During the campaign I found Rasmussen Reports, and basically used them to sustain my sanity during the campaign. Turns out that was exactly the right thing for anyone to have done.
Rasmussen never showed Harris ahead, and was basically to the right of the field of pollsters - but they correctly asserted that they were pretty sure that the actual election would be more Republican than even their own statistics were predicting.
Note that Mitchell promoted American Thinker as having sponsored their research.
I only have them bookmarked as well but they did have Harris ahead by one one day last week.
Trump has suggested that the MSM should lose broadcasting licenses over their lies.IMHO that should happen. In 2001 I suggested
Why Broadcast Journalism isthat the MSM wasn’t actually necessary. Over years I amplified and modified that opinion, continually posting comments to that thread.
Unnecessary and IllegitimateI think the Trump/Vance interviews on The Rogan Experience podcast was a real shot across the bow of the MSM; in future campaigns Republican advertising is likely to promote such podcasts in preference to having their candidates exposed to pseudo-objective MSM "fact checking.”
But, IMHO, no likely reform would do as much to clean up politics as a simple libel lawsuit against the Associated Press and its membership. Such a suit would run counter to the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, and would be rejected all the way up to the Supreme Court - at which point Sullivan will be overturned.
Sullivan actually modified 1A by omitting the first “the” from the phrase “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
That is illegitimate reading, in that “the” freedom of the press refers to freedom as it existed prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Not utterly unrestricted freedom, but freedom as limited by the laws against libel or pornography. Sullivan only seems to make sense if you take for granted the journalism is objective; the MSM is notorious for being anything but that.
You can’t sue “the MSM” -but you could sue "the Associated Press and its membership.” And easily prove that the AP is a continual, virtual meeting of all major journalists - and that
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)is an exact description of why "the Associated Press and its membership” should be held to a very strict interpretation of antitrust legislation.
Rasmussen had all his numbers hit. Atlas, who always had a good reputation, turned out to be the best projecting a 3 percent Trump popular victory and 3 to 4 percent victory margin in each of the battlegrounds. The common strain both have is they are independent and neither is associated with the media or academe whose polls mirror each other.
Rasmusseen had Trump ahead in Iowa by 6 points on the their last poll before election day.
When I saw the outrageous Iowa poll showing Harris up by 3 on Trump, I knew it was total crap. Ann Selzer has forever destroyed her reputation. Only a fool or sucker would ever commission her to do a real poll from now on.
I followed Rasmussen, Baris, and a couple of data analytics nerds-—Datarepublican and TonerousHyus(LatinxAdjacent Doctor PHD) on X-—Datarepublican was feeding live data through the night to Charlie Kirk. They were totally confident in a Trump win.