Hillary’s post-DNC bounce was virtually unregisterable, which could mean big problems for the Clinton machine, moving forward… —>
Originally appeared on ConservativeRefocus.com
In what some insiders consider as one of the few truly reflective of reality polls, outside of the media tinkering on display concurrently, the USC / LA Times Dornsife poll shows Trump maintaining his lead by almost 5 points, despite the much anticipated post-DNC convention bounce for Hillary, or at least bump, in this particular case.
Trump’s lead, according to the daybreak poll of 2,220 Americans, shows Trump at 46.1% to Clinton’s 41.89%, a lead of about 4 points.
Prior to the Democrat convention, Trump’s lead had expanded to a more than healthy 45.1% to 41.7% making Hillary’s post-DNC bounce a rather lethargic one point improvement, overall, in the two candidates likelihood of being elected.
In effect, the RNC convention produced a Trump bounce of about 3 points, while Clinton’s numbers declined substantially, at the same time.
However, in the case of the DNC convention, Hillary’s increase or bounce was only about 1/3rd the amount of Trump’s bounce, making the RNC convention substantially more successful than the DNC’s flagless erection.
But, there appears to be more to this particular story than a comparatively bounceless convention for the former secretary of state.
The domestic and international media, according to the popular website Zerohedge, has actually begun both altering the way it produces its polling questions and tinkering with the way it displays polling data in order to produce the desired results, in favor of Hillary Clinton.
“Over the past week, there was a troubling development for the establishment: Trump was soaring in the polls. In fact, in the widely watched, Reuters/IPSOS poll, for the first time [ in this poll] Trump had taken an inexcusable 1 point lead following the Republican National convention.”
“So, as we reported last night, something had to be done. And something was done: Reuters “tweaked” its polling methodology.
As a result, Reuters/Ipsos is amending the wording of the choice and eliminating the word “Neither,” bringing the option in line with other polls.
“Here is the real reason for the methodology change: according to Reuters “the inclusion of the word “Neither” is capturing Soft Trump supporters who, if given such an option, prefer not to make a choice. Here it is important to note that the soft supporter phenomenon also affects Clinton, but to a much lesser degree.”
As a result, the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll – pre-Friday evening – had Trump 40.2%, Clinton 38.5%, but, on a “pro forma” basis, eliminating “Neither” from the “Neither/Other” answer produced a different result. In that case, Clinton was ahead, 40% to 36%.
In other words, the real reason for the “tweak” was to push Hillary back in the lead simply due to a change in the question phrasing methodology.”
But, does the globalist media actually believe that altering poll results will somehow lead to altered election results?
Apparently, they do, or at least they hope they do, however, the results more likely falls in the category of wishful thinking than political reality.
In fact, we’ve seen this phenomenon more and more of late, as public attitudes are becoming increasingly divorced from the elite media’s somnambulated sentiments.
The Brexit vote, in the United Kingdom, was a prime example.
In the Brexit case, one of the most-followed polls from the globalist Financial Times, produced a false result in exact opposition to the actual result of the vote in which the Brits bid a hearty farewell to the increasingly autocratic EU.
The answer, According to Business Insider:
“Britain is still reeling from the shock of its Brexit referendum, in which the UK voted 52%-48% in favour of leaving the EU.
The people to blame for this shock are the pollsters, who consistently predicted a Remain majority before the final result, which went to Leave.”
So, the polls were and are increasingly wrong, but is it a case of the numbers being circumspectively contrived or is it mere happenstance or something else altogether? The Pew center indicates that the following variables are at work now, as opposed to in times past when polls actually meant something:
“Phone polls don’t work anymore, and even online polls are inaccurate
Polls undercount voters who are hard to reach
Graduates are over-represented in polls
Polls fail to add “attitudinal weights.”
Turnout models are wrong.
Models for reallocation of “don’t know” responses are wrong” (bingo in our case)
Indeed, when it comes to modern-day polling, the devil is in the details, as it turns out, especially when a corrupt and substantially infiltrated mainstream media is the political faction in charge of engineering the desired results.
In essence, in the modern day, when microsecond access to data, people, and information, is unrivaled in the history of mankind, obtaining accurate poll results should be a veritable walk in the park as compared to the not-so-long-ago period when access to hand-held and otherwise digital information portals, was virtually impossible.
The co-opted analysts in charge of administering the polls are, in effect, creating a strawman-excuse when they whimper that accurate results are no longer possible. In fact, one need only view the more accurate but less media-driven polls, which have been more often than not, correct, to ascertain this most basic of opposing arguments.
The more plausible explanation, in fact, can be found in theoretical physics under the heading of “Schrodinger’s cat” in which a thought experiment reveals that an observer’s expectation can actually influence the results of an experiment.
In this case, a cat is placed in a sealed box with implements producing the possibility of either a life or death outcome for the cat based on whether or not the interaction of the implements, or the lack thereof, results in the life or death of the cat.
Schrodinger’s equation indicates that the expectation of the scientific observer, in effect, actually has an effect on the results.
Broken down, this particular illustration delivers the answer to observation bias, in this way:
“The observation or measurement itself affects an outcome so that the outcome as such does not exist unless the measurement is made. (That is, there is no single outcome unless it is observed.)”
Some, in fact, boil the explanation down to this simplest of rules, in that the expected outcome is the actual event that is observed when it comes to certain experiments, which inarguably, a poll–in scientific parlance–is an experimentintended to produce an answer to a question.
But, as with all things in both life and in equations, erroneous data input will always produce erroneous empirical results.
The major difference in the modern-day as opposed to in times past is another simple fact that in times past, the observers (those being the media) did not have such a political stake in the game, as in these days of the modern media almost completely co-opted and therefore dominated by collectivist (Euro-thought) attitudes.
On a more positive note, an election is not an experiment, and therefore cannot be so easily affected by the political establishment’s expected (or desired) outcome.
The simple fact will always remain that those polls (or experiments) that are produced without an expected or desired outcome, will tend to reflect the more accurate result than those administered by sycophants; the mere problem is finding them.