Nate Silver sees Trump leading Harris by 8 points, accusing other pollsters of inventing a "close race" (which is the easiest to steal)
Thus "our free press" has always helped the CIA subvert democracy—here as in so many other places. (So if you think it's just the "other party" doing it, you've been played)
Nate Silver is a very able pollster; but his work is considerably flawed by his stone-blindness to election theft, which no big-time pundit is allowed to see, or mention. Thus the parenthesis that ends my title isn’t Silver’s observation, but mine, and that of all Americans who’ve closely watched “our” presidential contests in this century. As we saw with Bush/Cheney’s “victories” in 2000 and 2004, when “our free press” defines a race as “close”—that is, closer than it really is—the charge of fraud seems rather wild, especially to those who like the outcome, and/or those who just don’t want to think that American elections can be stolen, since It Can’t Happen Here, etc. Such happy campers tend to snort and roll their eyes at any and all evidence of theft, dismissing students of that evidence as (of course) “conspiracy theorists.”
This tendency has hardened over the last decade or so, as the government-and-media has gone from simply jeering those who doubt or question the official numbers, to slandering them as dangerous subversives—“election deniers,” comparable, morally and intellectually, to “Holocaust deniers.” Since Trump’s ascension in 2016 (an election that he really lost, unlike the one he really did win four years later), and especially since “January 6,” it’s actually become a sort of federal offense to call for a close look at the forensic evidence of fraud. As far as “liberals” are concerned, anyone who doubts the outcome trumpeted by “our free press” is a fascist—when, in fact, such “liberals” are themselves the fascists here (no scare quotes needed).
Blind though he may be to the statistical significance of fraud, Nate Silver is otherwise a scrupulous observer of the voting masses; and so it is appropriate—and urgent—that we take note of his assessment of the current race, as reported Sunday in Epoch Times:
2024 Election Is 2 Days Away: Here’s What the Final Polls Show
11/3/24:
A model produced by poll analyst Nate Silver, who used to operate the FiveThirtyEight website, has given Trump a 53.8 percent chance of winning over Harris’s 45.8 percent.
Silver, at the same time, has accused some pollsters of putting their “finger on the scale” and lying to keep the presidential race close in polls, according to a podcast interview last week.
(Link)
That Trump, on the eve of the election (or “election”) actually enjoys an eight-point lead over his “woke” opponents is entirely credible, considering his strenuous campaigning, and the big crowds that he’s drawn, by contrast with Harris’s near-invisibility—and the hard fact that nobody can really stand her, or ever could. And yet, all that aside, it’s no less credible that, this time, Trump will “lose” again—because the race is rigged as usual; and it is not the Democrats per se who’ve rigged it, any more than it was only the Republicans who put Bush/Cheney in the White House (so they could push the “war on terror”):