Tags

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


trump-5-i

Today’s post will focus on DEMOGRAPHICS. 

But first, a quote from Leslie Wimes, a South Florida-based president of the Democratic African-American Women Caucus. 

 “Hillary Clinton’s campaign is in panic mode. Full panic mode,” said Leslie Wimes, a South Florida-based president of the Democratic African-American Women Caucus.

“They have a big problem because they thought Obama and Michelle saying, ‘Hey, go vote for Hillary’ would do it. But it’s not enough,” Wimes said, explaining that too much of the black vote in Florida is anti-Trump, rather than pro-Clinton. “In the end, we don’t vote against somebody. We vote for somebody.”

Before we go on, being the good Thomists that we are on this blog, a definition is in order.

What DEMOGRAPHICS refers to, in a nutshell, is the measurement of VOTING PATTERNS across different segments of society. When a polling entity (LEGIT) or a POLL-STER (FRAUDULENT) decides on creating a POLL, he first needs to make some base line assumptions. And the most important baseline assumptions are made as to the composition of the population that he will be sampling, or POLLING as in our case. These base line assumptions regarding DEMOGRAPHICS then decide how many demo-rats, republicans, independents, blacks, women, people aged 18-28 etc., will be included in the set (sample POPULATION) that is being sampled and their respective weightings. By the term “weighting”, what is meant is this: the percentage of the sample POPULATION that will each component comprise. For example, Black women will comprise 4.3% of the total sample POPULATION.

Quick summary. The two most important aspects of defining a sample set (POPULATION) are it’s composition and the respective weightings.

Now, the manner in which a POLLING entity constructs it’s sample POPULATION will determine whether the resulting POLL is LEGIT, or whether it is NOT, i.e. “GOAL SEEKING”.

And as you can no doubt tell, a POLL is “GOAL SEEKING” when it’s construction is designed to obtain a specific result.

The above is the background to understanding the significance of the email below. As we can read, this email “conveniently spells out, in detail, exactly how to “manufacture” the desired data”. : (see here)

trump-5-ii

Given the above, the next question that needs to be asked in this logical sequence is: why would Demo-rat-ic Party operatives want “independent” POLLING entities to corrupt their “OBJECTIVE” data?

The answer comes via a Zero Hedge post (see here) where we can read the following: (emphasis is from ZH)

I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.

In other words, the “media polling” was a part of a larger STRATEGY. Actually, the “media polling” based STRATEGY was so key, that this above email:

The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations.

The above “recommendations” for “POLLS” which allow for said parties to: “maximize what we get out of our media polling” were then used to build NARRATIVES.

The most famous, or rather INFAMOUS NARRATIVE that arose was the creation of a VIRTUAL REALITY that Sick, Crooked, Unelectable Hillary has already WON THE ELECTION.

One such example of this NARRATIVE at work can be DISCERNED from the catholic Zero Hedge blog post titled  Hillary Allies Think The Race Is Over As Trump Declares Himself The Debate Winner (see here) from the 20TH OF OCTOBER. This is what we call WEAPONIZING DESPONDENCY on this blog, a favorite tactic of TeamFrancis coincidently.

But back to the NARRATIVE.

So since the 20th of October when “Hillary Allies Think The Race Is Over” to the 2ND OF NOVERMBER (13 days) when we find a “Hillary Allies” IN PANIC MODE, as per citation at top of this postsomething seems to have happened.

What happened is that through WikiLeak, we obtained irrefutable PROOF of the above explained MECHANISM. The disclosure of the above MECHANISM forced one POLL-STER, namely ABC/Wapo, to “adjust” the sample POPULATION to “CLOSER” reflect OBJECTIVE REALITY and we had a 13% POINT “ADJUSTMENT” (to date) in their POLL results. Here is how ZeroHedge explained this PHENOMENON: (see here)

Now, while ABC / Wapo claim that the 10-point swing (in less than a week) was driven by changes in “who’s intending to vote,” we find it quite curious that their own data shows just a 2-point swing in people who said they were “certain to vote” on 10/23, when the poll reflected a 12-point Hillary lead, and 10/27 when the lead had collapsed to just 2 points.  So, are we really expected to believe that a 2-point swing in voter intentions somehow translated to a 10-point swing in the poll results?  Not likely…something tells us it had a little more to do with including ethnic ‘oversamples’ as required.”

So what the above is telling us is that just THIS adjustment in “ethnic oversamples” resulted in a 13% change in their poll results.

But this is not the end of the story. When they say “adjustment in ethnic oversamples“, what they are saying is that they just brought their POLL RESULTS to their initial BASE LINE ASSUMPTIONS. But this in no way means that their BASE LINE ASSUMPTIONS are not GOAL SEEKING in their design.

For this information, we go to the ZeroHege post mentioned above (see here) titled Hillary Camp In “Full Panic Mode” As Early Black Voter Turnout Plunges In Key Swing States. In this post, we can read the following: (emphasis ZH, emphasis DeusExMachina)

A few weeks ago we pointed out that Obama enjoyed massive, unprecedented spikes in black voter turnout in both the 2008 and 2012 elections.  After hovering around 50-55% for decades, black voter participation soared to over 60% in 2008 and 2012.  That said, in the past we’ve raised serious doubts over whether Hillary should expect the same level of enthusiasm from black voters in this election cycle or whether overall turnout of black voters would revert back to pre-Obama levels.

Unprecedented black voter turnout was a huge component of Obama’s victories in 2008 and 2012.  Per the chart below from the New York Times, after running in the low-to-mid 50% range for decades, black voter participation surged to over 60% for Obama in 2008 and 2012, the highest ever recorded.

So, the question is, should Hillary expect the same level of unprecedented black voter turnout that Obama was able to garner?  Apparently, her campaign is not convinced and that’s why, according to Leslie Wimes, President of the Democratic African-American Women Caucus, they’re in “full panic mode.”

What the above implies is that the BASE LINE ASSUMPTIONS that the “Hillary Allies” are working under, are those that were in place for the 2012 (and 2008) election cycle.

And naturally, the reason that the “Hillary Allies” are in PANIC MODE is that those BASE LINE ASSUMPTIONS that they have been working under are tuning out to be INCORRECT.

Or as the statistician would say: the POPULATION DATA IS CORRUPT.

So in this post, two examples from two BATTLEGROUND states are provided where this DATA CORRUPTION is becoming visible due to EARLY VOTING PATTERNS.

One state where EARLY VOTING PATTERNS are implying faulty (CORRUPT)  BASE LINE ASSUMPTIONS is North Carolina. Here is that passage: (emphasis DEM)

As a reminder, Mitt Romney won North Carolina in 2012 by slightly over 2 points.  Given that black voters usually favor democrats by 80-90%, simple math implies that a 7-point reduction in blacks as a percentage of the overall electorate would hurt Hillary by roughly 6 points versus the 2012 results….not encouraging to say the least.

And here is the summary of the situation in Florida:

According to a recent article by Politico, in 2008 and 2012, Obama received 95% of the 1.7mm votes cast by black voters in FloridaGiven that, simple math would imply that a 9.5-point reduction in blacks as a percentage of the overall electorate would hurt Hillary by roughly 9 points, versus the 2012 results, which is disastrous news for a state that Obama narrowly won by less than 1 point. 

Unfortunately for Hillary, a recent poll from Florida Atlantic University provides even more bad news.  While Obama received 95% of the black vote in Florida in 2012, Hillary is only polling at 68% among black voters while Trump is polling at 20%. 

Concluding, what we are seeing is COLLUSION between the SickHillary Campaign and various “independent” “information centers”. We see polls being produced that “oversample” certain ethnic DEMOGRAPHICS on top of having incorporated “oversampled” other DEMOGRAPHICS (Dem/Rep/Ind breakdown for example) as a part of their BASE LINE ASSUMPTIONS.

The situation that using such faulty methodology created was this: it made these POLL-STERS producing these CORRUPTED results and the PRESSTITUTES using these FAKE results the subject of ridicule after this MECHANISM was brought to light by WikeLeaks.

But there is a secondary and more important lesson to be learned here. It would appear that the perpetrators of this FRAUD, actually believed that the RESULTS that the POLL-STERS were providing, were an accurate depiction of OBJECTIVE REALITY.

And it is only now, with 5 days to go in the campaign that the FRAUDSTERS realize that they have woken up with their hand in the proverbial bedpan. 

And they are PANICING.

But it is too late.

Barring any unexpected last minute surprise, it would appear that the “fat lady” who Dick Motta, the former coach of the Chicago Bulls used to refer to, “has already sung”.

Chalk another one up to the Law of Unintended Consequences and maybe even to the true “God of surprises”.

Oh, and one more thing. The real “God of surprises” might not have uttered his last sound yet. At present, all the state election commissions have is sealed ballots. Once they start opening them and counting, is the moment when the “God of surprises” will bring their FAKE VIRTUAL REALITY in line with OBJECTIVE REALITY.

Let’s call that the ENCORE.

Advertisements