Their fall back has always been, 'hey, we're just reporting what the polls say.' If Trump wins, pollsters accuracy will be seriously called into question.
Nate Silver, founder of 538, I'll note, has shown a steady rise in Trump's chances, depsite the uptick in national polls for Hillary, demonstrating that he hope sot maintain credibility through this election cycle.







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trudeau's tearful apology tour

The conservative leadership race according to Lauren Southern

To be fair the above headline should include Faith Goldy, but there's only so much room. At any rate the two Rebel Media reporters posted a piece online attempting to explain the Canadian Conservative Party leadership race to be decided this May. It's a crucial choice for a party that's gotten it so wrong, so many times, and to bungle it this time means another four years of Justin Trudeau, and he's already done a lot of damage.
If you're as yet unfamiliar with the boy king (his father, Pierre, ruled Canada for 16 years) then check out this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZntyiqpWKw&t=48s
 And that's no exaggeration, a lot of his 'finest' moments didn't even make the cut.


However back to the Tory leadership race, as far as anyone sensible person should be concerned right-leaning Maxine Bernier is the only choice for Canada.
And to her credit, Lauren Southern chose Bernier as her top pick for Conservative leader and (hopefully) Prime Minister…

Time Magazine Goes Full SJW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wVagQ_LVd4
There was a very funny (and very politically incorrect) line in the Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr. movie Tropical Thunder, when Downey's character (who had turned himself black to get a role) advises Stiller, "Never go full retard." I bring it up because recently Time Magazine published an oped blaming Hillary's FBI investigation on, that's right, sexism.

This would be a good example of going full SJW (which is remarkably similar to going full retard, in case you missed the connection). Most left wing publications like the NY Times, USA Today, etc. Try to avoid full on SJW (Social Justice Warrior) ranting, and couch their left/liberal bias in more subtle opinion pieces and skewed reporting.

But Time maintains Hillary's woes are entirely due to her sex, because the media wouldn't be bothered with a presidential candidate being investigated by the FBI (twice) if she was male. Uh, gee Time, have you ever heard of N…