Objective evidence is pointing to Trump winning on Nov. 8. This may come as a big surprise to those already jockeying for Hillary Inauguration Day tickets. There are major disconnects between the evidence and the polls.
Are polling companies accurate, biased, or clueless?
Most major news outlets feature national and state polls with Clinton maintaining a five point lead that is slowly shrinking. However, the Investor’s Business Daily, Rasmussen, and the Los Angeles Times tracking polls are showing Trump pulling ahead.
All liberal, and many “Never Trump,” pundits have used these polls to declare Hillary the winner. On its Saturday morning show, National Public Radio (NPR) shifted to discussing how a Hillary White House would operate.
The media is hailing Hillary as the embodiment of 2016 as a “change” election.
Of course, the media means changing the sex of the Oval Office, not the policies.
What is real?
Polling is supposed to be a scientific sampling to achieve accurate insights predicting future results. 2016 seems to be more about fabricating samples and insights to shape future results. Not since the Harris Poll secretly inflated Humphrey’s support to show him leading Nixon by three points just before the 1968 election has polling been this partisan.
It is all about weighting turnout.
How many registered Republicans and Democrats will vote in 2016?
Most pollsters are assuming 2016 will have the same voter turnout ratio as 2008 and 2012.
They are asserting that November 8 will witness participation by 45 percent Democrats and 36 percent Republicans, just like the two highest Democrat turnouts in recent history.
Quinnipiac, Fox, Bloomberg, NBC-Wall Street Journal, and the RealClearPolitics average, all embrace this assumed Democratic dominance. This assertion automatically gives Hillary an Obama-sized victory.
This is promoted by the “mainstream media” as their narrative is that Americans are just as enthusiastic about electing the first woman as president as they were electing the first African-American.
The facts invalidate this narrative. This year’s primary battle saw a 35 percent increase in Republican participation, while Democrats fell by 26 percent.
Votes are generated as much from enthusiasm as inclination. The “fervor factor” for voter turnout manifests itself in crowds, yard signs, and social media following.
The media is hiding the great enthusiasm gap in the way they are covering, or covering-up, the candidate rallies. Trump’s crowds have totaled 342,955 as of a week ago. Hillary’s rallies have attracted only 13,970 during the same period.
This is where fantasy takes flight.
The media creates the impression of equal enthusiasm with tight shots of both candidates surrounded by supporters. The reality is that Hillary’s crowds, even for special events with former Vice President Al Gore, are counted in the 100s. Other Clinton rallies have been cancelled for lack of turnout. Trump’s crowds are counted in the tens of thousands.
A keen eye sees the Clinton banner peeking-out beyond just four rows of supporters.
A sharp ear knows Clinton’s applause and shouting sound like a small crowd.
Clinton is not using the sound amplifiers that faked enthusiasm at her convention. The media rarely pulls back to show Trump filling stadiums and field houses with zealous fans.
Clinton enthusiasm, outside of the media, is nonexistent. One observer recently mused “how can Hillary charge $250,000 for a speech, when no one turns out for her free ones?”
Contrast the microscopic Clinton crowds to the 100,000 people who turned out to hear Obama on October 18, 2008 in St. Louis, Mo. There is a definite disconnect. If Clinton is so far ahead, where are the Obama-sized crowds?
On social media Trump’s 10,951,235 Facebook “likes” bury Hillary’s 6,597,785. On YouTube, Trump’s videos attract 90.8 million to 24.9 million views for Clinton.
Drive anywhere in non-urban America and you see thousands of Trump signs. Many of these are in parts of states not known for Republican sympathies. Many others are in locations that have never displayed Presidential preference — until now.
Something very special is happening in our nation. Nov. 8 could shame many pundits and pollsters. Unfortunately, they have no shame.
Scot Faulkner is the best-selling author of: "Naked Emperors: The Failure of the Republican Revolution." He also served as the first chief administrative officer of the U.S. House, and was director of personnel for the Reagan campaign and went on to serve in the presidential transition team and on the White House staff. During the Reagan administration, he held executive positions at the FAA, the GSA, and the Peace Corps. Read more of Scot Faulker, Go Here Now.
© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.