Quote Originally Posted by vpbob View Post
Quote Originally Posted by VaughnP View Post
https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1836350800236367969

https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1836345753008013325


Back to national polling, there are two sets of polls producing wildly different results. These keep being discussed without people looking into why. Literally every single one of these Harris +4, +5, or more "polls" are conducted using opt-in online survey panels, almost all of which too are revealed to be heavily Dem weighted when data is available. TIPP too switched to this cost cutting method. Feel free to do your own research.

The polls paying the extra money and putting in the extra effort to work around the response bias problems and conduct live interviews are floating between Harris +1 to Trump +3. We've had a couple instances of internal polling leaks or known insiders openly discussing data they are privy to, both sides show a race completely different than what the biased media is trying to convey. Internal polling is not done with opt-in survey panels and is not weighted to get the results they want. These polls are conducted literally daily. Think back to Hilldawg having to cancel her victory fireworks show.

Campaign ad spending data is all publicly available. The Kamala campaign is spending 40% more money in Michigan than in Georgia, nearly as much as in Georgia in Wisconsin, and less than all of these states in North Carolina - this alone should be eye opening. It's not hard to infer what the internal polling is guiding all to do. When you break this down per capita on population size, the problems in Wisconsin become more apparent.
BS. Trump is devoting more resources to WI than Harris.
https://twitter.com/AdImpact_Pol/status/1834604207514542377
Per electoral vote, Trump is spending the second most per electoral vote in WI, whereas Harris is spending the fourth most.
https://twitter.com/AdImpact_Pol/status/1836096702912303591
What even is your argument? Does her spending in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada look to be that of the candidate supposedly ahead? Trump is spending significantly less, and the media would have one believe that the current states most on the line for either candidate besides the obvious Pennsylvania are Georgia and North Carolina.

Ads target individuals, not electoral votes. Basing the ad spending on electoral votes is obviously a gross oversimplification. Wisconsin has a population of 5.9 million, Georgia has a population of 10.9 million, and North Carolina has 10.7 million. When you break this down by eligible voting population it gets crazier. WI 4.5 million, GA 7.8 million, NC 8.1 million.

Her campaign is spending $7.5 per eligible voter in Wisconsin, $5 per in GA, $3.70 per person in NC. Feel free to pull the eligible voter data yourself. This was based off the totals from the last election and rounded up.

Go back and look at the spending from the month before, Trump's campaign spent considerably less than this month. One candidate is in a countering and holding pattern, the other is in a desperation pattern. What's your explanation for her extreme spending in Nevada? Kamala's campaign has more money, but this doesn't mean they will just waste it.

Nevada is their hope to counter Trump winning Pennsylvania while planning for more Georgia shenanigans. They've been campaigning in North Carolina and testing the ad effectiveness to see if they can move the needle at all for this same scenario.

Though a less likely scenario, her winning Nevada guards against Trump losing every blue wall state and still winning. High quality public polls for New Hampshire would be interesting. RFK was doing better there than any state, and remember Kamala campaigned there after he dropped out while simultaneously forcing stories about the "pathetic", "sad", "sorry" state of Trump's NH campaign.

When you understand the desperation and that the mainstream media is essentially the propaganda arm of the DNC, how they've covered GA and NC makes much more sense.