I’ve doggedly ignored refused to pay much attention to the campaigning this year, although obviously I’m no different than anyone else—the election has been very much on my mind. Part of the reason for the lack of attention has been a trust deficit—lack of trust in the electoral system, the candidates, the donor class, and the polling. Today may be as good a time as any to take a look at that last item.
Breitbart has drawn attention to an interesting data point that appears to get us past the day to day polling results. This is just an excerpt:
Polling Dynamics
Mitchell noted that Trump appears stronger in swing states than in past cycles.
“He’s doing way better than he ever has in previous cycles,” he said, pointing out that if Trump outperforms his previous national vote margins and the battlegrounds track similarly, “that means Trump sweeps the swing states… a big win.”
Mark Mitchell, Rasmussen Reports @Mark_R_Mitchell 
2016 - Battleground states finished 4 points to the right of the NPV
2020 - Battleground states finished 4.5 points to the right of the NPV
2024 - ?
12:12 PM · Nov 2, 2024
He then drew a parallel between the current race and the 1980 Reagan-Carter election, comparing Trump’s support to Reagan’s widespread appeal and high favorability that led to a landslide victory.
“A lot of people have been talking about 1980,” he explained, noting how Reagan’s broad support culminated in a decisive win. “If you stripped [John] Anderson out of that race and gave most of his votes to Carter, then that could be what we’re looking at,” he observed.
Now, liberal Nate Silver’s final prediction is worth noting—in particular, the spread. We’ll get to the reason why that’s important in a moment, beyond the obvious fact that it’s T+8, which is very big—and the same reasoning applies to the Rasmussen guy’s comments above:
CORRECTION W/HT TO FRED—THESE ARE SILVER’S ODDS FOR A T WIN; PLEASE ADJUST FOR THAT WHEN YOU READ WHAT FOLLOWS.
Nate Silver’s 2024 election forecast:
Trump: 53.8%
Harris: 45.8%
Shipwreckedcrew has linked to an in depth explanation of Silver’s by now epic rant against other pollsters—but I like SLC’s digest better, so:
Shipwreckedcrew @shipwreckedcrew
I recommend the linked piece by David Strom at HotAir if you want a window into what Nate Silver is saying about polls. As David explains, Silver is a data/stats guy, not a polling guy. But his livelihood is based on betting according to data -- not manipulated data, but just hard data analysis.
Silver explains that +/-3 poll is really a 6 point spread because it is a binary choice. So a 50-50 poll, with a +/-3 margin of error could end up 53-47 either way. That is sampling error and it cannot ever be exluded because it can't be seen in the samp.
This error occurs randomly. The actual error might be 0, 1, 2, or 3 in either direction. But the data gatherer -- pollster -- doesn't know it's there, can't see it, can't exclude it, and can't correct for it. The model used can then make the outcome even worse than the error -- and the pollster won't know that either. That creates outliers.
Because it is random, this error should be reflected in a larger population of poll results on a random basis.
In other words, every poll in between Harris +4 and Trump +4 is saying exactly the same thing because randomly occurring error creates the spread, not the data and modeling.
Silver then did a statistical analysis of all the different polls from all the different pollsters, gathering their own randomly occurring error-infused data, and putting that data through their own individual models of what turnout will be, and the high percentage of them landing in the +1, even, -1 range is a bazillion to 1.
Never happen -- ever.
So Silver says the poll results from these limited samples of 600 to 800 respondents are being "herded" into this narrow range by the pollsters' turnout models -- assumptions they control. No one wants to be tagged as "unreliable" in future elections by missing badly. If all the media/college pollsters are in a narrow range, then everyone will be right or wrong in roughly the same range of numbers. Everyone's goal is to be within the margin of error because that is really the best they can do -- any closer is just random luck.
A pollster who ends up at Trump +2 -- if Trump wins by +2 -- isn't any more accurate than a pollster who had Harris +2 -- all it means is that the Trump pollster's random error put him on the right side of the margin than the random error of the Harris +2 pollster. Neither knew the error was present or in which direction.
Silver says 100% the media poll numbers we are seeing now are being manipulated because these pollsters all botched things so badly in 2016 and 2020.
Internal polling paid for by the campaigns is much more reliable and accurate -- they poll much larger samples -- because those pollsters want to be hired again in the future. A reputation for bad results will cause those pollsters to lose clients and go out of business.
The internal polls have Trump making appearances in New Hampshire and Virginia, and not making any last minute trips into Iowa.
11:22 AM · Nov 3, 2024
So, Silver’s prediction is at the extreme of +T, the point at which even the type of polling he’s looking at is starting to get inarguable.
If the above is basically on the money, then we shouldn’t be surprised to see a Red Wave, which this TGP article says has been the the Trump strategy all along:
“Too Big To Rig” Vs. the Deep State’s “Election Industrial Complex”
Too Big To Rig, of course, equates to: Beyond The Margin Of Fraud. Here’s the basic idea:
“Too Big to Rig”
President Trump’s team made a decision early on to ignore the corruption, broken system, and the crimes embedded in the 2020 election and overcome these barriers with a flood of ballots in the 2024 election. This strategy is known as “Too Big to Rig”.The uncertifiable results in 2020 were one reason why the 2020 election was stolen—the results never should have been certified. This is outlined in the book The Steal—Volume II: The Impossible Occurs. No reasonable auditor with integrity would have certified the 2020 Election results, and therefore, when they were certified by various politicians across the country, they were stolen.
However, the Trump Team decided to overwhelm the election in 2024 and win it outright with a flood of ballots “too big to rig.” This strategy is simple and based on the Biden/Kamala administration’s destruction of America, the strategy seemed sound.
TOO BIG TO RIG https://t.co/bEtgrCrHuP pic.twitter.com/Tw7hVED4lx
— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) May 4, 2024
Based on the May 2024 poll from respected Rasmussen, the Trump Team was set to have a landslide win.
The “Too Big to Rig” strategy also allowed the Trump Team to stay away from arguing over the many weaknesses in the US election system and prevent backlash from the Mainstream media and the Deep State as a result.
Even the Dems will have to agree with that, right? Well, not so much. Jonathan Turley is on that:
Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley
"Raskin said that Democrats will only support a “free and fair election.” Trump was widely criticized for the same position when he said “If everything’s honest, I’ll gladly accept the results.”...
“We’re Not Going to Allow Them to Steal it”: Raskin Repeats Trump-Like Reservation on Accepting...
On Bill Maher’s HBO Show on Friday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) appeared to repeat his reservation about accepting a Trump win in the presidential election. Raskin said that Democrats will only …
Right. Raskin will decide what’s “free and fair,” thank you very much. Which is why Too Big To Rig is important—all votes are important.
In that regard, we close with Scott Adams and his prediction of a landslide:
Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays
My 2024 Election Prediction:
I predict a landslide of election rigging claims. More than courts can handle before Jan 6th. Many claims will be baseless. Some will look credible.
I predict Trump will get the most real votes, but Democrats will empty the trickster vault to keep him from being certified and taking office on schedule.
I predict massive voter fraud will be discovered and it will confirm in the minds of the public that Trump was probably right about 2020 being rigged.
It will be the greatest Third Act in political history.
I predict America will sort it all out by the end of January(ish). Probably via Supreme Court.
Trump will take office.
The Golden Age begins.
11:23 AM · Nov 2, 2024
The one question I've not seen answered is who is replacing all the former democrat voters that are moving to Trump this election. There just aren't that many Liz Cheney voters out there. The percentage of minorities (Blacks, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Amish, Native Americans, etc.) moving to Trump is astonishing, yet the polls remain locked in a draw - so we are told. A political party cannot shed that many voters and not suffer noticeable polling losses as well. Perhaps that is why the national vote is so close this time - but the battleground states are kept close to allow for the likely cases of fraud that have been popping up in PA and now GA. Then, with major liberal newspapers like the WaPo, LA Times, and USA Today opting not to endorse the democrat along with major labor unions - how can the polling results being presented reflect reality? It does not add up.
I was pleasantly surprised by Trump’s win in 2016, as was nearly everyone else. I couldn’t believe he could lose to Basement Biden in 2020, but he did, cheating notwithstanding. COVID screwed up Trump’s chances and he heartily participated in that part of the debacle. I have no clue about this election. I’d like to think my fellow Americans wouldn’t be so foolish as to vote for Harris, but they voted in large percentages for Clinton and Biden before. My guess is that we will see an outcome most do not expect, and a reaction that many are not ready for. Regardless of who wins, the country’s problems are intractable and neither candidate is capable of credibly dealing with them, though I’d rather have Trump at the helm. Whoever gets saddled with the job, be prepared for a severe economic crisis and lots of war.