The polls have always been slanted. Or at least they have always been mostly slanted. Keep in mind all polls are, really, are interpretations of consensus which are formulated using mathematical calculations—and weighting. The weighting part is a key factor in how a poll result is formulated mind you, since the idea behind it is that certain weight is given to a particular representational factor within the poll itself.
For example, hispanics may only represent a very much smaller percentage of the population. So, naturally when you poll, less answers will be representative of the hispanic population as a whole. So you have to calculate how much weight should be placed on that answer in order to better calculate (or speculate depending on your perspective) how that answer weighs in for that particular group on the focus of the question.
But someone ultimately decides how much weight gets placed on any answer. And of course, they also have the ability to word a question in a way that presumes an outcome, and distracts from a more complete answer, and even can overweight a segment to sway a poll one way or the other.
I am not suggesting polling is rigged, per se. Although it may well be to some extent, especially nowadays. What I am suggesting is that polls are often times wrong—and since they are largely controlled by the media, or special interest groups, pollsters go into a poll with a predetermined desired outcome and will go to whatever length is necessary to have the poll answer their question in a way that better fits their desired narrative.
Sort of like saying if you ask ten people whether or not you are ugly and 5 people say you are and the other 5 say you're not, just ask one more person to see if you can get one more vote for not ugly and there you have it...
If 6 out of 11 say you're not ugly, then roughly 55% of those polled think you're not. You must not be ugly.
Of course, you can ask the question another way and get a totally different outcome. You might ask ten people, for example, if you are butt-ugly. Well, most people might think you are ugly. But probably most people won't think you are butt-ugly. So no matter how many people you ask, the most likely result is that you will come out with a desirable answer.
It's a silly analogy I know. But stick with me if you will. I like Springboard Answers to have a bit of tongue-in-cheek about it these days.
But okay, the question was "What makes you think Donald Trump is actually winning the election?" Because of course I think the polling is wrong, and I think the electoral map is skewed by wrong polling data, and of course there is also the factor that the media wants Hillary Clinton to be the victor in all of this, and so thus becomes the portrayal we all get to see.
But do you ever notice one thing that the media also does when it reports on the rallies? Yeah, you know, those things that the candidates hold for their actual supporters? It pans in on Hillary Clinton when it shows snippets of hers. Why? Because when you compare how many people are attending her rallies as opposed to how many people are attending Trump's...
Wow, is the result amazingly glaring and different.
And therein lies, at least for me, a very telling truth about the polls, and what the actual outcome of this election is going to be when all is said and done. Why does Trump win? Why are the polls wrong? Why do the electoral maps and all of the predictions of the liberal pundits paint a picture in favor of Hillary Clinton advancing to the White House?
It's in the rallies.
Trump is gathering enormous crowds. Can I use the term yuuge? On the flip side, Hillary is drawing very small crowds. While most of the time Trump is speaking from a podium in front of masses, we see Clinton stumping before very small groups.
The proof is in the rallies, folks. I'm telling you. Take that in for what it's worth. The people are gathering for Trump in far larger numbers than they are for Hillary, and it has the pollsters and the liberal media grasping at straws trying to make it look like it's the other way around. They're really trying.
Now look. I am no genius. I am not smarter than anybody and certainly I am not suggesting I am. But I do think there are times when I see things that others do not. And this is one of those times. I am able to see the forest for the trees, you know. I am able to read between the lines. The story is in there, folks, plain to see. The deal is not done, mind you. I am not calling this election now. That would be foolish and downright stupid. And of course I am not going to put any money on it. But mark my words, the truth is that I think more of the country is for Trump than are not.
But, like the polls may be rigged, there's a very good chance that elections are rigged, and so we still may see an outcome that flies in the face of things that should be obvious.