Are pollsters clueless about Trump supporters or were they suppressing turnout?
By Donald Jeffries
In 2016, every pre-election poll on the presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had Clinton winning handily. On the eve of the election, both pollsters and the overtly biased talking heads assured the public that Hillary stood a 95% chance of being elected president. They were obviously way off the mark, but that changed nothing about their polling practices.
In 2020, basically the same refrain was heard: Joe Biden held an insurmountable lead overall, and particularly in the crucial swing states. Influential pollsters like Nate Silver declared, on Oct. 31, that Trump stood only a 10% chance of being reelected. The bias of the pollsters clearly played into their conclusions. As independent pollster Richard Baris told The New York Post, “They hurt us bad this election. This industry is dominated by left-wingers. And a big, big problem is they’re trying to profile the voting behavior of people they don’t understand and may even despise.”
Baris became one of several public figures to be suspended by Twitter for mentioning the widespread evidence of fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
Among many problems with modern polling is the fact that Americans’ trust in the process has plummeted in recent years. The Pew Research Center reports that only 6% of people now agree to participate in election surveys. Baris blasted his colleagues, saying, “I think they bully each other. They herd. That’s when you start to mirror other pollsters because you’re afraid that Nate Silver or CNN is going to call you an outlier.” Baris went on to explain: “The way they’re polling, they are reaching voters that skew too urban. In that case, your Republican sample will be stacked with the John Kasich Republicans, the Bill Kristol Republicans—and that’s not the Republican Party that gave the presidency to Donald Trump.”
Baris was practically the only pollster to use “social desirability” questions to uncover hidden “shy Trump voters” who are routinely reluctant to admit their support out of fear of social ostracism. Veteran Republican pollster Frank Luntz agreed on this point, stating: “The fact is, Trump people don’t like being interviewed by pollsters. They tell me they would never consider talking to a pollster, because that would help the pollster manipulate them, and they are so wary of being manipulated.” Given the great social divide in the country, which has resulted in violent altercations and pro-Trump workers being fired from their jobs, the reluctance is certainly understandable.
The antipathy towards Trump voters was evident right after the 2016 election. Feminist writer Jessica Valenti penned a Nov. 19, 2016 article in The Guardian titled “ ‘Vote Shaming’ Trump Supporters is Fair. What They Have Done is Shameful.” This toxic writer declared that supporters of Trump “seem to believe that there should be no social consequences for their vote. I keep hearing calls for empathy and healing, civility, and polite discourse. As if supporting a man who would fill his administration with white nationalists and misogynists is something to simply agree to disagree on. . . . Being socially ostracized for supporting Trump is not an infringement of your rights, it’s a reasonable response by those of us who are disgusted, anxious, and afraid.”
After this year’s election, a headline in Counterpunch blared, “How Could 70 Million Still Have Voted for Trump?” The article railed against “the ‘ethnic’ composition of his mostly white European heritage followers who are fearful ‘their’ white culture is being overwhelmed by the growing numbers and diversity of people of color in America. This fear is the foundation of his—and their—white nationalism, which is really a form of racism.”
Pre-election polls have always served to manipulate public opinion. When the Democrats or Republicans first field a slew of presidential aspirants, polls are quickly trotted out, revealing an alleged frontrunner or frontrunners. The state-controlled media complies dutifully, consistently referring to the new favorite or favorites as “frontrunners,” who invariably are long-time servants of the corrupt establishment. Meanwhile, the rare problematic outliers, like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul, poll in the low single digits and are never mentioned as potential winners by the “journalists” who sway voter allegiances with these laughable numbers. These polls, and the manipulation of voters, begin very early, before a single ballot has been cast in any primary or caucus.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has tweeted about Trump voters being “complicit.” The inference is they are responsible for the “crime” of him being elected, and thus subject to some form of retribution. There has been serious mention of “truth and reconciliation” committees, which happened in South Africa after the overthrow of apartheid. No wonder Trump supporters have been hesitant to admit their feelings to pollsters. Are there Nuremberg-style tribunals on the horizon so that the “woke” left can punish its vilified foes?
Donald Jeffries is a highly respected author and researcher whose work on the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations and other high crimes of the Deep State has been read by millions of people across the world. Jeffries is also the author of three books currently being sold by the AFP Online Store.