“subtlety”, “nuance”, “twitches”, “tremors”, “fine tuning”, these the less visible notations a researcher can find when they look into the quiet data the smart-set stroll past.

However, that said, when the New York Times is noticed shuffling around in the same data sets, you just know they are attempting to quantify the reality behind the stats the MSM consistently, and fraudulently, represent. In addition, when they stop looking over their shoulder and begin polishing off the dirt from the glowing nugget, well,.. they wouldn’t be standing next to us if they didn’t suspect we were mining in a more lucrative locale.

CTH readers already know the scope of the research we’ve put into this election. Our spidey senses also anticipate a certain republican candidate has previously invested in a very similar endeavor. Indeed, it would be impossible for us to predict so accurately were it not for an accidental synergy and ideological alignment therein.

In a rare admission today, the New York Times is walking back over 10 years of prior demographic presentations regarding the U.S. electorate. In essence what they are saying is the voting base is far less ethnically diverse and far more white than historic leftist presentations.

Oh my.

The New York Times is also outlining something, carefully, without actually outlining the something they need to be careful about. Candidate Donald Trump’s “potential” broad-based coalition is far larger than candidate Hillary Clinton’s “potential” identity-brand political coalition.

Everyone who follows presidential politics should go read THE ARTICLE HERE; and pay close attention to the data sets which accompany the presentation (expand to expand the detail). We would particularly draw your attention to the following:

Why is that 10 million figure important?

Back in February 2016, after compiling approximately two years of non quantifiable voter trend and sentiment data, the first four primary races were held: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

That was the first time we were able to overlay the non quantifiable (data assembly) with the empirical results of four primary contests. You might remember we found a jaw-dropping trend that was narrowing toward one possible reasonable conclusion; but we didn’t want to get out in front of our skis, so we asked a professional statistician to review –then summarize– our model.

Every prediction from that late February analysis has proven accurate. The remaining prediction was this:

[…] In 2008 21.9 million Republicans voted in the primary and 58.1 million voted in the general election (265% increase). In 2012 19.2 million primary -vs- 59.2 million in the general (308% increase). If those increases are even remotely maintained given the scope of the current increase in Republican Primary participation, the general election vote would be through the roof. And here is where you begin to understand the potential scope of the 2016 primary voter for the Republican nominee, Donald J Trump. This is the bottom line the media and establishment republicans do not want to see discussed. This is the potential for the “Trump Effect”:

That jaw-dropping number, 7.2 million more potential votes than Barack Obama carried in 2008 and almost 13 million more than Mitt Romney carried in 2012, is the least result achievable when you turn out THE MONSTER VOTE.

Remember, this same predictive model NAILED the turnout on both the GOP Primary side and the Democrat primary side. – SEE HERE–

What the New York Times is statistically beginning to quantify is the existence of The Monster Vote. If you look closely at the data behind their newly discovered 10 million potential/predictable voters, you’ll notice the additional votes carry to exactly what we predicted in February.

Even if Republican projection turnout was off by 5 million votes, Trump still wins in a landslide. Heck, even if the projection turnout was off by a staggering 10 million votes, the republican nominee (Trump) would still gets more votes than President Obama did in 2012 and it is highly doubtful Hillary could turn out that level of support. –link–

♦ Even the fact the NYT would write such an article tells you there are interests (financial interests, globalists) who are looking closely and trying to quantify the challenge they have in front of them.

♦ Remember, even in honest scientific polling – the poll methodologies are based on “assumptions”, or inputs into the collected poll samples in order to make them representative of the anticipated turnout.

♦ Thanks to Donald Trump, historic turnout trends are obsolete. Additionally, historic demographics and party affiliations are also obsolete. As a consequence any poll data that is relying on obsolete sample methodology is going to be significantly inaccurate.