1) Folks I am pissed. (I NEVER use that word, so excuse me). But this is ridiculous.

2) First, if you're new, I don't "do" polls because they are flat out lying. However, I think it is legit to ask not only if they are lying (they are) but WHY?

3) There are several explanations.

Explanation 1: They lie because they are in such a bubble that they have pre-conceived notions of what the poll "should" show. Living in their NY/DC bubbles, with their Swamp friends, they "know" that Americans must hate Drumpf.

3) contd . . .
That means that they view any & all results that do not conform to this as "outliers" & somehow corrupted data. Since it's got to be wrong, they adjust & "correct" til they get the "right" data.

If any of you are in science you know this completely defies the notion of data. You are entitled to ask why the results differed from your hypothesis, but are not allowed to constantly scream at the data "YOU'RE WRONG!"

4) This Explanation 1 is more or less a cultural/behavioral view of why polls are pathetic. Except for Trafalgar, Richard Baris/Big Data, & Democracy Institute, none of the people in the big polling orgs are "for" Trump. They have no problem viewing data this way.

4) Explanation 2: They are setting the stage for 4 years of "resistance" due to "but the polls said. . . therefore muh Russia/Borneo interference."

I'm less likely to believe this one only because it requires a level of planning & conspiracy that I'm not sure they possess.

4) contd. . . it IS possible however. Who would have thought prior to 2016 that a dozen or more FBI, CIA, DOJ employees would literally conspire to stage a coup because someone they didn't like gained the presidency?

4) In Explanation 2, they know their numbers are pumpkin goo, useless fecal droppings of iguanas. But it doesn't matter. The purpose is to ignite the WLs to new Drumpf hate after Nov. 3.

NOTE: Explanation 2 goes very well with the effort to delay the certification of votes.

4) contd . . . When the first stories about Trump winning a "landslide" on election night, but it wouldn't be real cuz, you know, VBMs began to surface, I think this explanation of polling can make sense.

I won't rule it out.

5) Explanation 3: Self-delusion. This kind of goes with #1, but in this version the pollsters have convinced themselves that since Trump "must be" losing, they need to develop data that proves it.

Their samples, after all, were wrong. So as we heard last week, . . .

5) contd . . . one thing they appear to be doing is on the surface keeping their DemoKKKrat/Republican splits "accurate" (that is, close to what they are "supposed to be".) This in itself is a problem. Any poll of OH that isn't R+4 or R+5 is pterodactyl dung.

5) contd . . . So here is how they do it: the LABELS are correct (i.e., they interview 38% "Republicans") but the PEOPLE they target are not at all "random" Republicans.

What they have done is to zip-code target the shakiest of R suburbs where the Karens mass.

5) contd . . . These will likely be more anti-Trump. But they AVOID the heavy red rural areas. In AZ, for example, they sample only Rs in, say, Tempe while avoiding those in Bullhead City.

When it comes to "DemoKKKrats," same thing in reverse: they avoid any Ds in . . .

5) contd . . . industrial, manufacturing areas with high unemployment due to trade and instead focus on urban whites.

6) They they twiddle with all this via their "turnout" models, which as I've shown are appearing to be horribly flawed.

6) contd. . . For example, in very early NC and FL vote by mail (VBM) we are seeing a noticeable shortfall in 18-24 year olds.

Dese "Yuts" would be college kids who . . .

AREN'T ON CAMPUS. They do NOT tend to vote by mail or from home. Their "turnout" falls 30% if not on campus

7) Do you think one single pollster has accounted for this?

8) Another piece of data that doesn't fit their preconceptions is R turnout & the infamous "shy Trump" voter. So they miss millions this way.

9) Whichever of the three motivations for the pollsters you accept, realize that I think even the "good" pollsters such as Trafalgar, Democracy Institute, & Big Data are still going to miss a lot of the student/shy Trumper effects.

10) I think even the "good" polls are off.

11) Just one last point before we leave this: we KNOW none of this is just incompetence or "accidental."

Easy.

Why? Because if it was accidental, we'd get polls that were just as often off in TRUMP'S FAVOR as against him. But that never happens, does it?

12) So as a somewhat related addendum, for those of you who watch Faux and Tokyo Rove, his explanation for the recent Faux poll is that DemoKKKrats are fleeing the blue states like CA & NY and going to AZ, NV, NM, CO, on the west coast and FL, NC on the east.

12) contd . . . Small problem.

In every single one of these states except CO, the GOP registration has not only outpaced DemoKKKrats, but has done so at substantial rates.

FL is the best example, where Rs shaved 3/4 of a million voters off the D lead in 8 years.

13) In AZ, although there was a temporary D surge, Rs have again padded their lead with 20,000 more voters in the last few months for a 100,000 lead.

(Oh, gee: in the GOP primary McSally/McCarthy had 100,000 more votes than Kelly. What a surprise).

14) In other words, except for Colorado, IF the new voters are from CA or NY, they appear to be the Republicans and conservatives who are fleeing!!

15) The best I can tell you then is, we have on one hand (polls) manipulated sets of opinions about what people say they plan to do

15) contd. . . On the other hand, we have ACTUAL NUMBERS from voters based on their D/R ballot requests. Based on addresses, we know that . . . SO FAR . . . Ds are below their VBM targets in key states (NC, FL), that their Yut vote is underperforming 2016 & the black vote is . .

15) contd . . . underperforming 2016---which underperformed 2012!!

All of this, I admit, assumes something very big: that Republicans will, for the most part vote Trump & DemoKKKrats for the most part will vote Biteme.

For every suburban Karen, I can produce a black Trump vote.

Therefore, until or unless I see REAL DATA--not made up swillpillow lugie-laden manipulated polling---I have to conclude that they are horribly wrong.

I leave it to you to decide why.