, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


What is wrong with this picture? Hint: The average margin of error on these 7 spreads shown is only 3%.

Boy, what a weekend. The information flow is so intense, that it is hard to figure out what to write about.

Of special interest to my dear, loyal readers should be the following subject matter in the post titled Wikileaks Releases Part 15 Of The Podesta Files, Bringing Total To 26,095 Emails (see here). NB: Part 16 is already out – see here. Also, increaded military presence outside Ecuador Embassy in London all weekend. (see here).

Aside, I am beginning to see this WikiLeaks as an act of Providence. Excuse the digression…

The reason that it should be of interest is that in this post, we are supplied with MATERIAL EVIDENCE of how the CROOKED, CORRUPT MAIN STREAM Agit/Prop MEDIA creates the VIRTUAL REALITY that we are observing at present. Specifically, what we are observing in this particular email traffic is how a NARRATIVE gets created and disseminated. Here is the Modus Operandi: (emphasis added)

Some examples of journalists who will be taking Saturday off, are named in the following July 8, 2015 email from Jesse Lehrich to John Podesta which lays out how the “friendly” press helps in article scheduling to spin a given narrative:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015, Jesse Lehrich <jlehrich@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:
July 8th Nightly Press Traffic Summary

  • Peter Nicholas (WSJ) is doing a story for Friday on caucus organizing efforts and the Sanders campaign’s theory that caucuses will be good for them in the same way that they were for Obama. We’ve pushed back with our theory of the case, including our strong organizing effort in Iowa and beyond.
  • Per CTR, Amy Chozick is working on story for this weekend about how the GOP will attack Hillary, will likely include focus group data suggesting that trustworthiness and being out-of-touch will be top targets.
  • Maggie Haberman is doing a write-through of her story on Hillary Clinton’s claim that she had never been subpoenaed for tomorrow’s paper which will include the statement we put out this afternoon.
  • Michael Scherer (TIME) is working on a story delving into the claim that Hillary Clinton was under no obligation to turn over 55,000 pages of emails.
  • Steven Holmes (CNN) is working on a piece with the premise that the black vote is the firewall for Hillary Clinton and Sanders is unlikely to make major inroads there.
  • Annie Linskey (Boston Globe) is writing for Friday about new fundraising hosts getting involved in this campaign, specifically females.
  • Jeremy Diamond (CNN) is doing a piece about the politics of the BDS movement. It will place heavy focus on the nuances and forces at play around Hillary Clinton’s letter that was sent to presidents of major Jewish organizations condemning BDS.
  • Huffington Post is doing a piece on our treasurer Jose Villareal — will likely focus at least partially on him sitting on the Walmart board.
  • Other outstanding stories include:
    • Ruby Cramer on our grassroots organizing
    • Anita Kumar (McClatchy) on where we have organizers and how we’ve spent our money during Q2
    • Mike Memoli on our email listbuilding
    • Phil Rucker on HRC talking about gun violence prevention
    • Maggie Haberman/Pat Healy on the costs of Hillary’s progressive proposals
    • Annie Karni on the progression of our media strategy
    • CNN’s long-form story about Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders’ appeal to minority communities.

Simply amazing…

What we are reading above is nothing more than the information units of a political campaign disseminating its NARRATIVE through its media appendages. This above is nothing short of what was called the Department of Agitation and Propoganda in the Soviet Union. The term that arose from this department was Agitprop and is defined as follows: (see here)

Agitprop (/ˈætprɒp/; from Russian: агитпроп [ɐɡʲɪtˈprop], derived from agitation and propaganda)[1] is stage plays, pamphlets, motion pictures and other art forms with an explicitly political message.

In today’s version of the Department of Agitation and Propoganda, we see actors disguised as “journalists” staging FRAUDULANT news reports, articles, videos and other forms of “pseudo-jornalistic” material for the purpose of electing the candidate of the political party for which their “news” organizations are “in the tank”.

One area in which the AGITPROP MEDIA is particularly focused on, in this election cycle is the area of POLLING. This area also has been of particular interest to your humble blogger due to firstly, having a reasonably good grasp of the academic area of statistics and secondly, identifying POLLING as a major problem in other recent elections, both parliamentary and referendum. These statistical anomalies your humble blogger observed in the Polish Presidential Election (see here), the UK Brexit Referendum (see here) and the Austrian Presidential Election (see here) just to name three. On an aside, this is a global PHENOMENON and the same actors are involved.

Note bene: We have labeled these OCCURRENCES as a part of what we termed the NORMALIZATION PROCESS™. And it is this NORMALIZATION PROCESS™ that we are observing in the US Presidential Election at present.

So now on to the subject matter at hand. A great example of this AGITPROP MEDIA and the FRAUDULENT POLLING comes via the catholic Zero Hedge website. In a post titled Here’s The 30 Seconds After The Last Debate That CNN Would Rather You Didn’t See (see here) one can peak behind the curtain to see the OBJECTIVE REALITY that is trying to be covered up by a VIRTUAL REALITY.

The VIRTUAL REALITY being presented to the gullible audience is the following:


And as the post title states, the last 30 seconds gives the plebs the OBJECTIVE REALITY.

Couple things to notice about the audience. This is a focus group. The idea behind a focus group is to identify and assemble what is called a “representative sample”. This “representative sample” is constructed to replicate the electorate at large. Please keep this in mind when reading the following OBSERVATIONS.

Now we pick up with the Zero Hedge post:

So when the CNN focus group was asked “did this debate help anyone make up their mind or possibly change their vote”, the results did not turn out how Goebbels they expected…

  • 5 Clinton
  • 10 Trump
  • 0 3rd Party
  • 6 Undecided

What should be of interest to you dear reader is the absolute values of the results. What I mean by this is that in this “representative sample”, what we see is that as of the night of the 3rd Debate, Trump already had 10 of 21 votes (47.6%) while Sick Hillary only had 5 of 21 votes ( 23.8%).

Next, of the 6 of 21 votes (28.6%) still undecided, Sick Hillary would have to get 6 of these 6 votes (100%) to beat Trump. (5 +6 > 10, Yes?)

Aside, one now can understand why there have been no “voter excitement” polls produced lately. But I digress…

And this is a Clinton News Network focus group!

Let that sink in…

As to the undecided voters, one can make the ASSUMPTION that those undecideds are what is known as INDEPENDENT voters. And with the INDEPENDENT voters, it appears that they are in the Trump column. (see here and the thought process is explained here).

Concluding, as we see from the DATA POINTS above, the race for the White House is not like what we are being led to believe. And just to cement the point, allow me to bring Salil Mehta via Statistical Ideas blog back into the picture (see here and here).

In a post titled Statistician Warns Americans To “Ignore The Capricious Polls” (see here), here are some INFERENCES drawn from the POLLING DATA:

Sea of faulty polls

In this article we cover the theoretical bases for two interconnected ideas that we’ve discussed recently:

(a) that the empirical polling results are not as dire as current landslide mainstream media projections make it out to be, and

(b) many polls are oscillating about impossibly low probabilities right now for Donald Trump

This year is genuinely unique in merging several fundamental aspects, with a largely disenfranchised voting base across the country (i.e., record undecideds), and pollsters unable or unwilling to properly assess the true probability for Mr. Trump (and their incoherent polls evidence this).  This is not a matter of apologizing for the ground-level odds currently shown by mainstream media, or that the average Hillary Clinton lead is merely unsustainably high.  This loses the forest through the trees, as we theoretically prove here.

I will stop here.

In the next post, I will address why “reputable” “news” and “polling” organizations are putting their credibility, not to mention their business models on the line by producing FRAUDULENT POLLS in a desperate attempt to sustain the VIRTUAL REALITY that Sick Hillary is ahead in the polls.

So stay tuned sports fans…