On Wednesday, political analyst and pollster Mark Mitchell and WarRoom host Peter Navarro explored the intricacies of Rasmussen polling data and its implications for the upcoming 2024 presidential election. Their conversation highlighted significant contrasts between polling organizations and the evolving political dynamics over the past four years.
Mitchell took aim at corporate- mainstream polling firms, specifically criticizing 538 for alleged methodological biases. “538 is owned by ABC News, which rolls up to Disney,” Mitchell stated, arguing that the aggregator’s approach has shifted to align with particular narratives. He contended that, unlike 538, Real Clear Politics offers a more transparent view of the polling landscape.
“Real Clear Politics is a straight average and they link you to the Cross tabs and they have standards about what polls they put on there,” he said, contrasting this with 538’s "black box prediction model” that he believes distorts public perception.
Mitchell criticized the treatment of his polling data by major aggregators like 538, which he claims have acted unfairly toward his work. According to Mitchell, 538, has shown bias in their reporting and even threatened to exclude his polls from their aggregation. He said, “I think they’ve kicked us out quite frankly. I think that’s the reason.” Mitchell expressed frustration that his polling data, which he believes offers a more accurate picture of the electorate, is not being fairly represented by these aggregators.
Mitchell contrasted his methodology with that of 538, arguing that 538’s models are opaque and designed to drive narratives, while his own approach aims for maximum transparency. He emphasized that his polling is grounded in straightforward, consistent methodologies without selective adjustments: “I didn’t change anything… I’m basically trying to match what I think an accurate picture of the electorate is.”
This critique exposes a broader debate about polling accuracy and transparency. Mitchell’s data suggests that Kamala Harris’s approval ratings have been largely stagnant despite media portrayals of rising support. "Kamala Harris’s numbers have been stagnating around 44-45%, contrary to media reports of improvement,” Mitchell noted.
His skepticism extends to manipulating polling methodologies, alleging that some organizations adjust their methods to achieve desired outcomes. He specifically pointed to recent admissions by polling firms about over-sampling certain demographics, which he believes distorts the true picture of public opinion.
The discussion also ventured into the shifting political landscape compared to the 2020 election. Mitchell highlighted that while Trump’s numbers are competitive, they vary significantly across different battleground states. “Trump is roughly tied within the margin of error in states like Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania,” he explained.
This variation indicates a more volatile electoral environment than in previous cycles. Despite some recent polling suggesting tighter races, Mitchell observed a notable improvement in Trump’s standing compared to four years ago. “Trump’s performance is better compared to 2020, showing a significant pickup in key states,” he emphasized.
This improvement, however, comes with caveats. Mitchell noted that while Trump’s current position is stronger than before, discrepancies remain in certain states. For instance, in Arizona, where Trump’s numbers are not as favorable as they were four years ago, he suggested that methodological issues might be at play.
“I think I got a pretty left sample in Arizona that didn’t fully get weighted out,” he speculated, reflecting concerns over the accuracy of state-level polling.
In addition to polling discrepancies, the conversation highlighted the shifting priorities of voters. According to Mitchell, economic issues continue to dominate voter concerns, with “38% of voters in Nevada prioritizing the economy, while only 16% consider immigration a top issue.”
This shift. According to Mitchell, shows the enduring significance of economic factors in shaping electoral outcomes, despite other issues like immigration and government corruption also playing roles.
Mitchell’s insights provide a critical perspective on the evolving dynamics of the 2024 election. His scrutiny of polling methodologies and emphasis on economic issues reveal a complex and shifting electoral landscape, challenging conventional narratives and highlighting the need for careful analysis of polling data.
As the election approaches, these insights offer a glimpse into the factors influencing voter behavior and electoral outcomes.
For more from Mitchell, watch this segment from Wednesday’s WarRoom discussion:
![Bannon’s WarRoom, Show Clip Roundup 8/21/2024 [AM]](https://warroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/770352-75x75.jpg)
In the most direct ways, Mark Mitchell is reporting what he believes to be the objective numbers and offers explanations of what is likely going on in the fake poll reporting. Turnout models and sampling groups is always at the center for any polling operation.
It appears that the polling groups want a result and the poll is setup to give the result they wanted.
Hi Roger! Thanks for adding your comment. Yes. I agree. The polling from corporate media appears to me to be about setting a narrative which disspirits voters, and also makes the appears of a landslide- so if they need to create one, they can point to the polls.
when they steal the five counties again, then what?
Hi Zog- thanks for reading and adding your comments. I believe the game plan is to first focusing on getting everyone to vote- then we worry about the results later.
I think it is more the case of “let’s get the Republicans to vote and then we can see how many extra votes we need in each of the swing states…”
Hi Nigel, I understand. I know quite a few people who believed that in 2022 and didn’t vote. That really helped crush the Republicans. That ideology helps the left quite a bit. Very smart people I know fell for that. Hopefully this year people will remember how we won in 2016, by overwhelming the vote. The “Too big to rig” is a reality.