This article is part one of an ongoing series which analyzes the upcoming midterms.

There will be NO Democrat blue wave coming this November. Period.

In recent months, the news media has been flushed with talking heads referencing polls and spinning any off-year election outcome as incontrovertible evidence for a “Democrat wave” this fall. However, the evidence for a “blue wave” is both anecdotal and inconclusive.

Most pundits base their assumptions on two factors: 1) traditional polling and 2) select election results. In this article, I shall deconstruct the first factor.

Fake Polls are Real

History teaches if the stars do not align just as the pollsters predict, pundits may get things wrong — just ask President Thomas Dewey.

In recent years, traditional polling firms have greatly underestimated the size of the populist conservative electorate, while overestimating liberal turnout.

US pollsters missed the scope of Republican turnout for the 2014 midterms. The final RCP (Real Clear Politics) average estimated GOP turnout to be 45.6% — actual turnout was 51.4%.

In 2016, the RCP average had Trump winning Ohio with 2.2% — the final results were 51-43%.

In Michigan, the final 2016 RCP average underestimated GOP turnout by -4%.

Most interestingly is Wisconsin, where not a single poll had Trump leading. He went on to win the Badger State…bigly.

In each case, pollsters underestimated the size of the conservative electorate.

The degree to which the polling industry on an international scale is suffering is equally astounding.

During the 2015 Israeli Election, numerous international polling firms greatly miscalculated the turnout for the nationalist Likud party. Likud was estimated to win 18 Knesset seats — they ended up snagging 30.

In the UK Election of 2015, polling firms did predict a hung parliament, but underestimated turnout for Conservatives. The Conservative Party was estimated to come out with 287 MPs, but actually won 306 seats by night’s end.

Most infamously, international pollsters missed Brexit. The MOE for the Brexit poll averages was +/-4%, giving Remain a 52-48% lead. Fascinatingly, the results were indeed 52-48%…but for Leave — an 8% left-wing tilt between polling and actual results.

Subjective Analysis

So, why so many fake polls? And why does it seem conservative turnout is misjudged?

The answer lies partly in the abandonment of landlines, the proliferation of smartphones, and high levels of migrations exacerbated by the Great Recession.

Pollsters rely on calling households for data acquisition.

However, these days when a pollster calls many times they are calling a cellphone number and there is absolutely no guarantee the voter is living in the state which his or her number is registered.

Another issue is many populist conservatives are first time or rural voters and simply undetectable in traditional polling models. If you cannot see the whole electorate, how can you have an objective view of the outcome of an election?

Hence, accurate polling using traditional methods is now nearly impossible.

The Trump Campaign knew this and targeted these voters — and subsequently reshaped the electorate — with sophisticated GOTV techniques developed by the firm Cambridge Analytical — the team largely behind Leave’s Brexit victory.

Democrats enjoyed a monopoly on data acquisition and voter mobilization through mass media polling and telecommunications for years, but with the advent of the Trump era that all changed.

Why do you suppose the fascist left has been waging a war against Cambridge Analytical? To stop conservatives from reaching their electorate through new methodologies and communications.

In a way, the attacks on Cambridge Analytical amount to voter suppression of conservatives.

Regardless, polling has always straddled the fence between science and soothsaying. What the pollster wishes to see in the electorate may impact their interpretation of raw data which is one reason we end up with fake polls.

In other words, a pollster’s manipulation interpretation of their data — whether it be wording of questions, modeling, or sample size — is subjective and therefore open to personal bias.

Those results are then cited as fact by pundits — the same pundits who gave Hillary Clinton a 98% chance of winning in 2016 and now insist a blue wave is coming this fall. It’s not.

As I said in a December tweet, pundits would start citing agenda polls in order to discourage Deplorables and stall President Trump’s agenda. I was right.

Their next step would be to cite — and distort — select election results in order to generate a sense of inevitability for a Democratic wave. However, that discussion is for my next article: No Blue Wave Coming: Part 2.

Follow Max on Twitter

Subscribe to The Max Radio Network

[pum_sub_form name_field_type=”first_only” name_optional label_name=”Name” label_fname=”First Name” label_lname=”Last Name” label_email=”Email” label_submit=”Subscribe” placeholder_name=”Name” placeholder_fname=”First Name” placeholder_lname=”Last Name” placeholder_email=”Email” form_layout=”block” form_alignment=”center” form_style=”default” closedelay=”0″ openpopup_id=”0″]