NEW OAN Poll Determines Race a TIE

Posted: October 25, 2016 in FRONT PAGE, SKEET
Tags: , , , , , ,

I was hesitant to publish this story, the truth is Donald Trump has at least a 10+ point lead nationwide over CROOKED Hillary Clinton; (this poll shows the race tied…)

But, in the end, I decided to publish it because there’s no harm in Trump supporters believing the race is close. (Even though HILLARY is being CRUSHED.)

With all the garbage propaganda on TV saying that Hillary has an insurmountable lead, a tie, from a reputable source, is better than leaving the bullshit propaganda unanswered.

To recap… There are now 4 major national polls showing Trump is tied or has a slight lead: Rasmussen; LA Times; IBD; and now this one. This poll appears better than those other three in methodology.

One America News Network and Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 2,109 registered voters across the United States. The poll was conducted from October 20th through the 23rd and has a margin of error of ±2.1% at the 95% confidence level. The total may not equal to 100% because of rounding. The polls were conducted using automated telephone calls and weighted by anticipated voting demographics. The poll was conducted for One America News Network.

Why this poll is superior to all the other current polls published:

  • Participants in this OAN poll did not talk to a person. In order not to be influenced by the Bradley Effect, pollsters, in this toxic-rhetoric election, must not use live interviewers to acquire data. To minimize the Bradley Effect, anonymity is required to get an accurate poll. Why? Because the media has demonized Donald Trump so severely, and made some of his chickenshit-coward supporters afraid to tell others they are voting for Trump.
  • Additionally, this poll uses a large sample size.
  • The poll forces participants to choose between the only two viable candidates. (Neither Gary Johnson nor Jill Stein will break 1%, any poll allowing those two candidates as answers is foolish.) The election is 2 weeks away, any poll at this point showing 10-20% undecided or third party is full of shit.
  • The poll wasn’t heavily seeded, (a good thing,) Few unnecessary questions inserted to taint the outcome of the results.
  • Finally, the poll was constructed the right way. Instead of calling a set number of registered Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, the poll just contacted registered voters, then let the voters say what they were.

Is the OAN poll perfect?

  • The poll didn’t ask the question, “how likely are you to vote?” nor try to measure an enthusiasm gap.(This is the main reason why Trump will win in a landslide.)
  • Raw data was not provided.
  • How different ideologies, religions, races, ethnicities voted would have been interesting to learn.
  • Hillary Clinton will not get more than 40% of the popular vote: she’s a criminal. A 50/50 tie requires heavy weighting.

Additionally this bothered me: “polls were… weighted by anticipated voting demographics.”

That means the poll’s raw data was tweaked to give more “weight” to some respondent’s answers, which doesn’t make sense to me, because of the large sample size. There should have been no need to “weight” this poll.

Donald Trump is going to win by a LANDSLIDE. But, if his supporters think the race is a TIE, and vote like every vote is crucial, that ain’t so bad either.

About Polling…

Political Science is science; it’s very real.

Hillary Clinton knows exactly where she is in the race, and so does Donald Trump. Internal polling is more expensive and more accurate than the polls the press releases.

(IN ELECTION 2012:) Returning to the Obama campaign’s post-election study of forecasts, here is what it concludes about its own performance: “‘Golden’ successfully predicted POTUS’s vote share to within half a percentage point in 6 of the top 10 battleground states: IA, NH, CO, FL, NV & WI. It predicted POTUS’s vote share to within less than a single percentage point in VA, NC & PA. In short, we predicted POTUS’s vote share within one percent in 9 of the top 10 battleground states. Even in the 10th state, OH—our biggest ‘miss,’ if you can call it that—we predicted POTUS’s vote share to within less than two percentage points.”

(So… If Hillary Clinton is in New Hampshire: It’s because there’s a problem. If Hillary Clinton is advertising in Oregon: there’s a problem.)

A true poll is like taking a sip of a bottle of wine, (you don’t need to drink an entire bottle to know what the wine is like, just a sip will do.)

This is why, conducted properly, a random sample of 500 people will always give very accurate, (and reproducible,) results. Caveat: The poll of 500 must be a truly random sample of an entire group.

So, for example. If Trump supporters as a group are less likely to tell a stranger on the phone that they support Trump than a Hillary supporter, (and the pollster knows this when they begin polling,) then the pollster must adjust the data acquisition method, (use robo-calls or the internet.) The media organizations know this when they do their polls; they know the results of their polls will be flawed. This is how ABC got its BULLSHIT results this week.

Every poll conducted during a given time-frame should be exactly the same; they’re not. Why? Because all the media organizations are trying to deceive, trying to use polls to influence results.

One thing’s for certain though, polls are supposed to be reproducible. Period. A poll conducted by any media organization should be a scientific fact. IE, all media groups should obtain the exact same result, AND it should be 100% accurate come election day.

In this election they are not. In this election, polls are intentionally being skewed to influence the election results, rather than provide real-time information. The media are attempting to RIG this election with their phony polls!


If two polls are conducted at the same time; one poll shows 53-41; the other shows 50-50- THAT’S IMPOSSIBLE… Someone is committing FRAUD. SOMEONE is intentionally trying to mislead the American public. Polling is no longer theoretical; it’s scientific fact. Any second year poly-sci student could design a poll to be more accurate than the ABC News/Washington Post BULLSHIT Poll.

Reproducibility is the ability of an entire experiment or study to be duplicated, either by the same researcher or by someone else working independently. Reproducing an experiment is called replicating it. Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

In conclusion… Polling is science; science does not lie; science is never wrong; science always works. If a poll is not accurate, (that’s impossible.) Two results outside the margin of error, by two major news organizations, means someone has rigged the experiment.

What’s the difference between a good pollster and a great one?
The difference between a first year chemist, and a PHD at distilling water.


In other words: ABC News did not make a mistake. They rigged a poll.

Screen Shot 2016-08-18 at 10.06.38 AM

Screen Shot 2016-08-04 at 12.36.54 PM



  1. TwoLaine says:

    That’ll pi$$ her off. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s