28 September 2020 #BetweenTheLinesDotVote Analysis The Hidden Poll Over At Dornsife Progresses Let's go slowly to get started today. In 2012 and 2016, what was the true basis of Dornsife's genius? It was just 3 questions: 1) Will you vote? 2) Who for? 3) Who will win?
2) The chart you see above is the poll at Dornsife that MOST approximates their 2012 and 2016 method. It's question, who will people in your state vote for, comes close to the who will win question they previously asked. We must linger on that point.
3) I confess, I'm still upset, actually, a bit heart broken over the fact that Dornsife has abandoned its former method. I've written on this extensively, already, so won't linger long. But, there can be only one reason to alter a method so proven to be successful. Agenda.
4) I don't blame the polling data scientists at Dornsife one bit. A livelihood is a livelihood. They have to work. And the LA Times pays their salaries. That's why I predicted, after Trump won in 2016, that the LA Times would NOT allow the Dornsife scientists their sway in 2020.
5) So, the fantasy I imagine is that in this one chart, one of how many?, the scientists are still exerting their integrity. This chart is a prediction of victory. That's what they did before. It is my honor to them to imagine they're still doing it now. I love those guys. I do.
6) So, let's dive in. The first thing to look at is this absolutely ridiculous area, their gray bar, what I call, on their behalf, the Insignificant Difference Area. If you recall, in 2016, they used the opposite. They employed a 95% Confidence Area. That was SO MUCH BETTER!
7) Let's talk about this sample, and what it actually means. In 2016, the sample size was around 3,100, as it was also in 2012. Now, what we see is a sample of 6,000. My own theory is that they chose this sample to skew the data toward Biden.
8) The reason that matters is this. If Dornsife hadn't doubled their sample size, my strong suspicion is this. The old sampling would have Trump WAY ahead of Biden, outside of the Insignificant Difference Area. I can't prove that. I don't know what the sample actually is.
9) What I do know is this. They went from 95% confidence to an area of insignificant difference. Two elections rightly predicted under previous method. Now, we must change method. Do you smell the same rat I do?
10 With all of that addressed, now lets look at Biden even under these conditions, designed, I say, to his massive benefit. Sure, well within the insignificant difference area, here's the trend. Not looking good.
11) I just looked at that chart again, and saw a line far more beneficial to Biden. So, here it is. It's a channel support line, and I assure you, channels are good, and you want as strong a support line within them as you can get!
12) Looking very closely, I could have drawn that line just a smidgen higher up. The higher up the support line is, against an established resistance line, the closer to a flag formation we get. Perhaps Biden will hit his flag and explode to the upside. That's the Democrat goal.
13) Let's pause there on the fundamentals, again. Assuming you're a Biden supporter, what you need is for Biden to establish true hegemony as the predicted victor. You need Biden to be a certain winner. It's your objective to make Biden the assured and certain winner.
14) I know, the days are short. But, if you hear my case, with Dornsife full tilt on your side, you need to turn this chart around. No channel downward. A surgeling upward. That's what you want. You can't wait longer. I'll speak to that below...
15) If you're going to win against an opponent as formidable as Trump, and over the MAGA Movement, you MUST ensure the sensation of Biden's inevitability. Why would Dornsife, who's on your side, publish a poll so contrary to Biden's inevitability?
16) Speaking of which, what does Dornsife's Expected Winner poll say about Trump? My friends, I hate to disappoint you, but even a tilted Dornsife provides this data. And what data is this, exactly, again?
Oh my. Looking, I see a new resistance line. Check this out! It's not confirmed, as we need the progression to slow down and retreat for a third confirmed data point. But, there can be no doubt that this threatens a completely new formation.
18) Linger again. Who will win? And, I ask, who remembers the Flynn Doctrine? Who the people predict will win, will win. I am the one who coined those precise terms. I asked @GenFlynn what he thought, and he 100% agreed. That IS the Flynn Doctrine.
19) Before we finish, let's add some timing into our consideration. The Dornsife Poll we're monitoring here has half of their 6,000 participants' responses to that one question logged. Who do you think other in your state will vote for? Or, who will win your state's vote?
20) What we see here, then, by way of timing, is this fundamentally. It is the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett as our next Justice of the SCOTUS. Imagine that. Imagine that Trump's true support, as shows up in his dramatically rising resistance, demonstrates true approval.
21) If you're new to my analysis, technical is the numbers as they show up on the charts and the lines I draw there. Fundamental is my analysis - or YOURS - regarding the reasons why. Why are Trump's number up on this chart, why are Biden's down? What are the fundamental causes?
22) And I say, the fundamental cause of Trump's current rise is this. His supporters favor Justice Barrett. More, they demand he move forward to shift the balance of SCOTUS from anti-constitutional to pro-constitutional. They - and I agree - demand this to save America.
23) Who saw the interview with Professor Tribe, yesterday? He stated that the fact that Trump may nominate, and the Senate approve Judge Barrett is, while constitutional, also stupid. His remarks were riddled with scornful disparagement of the Constitution itself.
24) This, I purport, is what the left has missed. They do not understand how support of Trump is support of the Constitution. They do not understand how 2016 support of Clinton2, or 2020 support of Biden is resistance against the Constitution.
25) Polling is supposed to be true. My own polling rejects all agenda, no matter how important I deem that agenda to be. Polling should simply measure where the people stand. This is the closest Dornsife comes, now that the LA Times has charged them with an agenda.
26) Stick with me on this point. Our algorithm corrects for any sample bias we suffer in our reach. More, we have invested rigorously into procuring Biden support data. We do NOT want to use our access to alter our data, and we will not!
27) Polling is the battlefield, today. The Democrat Leadership, controlling the biased polling industry as they do, decided to put that industry with its bias to work this season, as never before. My own estimate is that this year's polling is 4X worse than 2016.
28) Four times worse: * Samples * Questions * Analysis * Outcomes I ay that Biden's entire campaign is dependent upon polling false in his favor.
29) I am an analyst. I live or die by my analysis itself. If Biden wins, and I predict his defeat, I am destroyed. My integrity of the data, and my honesty of analysis is all I have. Nothing else.
30) And I say to you this. Trump will win. The other polls are turned. They are not honest. They are not scientific. I have a long way to go in my own poll. But my analysis is solid. I called Trump 2016. I call him again 2020.
Thread ends at #30.