Are The Polls Rigged Against Trump? All Of These Divergent Polls Cannot Be Correct

Some of these polls are going to turn out to be dead wrong.  With just over two weeks to go until election day, some surveys are showing a very tight race, while others say that Hillary Clinton has a massive lead.  For example, the tracking polls put out by Rasmussen, the L.A. Times and IBD/TIPP have all consistently shown that the race is either tied or Donald Trump is winning by a small margin.  But Fox News has Hillary Clinton ahead by six points, Bloomberg has Clinton ahead by nine points, and the latestABC News/Washington Post poll has Clinton ahead by twelve points.  So what in the world is going on here?  If the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll is correct, we are likely to see a landslide of historic proportions for Clinton, and this is what many of the experts are now projecting.  But if Rasmussen and the L.A. Times are correct, the race could easily go either way.  So who are we supposed to believe?  Could it be possible that some of the polls are rigged against Trump?

Well, when you take a closer look at the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, it does appear that it is not as accurate as it could be.  It turns out that those that conducted the survey purposely included 9 percent more Democrats than Republicans

“METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats – Republicans – Independents.”

But as Zero Hedge has pointed out, registered Democrats have never outnumbered registered Republicans by 9 percent at any point over the last several decades.

So how in the world can ABC News and the Washington Post possibly justify their methodology?

Other major surveys have also purposely oversampled Democrats.  The following comes from Gateway Pundit

With all the liberal distortions and dishonesty we decided to have a small team of actuarial and statistics professionals take a look at a couple of the recent polls to get their take on the reliability of these polls. They selected the recent FOX poll from October 14 showing Hillary up by 7 and the WSJ/NBC poll from October 16 showing Hillary with an 11 point lead.

The first observation is that both polls are heavily skewed towards Democrats. At a high level, the FOX poll consists of 43 Dems to 36 Reps to 21 Other while the NBC poll shows 44 Dems to 37 Reps to 19 Other.

By selecting more Dems the polls are designed to provide a Dem result.

Our experts next analyzed the data and calculated results using the same data from the two surveys on a split of 40 Dems, 40 Reps and 20 Other. The results show that using either sets of data Trump comes out ahead with a larger margin of victory using the FOX data.

Why would these major news organizations purposely try to give us distorted results?

One reason to do this would be to try to discourage Trump voters.  If they believe that Donald Trump is going to lose big, that might discourage some of them from going out to vote.

At this moment, the Real Clear Politics average of national polls has Trump down by 5.6 percent.  But some polls actually have him winning.  Here are the nine latest surveys that Real Clear Politics has compiled…

ABC News Tracking: Clinton +12

IBD/TIPP Tracking: Trump +2

Rasmussen Reports: Trump +2

Quinnipiac: Clinton +7

Economist/YouGov: Clinton +4

FOX News: Clinton +6

Bloomberg: Clinton +9

Reuters/Ipsos: Clinton +4

Monmouth: Clinton +12

There is a 14 point swing between the polls that show Trump up by 2 points and the polls that show Clinton up by 12 points.

This should not be happening.  There is no way in the world that there should be a 14 point difference between scientific polls at this stage in the game.  On November 8th the polling organizations that were way off are going to be exposed, and it will be exceedingly difficult for them to regain their credibility afterwards.

At this point, some of the largest news organizations in the country are openly projecting a Clinton landslide.  For example, Reuters says that Clinton now has a 95 percent chance of winning

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is on a definite path to the White House, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation poll.

The survey, released Saturday, found that Clinton is on track to win more than 300 votes in the Electoral College, which would solidly secure her the presidency. If the election were held this week, Clinton would win 326 Electoral College votes while Trump would win only 212, the poll said.

According to Reuters, Clinton currently has a 95 percent chance of winning the White House.

If Reuters isn’t right about this they are going to end up looking awfully foolish.

An analysis by the Associated Press also has Clinton as the overwhelming favorite.  And it is true that the poll results coming out of individual states seem to show Clintonwith a seemingly insurmountable lead on the electoral map.

But once again, can we trust those polls?

Trump has regularly dismissed the national polls, but on Sunday his campaign manager did admit on national television that they are losing.  The following comes from the New York Post

Donald Trump’s campaign manager on Sunday acknowledged something her boss hates to do — losing.

“We are behind,” Kellyanne Conway admitted on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

The GOP nominee routinely brushes off negative polling as untrustworthy but Conway said Democrat Hillary Clinton does have an edge.

However, it is important to remember that the big national polls have been very wrong in the past.  Back in 1980, a Gallup survey that was released on October 26th showed Ronald Reagan trailing Jimmy Carter by 8 points, but of course Reagan went on to win the election by a landslide

“For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings,” wroteJohn F. Stacks for TIME in April 1980. “In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and challenger Ronald Reagan was ‘too close to call.’ A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.

“But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote — a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the electoral college, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-1 avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia.”

Could a similar thing happen on November 8th?

Without a doubt, Trump supporters are far more enthusiastic than Clinton supporters are, and that matters.  The key on election day is to get your voters to turn out in large numbers, and the fact that Donald Trump is drawing record crowds to his rallies is a very good sign.

But even if Donald Trump legitimately wins the election, it could still be stolen from him via election fraud.

In recent days Democrats have been playing down the idea that this could possibly happen, but the truth is that even Barack Obama has admitted that election fraud is a major problem in the past.  For instance, just consider what he said about this back in 2008

“Well, I tell you what it helps in Ohio, that we got Democrats in charge of the machines,” Obama said regarding the threat of election-rigging.

He continued, “Whenever people are in power, they have this tendency to try to tilt things in their direction. That’s why we’ve got to have, I believe, a voting rights division in the Justice Department that is nonpartisan, and that is serious about investigating cases of voter fraud.”

“That’s why we need paper trails on these new electronic machines so that you actually have something that you can hang on to after you’ve punched that letter—make sure it hasn’t been hacked into,” he added, admitting that even Democrats have “monkeyed around” with election results:

“I want to be honest, it’s not as if it’s just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too.”

I know that these comments almost sound too good to be true, but you can actually watch video of Obama making these comments right here.  And it is odd that he specifically mentioned Democrats having control of the voting machines in Ohio, because I documented extreme voting irregularities in Ohio in the last election during a recent visit to Morningside.

And an increasing number of Americans are starting to become concerned about election fraud.  In fact, a brand new Reuters survey found that 70 percent of Republicans believe that if Hillary Clinton wins the election it will be “because of illegal voting or vote rigging”.

So even if Hillary Clinton gets into the White House, she may find that she has an exceedingly difficult time trying to govern the nation.

A lot of people have made a lot of predictions about the outcome of this election, and we don’t have very long until we find out who was right and who was wrong.

At this point, voting has already begun in many states, and the early results in Nevadadon’t look encouraging for the Trump campaign

According to the estimable Nevada journalist Jon Ralston, Democrats have a 20-percentage-point turnout edge so farbased on early and absentee voting in Clark County (home to Las Vegas), Nevada. And they have a 10-point edge in Washoe County (home to Reno).

But in the key swing state of Florida, so far 498,153 Republicans have voted compared to just 478,175 Democrats.  So that would seem to be some very good news for the Trump campaign, because Trump cannot win without carrying the state of Florida.

To me it seems as though Americans are more emotionally invested in this campaign than they have been in any presidential campaign in decades.

The stakes are incredibly high, and in just over two weeks we will find out what happens.

Let us just hope and pray that America makes the right choice.

Free "dummies guide" to trading options

Did you know trading options can actually be safer and more profitable than buying and selling stocks? Video and plain English training guide reveals how to get started tonight. 100% free.

Download now.

You May Also Like

About the Author: The Economic Collapse Blog

  • JohnDille

    WHAT… TRUMP IS RUNNING FOR DOG CATCHER SOMEWHERE??? IN DOGPATCH USA… OR IN OUTER SLOBOVIA, PERHAPS??? OLD GUYS LIKE ME WILL CATCH THOSE REFERENCES!!! THINK… LI’L ABNER… BY AL CAPP!!! CAPP WAS A RIGHT WINGER… BUT AT LEAST HE HAD A GOOD SENSE OF HUMOR!!!

  • JohnDille

    A strange, fascinating story broke last week, one that contains the darkness of the Trump campaign and that has, like the Trump campaign at times, the cadence of a joke. A thirty-two-year-old man named Colin Lokey confessed to Bloomberg that, until days earlier, he had been one of the unknown authors of Zero Hedge, a blog that combines analysis of the financial markets, emphasizing the essential corruption of Wall Street, with what CNNMoney once called “a deeply conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic view of the world.” Each post on Zero Hedge is written under the pseudonym Tyler Durden, Brad Pitt’s character from “Fight Club,” a workingman’s nihilist. Lokey revealed to Bloomberg last week that Durden was actually three men: two wealthy financial analysts, Daniel Ivandjiiski and Tim Backshall, and Lokey, a recent M.B.A. from East Tennessee State University—their hired hand.

    By his own account, Lokey was writing as many as fifteen posts a day, among them most of the political pieces. The gig had a certain formula, he told Bloomberg: “Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry= dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft.” For Zero Hedge, Syria was a special obsession, a sign of the essential strength of authoritarian regimes and the weakness of democracies. (“Putin Is Winning the Final Chess Match with Obama,” one Zero Hedge article claimed last fall.) The pace of the propaganda was too much for Lokey; last month, he checked himself into a hospital, believing he was on the verge of a panic attack. The populism seemed false to him. “Two guys who live a lifestyle you can only dream of are pretending to speak for you,” he wrote. The “unmasking” that Bloomberg promised in its headline was really two, one inside the other. Remove the Tyler Durden mask and there were Backshall and Ivandjiiski, two successful bankers pushing populism. Remove the mask again and there was Lokey, pretending to be them. “This isn’t a revolution,” Lokey wrote. “It’s a joke.”

    The suspicion that populist revolutionaries might not mean everything they say has surrounded Trump’s campaign from the beginning. His personal ambition to be President has seemed almost painfully obvious, but about the populist nature of his candidacy there has been more room for doubt. The wall at the border, the religious tests for immigrants: Could he really mean that? Last week, Paul Manafort, one of Trump’s chief advisers, tried to reassure Republican National Committee members that the candidate has been simply “playing a part” for the primaries. Then Trump doubled down on some of his most outrageous positions. The wink between Trump and his supporters has been so sustained that it’s hard to tell which parts of his populism each side understands as theatre, and which parts are for real.
    THESE WERE THE OPENING PARAGRAPHS OF A STORY PUBLISHED IN THE ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, BACK IN MAY. THAT AND OTHER SUCH STORIES… WHICH CAN BE FOUND SIMPLY BY PAYING ATTENTION… SHOWS CLEARLY THAT THE WHOLE TRUMP THING… JUST LIKE ALL TOP RIGHT WINGERS… ARE ELITISTS HAVING FUN WITH PUPPETS LIKE YOU… TELLING YOU WHATEVER LIES AND BALONEY YOU WANT TO HEAR… ALL TO SERVE THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS… OR JUST TO HAVE FUN BY MOCKING IDIOTS LIKE YOU!!! NOW… AREN’T YOU ASHAMED OF SUPPORTING TRUMP AND THE FAR RIGH??? IF NOT, YOU SHOULD BE!!!

  • sugmag

    This says it all.

  • Rick

    There is not a thread of truth in you Odille. You are completely deceived, and indoctrinated.

  • Paul

    Trump is going to win by a huge margin.

  • Fox

    36 minus 27 = 9, then 9 divided by 27 is 33% more Dems than Repubs! Not 9% more. Totally skewed in favor of Hillary!

  • JohnDille

    SOMEONE TELLS YOU THE TRUTH… AND YOU INSULT THEM??? THAT MEANS THAT YOU ARE THE FOOL!!! OR JUST ANOTHER RIGHT WINGER!!! SAME THING OBVIOUSLY!!!

  • Rick

    You will be a fool until your last breath Odille.

  • JohnDille

    ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS ARE RIGHT WING LIES AND BALONEY!!! ALL OF THEM!!! ANY LEGITIMATE POLLSTER WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT I JUST SAID!!! TOO BAD YOU ONLY BELIEVE LIES AND BALONEY!!! BUT… THAT MAKES YOU JUST ANOTHER RIGHT WING IDIOT, DOESN’T IT!!!

  • JohnDille

    YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT BRAIN DEAD PEOPLE ONLY VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS… MOST ESPECIALLY RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS!!! AND THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE HIRED MANY MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS, SO THEY CAN BULLY AND CHEAT ILLEGAL WORKERS!!!

  • JohnDille

    REAL AMERICANS WOULD APPLAUD SOMEWHAT LIBERAL JUDGES. THE ONLY TIME AMERICA IMPOVES IS WHN LIBERALS ARE IN CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT… A SITUATION THAT HAS NOT OCCURRED IN WELL OVER 40 YEARS!!! WHICH IS WHY AMERICA HAS BEEN IN DECLINE SINCE THE EARLY 1970’S!!!

  • JohnDille

    POOR RIGHT WINGERS… SO ANXIOUS FOR DER FURHER TRUMP TO WIN, THEY WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING!!! THE WHOLE POLLING ISSUE DESCRIBED ABOVE IS SOLVED BY ACTUALLY READING HOW THE LA TIMES OPERATES ITS POLLING. I RAN ACROSS IT THE OTHER DAY… AND THEIR POLLING IS WEIGHTED FOR ENTHUSIASM!!! THAT IS… AN ENTHUSIASTIC TRUMP SUPPORTER.. PROPERLY BRAIN WASHED… COUNTS 2 AND EVEN 3 TIMES AS MUCH AS THE TYPICAL DEMOCRAT, WHO SUPPORTS CLINTON ONLY BECAUSE SHE IS THE ONLY DEMOCRAT IN THE RACE. OF COURSE, ON ELECTION DAY… THE VOTES OF THE ENTHUSIASTIC TRUMP SUPPORTER AND THE LACK LUSTER CLINTON SUPPORTER… COUNTS EXACTLY THE SAME!!! POLLING MYSTERY SOLVED… THE LA TIMES POLL IS RIGGED IN TRUMPS FAVOR. MOST OTHER POLLS ARE HONEST… AND SIMPLY SHOW THAT… AT ANY GIVEN TIME… PEOPLES OPINIONS VARY… AND THAT WHO YOU ASK ALSO VARIES. BOTH OF THOSE REALITIES ARE WELL KNOWN TO LEGITIMATE POLLSTERS! BUT REPUBLICANS… MOST ESPECIALLY RIGHT WINGERS… ARE NEVER HAPPY WITH HONEST POLLS… OR HONEST ANYTHING ELSE, FOR THAT MATTER!!!

  • Rick

    If HilLIAR wins, our country is ignorant beyond repair. She will put ultra liberal judges on the supreme court. The USA will be lost forever.

  • Eileen

    I was skeptical when I first read the subject line of the article; pollsters are aware that the public knows that they skew the results so recently they have tried to hide it in other ways, such as having more highly educated white men (like academics or lawyers) way out of proportion to what would be expected in a truly random sample. Other polls have included 50% more African Americans than their actual proportion of registered voters; others have included 25% more women. All of these would skew the results towards Clinton.

    Independent analysts who comment on polls have taken to Twitter to broadcast the skew and some even say, in a REAL sample, the results would be …. I find it interesting that while these Clinton-landslide polls have come out, Twitter’s URL did not work. Coincidence? Maybe.

    Although the Democrats have always found voters to swing a state Democratic, they always had enough dead voters or others until this election; the number of people who are voting for Donald Trump is way more than they thought and are now scrambling to find new voters. Given that the election is less than 3 weeks away, they may not have enough time, so they are now playing a psyops game with Trump supporters, trying to convince them NOT to show up because “she is so far ahead”.

    Most independent analysis of the Electoral college think that there is NO way either candidate can get much more than 270, given the history of voter fraud or election stealing that is AT LEAST 50 years old. Currently there are about 150 EC up for grabs with each candidate around the 170-195 delegate count. What is NOT being mentioned is that California and a couple of other Democratic leaning states have CHANGED their rules (which they are allowed to do) to give their EC votes to the WINNER of the popular vote; IMO, this is why Clinton is concentrating on rigging the total vote count rather than the EC, because 55 EC votes can give either candidate the 270 needed.So far, the only way she can do it is by either suppressing Donald Trump voters or getting foreigners, whether they are US nationals or not, to vote for her. She doesn’t have enough dead people.

  • John Hasse

    You have to remember that dead people and illegal immigrants mostly vote Democrat.