Those of us who watch politics regularly already knew that many polls are heavily skewed to achieve a desired outcome. The ongoing release of John Podesta emails by WikiLeaks confirms this, taking out of the realm of conspiracy or wishful thinking and into hard-core fact! One email in particular included a 37-page instruction book from a Progressive group called Atlas Project employee, which helps Democratic Party candidates with a full range of campaign data services. The original email with the how-to handbook was from an employee of Atlas Project, Crystal King, and is dated from January 17, 2008.

ZeroHedge.com reviewed the latest poll from today by ABC News and the Washington Post, which shows Hillary Clinton way ahead of Donald Trump nationally by 12-points in a 4-way race. Of the 874 ′likely voters′ surveyed, the party affiliation percentages broke down as 36% Democrat, 27% Republican and 31% Independents. Just for starters, if my arithmetic is correct, we are missing 6% of the survey sampling somewhere! The percentages for the candidates were Clinton 50%, Trump 38%, Johnson 5% and Stein 2% during the period between Oct. 20 – 22. The poll is rated at having a margin of error at 3.5%.

Now, as I have mentioned in previous articles and in the ′Comment′ section many times, polls are generally based on numbers modeled after the results from previous elections. As we saw during the primaries earlier this year, those models are completely out of date. The GOP primary outperformed previous primaries by nearly 60%, while Democrats underperformed by about 20%. In addition, nearly every non-candidate related poll or survey since 2010 has shown both major parties with declining numbers for affiliation while Independents have increased to more than 40% of the population.

The instructions from the old 2008 handbook on rigging polls by Atlas Project lays out how to over-sample and under-sample specific groups, depending on the region. For example, when polling in Arizona, they suggest over-sampling Hispanic and Native-American voters. In Florida, they suggest under-sampling older voters, such as senior citizens. A small over-sampling of Black voters by just 5% can skew a national poll some 3-points overall in favor of Democrats.

When looking at the numbers of the new ABC News-Washington Post poll today we can clearly see that there was over-sampling for every demographic group which is likely to favor Hillary Clinton. We also see an under-sampling of every group that would likely favor Donald Trump. We also see more missing respondents within each category. For example, among Democrats polled, 89% support Hillary, 5% Trump, 2% Johnson and 1% Stein. Where is the missing 3%? Are they undecided? Maybe, but there is separate category to record this indecision. For Independents, it breaks down 45-37-8-4 for each of the above candidates, with 6% missing. Mind you, nearly every poll taken shows Trump well out in front among Independents, usually with 60% or more.

What we are seeing here is a deliberate attempt to downgrade Trump support and overrate Clinton support. The purpose of which is a coordinated effort between The Media and the Hillary Clinton campaign to beat the drums that the presidential election is already over and Hillary is guaranteed to win. If enough people believe this, then this may suppress Trump supporters from bothering to vote. Indeed, we have seen this weekend such talk from Hillary, Obama, and other Democrat surrogates on the campaign trail saying just this. Hillary has even started to refuse to comment on any remarks Trump makes now, dismissing him as already having lost.

This is certainly a form of psychological warfare. As the WikiLeaks emails of John Podesta show, it is nothing new. The one with an attached document of a 37-page handbook on how to rig polls from the Atlas Project is dated from January 2008. I have no doubt that such rigging with over-samplings and under-samplings has been going on for much longer. In the past, we usually see polls becoming more ′honest′ as election day draws near. After all, if a company blows it and fails to produce accurate poll results, future customers may go elsewhere to spend their money. This is why Gallup stopped polling presidential campaigns after the 2012 results.

But 2016 may be an exception to the rule of thumb about polls becoming more honest before the final vote. The Media and other Establishment institutions are so committed to stopping Donald Trump that they may lie right up to the bitter end. Practically every political science indicator points to 2016 being a ′Change Year′. Two prominent, egghead professors, whom have been accurately predicting election results for the past 20 years or more, both give Trump a probability of winning well over 80%. After the third debate, even the overseas betting ′parlors′ have seen a dramatic switch, some with a 70-point swing in favor of Trump winning. A few have gone from 10-to-1 odds to 4-to-1 odds, literally overnight. Much like what happened in the Brexit vote in the UK a couple of months ago.

While I was writing this, my new, general care doctor paid me my monthly visit to check-up on my health and he asked me who I thought was going to win on November 8. I answered quite honestly that I haven′t a clue. The election, in my opinion, is completely up in the air. There are so many unknown factors this particular election cycle because of Donald Trump that anything can happen. Ultimately, actual turn out will tell the tale. We are already seeing in Florida absentee ballots from Republican voters outpacing Democrats by some 1.8%. A new poll from Florida shows Hillary up by only 3-points, well within the margin of error, making the state a virtual tie.

There is no doubt in my mind that many of the polls are being deliberately rigged to show Hillary Clinton winning. Any national poll showing her up by more than 5-points simply cannot be trusted. To be fair, any national poll showing Trump ahead by more than 5-points is also probably in error. But, if what the two egghead professors say is true, there is a greater likelihood of a big Trump landslide than one for Hillary. Right now, I would say that the three most likely outcomes are, Hillary by a nose, Trump by a nose, or Trump by a mile. I simply do not foresee Clinton winning by a significant number. Even with the Electoral College. Between the general angst in the country, the desire for change and a new direction, all of the scandals and the huge enthusiasm gap between Trump, who has a lot, and Hillary, who has none, there are just too many unknowns. So don′t be fooled, the election is far from over. Get out and vote!!!

For more news and views follow Andrew Zarowny on Facebook, or on Twitter @mrcapitalist.