Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Almost every day, I check the Presidential polls at RealClearPolitics, and then I shake my head. Ordinarily, there is some variation. This year, however, the differential is dramatic. Right now, for example, CNN/ORC has Clinton ahead by five points. Rasmussen Reports has Trump ahead by two. IBD/TIPP has it all tied up. The ABC News Tracking Poll has Hillary ahead by a whopping twelve, and the LA Times Tracking Poll (not listed by RealClearPolitics) has her ahead by one point.
There may be some method to this madness. I can think of two alternative explanations. The first is that the pollsters do not know what they are doing; the second is that some fancy footwork is going on.
It is easy to see why the pollsters might be baffled. When they do a poll, they ordinarily take a sample, and then they make adjustments after comparing their sample with the population (i.e., either the general population or the voting population). They want their sample to be representative of women and men; the various ethnic groups; Catholics, Protestants of various stripes, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and the like; Republicans, Democrats, and Independents; and so forth and so on. So they weight the sample in light of these categories to make sure that it is representative. In ordinary circumstances, this is tolerably easy to do. When the world is in flux, a lot of guesswork is involved. This year there will be Republicans voting for Hillary Clinton and Democrats voting for Donald Trump. They all note this, and they try to adjust. Polling is not a science. It is an art. So the differential could be due to the fact that some of the pollsters are — in all honesty — making the wrong assumptions.
The other possibility is that we are on the receiving end of a massive con — and that the polling results are designed to encourage or discourage voting on the part of the supporters of one candidate or the other.
Here, Wikileaks may be of use for, as Tyler Durden at Zerohedge informs us, the recent dump of emails shows that John Podesta received a message some time ago from Atlas Reports, detailing how to produce polls of use to the Clinton campaign by way of oversampling certain groups, and he points out that the recent polls by Reuters, Pravda-on-the-Potomac, and, yes, ABC News have greatly oversampled Democrats.
The name of the game could be to subvert the Republicans and depress voting for their candidates by conveying to the general public that the election is over, that Trump has already lost, and that there is no point in turning out. Would such respected outfits as CNN. Reuters, Pravda-on-the-Hudson, and ABC News be party to such a maneuver?
Would these and other news outlets work closely in tandem with the Clinton campaign to get the Republicans to nominate Donald Trump, to protect Hillary Clinton from interrogation, and to trash Trump after he got the nomination?
Of course, not. That would be unAmerican. Right?
This year, I have no idea where the corruption stops. We can trust the FBI. Right?