I’d never heard of Rasmussen until Steve Kirsch used them for his various Covid polls. Maybe they’re the only pollsters not using leading questions. In terms of predicting the result in November, these traditional nationwide polls are a waste of time. The electoral college means all the action is in the battleground States. The John Ward article is a wild read.
I think it's more about the oversampling of Dems in the 'other' polls rather than using leading questions. At the end of the day, in my view, this is all being orchestrated to prepare for the 'steal' again. Given the various tactics the Dems will again use for this, Trump has to be over 8 actual points clear to win, so assuming his actual lead is say 8 points then they have to create fake opinion polls showing them tied to avoid suspicion when the steal is in.
As the propensity for being able & wiling to respond may be depend on voting intentions (via differential work patterns, willingness to answer unidentified calls, and perceived risks & consequences of doxing), the non-response numbers are crucial for estimating potential bias. However they are not reported in the data tables:
The story behind this company really does look like one of global importance. They really do have a history of polls that are massively biased toward the leftist/WEF agenda yet somehow they are widely cited by the MSM. This article about them is from
Well that tells us all we need about the Telegraph & its owners. They are on par with Google, CNN & the BBC. Unfortunately the vast majority continue to see them as arbitrators of the Truth and lap it all up. This is the real tragedy.
Plausible, Professor, and with an increasing degree of probability, but I'm wondering how to even begin controlling for elevated levels of appeals to consensus, one of the most affective classical "nudges" that leverage social contagion.
The direct appeal of electronic communication is more complex of affect than a conceptual model based on mass mailing can accommodate. Television is the medium past models relied on, but it, too, is insufficient.
The steal activity itself, has to remain below a certain threshold to remain effective. The methodology used in calibrating that activity to the desired effect, is an open question. One wonders how sophisticated the calibration actually is. In one sense, it may not be a question of too little information, but too much.
We can see from the literature that the effect of social contagion is being closely investigated. In that context, I'm wondering which type of nudge is intended to skew voting patterns by convincing people not to vote, rather than which candidate to vote for. Not a factor in any country such as Australia, that mandates voting, but often a deciding factor where voting is optional.
Behavioral science has become foundational to incentive structure development, to a degree never before possible. In the absence of verifiable evidence, the effect of a "guiding hand" cannot be assumed with any degree of certainty. In other words, how much of the effect and affect is the result of tinkering and ongoing experimentation, and how much is calculated direction? I instinctively wanted to use "purposeful" rather than "calculated," but it's all purposeful. The question revolves around certainty.
Granted, I'm hypothesizing about a dataset that probably doesn't, and possibly couldn't, exist. Or could it? Conditioned response patterns have reached a level of predictability that Pavlov and Skinner could only hope for.
With age and experience, one becomes rather inured to informational fakery, but the last decade appears to have taken it to a whole new level. Regardless, anyone observing it may agree that it's a multivariate "full court press."
I’d never heard of Rasmussen until Steve Kirsch used them for his various Covid polls. Maybe they’re the only pollsters not using leading questions. In terms of predicting the result in November, these traditional nationwide polls are a waste of time. The electoral college means all the action is in the battleground States. The John Ward article is a wild read.
I think it's more about the oversampling of Dems in the 'other' polls rather than using leading questions. At the end of the day, in my view, this is all being orchestrated to prepare for the 'steal' again. Given the various tactics the Dems will again use for this, Trump has to be over 8 actual points clear to win, so assuming his actual lead is say 8 points then they have to create fake opinion polls showing them tied to avoid suspicion when the steal is in.
Here's some support your theory:
According to the Daily Telegraph's US Swing State tracker poll, the Democrats are on course to win the election. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/09/03/kamala-harris-beats-donald-trump-us-election-poll/
As the propensity for being able & wiling to respond may be depend on voting intentions (via differential work patterns, willingness to answer unidentified calls, and perceived risks & consequences of doxing), the non-response numbers are crucial for estimating potential bias. However they are not reported in the data tables:
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-us-swing-states-voting-intention-25-28-august-2024/ (link at bottom of page)
Whilst bias in polls can be unintentional or intentional, fake polls are exclusively the latter.
The organization running this poll is listed on Companies House as having 1 Officer (a London immigration lawyer), and 4 employees
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12424541/
How does a company with 4 employees manage to survey 8000 people across the US in 4 days ?
Does this remind you at all of the Surgisphere HCQ study...
The story behind this company really does look like one of global importance. They really do have a history of polls that are massively biased toward the leftist/WEF agenda yet somehow they are widely cited by the MSM. This article about them is from
2023 https://jacothenorth.net/blog/lies-damned-lies-opinion-polls/
Well that tells us all we need about the Telegraph & its owners. They are on par with Google, CNN & the BBC. Unfortunately the vast majority continue to see them as arbitrators of the Truth and lap it all up. This is the real tragedy.
Thanks for looking into it.
Danny: thanks for this. I will check this out
Plausible, Professor, and with an increasing degree of probability, but I'm wondering how to even begin controlling for elevated levels of appeals to consensus, one of the most affective classical "nudges" that leverage social contagion.
The direct appeal of electronic communication is more complex of affect than a conceptual model based on mass mailing can accommodate. Television is the medium past models relied on, but it, too, is insufficient.
The steal activity itself, has to remain below a certain threshold to remain effective. The methodology used in calibrating that activity to the desired effect, is an open question. One wonders how sophisticated the calibration actually is. In one sense, it may not be a question of too little information, but too much.
We can see from the literature that the effect of social contagion is being closely investigated. In that context, I'm wondering which type of nudge is intended to skew voting patterns by convincing people not to vote, rather than which candidate to vote for. Not a factor in any country such as Australia, that mandates voting, but often a deciding factor where voting is optional.
Behavioral science has become foundational to incentive structure development, to a degree never before possible. In the absence of verifiable evidence, the effect of a "guiding hand" cannot be assumed with any degree of certainty. In other words, how much of the effect and affect is the result of tinkering and ongoing experimentation, and how much is calculated direction? I instinctively wanted to use "purposeful" rather than "calculated," but it's all purposeful. The question revolves around certainty.
Granted, I'm hypothesizing about a dataset that probably doesn't, and possibly couldn't, exist. Or could it? Conditioned response patterns have reached a level of predictability that Pavlov and Skinner could only hope for.
With age and experience, one becomes rather inured to informational fakery, but the last decade appears to have taken it to a whole new level. Regardless, anyone observing it may agree that it's a multivariate "full court press."
🎯