How did the media get the 2016 presidential election so wrong? Easy. They lied to us.
The most common trick the media pulled in 2016 was to over-sample registered Democrats to create a story. Democrats will tend to vote for Clinton and Republicans will tend to vote Trump. By asking more people that will likely vote for Clinton their preference, you will get a poll showing her winning.
— HuffPost (@HuffPost) November 7, 2016
The US population is 29% registered Republican, 33% registered Democrat, and 38% Independent (according to 2012 post election data). But when you look at the polling methodology, the polls will have 45% Democrat, 25% Republican, and 30% Independent. Of course Clinton looks like she’s ahead in those polls! But they don’t reflect real life turnout, as seen by the results of the election.
Here’s a user that takes polling data directly from reuters.com and draws conclusions.
What does the graph say in simple English?
The red and blue lines track Trump and Clinton, respectively.
The green line is the percent difference between the number of Democrats and Republicans. The higher the green line is, the more Democrats they put in the poll to make Clinton’s numbers go up. As the green line goes, so does the blue line.
So why does the green line rise and dip? Why wouldn’t the pollsters keep the polls the same to be factually accurate? Because the media wanted to construct stories about Clinton or Trump rising or falling in the polls!
The 2016 exit polls from 5 hours ago are, so far, the worst and least accurate we've ever seen.#ElectionNight
— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) November 9, 2016
Democratic Convention “bump”
On the far left of the graph, we can see the green line is at 0. This means the polls are roughly reflecting reality of equal parts Democrat and Republican. Look and see that Trump was winning when the polls weren’t skewed. Trump was ahead the entire time!
The Democratic National Convention was held from 7-25 to 7-28. Look what the pollsters did: they started wildly oversampling Democratic voters to make it look like Hillary was pulling away.
The opinion of the general population didn’t change. The pollsters just started asking more Democrats who they’d vote for. Because they wanted to create a story about Clinton winning.
First Presidential Debate: 9-26-16
Again, the oversampling stops right before the debate because the media wants to create a story where Clinton scored a resounding debate win over Trump.
Pollsters pulled their polls or didn’t show their polls when Trump was far ahead
Reuters had a poll up on election day showing Trump up by 6 points (his soon-to-be margin of victory). They pulled down not only that day, but all days back to November 1st. Why 11/1? Because that was the last day Clinton was winning in their polls.
Looks like Reuters has pulled their 11/7 poll down. Now shows 11/1. No idea. Link was to 11/7. https://t.co/HtWhO8Plhx
— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) November 8, 2016
RealClearPolitics.com simply refused to update their polls if Trump was winning. So there were months-old polls still up by election day. And these months-old polls showed Clinton winning.
2012 vs 2016 Primary Turnout
Presidential primary turnout is a great indicator of general election turnout. It has been an accurate predictor of the past several elections.
Republican turnout was up 62%. Democrat turnout was down 21%. And yet every pollster still thought that grossly oversampling Democrats was a good idea.
TheGatewayPundit.com corrected for increased Republican enthusiasm in the polls and found Trump easily winning. The truth was always right in front of us, but the pollsters hid it.
Two weeks before the election, the polls mysteriously went from +12 Clinton to +2 Clinton
From a 50-38 percent Clinton lead over Donald Trump […] it’s a 47-45 percent contest in the latest results.
This was several days before FBI Director Comey re-opened the felony case against Clinton, so it couldn’t be that. In a week of zero new news, Clinton bizarrely collapsed in the polls. This isn’t possible.
It was pollsters trying to salvage their post-election reputation because they knew Trump would win. They all unskewed the polls because they saw the writing on the wall. If Trump won with a +2 Clinton lead and a margin of error of +-3, then the pollsters could claim it was just chance and that their methods correctly accounted for it. But Trump winning after showing all the polls +12 for Clinton would destroy their professional credibility.
Why did the media do this?
They are bought and paid for. Here is the Clinton campaign asking for poll over-samples to use in released WikiLeaks emails. WikiLeaks has a perfect 10 year reputation for only releasing verified true material.
The following links are a tiny sample of how the Clinton campaign was working closely with the media, telling the media what to report,
- The New York Times asking for Clinton campaign help to paint Trump as extremist: “[Bill Clinton], Mrs. Clinton, and the campaign all agree that they will need to seize on opportunities to paint Trump as extremist and recklessly impulsive.”
- Here the Democratic party is advising Wolf Blitzer on questions for Donald Trump.
- Donna Brazile, former head of the Democratic party and CNN correspondent, sent Hillary’s team the questions to be asked before the primary debate with Bernie Sanders. Donna was fired by CNN for this.
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz, former head of the Democratic party, met with MSNBC vice president to stop criticism of Clinton on their network. Debbie would later be fired for voter fraud in the Democratic primaries.
- Ariana Huffington of the Huffington Post preferred not to be on the board with the Clinton campaign, but preferred to work for the Clinton campaign covertly. The Huffington Post, which directly cooperated with the Clinton campaign, were the same ones that included an editor’s blurb on every article mentioning Trump that he was a “racist, xenophobe, Islamaphobe, Nazi, Hitler”. Now that Clinton has lost, HuffPo is removing that blurb. If they really thought Donald Trump was those things, why would they remove it? Because that blurb came at the request of the Clinton campaign. It was completely made up.
- Frank Islam of the Huffington Post to Clinton campaign chair John Podesta: “I am committed to make sure [Clinton] is elected as the next president of the United States.“
- Magie Haberman of Politico works closely with the Clinton campaign: “We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed.”
The only thing @NateSilver538 and @FiveThirtyEight got right about Trump all election season
Check the date of this tweet.
Reminder: Cubs will win the World Series and, in exchange, President Trump will be elected 8 days later. https://t.co/lej7TXnnju
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) May 11, 2016
Newspaper endorsements for Trump: 1
Newspaper endorsements for Clinton: 41
The same people that rigged the polls were the same people disparaging Donald Trump
The media already lied to us about the polls. We all saw the election.
(Like this post? You’d love my book Meme Magic: How Stupid Pictures of Badly Drawn Frogs Influenced the 2016 Election)