FAIL: All the major polls were wrong, which should tell you everything you need to know about the corrupt media

Saturday, November 12, 2016 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: polls, media bias, corruption

---

(NaturalNews) Yes, we get the irony. Natural News is part of the "media," but as we've always said and demonstrated, we're not a part of the so-called mainstream media (MSM), which has long been considered little more than the propaganda division of the Democratic Party.

The MSM proved it once more during this past presidential election cycle, when nearly every single major media outlet picked Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump for the presidency.

It was the modern equivalent of a "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" headline – comical and monumentally false at the same time, but with dire implications for the future of the country.

That said, perhaps the biggest chump of the entire election cycle was none other than the Huffington Post, whose clueless and politically compromised editors devised an "election model" that predicted a 98.2 percent chance that Clinton would win.

That same model, as we reported, had Clinton winning 323 electoral votes, though in reality all she picked up (as of this writing – some counting is still going on) was 228, meaning the HuffPo presidential prediction model was off by nearly 100 electoral votes. That's incredible, when you also figure that the prediction percentage of 98.2 percent was off by just as much.

The only people who are really shocked by that, however – besides the editors and founder of HuffPo, Ariana Huffington – are the rest of the mainstream media pollsters who were just as wrong, though maybe not by as much. It seems their polling methods and statistical models were also inaccurate.

80 percent of major national polls were wrong, and by a lot

As reported by The Hill, what took place on election night in the polling industry was nothing less than an "industry-shattering embarrassment," though Trump had long said he knew the polls were biased against him.

Turns out he was exactly right, even though he was dismissed and mocked for saying so.

"It's going to put the polling industry out of business," said CNN anchor Jake Tapper. "It's going to put the voter projection industry out of business."

As the nation headed into Nov. 8, the vast majority of polling firms – in partnership with most MSM outlets – and election modelers were predicting an easy Clinton victory. For weeks, in fact, and despite reports that many of these MSM outlets were oversampling Democratic voters, most predicted, like HuffPo, that she would win something north of 300 electoral votes.

Here are some examples:

-- The final University of Virginia Center for Politics model predicted Clinton would win 322 electoral votes to Trump's 216, with Clinton taking Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and North Carolina, all states that Trump won.

-- A number of Left-wing critics attacked supposed data guru Nate Silver at the FiveThirtyEight.com blog for saying Trump had a better than one-in-three shot – 35 percent – of pulling off a victory. Ironically (and hypocritically), they claimed that Silver was intentionally trying to influence the public into making the race appear to be closer than it was.

-- Of the 11 major national polls that were released during the final week of the campaign, just two – an LA Times/USC survey (which had consistently shown Trump ahead) and one from Investor's Business Daily/TIPP – showed Trump in the lead.

But the Times poll was lambasted as "experimental" for polling the same pool of people, and for the way that it weighted black voters. It was dismissed as an outlier and, therefore, not to be taken seriously.

It was Trump, not Clinton, who ran the table in the battleground states

The remainder of the surveys for the final week showed Clinton up between 2 and 6 points, which boosted her to a 3.3-point lead nationally in the Real Clear Politics average.

Battleground polling data was just as inaccurate, as evidenced by the fact that there were no surveys at all from Wisconsin this year that showed him ahead (though he won the state's 10 electoral votes). In fact, heading into election day, Clinton was up there by 6.5 points, and in fact, no political analysts were even discussing the possibility that Trump could win there (his victory marks the first time the state has gone to a Republican since President Reagan won it in 1984).

In other deep blue states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, where Republicans have not won in decades, polls did show the race tightening up in the final days, but all had Clinton pulling off the win. Only a single poll, from the Trafalgar Group, showed Trump leading.

But overall, election modelers did not have Trump flipping either state – which he would need to secure enough electoral votes to seal the deal – even though the Clinton camp rushed in over the past few days to defend them.

Also, in North Carolina Trump won by nearly 4 points, even though polls showed that state to be a toss-up.

Nationally, most pollsters believed the race would be within 2–3 points, but with Clinton winning all of the key battleground states just as President Obama did, which would determine the outcome.

It didn't happen.

The bottom line is this: The pollsters all favored Clinton ideologically and it showed in their modeling. Plus, none of the major pollsters bothered to try to learn about who formed Trump's base of support. They were too satisfied with remaining in their bubble of pre- and misconceptions.

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

TheHill.com

TheGatewayPundit.com

Trump.news