top of page


22 August 2020 #BetweenTheLinesDotVote Analysis Our 5 Questions + Why? Part 1 of 5 Today's question is: Will You Vote In November? In the coming 4 Parts, we'll take one question at a time.

2) Will you vote in November? This may be the single most important question we ask. In analyzing Dornsife's 2020 methods, yesterday, I discovered for the first time that they factor OUT all of their participants who answer no to that question. That's awesome! Seriously.

3) I was thrilled to note that they employ the same gold standard our BTL Poll does, and I am now almost certain they did that in 2016 as well. I think I invented the term "Pledged Voters," but no matter, if they did this in 2016, they to my knowledge, they were the first.

4) On the other hand, not being an insider, or trained in the art of polling, perhaps this has been known forever. If so, I don't know why we don't hear more about it. I think it's now easy to establish that Pledged Voters is, in fact, the true gold standard when polling.

5) But forget about the professionals, or the polling nerds like me. Let's focus on you, first, and then your friends and family second. Will YOU vote in November? If you'd asked me that question at any point prior to 2016, my answer would have been NO!

6) Hell, I even failed to vote in 2016. I tried, but failed. I registered in order to vote for the first time in 2016, but when I went to do so, they did NOT have me on the voter rolls, and said they refused me my right to vote. Isn't that interesting?

7) They happily explained that they had a form for people who "believed" they had registered, or whose registration came in too late to be processed, but of course that form could obviously NOT be processed on 8 November 2016. So, I was not allowed to vote for Trump.

8) I did fill out the form, and was allowed to vote, for the very first time in my life, in the 2018 Midterm Election. Hey, we should rename that. Midterm refers to the President. We should change that. It should be called something like the Congressional Election, right?

9) When did YOU first vote, and why? Or, like me, why didn't you vote? Who watches the show Billionaire? I love that show. Bobby's wife - I never remember her name - at one point says, if we don't mark the milestones, then we're just passing time. I thought that was profound.

10) You could - and SHOULD - be able to tell the story of your life as a citizen by expressing to yourself if no one else, who you voted for and why, who you didn't vote for and why, or why you didn't vote. There are many ways to tell a story. This one is among the most powerful.

11) Here's that list: * Who did you vote for, and why? * Who didn't you vote for, and why? * If you did vote at all, why? * If you didn't vote, why?

12) It's important to understand, voting is a right, but NOT an obligation. It is not a burden. You do it, or you don't, at your free will. So, why didn't I vote, ever, before Trump? I consider that to be one of the most important question you might ask me.

13) In my youth, as I have often shared, I was everything left with the small exception of being a true Communist. I first read the Communist Manifesto at age 19. I agreed with almost everything in it. Much that is in it, I still agree with. I'll explain.

14) Capitalism is easy to attack, and often, the attacks are 100% righteous. If you don't know the story of the Enclosure Acts in England, it's a story you need to study. This is an excellent starting point:

. 15) Right after I read the Communist Manifesto, I read an amazing book called How Green Was My Valley. The British overlords, with their beloved Constabulary came to Wales, and upended their ancient society. They had no police. They self governed. Sound familiar?

16) The thing is, their local law was fierce beyond anything you might imagine. If the community convicted someone, that someone was executed. Justice was fast. When you read the novel, it all sounds so romantic. Back to ancient roots. And as a 19-year old, I bought it.

17) As a 60-year old, I can so easily recall those emotions and many of them I still have. I hate corrupt cops. Hell, I hate the fact that a cop has the power to flash his cop car's lights and I have to pull over. I have to submit. I HATE submitting. Hate it. Furiously.

18) I lived for 11 years in the State of Maryland. During that time, speed trap cameras were set up in ever-growing numbers. They should be called Mail-a-ticket Machines. I'm not sure I support speed limit laws. Natively, I abhor them. But, cameras for tickets and revenues?

19) I wish I could say I digress, but I don't. What possible power of the vote would voting in Montgomery County Maryland offer me, when it comes to Mail-a-ticket Machines come into view? The honest answer is not one bit. The rigged system cannot be unrigged by voting.

20) From my almost-Marxist youth - oh wait, why wasn't I an actual Marxist? Just two reasons. I disagreed with the destruction of the family. And, I disagree with violent destruction of all societal institutions. Even at 19, I could not got there. So, I became a Socialist.

21) I didn't really know what it meant. I did know that Republicans weren't that. But, when I looked at Democrats, I found them weak, insipid, and completely in bed with the power establishment. They disgusted me, for NOT being far left enough. I've always been a radical.

22) But wait, why didn't I vote when I was 18? The law had changed, by the 26th Amendment, in 1971, 7 years previous to my turning 18. The answer is, I just wasn't paying the slightest bit of attention. I had not yet converted to Socialism. I wasn't civically awake.

23) More. I couldn't vote in the 1976 election, being only 16. My Socialism had already commenced by the 1980 election, but while reading books, I was still too young to care or stand up and get in the civic game. Besides? Carter vs Reagan? I was not able to care.

24) Enough about me. Getting back to you, can you tell your story the way I can tell mine? Do you remember your first vote or non-vote? Can you use the election cycles as a means of telling your civic story? Did you vote? Will you vote in November? And in any case, why?

25) We'll turn to your friends and family in a moment. As a nation, as a people - the land of the free and the brave - why does such a small percentage of our adult population show up to vote? Why did it take me to the age of 56 to even care, or believe in the vote?

26) In every election, we're always told to be sure to get out there and vote. Why? Why can't we just assume that EVERY adult citizen of America votes, and wouldn't dream of NOT voting anymore than they'd NOT cash a check sent by the government?

27) It's complicated. Are we a Republic or a Democracy? What are those two things? Their difference, their intersection? We always claim we're a Democracy. But what about our Republic? It's confusing. It takes great thought effort to study and learn and comprehend.

28) Most everyone I know tells me they're bad at math. Switch topics to history, the results tend not to be too much better. Civics? Are you kidding? That's about as bad as a class in the history of math (which I'd LOVE MORE than I can say!). Why don't we vote?

29) If you've followed me about my own voting/non-voting story, and begun to look at the milestones of your own civic history, then you've got the foundation for turning to others and ask them, will you vote in November, why or why not?

30) I have an hour-long video to share with you. It is one of the most powerful things I've ever found. As you see below, it's called The Last Lecture, by Father Michael Himes. I cannot too passionately recommend you give it its full hour.

31) You cannot get an adult's full civic story in 2 or 3 minutes over the phone. You have to care. You have to focus all of your attention on the other person. You have to be truly interested to learn the milestones of their civic life, and more importantly, the why or why not.

32) It's a phenomenal story how a person became a Reagan Democrat. It's a phenomenal story how a person became an Obama Republican. They weren't called that, but without them, there's no way Obama wins in 2008. Find these stories, and care.

33) In coming days and weeks at our site, we at BTL will soon start offering guidance on how to become the pollster for your friends and family in your own real world life. If you're interested, head over to the site.

34) When you do, you'll rapidly see this lightbox emerge. Please do sign up for it if you're interested in learning how your real world friends and family feel, where they stand.

35) Will you vote? Why? This question is one of the most powerful acts you can take on behalf of our nation, as a patriot. It is also one of the most powerful steps to take when healing the rift that splits us as a people. We must learn to ask, and care, and show that we care.

Thread ends at #35.

21 August #BetweenTheLinesDotVote Analysis Dornsife: Can We Trust It Again In 2020? A friend of mine told me most people just want to eat the food and aren't interested in the recipe. Perhaps I needs to give a Chef's Warning. Dornsife has a recipe.

2) They released their first analysis two days ago, 19 August. I don't mind cutting the dinner plate chase that I was deeply troubled by the changes, most especially their new headline strategy. There's also a back story. And then we'll get into the weeds, then finish up.

3) In 2016, as I recall, splashy headlines were simply NOT part of the Dornsife Method. Yes, they published stories, many for fellow polling chefs, detailing their method. If true, Biden's 11 point lead is big news. But it instantly marks a new approach to their work, negatively.

4) We saw this yesterday at Drudge. Yet the lead headlining Drudge did NOT result from the same method of polling used in 2016. It comes from one of two new methods, one previously tested, one not. The 11 point lead comes from the new, untested method. That matters.

5) "Because the panel of participants in the USC Dornsife tracking poll includes many who participated in the 2016 poll, researchers are able to compare their vote for president in 2016 to the candidate they’re supporting in 2020."

6) This is simply NOTHING like the 2016 method, period. I don't know if it's a trick or not, yet. We'll look at that possibility in a bit. But, Just on its face, I have no reason, other than trusting Dornsife, to make me support this method of polling.

7) Sad to say, I smell a rat. Here we have a new, completely untested method, it generates a whopping lead for the candidate that the LA Times supports, and capitalizing on reputation built from a DIFFERENT method, this is the first headline we see. I don't approve.

8) This particular group, not possible before, is selected from those who participated in Dornsife's 2016 poll, and asks those who voted for Trump if they will again, and those who voted for Clinton, if they'll vote for Biden. I offer, this method may work, and we'll see.

9) But it's not possible for me to intuit its validity at first blush. Also, in 2016, the poll had roughly 3,100 participants. I checked their methodology link, and I was unable to find how the 1,510 current participants in this new method were selected. That matters, hugely.

10) Again, it's certainly possible that this new method will test out. Hell, it might be the best method of all. But, it is absolutely possible that it won't, and we just don't know. To go from there, trading off of 2016 accuracy, from a totally different method. Sorry. Sketchy.

11) We absolutely know selection bias is rampant throughout the entire polling industry. What I sadly see is that Dornsife, in its first 2020 offering, opens itself up to the risk, at least, of trading its reputation in for an agenda driven by its sponsors.

12) I won't linger on the backstory. One of the main reasons I chose Dornsife as my solitary source of data, was the purity and simplicity of their method. They did one thing, one thing only, and the method was completely scrutable. It was easy to understand. Easy to feel.

13) By making their method so clear, direct, and simple in 2016, they invited credibility and ended up deserving a great deal more credibility than they received during the season. It is this that makes me sad right now. This beginning bodes very poorly, I say.

14) Here's a for instance. Until I can find the actual methodology behind this new method, as I said, I have no idea of how they selected their 1,510 participants. Even then, I'm afraid I'll still have to be skeptical for a while, as it's so easy to hide bias.

15) How might bias be employed? It could be that of the 3,100 participants from 2016, these 1,510 show just that much leaning toward the desired outcome that the other 1,590 did not. Do you see? You can select those who give you the answer you want, the right leaning.

16) Without boldly telling us how the cut was made, we don't know whether or not a much larger percentage of the original 3,100 were willing to participate, but did not show the desired leaning. That takes me back to one last part of the back story.

17) Part of my joy in selecting Dornsife in 2016, was the very fact of their funding source, the LA Times. I liked that my source supported Clinton, yet I absolutely believed in the integrity of the poll itself. That fits my personal values system. I'm a partisan, too.

18) But, when Dornsife was the most accurate poll in predicting Trump's election, I immediately suspected that 2020 would have a different rule set. I immediately feared that the LA Times would push for changes to the 2020 poll, giving them more power in its outcomes.

19) As this season has rolled through, and I witnessed absolutely new levels of what I've come to call False Polling, my fears grew. This season, False Polling has become the Democrats main strategy. To my analysis, they know that Trump killed them over Fake News.

20) With a shrinking propaganda tool kit, and with no policy or candidate momentum, no identity to their platform other than the hardest turn left in American history, I saw them use polls to lead public perception, that is, to use false and thumb-tilted polls to set beliefs.

21) My conclusion from this first release is that, even if the method does prove out in the end, they have opened up a gigantic credibility gap and as we drop down further into the weeds, next, you'll see how they know this, admit it, and have very different buried headline.

22) To show you that, I'll quote: "Notably, the researchers’ other models are showing somewhat different results.

23) "From the preliminary data, the traditional categorical model — asking voters whom they would vote for today — predicts a wider lead for Biden among registered voters, compared to the main probability model. {Note, this is NOT the Dornsife method, at all.}

24) "However, when modeling the outcome using the social circle questions, Biden’s lead drops to single digits. The race draws even closer when forecasts are based on participants’ expectations about how people in their state will vote.

25) "(Overall margin of sampling error for findings based on the preliminary data is plus or minus 3 percentage points.) The researchers will soon release findings in more detail from all three models after collecting a full wave of survey data." Wow!

26) The most important point is the very last one. Findings in more detail AFTER a full wave of survey data. What is that code for? The data we presented today is NOT supported by a full wave of data. Do you see? They're hiding in plain site.

27) BIG HEADLINE. itsy-bitsy little data set underlying. And from a new, untested method at that. But capitalizing on 2016's credibility. Now go one step deeper.

28) What is this new Social Circle Questioning? They answered that question above. It is the second of their new, untested methods. They explain: "Asking participants how they expect people in their social circles and state will vote." Interesting.

29) And what were its results that got NO headline, no attention, buried deep here in the weeds? I quote again: "Biden’s lead drops to single digits. The race draws even closer when forecasts are based on participants’ expectations about how people in their state will vote."

30 Hmm. And by the way, what are "single digits"? They run from 1 - 9. That's a big spread. If Biden's lead in this method was by merely 1 percentage point, and you didn't want to say that, you'd call it a single digit. Why not just tell us? Sketchy, sketchy.

31) And the closer to themselves the participants are asked about, the more Biden's lead diminishes. "The race draws even closer." Hey, that's drama! That's a story! Here's that headline... 2016's Most Accurate Poll Calls Race Too Close To Call

32) And if single digits means 3 points or less... Biden's Lead Less Than Poll's Margin Of Error How's that for a headline?

33) Again, I am NOT saying that these methods will not prove out. I don't yet know. I AM saying that when one new method gives an 11 point lead, and that gets the headline; and the other new method either narrows or wipes that lead, but no headline, that's just wrong.

34) There can be no other explanation than editorial policy, which is to say: AGENDA. And no, we can put that editorial policy nowhere else than on Dornsife itself. They chose the 11 point lead as their lead. They did not have to. Well, unless their bosses demanded it.

35) I hope they correct themselves. But as it stands right now, they have revealed an editorial policy that is completely tilted by the precise agenda their funding source propounds every day in its news policy. Fake News. False Polling. Editorial decisions. Policy. Not science.

36) I have to pound this home. The facts are clear, and they are actual facts. One new poll, big lead for Biden, big headline. Another new poll, weak or no lead for Biden, no headline, data buried deep within the weeds. These are inescapable facts. And they're on the record.

37) Last point. There are other changes too. More partners - I don't trust any of them. Growth in the number of participants to the main poll - this may be good, but it also may not be. I'll be watching that very closely, to the degree I'm able, as the season rolls.

38) But in sum I cannot see one sign of a positive direction here. In all these changes, and with a factually established obvious agenda now published, I have to downgrade, if not the main poll itself - time will tell - the entirety of the outfit's positioning for truth in 2020.

39) I have to warn all you non-recipe reading patrons out there, be very careful of the dishes you eat. The integrity of the chef has been brought into severe question. I won't tell you the story of the cook I loved the most, what paiea!, whom I had to fire. He stole from me.

40) But I can promise you that, at my own new polling outfit, we will never lie to you, by fact or by coloration. We will never distort the truth. The truth, and nothing but the truth, to the best of our capability. That's our promise. Come check us out.

Thread ends at #40.

12 August 2020 #BetweenTheLinesDotVote Our Greatest Hurdle So Far...OVERCOME! If you haven't been to our site yet, that's the first thing to do. Head over there right now!

2) An endeavor such as ours faces an unknowable number of hurdles when getting started. The one that was our greatest was what is called: Sampling Bias Our initial poll takers were, essentially, my followers. And, as I am a diehard Trump see the problem, yes?

3) So as you'd expect, the vast, vast majority of our initial poll takers have been Trump supporters. One time only, so far, I employed our data in the attempt to tease out some information, and attempted to cover for the sampling bias. I wasn't unhappy, but couldn't repeat that!

4) I've worked hard to build an outreach, from my followers to their Democratic friends and family. I suspect this work a little, but its results were nowhere nearly sufficient. On a merely anecdotal basis, though, Democrats shown our site like it. That matters.

5) But on only our 3rd day in execution, our team's new outreach strategy is succeeding! How so? Over the 3 days over this week so far, our numbers have actually inverted. We are now getting more Biden supporters than Trump supporters voting. I am THRILLED!

6) I can't share what the strategy is, as it is now part of the proprietary method that we're building and protecting as intellectual property. But I can tell you that the key is intention leading action. Our mission was to get Democratic voters, and we wouldn't stop till we did.

7) To be completely frank, I was beginning to worry. If we did not solve the sampling bias problem, we would not succeed as an endeavor. With that resolved, we can now clearly see what our next hurdles are, and I can share the most important one in front of us now.

8) It is volume and growth. At our poll, we joyfully encourage return voters. We limit poll taking to once per day, but are thrilled to have people return whenever they wish otherwise. I've been asked, why would you want that?

9) The answer is, changes in position. We don't approach a set of polled answers as static, but rather as dynamic, changing. Monitoring those changes in position sensitively will be one of our poll's greatest strengths. Repeat poll takers offer us that window of observation.

10) What they don't provide though, is sufficient volume and growth. For that, you have to attract new poll takers, and we know exactly how many we need. 220 New, Unique Polls Taken Daily There's a very simple reason for that goal. It mounts up to 1,500 per week.

11) Why 1,500? I learned that 1,500 Likely Voters is the gold standard in 2016. I believe our new standard, Pledged Voters, will increase our quality. But, at quantity, matching that 1,500 standard each week will very literally qualify our poll as nationally significant.

12) If we succeed in attaining and sustaining that goal, with 1,500 or more new voters polled each week, you see our numbers will rapidly surpass those of any other poll out there. But let's not forget sampling bias risk. What we hope for is 70 - 75 each of Ds, Is, and Rs, daily.

13) If you're willing to help us, filling out our poll is the first and most important thing. Second, just one more step, please introduce our poll to a friend. Those two things have phenomenal impact. Here's the direct link to the poll:

14) I have to say a great big thank you to all of you who have already participated, and shared our poll. We haven't attained cruising speed or altitude yet, but we have cleared the runway, and that's not nothing! Thank you!!!

Thread ends at #14.

bottom of page