The American media, across the spectrum, in all forms, has never been so unreliable, so biased, so propagandized and untruthful as in the past 18 months of presidential campaign coverage.

Regardless of whether we are reading establishment newspapers and magazines, viewing television news outlets, cable and network, or listening to talk radio, we have been inundated with lie after lie, all of which were intended to maintain the establishment grip on Washington, D.C., and the political bureaucracy.

The basis for this not-so-astounding claim on my part is the overwhelming use of surveys loosely defined as "polls" which drove every single news cycle regardless of the nature of true news that far too often was relegated to secondary status. Even when a major event did occur, such as the terrorist attack on a gay club in Orlando, Florida, the media ultimately got around to what it would mean in the polls.

If you want to know when the media is lying to you – aside from newscasters moving their lips - you simply have to look for any segment that starts with the words "according to recent polls." If you like you can substitute "just released" or "brand new" or words of that nature for 'recent.'

Before a single candidate announced for the presidency, the media and the major political parties had already decided that Democrat Hillary Clinton would face Jeb Bush, who would vanquish his Republican primary opponents with aplomb. After a hard-fought campaign Bush would be ever-so-closely edged out by the woman who would be the first female president of the US.
Hillary Clinton

And the media already had the polls to prove it! But far too often, those "polls" did not include a representative sampling of Republican, Democrat and Independent voters in the percentages by which they were registered in the area where the sample was taken, much less those who could be relied upon to vote. In fact, many of the early polls didn't even ascertain whether the respondents were registered voters, and often included a random sampling of several hundred "adults."

In other words, they were meaningless. Yet the polls drove the news and the intent was that the news then would drive the polls.

Two things stepped in the way; the campaigns of Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who ran as a Democrat alternative to Clinton, and Republican Donald Trump who ran as an alternative to the establishment. After a well-run campaign in which the media undermined him at every opportunity, in coordination with the Democrat National Committee, and hurt him as much by the issues it didn't cover as those it did, Sanders went down to pre-ordained defeat, with Clinton the anointed successor to Barack Obama.

Then to the horror of his one-time supporters Sanders found the sudden wealth to purchase a third home, a $600,000 mansion, and instantly became a Clinton supporter. In fact, as the campaign progressed, Sanders had his nose so far up Clinton's rectum that he morphed into a political caricature of Pinocchio, pausing only to beg of Clinton, "Tell me another lie, tell me another lie!"

But Trump, who was under fire from the first question he fielded in the first primary debate, turned the tables on virtually everyone, including the media and the political establishment which for the purposes of this article means that unholy conglomerate of D.C.-centrist insiders and self-anointed "elitists" from both major parties. He bested 16 other primary opponents, many of whom had so little support that they weren't even allowed on the same stage with him.
Donald J. Trump

Trump had enough money to fund his own campaign without having his legs cut out from under him by biased news reports that are intended to stop the flow of donor cash that for other candidates funds the campaign ads that are the life blood of the media. And Trump, unlike any of his predecessors going back to Dwight Eisenhower, showed that not only did he not need the ads, he also had the personal toughness to withstand the unrelenting, usually false assaults on him by the media and its stooges, props and sycophants.

So here we are on the cusp of the 2016 presidential election with the media universally proclaiming the race is a "dead heat" with Hillary Clinton just a few points ahead of Trump, but within the "margin of error." Bull. I have reviewed the methodology of virtually every poll done in every "battleground" state where the decision supposedly will really be made – because according to the media mantra, every voter in every non-battleground state is so predictable that they really don’t need to pay attention to them on Nov. 8. These polls say she will eke out a narrow victory, just as planned at the outset.

Really? I've got news for you. Many so-called predictable "blue" states are in the media's list of Clinton guaranteed electoral votes only because they are using the same bogus polling methodology in the final days that they were using months ago. And these polls still are over-sampling Democrats while under-sampling Republicans and Independents, usually by double digits.

Yet even with the deck stacked in that manner Trump is close, tied, or within the "margin of error," which tells me that the media is trying, right up to the last minute, to keep the election within a razor-thin margin that would preempt large-scale calls for recounts and investigations of voter fraud. "Oh, so close. Sorry guys. But you did give it a good try." And an anti-establishment candidate will never be heard from again in our lifetimes.

More to the point, people writing about or broadcasting these lies know exactly what they are doing but keep telling us with a straight face that a majority of American voters still prefer a candidate who some are saying committed treason, to a capable businessman who sometimes makes thin-skinned people feel uncomfortable.

Before every news organization and college looking for extra income started doing "polls" there were two major polling organizations in the US; the Gallup Poll and the Harris Poll. Interestingly, neither of these organizations does polling on presidential races, although they will poll issues surrounding those races.

One reason why is the incredible unpredictability of the electorate, and to do an accurate poll of political preferences you have to get the names and contact information for people who actually are registered to vote, and usually do, an expensive and time-consuming endeavor. You have to have their party affiliation or lack of it, and the frequency with which they go to the polls in similar elections going back at least 4 cycles to have any chance at accuracy.

And even then you can be blindsided because, as is the case this year, millions of people registered to vote in the Republican primaries and you can see from the turnout at his events that they are there for Trump. But they aren't on the lists of people who have voted in similar elections so they don't get polled; although that really wouldn't matter since the media model is to get sufficient responses to verify its pre-selected outcome, not to find out what people are really thinking.

So they 'poll' a few or several hundred people, get the response they wanted, then claim to know exactly where the race stands, within a supposedly acceptable margin of error. Want to know what the The Harris Poll thinks of margins of error? Check this out.

The Harris Poll avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Also, Gallup samples generally are at least 1,000 respondents and sometimes much larger. Only rarely do they go into the 500-1000 range, but many media polls routinely sample less than 500 alleged voters, and then claim to know the mood of the country.

So I don't look for a Hillary Clinton victory on Tuesday because even though she has plenty of supporters who are willing to look past her personal history, her husband's history, her foundation's activities, her support for so many anti-American positions on myriad issues, and her abject failures as a public official, there are far more Americans who have had it with her and the political establishment.

Thus, barring a massive outbreak of voter fraud, which is possible, I admit, I believe the real polls put Trump over the top. And if that prediction comes true I hope one of his first acts is to put the so-called media, those pusillanimous purveyors of lies, divisiveness and hatred on notice that they will be the last people in town to get a heads up on anything, whether it be breaking international news or a brief on the D.C. Zoning Commission's upcoming decision on an application to build a dog house.