Obviously the context of polling and bias are key components within discussions of presidential elections and politics. At this point there’s virtually no-one who would dispute the inherent media bias against candidate Donald Trump.
Cue the CNN audio/visual (Screen Shot) demonstration of the day:
Donald Trump has used the “Heritage Foundation” as part of the think tank behind the possible Supreme Court nominee list he has outlined. But look at how CNN parses the wording, creates a completely false and divisive narrative, to make it look like Trump is using ethnicity as a factor. Ridiculous and beyond insufferable nonsense.
However, when you discuss the accepted media bias (example above) against the backdrop of those same media entities presenting poll data, the accuracy of polling becomes a more complex and nuanced discussion. That’s where social media engagement enters into the mix.
LOS ANGELES — Despite a majority of opinion polls showing the 2016 presidential election going to Democrat Hillary Clinton, a smartphone app developer says his data suggests challenger Donald Trump will be the victor. (link)
Here’s the interview with the App developers as they explain why Donald Trump is their prediction to win in November. It is well worth the listen (click orange arrow):
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/277896172″ params=”auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=”100%” height=”450″ iframe=”true” /]
Trying to avoid looking at this latest data model under the auspices of conformational bias, what they are outlining speaks directly to what many -including us- have noted. There is a disconnect between what the media is pushing (polling), and what’s clearly visible (regional and geographic support).
Why would “media polling” be any less fraught with intentional bias than the presentations they broadcast on a daily basis? In short, they wouldn’t.
We first noticed this in the fall of 2015 during the later phase of the GOP primary race. The media narratives were not the same as the visible realities of what was taking place.
Donald Trump’s “engagements”, not just rally attendance – which is historic in scope, are magnitudes beyond the media talking points. Tracking social media, geographic non media polling, and alternate media matrices led us to believe Trump would dominate in the presidential primary.
The indications are evident and clear, however they are also indications that are relatively new to the world of politics. One example: look at the traffic for anti-Trump vs pro-Trump web sites. The #NeverTrump GOP web sites are at their lowest point of interest in the past 10+ years.
After looking at some of the more obscure statistics we concluded an epic landslide was about to take place in the Feb, March, April, May GOP primary. We were correct and Donald Trump won the nomination with the largest increase of primary votes in the history of presidential politics. Part of that success was the ‘Monster vote’.
The Zip App prediction is yet just another dot, another pixel, in a presidential and electoral map picture that is historic, uncomfortable and too challenging for those who are stuck in arcane political metrics for valuations.
This isn’t Romney or Bush’s milquetoast GOP. Nor is it recognizable to quisling’s like Bill Kristol, John McCain, Jonah Goldberg, Mark Levin or a host of other insufferable barking moonbats who are much more comfortable with their cozy UniParty, Hillary/Jeb Clinton/Bush.
