"WEAPONISED" POLL SHOWS TRUMP TANKING IN IOWA - FAKE NEWS?

Garbage poll?

A poll published in the Des Moines Register apparently shows that the Trump campaign is in trouble in the "Deep Red" state of Iowa. What makes it worse is that the poll is from a widely respected pollster and her firm, Ann Selzer: 

"Kamala Harris now leads Donald Trump in Iowa — a startling reversal for Democrats and Republicans who have all but written off the state’s presidential contest as a certain Trump victory.  

A new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows Vice President Harris leading former President Trump 47% to 44% among likely voters just days before a high-stakes election that appears deadlocked in key battleground states.  

The results follow a September Iowa Poll that showed Trump with a 4-point lead over Harris and a June Iowa Poll showing him with an 18-point lead over Democratic President Joe Biden, who was the presumed Democratic nominee at the time."

Former polls by the same group, Selzer and Co., have been extremely reliable:

But, drilling down into the numbers, it looks like there might be an element of subterfuge at work.

"Among those who say they voted for Trump in 2020, 89% say they will do so again this year, and 4% will vote for Harris.  Among those who say they voted for Biden, 93% say they will now vote for Harris, and 4% will vote for Trump. Among those who did not vote, Harris leads 47% to 44%."

So, if we apply those percentages of intention to vote again to the 2020 numbers, where Trump got 897,672 votes (53%) to Biden's 759,061 votes (45%), Trump loses 98,744 votes and Harris loses 53,135 votes. That still gives Trump a majority of 798,920 to 705,926 for Harris.

In fact, the only way that Trump could lose based on these numbers is if all the 98,744 votes he loses switch to Harris and none of Biden's lost vote comes to Trump. Extremely unlikely.

So, where does the headline figure of 47% for Harris vs 44% for Trump come from? Obviously from those who didn't vote last time, many of whom are unlikely to vote this time:

Among those who did not vote, Harris leads 47% to 44%.

It seems that this poll, although from a previously reliable pollster, may in fact have been "weaponised" by the Harris campaign, with the pollster possibly agreeing to misrepresent the data in an attempt to influence the election. 

Ann Selzer, cooking the polls?

Elsewhere in the article it says:

"The poll shows that women — particularly those who are older or who are politically independent — are driving the late shift toward Harris." 

Is this line actually about Selzer herself? She is certainly an "older woman" who is not just "politically independent" but may now be "financially independent" thanks to this poll psy-op, which is calculated to give the Harris campaign an artificial boost in the dying days of the campaign.

Iowa, remember, is located strategically close to several of the big "Rust Belt" swing states.

Thanks to a variety of new and unorthodox factors, elections are becoming harder to read than before. This is especially true in the case of contests involving Donald Trump. It is certain that many polls will turn out to have significant amounts of error once the results are declared. This will of course lead to accusations of "election fraud" by whichever side loses.