11 July 2020 #MAGAanalysis #BetweenTheLines

Polling is Worse Now than in 2016...Why?

Desperate times lead to desperate measures. Desperate moves telegraph a contender's desperation. I am now close to certain that the UberDems know they're going to lose. https://twitter.com/ThyConsigliori/status/1281802281797787648

2) I think I just created the term UberDems. I think it's an important term. It's easy opposite is Rank and File Democrats. How about we us the acronym: RFD? I detest the UberDems. I love the RFD. I think Democrat-leaning soccer moms are the best. I honor them. They're RFD.

3) By nature and by personal history, I am a union man. No, I was never in a union. But, the story of unions fighting the powerful forces of corrupt government in collusion with corrupt corporations, and with political bosses on the side of their corporate cronies, come on...

4) It's deeper than just personal history or leanings. My grandfather left Southern Italy in 1920 or so because of his hatred of 3 things:

1) The Mafia
2) The Church
3) The Aristocracy

5) Here in America, and during his 41 years working on the Santa Fe rail yards in Chicago, he came to hate his Union bosses as well. All he wanted to do was work. He would not approve of me saying I'm a natural union man. He'd be very angry with me over that.

6) I don't know if my grandfather voted. I imagine he did, but I can easily imagine him as well not willing to leave work to do so. I can't leave that story, quite yet. The union failed my grandfather, because they never saw him as a man, a voice to be heard.

7) But let's rewind history for a moment. Had his union actually listened to him, actually cared, he'd most likely have been both a union man, and a Democrat. Just let me imagine my Italian, immigrant grandfather - who came here legally! - as a Democrat, yes?

8) Then, he'd be RFD. That is him and me in 1963. His name was Pasquale, and he bequeathed his name to me. Would I have adored him any less if he was a Southside Chicago Democrat? That's what I mean by RFD.

9) Let's get back to today's UberDem false polling. The UberDems have lost their RFD. Defund the police, as if that was an RFD thing? Are you kidding? In the world I grew up in, in the 60s, although I didn't know it at the time, Police were Democrats. At least in Chicago.

10) I know that if you were to poll any and every family in Chicago who has lost a family member due to gang violence, and have the power of their perfect honesty as your point of access, they'd 100% tell you how much they hate the UberDems. 100%.

11) Terms. Gun violence is not a thing. Knife violence is not a thing. Frying pan violence is not a thing, no matter how well a frying pan kills you dead. Human violence, that's a thing. Gang violence, that's a thing. If you removed all guns from gangs, the gangs would not die.

12) This is so simple. Outlaw guns, and only outlaws have guns. RFD law abiding families in the mean streets of Chicago, therefore, have no guns. The gangsters have guns. And we call this gun violence? No, it's gangster violence. The RFD knows this. I promise.

13) Which brings us back to polling. Bad guys often learn precisely the wrong lessons. In 2016, the favorable Hillary polls did NOT lead to victory. Lesson learned? Our polls did NOT favor her strongly enough. We didn't use polling to promulgate our message well enough.

14) As I recall - and I may be wrong - I remember the polls dropping from 1,500 respondents downward toward 1,000 as the election season progressed. I noted this, more emotionally than logically. Even at 1,500 you can easily skew your data results.

15) Alas, I often don't organize my sources well. I don't remember where I learned that 1,500 was the bare minimum respondents a poll needed to have a chance of reflecting the American mood. It's pretty leveraged. 1,500 to represent more than 300,000,000 people.

16) But I do, distinctly remember that number. What's more, I remember watching the polling and observing that at or over 1,500 respondent polls had more validity, whatever that actually is. I confess my subjectivity in all this. I am NOT a data or polling scientist.

17) I do have a theory to offer. As polling was simply a near 100% corrupt enterprise back in 2016, and as the 100% believed assumption was that Trump had no chance, the idea was to use owned polling, merely adequately corrupt, to be a tactical aid to the Clinton victory.

18) Since the 1,500, likely voter category was known as the gold standard, as close to 1,500 likely voters was employed, and then, a massive Democrat proportion in the model was deemed all necessary for the corrupt pollers to give the Clinton campaign what it needed.

19) I have another theory to offer. Polling was then thought of as an adjunct to a certain victory, NOT as a critical component of the mission. So, the Clinton outfit allowed its pollsters to remain as close to real credibility as possible, not caring very much about it.

20) Wind forward to 2020. My current theory is that Joe Biden's one and only shot at winning requires two elements.

1) A false poll-based narrative of certain victory (sound familiar?).

2) Voter Fraud on levels never before seen in American history.

21) We'll come back to voter fraud. Let's use the ABC/Ipsos poll from yesterday to see how low their strategy has fallen, far lower than in 2016.

"This poll is based on a nationally representative probability sample of 711 general population adults age 18 or older."

22) Here is their statement, numbered:

This poll is based on:
1) a nationally representative
2) probability sample
3) of 711
4) general population adults
5) age 18 or older

23) We'll take this one at a time.

1) a nationally representative

They're saying that they can find 711 people to represent all of America. Obviously, the selection of those 711 people might matter, but even if they did it honorably...711 people? You can feel the desperation.

24) Follow the simple logic. As their numbers of polled people rise, even they will start to show that Trump is far, far in the lead. So, they have to drop their numbers of polled people all the way DOWN to the point where they can control the Pro-Biden results.

25) The way to understand the real phenomenon here is this. No matter how hard they try, they simply cannot find 1,500 people who will favor Biden over Trump enough for their poll to produce the required outcome. Do make sure you follow that point, please.

26)

2) probability sample

I don't know about you, but I adored the one statistics course I took in college, Statistic 101. The term "probability sample" means nothing more nor less than a bell curve over any population of anything. You select some, to represent many.

27) I say again, I am not a qualified statistician, nor a data scientist. But, I can tell you this. You cannot probabilistically sample a mere 711 adults, aged 18 or over, to represent America. This has dropped beneath even the appearance of honest science.

28) As I feel I've covered the 711 adequately, I'll only be scornful. 7 come 11. Isn't that a roll the dice, gambling term? Want a slurpee? Go to 7 Eleven. This poll counts up 711 people's answers. You have to feel this. It's a halving of 2016's standard bearers.

29) As a halving, at minimum, it means the UberDems are twice as freaked out. Another way to say this is, they're doubling down on their one of their last assets of corruption. It breaks my heart.

30)

4) general population adults

This demonstrates complete surrender. The polling standards until now are, from lowest quality to highest:

1) Adults
2) Registered Voters
3) Likely Voters

And I repeat, even likely is merely a statistical concept.

31) We can do better than the merely statistical concept of "likely," and we will. But, imagine the desperation telegraphed when your big headline poll is of merely adults, aged 18 or older.

32) Want to find 711 adults, aged 18 or over? Head over to Cambridge MA, and find 711 freshman. There you go. And that represents all of America. I'm not saying they did that. I am saying that 711 18 year olds is a terrible joke, and one they open themselves up to as an attack.

33) Can't you smell the desperation? Can't you feel it?

Drudge tells us, 67% disapprove of Trump's handling of COVID. He links to this poll, as his scientific source. There you have it. If you support Trump, you're only one of less than 33% of America. Scientific polling say so.

34) Let's come back, now, to voter fraud. False media and false polling - pure propaganda - are required for Biden to have any chance at all, and won't be enough. So, I argue, fraud will be required also. It's a traditional left first, right second, one-two punch strategy.

35) Vote fraud is not my thing. I feel helpless relative to it. And, what's more, as I've said, I resisted bowing to it as a true threat. Logic made me change my mind. Why drop your polling standards from 1,500 to just over 700? You already controlled the questions and the model.

36) My answer is that polling's only roll to the UberDems is as tactical support to an already determined outcome. So, 1,500 won't show adequate Biden support? Let's take fewer numbers. This model of votes, D, I, or R won't support what we want? No problem. Let's find 700 who do.