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

Polls
Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
November 12, 2016

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.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

TheHill.com

TheGatewayPundit.com

Trump.news

WOW: Huffington Post’s 98% prediction of Hillary victory makes it one of the biggest chumps in online news

Huffington Post
Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
November 10, 2016

When your coverage of politics and issues of the day as a news site is clouded and affected by your morally bankrupt political ideology, you wind up saying things that turn out to be incredibly stupid.

Yes, Huffington Post, I’m talking about you.

Full disclosure: Readers of our site have long known we were supporting now President-elect Donald Trump. We’ve made no secret of that. Our founding editor, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has voiced his full-throated support for Trump for months after determining that he was the one candidate who could win who was not co-opted and wholly owned by Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Medicine and who he honestly believes is ready to neuter the political establishment in D.C. and the global power elite.

The managing editors at HuffPo, however, managed to delude themselves into thinking Clinton would win no matter what. That’s probably because the site’s far-left founder, Arianna Huffington, decided months ago to allow her publication to become a filter-less “echo” chamber for the Clinton campaign. According to leaked emails released from WikiLeaks, Huffington declined accepting a position on the board of a left-wing organization because she believed she could better assist Clinton with HuffPo:

“She is enthusiastic about the project but asks if she’s more useful to us not being on the Board and, instead, using Huffpo to echo our message without any perceived conflicts. She has a point.”

Here’s how a ‘presidential prediction model’ can be so wildly inaccurate

As such, when you’re so in the tank for a political candidate, you begin to believe that the propaganda you are spewing is real. That leads you to do epically stupid things – like report that Clinton had a 98.2 percent chance of victory, based on some goofy, unscientific “presidential forecast model.”

According to that model, Clinton should be sitting pretty today with 323 electoral votes, compared to the 228 that she actually won (so far as of this report). Trump, who was given a 1.7 percent chance of winning should be sitting with 215 electoral votes, instead of the 274 that he actually got (as of this writing).

Clinton’s win will be substantial, but not overwhelming,” HuffPo reported.

Except that it was neither.

This same “model” also predicted that the U.S. Senate would shift to Democratic control – “with 51 seats or 50 seats and Tim Kaine as the vice presidential tie-breaker.” That was wrong too; Republicans not only held the Senate but won a few races they weren’t supposed to win. They kept the House, too, and picked up some governors around the country.

Now, it could be that HuffPo actually tried to construct a legitimate political polling model. But it was never going to be accurate because the site was so far in the tank for Clinton that any rational dissent, based on hard evidence, was factored out. Another reason is because the hard Left editors at the site (along with other hard-Left pollsters) never took the time to learn who Trump’s supporters actually were. They lampooned them, wrote them off as kooks and crazies, and never really believed Trump was drawing the incredible (record) number of supporters everywhere he held rallies. They dismissed Trump voters as “deplorables” and louts and bigots and racists (none of which was true) and closed their minds to what appeal Trump was having to his base.

Marxist hacks pretending to be journalists

In addition, HuffPo became openly hostile to more reasoned (but also ultimately wrong) polling data. In this post by Evan Cohen the day before the election, he seemed bewildered that the fivethirtyeight.com site’s Nate Silver had Clinton’s chances of winning at only 65 percent.

Because HuffPo’s prediction of a 98.2% victory couldn’t be so wrong!

Until it was.

HuffPo has completely discredited itself by making such a stupid prediction. But that’s what being so ideologically compromised on behalf of one political party or another will do, as a news organization: It’ll cause you to make ignorant claims that eventually blow up in your face.

But here’s a prediction: Because it’s so far-Left HuffPo editors will not learn a thing and continue to make buffoonish, clownish claims and statements. They will undermine a Trump administration at every turn while insulting, denigrating and dismissing his legions of supporters.

And as such, it will continue to be little more than comic web site run by Marxist hacks pretending to be journalists.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

ZeroHedge.com

Elections.HuffingtonPost.com

HuffingtonPost.com

NewsTarget.com

“Why Our Children Should Hate Us” – Read The Lance Simmens Article Banned By Huffington Post

Screen Shot 2016-04-28 at 9.19.50 AM
Source: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
Michale Krieger
April 28, 2016

Although Lance Simmens has been intimately involved in public life for several decades, you’ve probably never heard of him. As such, a little introduction is needed.

As mentioned, Lance Simmens’ career was spent in public policy. Specifically, he worked for two U.S. Presidents as well as a couple of senators and governors. Since retirement, he’s been a prolific writer, publishing 180 articles at the Huffington Post over the past 8 years. As such, it came as a great shock to him to discover that one of his recent articles was removed by the Huffington Post shortly after publication. It was the first article ever rejected by the online publication, and the unacceptable subject matter was nothing more than a positive review of the banned everywhere documentary VAXXED.

Here’s Lance Simmens describing the ordeal in a recent interview:

Continue Reading At: LibertyBlitzkrieg.com

Former NBC Boss Asserts His Grandson Damaged By Vaccines

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
April 20, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

The roof is beginning to cave in on the vaccine empire.

Now, in the wake of the unsuccessful attempt to censor the film Vaxxed (trailer), we have Bob Wright, the former CEO of media giant, NBC Universal, authoring a new book, “The Wright Stuff: From NBC to Autism Speaks.”

In its review of the book, Accuracy in Media provides a devastating quote from Wright about his autistic grandson:

“Right after he got the standard one-year vaccinations, he developed a very high fever and screamed for hours. Katie [Wright’s daughter] was so frightened she called her husband to come home from work and they put the baby in an ice bath to bring down the fever. When they called the doctor they were told the reaction was completely normal.”

Yes, completely normal in the eyes of a lunatic licensed to practice medicine.

Normal, if brain damage is something parents should be expected to shrug off.

Normal, if destroying the life of a child, through officially sanctioned means, is simply written off as the cost of doing pharmaceutical business.

Wright goes on to say that he tried, without a shred of success, to convince Bush and Obama they needed to improve vaccine safety. According to Wright, the Bush people feared negative press reaction, and Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett killed the idea.

In the past few days, a long-time blogger for Huffington Post, Lance Simmens (twitter), submitted a positive review of Vaxxed. It was posted, then deleted—and Simmens’ account at Huff Po was canceled without notice. More censorship. The geniuses at Huff Po haven’t gotten the memo yet: blacking out information about the film only gives it more legs. Do they even have a press operation over there? I always assumed Huff Po was built as a façade/cardboard box, in order to sell it. That objective was achieved in 2010, when AOL gobbled it up for $315 million. What an extraordinary hustle.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

————————————————————————–

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

 

Breakaway Links Of The Day – 4-19-2016

Breakaway
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
April 19, 2016

Jon Rappoport does an incisive job of showing how consent in science can be engineered to serve various issues, while F. William Engdahl pens an undoubtedly phenomenal piece regarding the ongoing dilemmas with the noxious Glyphosate, which is of course coupled with genetically modified foods.

Have a great evening.

Manufacturing Consent In Science – The Diabolical Twist
[NoMoreFakeNews.com | Jon Rappoport]

Dramatic Turn In Brussels Glyphosate Battle – F. William Engdahl
[TheNewsDoctors.com | F. William Engdahl]

One Option This Doctors Recommends To Improve Health
[Source: iHealthTube.com  | Dr. Don Colbert]

HuffPo Censors VAXXED Documentary Article & Blocks Veteran Writer
[NaturalNews.com | Mike Adams]

Beware Of The Bull – Equity Boom Has No Basis in Economic Fundamentals
Always question the propaganda the mainstream media peddles. 
[TheDailyBell | Staff]

Virus Fakery: My conversation With A White House Insider
[NoMoreFakeNews.com | Jon Rappoport]

How Money From Pharmaceutical Companies Sways Doctors’ Prescriptions
articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/04/13/doctors-receiving-pharmaceutical-money.aspx
[Editor’s Note: the link won’t couple, which is why its offered for those that wish to copy and paste it into the search engine]
One of the many way Big Pharma uses its power. 
[Mercola.com | Dr. Mercola]