New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples"

Tyler Durden's picture

Earlier this morning we wrote about the obvious sampling bias in the latest ABC / Washington Post poll that showed a 12-point national advantage for Hillary.  Like many of the recent polls from Reuters, ABC and The Washington Post, this latest poll included a 9-point sampling bias toward registered democrats

"METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats - Republicans - Independents."

Of course, while democrats may enjoy a slight registration advantage of a couple of points, it is nowhere near the 9 points reflected in this latest poll. 

Meanwhile, we also pointed out that with huge variances in preference across demographics one can easily "rig" a poll by over indexing to one group vs. another.  As a quick example, the ABC / WaPo poll found that Hillary enjoys a 79-point advantage over Trump with black voters.  Therefore, even a small "oversample" of black voters of 5% could swing the overall poll by 3 full points.  Moreover, the pollsters don't provide data on the demographic mix of their polls which makes it impossible to "fact check" the bias...convenient.

ABC Poll

 

Now, for all of you out there who still aren't convinced that the polls are "adjusted", we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in detail, exactly how to "manufacture" the desired data. The email starts out with a request for recommendations on "oversamples for polling" in order to "maximize what we get out of our media polling."

I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.

The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations.  In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:

Research, microtargeting & polling projects
Over-sample Hispanics
-  Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)
Over-sample the Native American population

For Florida, the report recommends "consistently monitoring" samples to makes sure they're "not too old" and "has enough African American and Hispanic voters."  Meanwhile, "independent" voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first.

Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state.
-  On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.

Meanwhile, it's suggested that national polls over sample "key districts / regions" and "ethnic" groups "as needed."

-  General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions
-  Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed
-  Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed


Oversample

 

And that's how you manufacture a 12-point lead for your chosen candidate and effectively chill the vote of your opposition. 

 

Here is the full report of "Polling & Media Recommendations" from "The Atlas Project."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Bill of Rights's picture

Democrats rigging the vote? You don't say.

NoDecaf's picture

That Hillary logo is going to look terrible on armbands...The Nazis were much more stylish.

tarabel's picture

 

 

I kind of like it-- the Big H with an arrow.

"This way to Hell"

Muh Raf's picture

The polls don't matter, the penny stinkards are rising everywhere, like whack a mole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=havfqNIsmSg

manofthenorth's picture

There will be hell to pay when the sharks turn on each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12_s028JYOU

Chris Dakota's picture

Tom Matzzie used to work for Moveon.org

He was the guy recording on a train Gen. Michael Hayden was head of NSA and CIA who disparaged the Obama admin,

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/10/24/240587739/guy-on-train...

The Management's picture

"Over Sampling" landlines in 2016?

Why not just build a time machine and consult the Mayans.

Sigh...

sushi's picture

NYT has a story out that uses GOOGLE search data to confirm polling data. This search data is strongly suggestive of Trump support being under reported in the polls:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/opinion/campaign-stops/if-they-google-you-do-you-win.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

 

Knowing the trail of bodies the Witch of Benghazi leaves behind her, I would be reluctant to tell an anonymous caller my voting intentions.

toro's picture

George H.W. Bush - Potus - CIA
Bill Clinton - Potus - CIA
George W. Bush - Potus - CIA
Barack Obama - Potus - CIA
Hillary Clinton - CIA

Is Trump toast or what?
http://bit.ly/1p1jKnr

philipat's picture

Hey toro, previously mofio then santafe then Aristotle of Greece then Gargoyle then bleu then oops then lance-a-lot then most recently Loftie. Looks like Loftie got banned or perhaps just completely outed. I shalln’t miss him! Let’s see how long toro survives, shall we? You need to create those new Account names more quickly toro. Would appreciate regular ZH contributors please take a moment to help me in my campaign against this idiot and report toro to abuse@zerohedge.com.

You are a serial spammer and a serial pain in the ass. Might I politely suggest that you go fuck yourself? And get a life.

PS. You might have noticed that my attempt to expose you for what you are is always the same. That’s because your Spam is always the same (Using fake links to your BS site which has no connection to your comments; which are deliberately dramatic to mislead people into responding or clicking on the fake link) so it seems only fair that my exposure of your crap should also always be the same. An eye for an eye.

Liberal's picture

As a staunch liberal, I strongly condemn this latest fabrication by Russia's Kim Jong-Un! He is a despicable racist Kremlin who has inherited his power from his fatass daddy and is unequivocally racist! And homophovic! Fuck Russia! We the Liberals will not allow Russia to influence our erection!

Vageling's picture

LoL! Yeah it has an MDB touch to it. But the sarcasm is too obvious :)

Mercuryquicksilver's picture

Johnson replacing Kennedy isn't as clear, but Bush taking out Regan clear as day. CIA. 

 

Creative_Destruct's picture

QUESTION FOR THE WORLD/ REALITY (IF SUCH A THING STILL EXISTS)

How much more fucking evidence could it possibly take for even the corrupt MSM to FINALLY start telling a true narrative of the CLEAR CORRUPTION of the sleeze witch Hitlery and her flying-monkey minions ( Podesta, et al) ????

I mean for the love of all that's holy, all this documented evidence and even the most complicit of the MSM extreme left presstitutes (WOODWARD) can see it!!!!!

Between this and the PC truth ministries that are forming, things are getting SERIOUSLY, insanely threatening.....

Gotta start thinking about a SERIOUS exit plan...

Okienomics's picture

If you planned to rig the voting machines, wouldn't you really want the "rigged" results to match the polling?  In fact, it would be almost vital to have polls in favor of the pre-ordained winner, to avoid torches and pitchforks once the faked results started coming in.  Just a thought.

Chris Dakota's picture

tmattzie@gmail.com

I mailed him, who the fuck does he think he is rigging polls so that they can steal our election.

I am furious now, these people need to die!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watch Bird 1's picture

Chris, you seem to be pretty observant and knowledgeable. Did you notice that Podesta's email address doesn't actually appear on this one? It's a curiousity, how this one would be included if the trove really is just from his gmail account. Wondering....

Chris Dakota's picture

2 for 3, he answered me and now I know how to hook em

in the subject just write -------me

maybe I figured out a code

Chris  <.@gmail.com>  4:33 PM (1 hour ago)
to tmatzzie Wow Tommy you are in the news again.

Remember on that train when you spied on the head of the NSA?

looks like he got your fat ass back.

Tom Matzzie: How to Rig Polls and Steal Elections From the American People

you should be tried for treason and hang. Tom Matzzie 6:10 PM (1 minute ago)
to me

Happy to answer any questions you have about the emails. I left politics 8 years ago.

 

Tarzan's picture

and that fast it appears his email has been taken down, just failed at sending him this email,

 

to tmattzie

How dare you deceive the American People and subvert our elections for profit, you greedy fuck!  You don't deserve the freedoms you abuse! 

You sir are a piece of shit, you EVIL fuck! 

You deserve to be hung by the neck for treason! 

 

Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>      10:26 PM (9 minutes ago)          

to me

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:       tmattzie@gmail.com

               
nmewn's picture

I do happen to notice they're not much on repealing ObamaCare either, even with the ObamaBus clearly visible on the side of the road burning out of control..."the political decision"...has been made to ignore the screaming passengers being incinerated inside the bus.

I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and say what I think.

Thats not very compassionate ;-)

Whoa Dammit's picture

Gloria Allred is on the Clinton payroll. She says " Is there anything you can substitute for that, e.g. demeaning treatment of women in the work place or sexual harassment in the work place?" in an email about Trump.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cvedw_HUAAA_4Vw.jpg

Vageling's picture

They have a slogan you knooowah... Cremated Together. 

RightLineBacker's picture

Which immediately fostered thoughts on how to cause one to die a million deaths...

A Nanny Moose's picture

Killed by Communists. There's a surprise.

manofthenorth's picture

Sharks eating each other tail first.

Transformer's picture

 

The polls are rigged.

 

The most recent Investors Business Daily poll, showing Trump up by 2% is another rigged poll as they all are. The pollsters have been rigging their results by sampling many more Democrats than Republicans. Most people don't have the slightest idea how to figure statistics. Let me evaluate this for you.

They polled 767 people

282 Democrats

226 Republicans

259 independents

So, lets just make if fair. Let's assume the people voted their party. We'll increase the number of Republicans to 282. What does that do to the outcome? 46.5% for Trump and 38.0% for Clinton, which gives trump a lead of 8.5%

The ABC poll with the 12 point lead for Hillary, seems to be fraudulent right from the get go. First of all add up the percentages of groups sampledm as they reported.

36% Democrat

27% Republicans

31% Independent

A total of 94%. Where's the other 6%? Are they aliens, or maybe Bob Creamer hired voters? From what we have seen with the other polls, I would assume the numbers were really

42% Democrats 367 samples

27% Republicans 236 samples

31% independent 271 samples

But of course, there's no way to know.With bad data, it is hard to begin to figure out what they did. One can only assume that they didn't want anyone to be able to figure out how they rigged it.

So, lets do the same analysis on the corrected samples, above.

We end up with Trump at 44% and Clinton at 41%. This is much more likely than their bogus numbers.

 

If you take the recent Arizona poll that had Clinton up by 5% and do the same...

This poll shows they polled 713 people,

413 Democrats

168 Republicans

132 Ind

So, let's increase the number of Republicans to 413 and see how it affects the result, with the same assumption.

When the sampling is made fair, Trump gets 51% and Clinton gets 29%, a lead for Trump of 22%. Isn't that more in line with what you would expect from Arizona, a decidedly red state?

Future Jim's picture

Clinton Delegate explains how Democrats will ban all guns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nlhQafsx3o&t=2m28s

Note how she says all Democrats are in on it.

nmewn's picture

Another Podesta email gold mine...lol.

Sooo, ummm, to pick up on the .gov press corp & Hillary's accomplices to "the crime"...I guess all this just confirms the fact that Podesta must be a Russian.

Right? ;-) 

Escrava Isaura's picture

Let’s get to the crux of the problem, shall we?

 

Article: And that's how you manufacture a 12-point lead for your chosen candidate and effectively chill the vote of your opposition. 

Now Sherlock(s) how does it help the democrats? It actually dangerous tactic because many democrats will sit home and not bother to vote.

 

Article: while democrats may enjoy a slight registration advantage of a couple of points,….

Really?

 

Mike Garrett: The United States (along with many other democracies) has a long history of denying voting rights to citizens based on their race, sex, religion, and (lack of) property. This is simply a matter of those with political power attempting to keep their power within their own group. A pattern that still holds true today.

The original US constitution did not define who was eligible to vote - in the early years of the republic, most US states only extended voting rights to free white male adult property owners. But over time a series of constitutional amendments and court rulings have gradually extended voting rights to ever wider sections of society, bringing large social changes in their wake.

Having a mandatory voting system (as used successfully in Australia), tends to  extend political power to the more marginalised members of society, and does indeed create a more egalitarian society, as I will explain. I would call any election under a system with mandatory voting a fairer political election, because of that. However, the sharing of power would be opposed by the classes who currently hold power, just as it always has been.

Democracy is founded on the principle of one person, one vote. To work successfully, every citizen must also be given an equal opportunity to vote. And the only way to do that is to mandate that every citizen appear at a polling booth. (You cannot make it mandatory to cast a secret vote, of course. Anyone is free to cast an informal, or protest vote.) But unless every citizen must turn out to vote, those members of society that are disadvantaged (by age, illness, lack of access to transport, lack of motivation, disengagement from society, or many, many other factors) will not have their vote heard. And if their vote is not heard, then politicians simply will not represent their interests.

Remember that democracy isn't just about choosing the politicians you want to serve you. It is as much about getting politicians to serve you while they are in office because they will be held accountable to you again at the next election. Politicians typically enact legislation that benefits themselves and those that they think might vote for them. If the whole of society turns up to vote, then politicians are more likely to consider the welfare of all members of society in their actions.  If only a certain class of society turn out to vote, then only the interests of that class will be represented in government.

You will often hear people arguing that only people of a certain level of intelligence, education, political knowledge, wealth etc. are worthy of voting (they will inevitably choose a filter that gives political power to them, but denies it to their neighbour). This argument is flawed in two ways. Firstly, it neglects the fact that voting is a way to encourage politicians to represent your interests, and for a healthy society everybody should have their interests considered regardless of their status. Secondly, it ignores the fact that any cut-off boundary is arbitrary. Where do you draw the line on how much economic or political knowledge a voter must have (for example) to be "informed" enough vote? A line that includes you, but excludes your neighbour? Nobody has all the facts on all political issues, not even the politicians. If you truly believe ignorance is a problem, then it is your job to help educate the ignorant, not to stop the voices of the ignorant being heard.

In any fair democracy it should be mandatory to turn up at a polling station on voting day. For myself, I prefer to live in a society where the needs of the poor, uneducated, and disadvantaged are also considered by the ruling class. It actually makes for a better society for everyone, the wealthy and elite included. 

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-United-States-have-mandatory-voting-Wouldnt-it-create-a-fair-political-election

 

Never One Roach's picture

Is there anything Hillary and the DNC don't cheat at? Crookedness must be in the Clinton's DNA.

Notveryamused's picture

1. When the gap is extremely wide the outcome is that it demoralises the opposition & creates in-fighting among Republicans.

2. It allows you to label, ostracise and marginalise them, see general media strategy and for example deplorables comments. If they're winning, the media's entire strategy becomes ineffective because they are then labelling the majority of Americans as Sexist/Rascist/Xenophobic.

3. If you're able to rig the voting in any way you'll want good poll numbers to back up/legitimise those results.

Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Just think of all of the dipshits that would get elected, if every idiot in the country HAD to vote!!  Also, consciously NOT voting IS a vote in and of itself.  One might vote NOT to vote.  Isn't this supposed to be a "free" country????

29.5's picture

Fuck you and your democracy. Now wasn't that much easier than a wall of bullshit text?

nmewn's picture

lol...painting a crumbling wall with text doesn't hide the fact that the wall is crumbling Escrava.

This should actually be a very happy occasion for you as you no longer have to play the slave role to your master, hiding behind his walls, for your protection from that hostile outside world anymore.

You do want to be free don't you Escrava? ;-)

Oldwood's picture

You do want to be free don't you Escrava? ;-)

 

Hell no! If not, then why mandatory ANYTHING?

And why are they always worried about voter suppression in areas completely dominated by the left?

GoinFawr's picture

Instead of making voting mandatory, under penalty of death (apparently) how about an 'I-am-selfeverything-such a rebel-lazy-apathetic-island unto myself-popped outa my momma, hit the ground running and never looked back-gonna be 14 forever' opt-out clause?

With those opting to abstain from voting paying a higher federal/state/municipal tax rate?

Regardless of how much so many here seem to hate the idea of an elected legislative assembly making laws (except insomuch as they serve to enforce contractual obligations, natch), it is a fact that anywhere 80% or so of the public DO bother to vote, things tend to get better overall for the working class, the national balance sheet, political stability, etc., ie. by any metric that matters.

So once people get the idea, maybe  the higher tax rate could be dropped for abstentions?

 

 Currently couldn't those stubborn abstainer rebel types simply choose instead to show up and write-in and/or destroy their ballots?  Those are political acts that literally send a message, instead of merely implying one, or simply suggesting laziness.

Sure, someplaces in the world folk have let their democracies slip through their fingers, the remaining successful ones should take note and beware. Remember: Voter turnout always sucks where conquered folk have given up, so they give up even more of what little power they have left. like dogs that have been beat too much. (h/t BSpringsteen)

But a vicious, ruthless plutocracy masquerading as a social democracy hardly qualifies as proof of the whole ideal's failure. Makes fantastic, but ironic PR for their status quo though!

And 'they' adore that shit!

SwiffFiffteh's picture

"...in the early years of the republic, most US states only extended voting rights to property owners."

 

FTFY

 

And to answer your question, the U.S. doesn't have mandatory voting because it is supposed to be about freedom. Voting is a choice, you are free to vote or not as you please. Also, the U.S. is not a fucking democracy. The Greeks figured out democracy sucks over 2000 years ago, please try to keep up.

nmewn's picture

She knows she's a slave, she just refuses to acknowledge her master ;-)

OurUnitedStates's picture

The USSR had compulsory, enforced voting. You point out Australia, but most of Latin America has enforced compullsory voting. Does that make it fair? Did it help democracy in those countries?

GoinFawr's picture

Unlike latin america's Australia's democracy was spared being subjected to the Monroe Doctrine (though it remains subjected to a monarchy).

A lot of nascent 'democracy'  in south america... not always pretty; so much decentralization of power so quickly leaves regional vacuums, where all sorts of deplorable types set up shop, and/or try to take over.

Costa Rica seems to be getting a decent handle on things?

It bears repeating: anywhere ~80% or more of the eligible electorate participate, generally good shit gets done.

I don't like the idea of 'mandatory' voting in a democracy; it is certainly 'oppressive' in the strictest sense (though certainly not as oppressive as, for example, living as a wage slave under a self perpetuating plutocracy)...How about as an emergency contingency? If a population becomes woefully apathetic and voter turnout is less than ~half of the eligible electorate mandatory voting kicks in?

After the ball starts rollin', and folk really start gettin' the idea of how personally beneficial a modicum of political participation can be, the oppressive 'mandatory' must be dropped?

 

GeoffreyT's picture

Mandatory voting is fucking ridiculous: it forces people who

  • know that they can't evaluate competing policy proposals (and so would self-disqualify if given the choice)
  • don't give a fuck (and would not participate out of indifference)
  • reject all policy platforms on offer (and would refuse to participate on principle)

                   to cast a vote.

 

Unless and until "None of the above" (NOTA) appears on ballots, and is an actionable selection (that is, if "NOTA" wins, then nobody gets to govern), mandatory voting is even more immoral than normal voting (which is itself immoral).

"None of  These Candidates" is an option in Nevada, but if NOTC gets the most votes, the second-highest total is declared the winner - so 'NOTC' is not actionable.

If NOTA does not appear as a choice, or is not actionable, then literally the only morally-defensible action is to abstain. the 40% (on average) of US elegible electors who abstain are made up of some people who are doing the morally-right thing out of principle, and a lot who are doing the morally-right thing by accident... frankly I don't give a shit - the more people who do the right thing, the better.

 

Bear in mind that government in most Western democracies is not formed by the party who 'gets the most votes': it is determined by who wins the most seats - and it is quite often the case that this is the party that doesn't get the most outright votes. (That's the latest iteration of the 'representativeness' scam that the political class has foisted on the societies that it parasitises: majoritarian "50-percent-plus-one people" somehow became "50-percent-plus-one voters" and then 50-percent-plus-one seats (or Electoral Colelge votes, for President, or Congressmen and/or Senators for the US House and Senate),

 

In any case: getting the most votes does not confer legitimacy on the party that wins - and it in no way means that the resultant policies are defensible or morally right.

Even if 99.99% of voters agreed that slavery was right, or that you could gas Jews, or eat babies, or allow Dick Cheney and Henry Kissinger to escape the legal consequences of their life choices... all those policies would still be wrong.

 

WRITE THIS DOWN: CHECK IT'S TRUE: REMEMBER IT ALWAYS.

The NSDAP in March 1933 got the largest proportion of the eligible electorate for any party in any Western democracy in the 20th century.

It got ~44% of the vote, in an election with 88% turnout, for a total of ~39% of all eligible voters: nobody was excluded on gender, political, race, ethnic or religious grounds and voting was voluntary. It failed to secure enough seats to govern in its own right, and is therefore considered only quasi-legitimate.

Something to note: in "mandatory voting" Australia, the turnout is usually about 90% and about 95% of the eligible population is enrolled to vote. Multiply those two together, and the proportion of the eligible population that turns out is 85.5%... less than turned out to vote in the election that brought Hitler to power.

In the most recent Australian election, the party that got the most primary votes (the ALP) got 34% of the vote... and it got to be the Opposition; the two party coalition that formed government in Australia got a lower proportion of the elegible population, combined, than what elected Hitler to power.

 

And get this (as regards "legitimacy" when the 'winner' gets less than 50% of the eligible vote)... The winner in US Presidential contests since 1872 has received, on average, 29% of the eligible vote.

Comparing to Hitler's 39%: No US President since 1900 has gotten 39% of the eligible adult vote. The last time a US president got 39% or more was McKinley in 1896: prior to that you have to go back to Hayes and Grant in 1872 and 1876.

In all three of those US cases, most blacks and all women could not vote - if you do the sums on a 'comparative franchise' basis (i.e., accounting for the fact that almost 50% of adults were ineligible to vote in US Presidential elections), McKinley, Grant and Hayes fail to reach 20% of the adult population.

tricorn teacup's picture

Voting in itself isn't immoral.  The idea that 50%+1 of the vote should grant arbitrary power to impose on the rest is profoundly immoral.

GoinFawr's picture

Not 'arbitrary' at all.  You would think that in such a case (50%+1) the basic similarities between humans ought to be enough to keep that 'imposition' within reason.

Yet, since 'common ground' doesn't always seem to be enough to maintain the universals of morality, no functioning democracy exists as an absolute, most are subject to a constitution, which, if it is just, successfully respects the mandates from the masses while protecting the rights of the individual, and vice versa; so, again, not 'arbitrary' at all.

Anyway,

in lieu of an elected legislative assembly mitigated by a just constitution, what would you suggest?

Anyone?

Buck O Five's picture

In Australia you only have to turn up. The NOTA option is to vote informal (aka donkey vote).

Personally last election here I, like many others, drew a giant cock and balls on the ballot paper (would love to know what percentage of the vote cock and balls was)

tmosley's picture

The crux of the problem is all pinko fucks like you.

Your time is over. Our time is just beginning.

GoinFawr's picture

How about taking gov't grants tmos? Does that qualify as 'pinko'?