Speaker 1: Do you guys feel it. We're in the mid term
Speaker 1: sprint right now. We are heading into one of the
Speaker 1: most consequential elections of our lifetime. You know the stakes.
Speaker 1: I know the stakes. We've seen what this administration has done.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden has destroyed our country in two years. Did
Speaker 1: you ever think he could do this much damage in
Speaker 1: such a short period of time. We've got record high inflation,
Speaker 1: gas prices are up, the indoctrination of kids in schools.
Speaker 1: We've got the d o J and the FBI targeting
Speaker 1: patriotic Americans. So everything is at stake on November eight. Everything,
Speaker 1: the future of this country, the future of your kids.
Speaker 1: It's the life or death scenario. When we see the
Speaker 1: d o J and the FBI targeting patriotic Americans. Everything
Speaker 1: is at stake this November. And what I don't want
Speaker 1: to happen is for people to get demoralized because you're
Speaker 1: watching the media, You're you're reading what they're printing about
Speaker 1: this election. Because they are wrong. They're wrong about what's
Speaker 1: happening in the country right now. They're going to be
Speaker 1: wrong again on November eight. I'm telling you this, go
Speaker 1: back to look at the mistakes that were made in
Speaker 1: pulling in. There was a report from the American Association
Speaker 1: for Public Opinion Research finding that national surveys in were
Speaker 1: the least accurate in forty years. State polls were the
Speaker 1: least accurate in two decades. I mean, you can look
Speaker 1: at polls heading into the election. ABC had Joe Biden
Speaker 1: winning Wisconsin by seventeen He won by less than a point.
Speaker 1: Even in Florida. The Real Clear Politics average, which it's
Speaker 1: not the fault of the Real Clear Politics Average, it's
Speaker 1: it's the fault of the pollsters that they're averaging out,
Speaker 1: but it had Joe Biden up by one point two
Speaker 1: in Florida. Biden lost big to Trump. Trump won with
Speaker 1: a margin of three point four percent. And there's examples
Speaker 1: across the country. I don't want to bore you, but
Speaker 1: the point is they got it wrong. Why did they
Speaker 1: get it wrong. My opinion of why they got it
Speaker 1: wrong they wanted to get it wrong. Their intent is
Speaker 1: not to capture the election, it's to shape the election,
Speaker 1: and it works. We saw this in Arizona recently, where
Speaker 1: you have Blake Masters. If you listen to the polls,
Speaker 1: he's in striking distance. I think he's probably up in Arizona.
Speaker 1: To be perfectly honest with you, but we saw the
Speaker 1: impact of what this public polling does. You had Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell's superpack, the Senate Leadership Fund. They canceled nine point
Speaker 1: six million dollars in television ads for Blake Master in
Speaker 1: the Arizona Senate race. Why do you think they did that? One,
Speaker 1: I think Mitch McConnell would rather be in charge in
Speaker 1: the minority than lose. You know, they no longer be
Speaker 1: the Senate majority leader if Republicans were to win. But
Speaker 1: also because these posters who get it wrong intentionally, they
Speaker 1: make an impact. They shape dollars going into these campaigns.
Speaker 1: They shape people's desire to donate. If they don't think
Speaker 1: that a candidate can win, they're not going to donate.
Speaker 1: It discourages voters and thinking, oh, I don't know, I'm
Speaker 1: looking at the polls. I don't think my guy can
Speaker 1: pull it. Dosh, Should I just sit home? And that's
Speaker 1: the intent, that's the intent by behind a lot of
Speaker 1: these public opinion posters getting it so wrong. I mean,
Speaker 1: you still have posters doing registered voter surveys, which is moronic.
Speaker 1: There there's no reason every poster should be doing likely
Speaker 1: voter survey. So the point is a lot of these people,
Speaker 1: a lot of these public opinion posters, they're trying to
Speaker 1: impact the way you see the elector. They're not trying
Speaker 1: to tell you what's actually happening, and it's intentional. So
Speaker 1: what I'm gonna do today is bring someone on who
Speaker 1: I know is going to give you the truth. And
Speaker 1: I know this because I used to work for them
Speaker 1: before I got into Before I got into television and
Speaker 1: the media, I worked in politics. I worked on Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill for a number of years. I worked on campaigns,
Speaker 1: top Senate races, and I was also a vice president
Speaker 1: of polling. And I worked for this guy, Chris Wilson.
Speaker 1: He's the founder and CEO of a company called w
Speaker 1: p A Intelligence. The guy is good. Right in one
Speaker 1: he was named Poster of the Year by the American
Speaker 1: Association of Political Consultants for his work. He also did
Speaker 1: predictive analytics on the Glenn Yucan for Governor campaign. He
Speaker 1: worked for Cruises campaign in Obviously he did very well there,
Speaker 1: didn't win. Trump pulled it out. But point bing is,
Speaker 1: this guy is good. A lot of this stuff he
Speaker 1: does is for private clients, which means that he puts
Speaker 1: in a lot more leg work to make sure that
Speaker 1: he's getting things right, unlike a lot of these public
Speaker 1: opinion posters. But the point of this podcast is to
Speaker 1: tell you that we have which you guys know at home,
Speaker 1: everyone listening to this knows we have the most important election.
Speaker 1: This is for everything, This is for the future of
Speaker 1: our country. I don't have kids yet. What kind of
Speaker 1: country am I going to be bringing children into by
Speaker 1: the time I give birth? And I have kids and
Speaker 1: I gotta find a husband for so we're talking. You know,
Speaker 1: there's a little bit to go here in terms of timing.
Speaker 1: But this election is important. We all feel what everyone listening.
Speaker 1: We know how important this election is. So I don't
Speaker 1: want you to be discouraged because we are being lied
Speaker 1: to and it's intentional. So the point of this podcast
Speaker 1: is to bring someone on who is going to tell
Speaker 1: us the truth, who's going to get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of what's actually happening, what the actual dynamics are at
Speaker 1: play with the actual electorate looks like as we head
Speaker 1: into this midterm sprint. So that's what we're gonna do
Speaker 1: today with Chris Wilson. Stay tuned, Chris Wilson, It's been
Speaker 1: a while since we've caught up. A lot's happened, like
Speaker 1: you know, the destruction of the country and everything following apart.
Speaker 1: It's it's really bad. As you know, Chris, you've been
Speaker 1: following this stuff for a really long time. Look at
Speaker 1: the landscape, the political landscape today. Where do things fall?
Speaker 1: What does it look like to you? Is you are
Speaker 1: looking at pulling every day? Well, it's you know, the
Speaker 1: one thing that I have the benefit of that most
Speaker 1: people don't is the leading indicator of every morning when
Speaker 1: I walk in is you know this least that used
Speaker 1: to work with me. Is we've got pulling from all
Speaker 1: over the country. And as you saw in the New
Speaker 1: York Times poll this weekend, the Republicans have a republic
Speaker 1: can go back ahead in the generic ballot. Now, we
Speaker 1: saw that happen uh here at w P A Intelligence
Speaker 1: probably about a week before the New York Times did.
Speaker 1: And that is because we're seeing it directly from campaigns.
Speaker 1: And so when you look at a national poll, as
Speaker 1: you're well aware that you're gonna it's gonna be heavily
Speaker 1: influenced by number, by the sampling that goes on in
Speaker 1: states like New York or California that are a lot
Speaker 1: of the sample size from national So it's always gonna
Speaker 1: be a little bit trailing of what we're going to
Speaker 1: see from an individual race. And it has. I have
Speaker 1: been optimistic now for probably about two and a half weeks,
Speaker 1: and that is what makes it um makes me bullish
Speaker 1: on not just the House, but also the Senate. And
Speaker 1: I think the Republicans are going to have a very
Speaker 1: good night. Uh here, what are we out? Now? How
Speaker 1: many days out? I should notice by heart since I'm
Speaker 1: gonna finally come up for air exactly, and it is.
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna You're gonna see Republicans win a
Speaker 1: lot of races that nobody's expecting. I give an example
Speaker 1: that it's one I'll mention when I'm not involveding's a
Speaker 1: little bit easier to quote of somebody else's numbers on
Speaker 1: my own. But Lezeldon for governor of New York. Uh
Speaker 1: he is right now within the margin of error against
Speaker 1: the Democrat income of governor. That is shocking. If anyone
Speaker 1: had told you or me at the beginning the cycle
Speaker 1: that Republicans could pick up the governorship in New York,
Speaker 1: we would have just laughed and said, yeah, no chance,
Speaker 1: and people laughed at Les Eldon when he left Congress
Speaker 1: to go run for it. Yet I think that is
Speaker 1: likely to happen, and so I think you're gonna see
Speaker 1: a sweep here on November eight, at the same level
Speaker 1: that Republicans saw in n and two thousand ten and
Speaker 1: two thousand fourteen, and potentially even better because you've got
Speaker 1: things going on. As you know that, we look up
Speaker 1: this morning and find out that Joe Biden is pretty
Speaker 1: much emptying out the strategic oil reserve. And let's not
Speaker 1: let's not forget. This is the strategic oil reserve that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and Republicans in the House and Senate tried
Speaker 1: to refiel refill, right but just a couple of short
Speaker 1: years ago, and Democrats blocked him from doing it doing
Speaker 1: it because they didn't want him to get a win. So,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, the level of destructions going on our
Speaker 1: company and country right now is almost at the catastrophic level.
Speaker 1: Democrats blocked improvement levels, blocked building wall blocks, like I said,
Speaker 1: refilling the strategic oil reserves. And now you've got Democrats
Speaker 1: tapped reaping what they have sown in that they shut
Speaker 1: down our energy independence. We have to import oil, and
Speaker 1: so they're emptying out what Republicans put into it. You see,
Speaker 1: you see migrants of flooding our borders. Everyone's coming into
Speaker 1: our borders. And Democrats now doing declaring states of emergency
Speaker 1: because Republicans are like, all right, enough, if you want,
Speaker 1: you can declare in New York City or washing d
Speaker 1: C or Caglos the sanctuary city or sanctuary state. We'll
Speaker 1: ship them your way. And now they were, hold on,
Speaker 1: we were just kidding, what didn't know what I mean that?
Speaker 1: So I do. I am very optimistic about what's going
Speaker 1: to happen, and I think, you know, one more thing,
Speaker 1: I'll mention and then I'll shut up. Is the biggest
Speaker 1: shift we have seen over the course of the last
Speaker 1: few weeks is with independent women. And make no mistake,
Speaker 1: independent women were our loss with and I'll even categorizing
Speaker 1: geographically suburban independent women was almost catastrophe back in two
Speaker 1: thousand and eighteen. And I would have thought it would
Speaker 1: take a generation to see that undo itself. But COVID shutdowns,
Speaker 1: educational shutdowns, and Joe Biden's incompetence baffling presidency elected Glenn
Speaker 1: Yuncan who I was involved in his race back in
Speaker 1: last cycle. And it's going to have the impact of
Speaker 1: a almost a Republican suite coming here in a couple
Speaker 1: of short weeks. Well, and you mentioned, you know, two
Speaker 1: thousands ten, I was at the NRCC there where, you know,
Speaker 1: you do have when you have these wave elections, as
Speaker 1: you've experienced, you know, you you pick up seats you
Speaker 1: weren't expecting. And we've got you know, Joe Biden has
Speaker 1: been in Oregon campaigning for the Democrat candidate candidate there,
Speaker 1: and Christine Drayson, the Republican candidate, has a shot. Now
Speaker 1: there's a third. You know, there's an independent Rudding who's
Speaker 1: sort of playing spoiler there as well. But I mean,
Speaker 1: the fact that Joe Biden is in Oregon says a
Speaker 1: lot about what's coming. You know, how big of a
Speaker 1: suite do you think it could be? I mean, I
Speaker 1: know these things are tough to tell, but you know,
Speaker 1: if it was today, how big do you think this
Speaker 1: thing could be? I think you would see Republicans pick
Speaker 1: up in the mid thirties in the House. I think
Speaker 1: you would see them pick up and not just hold seats. Remember,
Speaker 1: they've got a hold seats like Pennsylvania where you've got
Speaker 1: dr Osy and Studman where he Fedderman had a double
Speaker 1: digit lead for a long time. It's now margin of air. Uh,
Speaker 1: not just hold states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, that where your
Speaker 1: Republicans retired, but go pick up. I think you're gonna
Speaker 1: see Republicans pick up seats in Nevada, in Georgia, in Uh.
Speaker 1: I mean, Arizona is getting tied. You've got Kelly only
Speaker 1: at one point over Masters. You've I think these Masters
Speaker 1: ends up winning. So I think you can see Republicans
Speaker 1: pick up two to five seats in the Senate and
Speaker 1: then the governor's level. And that is that's the one
Speaker 1: place that I really just don't have a good feel
Speaker 1: because it is like you said, you mentioned Oregon. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, if you're not doing the pulling yourself there,
Speaker 1: you're not aware. I think I think you're gonna see
Speaker 1: Gretchen WiBro loose in Michigan, for example, and nobody would
Speaker 1: have seen that a while back. You've got carry Lake,
Speaker 1: who is up now in Arizona over Hobbs. We pulled
Speaker 1: out this morning from the Daily Wire has carry Lake
Speaker 1: up three points. I mean It is just it's shocking
Speaker 1: to see how much movement is taking place here in
Speaker 1: the course of the last week or so. The only
Speaker 1: thing that worries me about Pennsylvania, and I'd love to
Speaker 1: get your opinion on this, is you have Master Roano,
Speaker 1: the candidate running for governor, who's behind by like double
Speaker 1: digits and pulling right now. So how much would that
Speaker 1: impact Oz, who is within the margin of error at
Speaker 1: least that's what it looks like in pulling. Conversely, you
Speaker 1: have a situation in Georgia where Brian camp is up
Speaker 1: by you know, six seven, you know, I think six
Speaker 1: in the real clear politics average, who could then pull
Speaker 1: herschel Walker with him? So so talk about that dynamic
Speaker 1: and how that could play out in your estimation. Well,
Speaker 1: it's interesting in terms of the way and uh hopefully
Speaker 1: remember some of us whenever you worked with us, and
Speaker 1: when you write a poll, you write it to where
Speaker 1: the it's the questions are asked and the order the
Speaker 1: ballot is asked and a Pennsylvania, as you point out,
Speaker 1: the governor's race is is at the top of the ballot.
Speaker 1: But I'm less pessimistic about mass Triano, I think than
Speaker 1: most people are and it is. I know him, I've helped,
Speaker 1: I've been involved in the race. I wouldn't say I'm
Speaker 1: directly involved like I usually when I've done a couple
Speaker 1: of pulls for him along the way. I wish I
Speaker 1: was more involved because, frankly, I think he is a
Speaker 1: he is someone who's painted unfairly by the media. He
Speaker 1: is he's a soldier, a blee, he's a PhDs at
Speaker 1: least a master's degree. He's a brilliant man, and he's someone,
Speaker 1: like I said, has been painted unfairly. And I do
Speaker 1: think he ends up pulling out that race. So I
Speaker 1: think it'll be close, but I do think he and
Speaker 1: Oz both win because I believe you're gonna see turnout
Speaker 1: in the rural areas of Pennsylvania where Governor Wolfe shut
Speaker 1: down schools and it was a really disastrous for a
Speaker 1: lot of families that are now dealing with trying to
Speaker 1: get their kids back up to speed. Uh from educational standpoints,
Speaker 1: I think you're gonna see people in the rural and
Speaker 1: suburban areas that would have voted for Shapiro, the Democrat nominee,
Speaker 1: who are gonna say, you know what, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to let another Democrat destroy my child's education and vote
Speaker 1: from Mastrolano instead of that. And I think so I
Speaker 1: believe Oz and master Anio will actually both end up winning.
Speaker 1: I don't. I'm not gonna make prediction on who wins
Speaker 1: up pointing about more right likely it would be Oz.
Speaker 1: But we've been shocked in those situations before. And as
Speaker 1: you mentioned, I mean, Brian camp Has has run a
Speaker 1: great campaign. I would say, stay see Abrams is run
Speaker 1: the kind of campaign she ran last time. She spends
Speaker 1: a lot of time complaining about the last election. And
Speaker 1: you know, she's really the one true election denier in
Speaker 1: the United States these days, and I think kimp is
Speaker 1: appointed by you don't hear about that from the media now,
Speaker 1: You're really don't. And that's what I love about Carry Lakes. There,
Speaker 1: the Republican nominee who is a former member of the
Speaker 1: media in Arizona. Every time somebody asked her about being
Speaker 1: an election doesn't denier, they asked, She asked, when's the
Speaker 1: last times when I asked Stacy Abrams about that? And
Speaker 1: of course the answer is never, because they won't. So
Speaker 1: it is It's really nice to see somebody who is
Speaker 1: able to turn that around on the media the way
Speaker 1: that the way that she does. But I do think
Speaker 1: Kimp wins by double digits. So because of that, I
Speaker 1: think Hersha Washer wins Um wins as well. And the
Speaker 1: beauty of Georgia is they changed the way their elections
Speaker 1: are counted and to some extent and conducted. But you know,
Speaker 1: the whole thing about oh they made it unfair, that
Speaker 1: was completely proven false. During the primaries, you had record turnout,
Speaker 1: and so we're gonna know on election night what happens
Speaker 1: in Georgia the same way we do in most Republican
Speaker 1: in states. It seems to be the Democrats that have
Speaker 1: trouble counting ballots for some reason, but it will be
Speaker 1: it won't be a situation like class time where we
Speaker 1: have to wait, uh wait in a more an amount
Speaker 1: of time to find out who wins. And the other
Speaker 1: aspects on the Senate race in Georgia that you know,
Speaker 1: I keep hearing people there are two independents in the race.
Speaker 1: There's an independent and then there's a social worker policy
Speaker 1: or social communist political organizer who's on the ballot too,
Speaker 1: uh And so a lot of people have suggested that
Speaker 1: it might go to ROTHI and I don't think that
Speaker 1: will be the case. I think Walker will get above there.
Speaker 1: Let's take a quick commercial break back with Chris Wilson
Speaker 1: on the other side. I wanted to ask you, you know,
Speaker 1: you had mentioned the New York Times poll previously. I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people have, you know, sort of
Speaker 1: lost faith and most of our institution, including posters. I
Speaker 1: know that, you know, because you do a lot of
Speaker 1: work for for private clients, You're putting an extra leg
Speaker 1: work that a lot of these public posters are doing.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean, we look at the election. You
Speaker 1: look at that report from the American Station for Public
Speaker 1: Opinion Research, and presidential polls were the least accurate, and
Speaker 1: forty year state polls were or were the least accurate
Speaker 1: in two decades. I mean, we still have posters doing
Speaker 1: registered voter surveys right now. So I mean, kind of
Speaker 1: what's your broader take on some of these public opinion
Speaker 1: posters and why they seem to keep getting things wrong?
Speaker 1: You know, at least it's a really important question, and
Speaker 1: it's one that I struggled to answer because, as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: you do still have posters political particularly media posters that
Speaker 1: are doing registered voter sampling. And what that means for
Speaker 1: anybody of you who is uh, you know, he doesn't
Speaker 1: follow this stuff as closely as least than I do.
Speaker 1: It means that what is uh, they're talking to just
Speaker 1: anyone who's a registered voter, and in some cases they're
Speaker 1: talking to adults and asking them the registered to vote,
Speaker 1: which means about of people they talked to are lyine.
Speaker 1: So the right way to do a poll right now
Speaker 1: is to build a predictive model and then take that
Speaker 1: predictive model and to those who are most likely to vote. Now,
Speaker 1: that is how we do ours. And it is as
Speaker 1: you say, it's very different. Uh, what we see is
Speaker 1: very different than what most most media puts out. And
Speaker 1: it's really there are crimes of comission and crimes of omission.
Speaker 1: And the question is is what's going on on the
Speaker 1: press side. Are they trying to create polls that showed
Speaker 1: the Democrat winning? And I would submit to you is both. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: I don't think that anyone could have done a poll
Speaker 1: in the state of Wisconsin that had Joe Biden up
Speaker 1: eighteen points the weekend before the election the way the
Speaker 1: Washington Post did. And you guys can fact checking on
Speaker 1: this go google it. Washington Post the weekend before the
Speaker 1: election had Joe Biden up eighteen points. He won by
Speaker 1: lesson a point. I think it is very difficult for
Speaker 1: anyone to argue that that had no impact on voters.
Speaker 1: If you believe that there that the candidate you were
Speaker 1: supporting is going to lose by double digits, it is
Speaker 1: likely to have an impact on whether or not you
Speaker 1: turn out and vote. And so that being the case,
Speaker 1: I think it is UM it's unfortunate that we have
Speaker 1: to answer this question because it does create uh, it
Speaker 1: creates skepticism in our industry, and it creates a situation
Speaker 1: where you uh, where people just don't take polling seriously anymore.
Speaker 1: And as you know, that should not be the case
Speaker 1: because right now we UM, we are very good at
Speaker 1: predicting what happens for our clients. And in fact, you
Speaker 1: won't stay working in the political point industry if you
Speaker 1: tell the candidate they're gonna win and they lose, and
Speaker 1: just it's pretty fundamentally the case is that you've got
Speaker 1: to be right on these things. So what has happened?
Speaker 1: It gets back to your original question, what is happening?
Speaker 1: The question is I just don't know, because I don't
Speaker 1: know what they're doing that to make it so wrong
Speaker 1: that how could you create a situation or a poll
Speaker 1: that shows Joe Biden when in my eighteen points where
Speaker 1: wins by less than a point. And that's not the
Speaker 1: only place that happened, by the way, I'll give you
Speaker 1: a few other examples. In the Arizona election, the point
Speaker 1: average at the end and had Kelly winning by six,
Speaker 1: the only one by two. Uh. In Georgia they had
Speaker 1: were off by almost ten points. And particularly special election
Speaker 1: in Iowa, the public polling had the Democrat winning by
Speaker 1: two and in the average did Johnny Arts won by six.
Speaker 1: In Maine, the public pollint had get In winning by
Speaker 1: six uh, collinses and Collins one by nine. And I'll
Speaker 1: give you one more and I'll shut up about it.
Speaker 1: The public polling in North Carolina had cunning him winning
Speaker 1: by four, tell us one by two. So you go
Speaker 1: through all those different situations and you look at well,
Speaker 1: how could they be so wrong? And the answer is,
Speaker 1: I just don't know. But I will say this, when
Speaker 1: you look at public polling this year that has a
Speaker 1: close race or has a Democratic by a little bit,
Speaker 1: if I was betting on the predicted markets, and I don't.
Speaker 1: I was then on the Republican because there's something going
Speaker 1: on in public media polling that tradition that just consistently
Speaker 1: favors the Democrats. And I can tell you our internal
Speaker 1: polling does not show that, does not do that. It
Speaker 1: is um. It is meticulous, and its approach to making
Speaker 1: sure that we are adequately sampling enough enough of every
Speaker 1: party and that we're actually talking to people who are
Speaker 1: going to vote. And that's challenging right now because particularly
Speaker 1: when you look at who's going to vote in an
Speaker 1: off your election like two, and you look at the
Speaker 1: enthusiasm numbers twin Republicans and Democrats, if you are doing
Speaker 1: a sample which is the last off your election, which
Speaker 1: is what most media polling is probably doing, you are
Speaker 1: going to oversample Democrats. And that's going to be proved
Speaker 1: to be as inaccurate today as it was in twenty
Speaker 1: six and and uh so it's just really it's a problem,
Speaker 1: I think for the polling community, and as you point out,
Speaker 1: is constantly um. It is constantly evaluated by the American
Speaker 1: Associates Public Opinion researchers, but nothing's really ever done about it.
Speaker 1: I mean I'm jaded. So I personally believe it's intentional
Speaker 1: bias because we know how much of an impact these
Speaker 1: polls have and mean, you you you've got you know,
Speaker 1: don't like you had McConnell pull out of Arizona, right, So,
Speaker 1: like these guys are looking at the polling and they're
Speaker 1: making decisions about what races to invest in. An Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: we could get to a scenario where one of these
Speaker 1: races it's, you know, we lose by a point or
Speaker 1: we lose by you know, votes, and what would you know?
Speaker 1: And if you had originally kept that multimillion dollar investment
Speaker 1: that email, whatever it was, I forget what it was
Speaker 1: in Arizona, we maybe we could have won it, right,
Speaker 1: And so I intentionally think that these posters are trying
Speaker 1: to paint oblique outbook for Republicans to impact the overall election.
Speaker 1: It's just that Trump derangement syndrome, that Republican derangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: That's what that has seeped in to every aspect of
Speaker 1: our society. But I wanted to get your take on Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm hearing it's been tough. You know, I
Speaker 1: think it was like the hidden Trump vote and and
Speaker 1: you know, Republicans being less inclined to want to answer
Speaker 1: or pick up talk to these people. How much of
Speaker 1: a challenge has it been for for you guys and
Speaker 1: trying to get accurate polls and Republicans maybe being less
Speaker 1: inclined to identify themselves. You know that's funny about it. Yes,
Speaker 1: you hear a lot about that. The media complains about it,
Speaker 1: but we don't find that problem and it is I'm
Speaker 1: maybe that's because as can you're well aware from working
Speaker 1: with us for a while, we were meticulous in the
Speaker 1: building of our stratifications at the beginning of the sample,
Speaker 1: of building our sample frame. But I will say here
Speaker 1: is the one place, like on the Young Can polling,
Speaker 1: most polling had UH hadcall winning. Ours did not. We
Speaker 1: had young Enough, and we had him up for the
Speaker 1: last couple of weeks and it wasn't. I don't think
Speaker 1: there was any polling that came out that had young
Speaker 1: Enough except for our internals. And I think you were
Speaker 1: still working with at this point too. In sixteen, as
Speaker 1: you may remember, our internal polling I did Ted Cruzis
Speaker 1: polling US presidential campaign. Our internal polling had us winning
Speaker 1: in Iowa. There was not a single public poll that
Speaker 1: did it all had that shared that notion. They all
Speaker 1: had Trump winning and most of them had had Ruby
Speaker 1: all moving into second place. And you can go to
Speaker 1: Real Clear Politics average and look at that. When we
Speaker 1: knew internally we were going to win, And that comes
Speaker 1: from the way in which we built out our sample
Speaker 1: based on education. And I think that's one of our
Speaker 1: biggest lessons from the last few so I goals is, yes,
Speaker 1: it can be more difficult to interview Republicans without a
Speaker 1: college degree. It's very easy to get voters who have
Speaker 1: a college degree on the phone. They're just easier. They
Speaker 1: don't change phone numbers as much. They're more I could
Speaker 1: answer and on them cell phone numbers. Just a lot
Speaker 1: of reasons for that, whereas it does take a lot
Speaker 1: of interviewing to get those without a college degree. And
Speaker 1: so I think some of that probably feeds into it.
Speaker 1: It certainly was the case in Northern Virginia. I mean least,
Speaker 1: I would look at some polls coming out of Virginia
Speaker 1: in which they had the sample in Northern Virginia sample
Speaker 1: in Northern Virginia had a college career greater. Well, that's
Speaker 1: a higher percentage of the electorate than than has a
Speaker 1: college degree than in Cambridge, Massachusetts, or Berkeley, California. It
Speaker 1: was just inaccurate, and I would immediately point that out
Speaker 1: to the people who sent it to me, like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's only off my few points, Marge of Vera. No
Speaker 1: it's not, Marge of Vera. It's like twenty five points off.
Speaker 1: And if you've got a twenty five point subsample that
Speaker 1: is a completely different ideological bent than the electorate as
Speaker 1: a whole. It's only to make the entire survey off
Speaker 1: by a point or two. And so I think some
Speaker 1: of that feeds into it. It's just it's maybe some laziness,
Speaker 1: could be laziness on the part of the phone center
Speaker 1: that does the interviewing. There's a lot of things that
Speaker 1: feed into it. But I'll say this to wrap it,
Speaker 1: to wrap up my comments, there is no way an
Speaker 1: accurate poll could have been done in Wisconsin the weekend
Speaker 1: before the presidential election that showed your mind, not by
Speaker 1: eighteen points. That is a crime of comission. And to
Speaker 1: your point, it is certainly one that kept people at home,
Speaker 1: and it most likely had an impact on the present
Speaker 1: on the election of the president of United States. And
Speaker 1: I think that's the intention. I really do. I just
Speaker 1: I think that, you know, we look at the bias
Speaker 1: in every aspect every institution in America, and I think
Speaker 1: it's it's got. The posters are more interested in disrupting
Speaker 1: the election than they are about capturing the election, and
Speaker 1: I sadly, I think that's where we are today. You know,
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask you you look at like Democrats.
Speaker 1: Their closing argument seems to be, we need to abort
Speaker 1: babies up until the moment of birth in January six?
Speaker 1: Have we told you about January six? Which seems like
Speaker 1: a strategic mistake, Chris, when you know you've got families
Speaker 1: really suffering financially, worried about being able to put food
Speaker 1: on the table, afford the roof over the head, you
Speaker 1: know how much of a strategic mistake is their messaging?
Speaker 1: And it has their messaging been you know, it's um. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's no question that they have completely overplayed their hand
Speaker 1: on abortion. And the problem is is you point out
Speaker 1: they are. And there's a great article to Washing Examiner
Speaker 1: today by Kaylee White and which is the title is
Speaker 1: Democrats will finally being forced to own their abortion extremism.
Speaker 1: And I think what you've see. One of the reasons
Speaker 1: why you have seen independent women shift in the way
Speaker 1: that they have is twofold. One is, of course inflation
Speaker 1: and the fact that I'll never forget. We did a
Speaker 1: focus group of independent women in Virginia and there's a
Speaker 1: woman there was what it was all about, asking not
Speaker 1: the issue of abortion, and one said, look, you know,
Speaker 1: I have to buy grocery every day. That's put gas
Speaker 1: in my car almost every day. I have to pay
Speaker 1: taxes every day. I don't get an abortion every day.
Speaker 1: So no, that's not going, in fact my choice for governor.
Speaker 1: I want to make sure my kids go to school
Speaker 1: and have a good education. Those are things I worry
Speaker 1: about every day. And so right now I think you're
Speaker 1: seeing people make chore. It's kind of a Maslow's hierarchy
Speaker 1: of issues, if you will, on an from a standpoint
Speaker 1: of what what is going to impact someone's life on
Speaker 1: a daily basis. So that's a strategic mistake by Democrats.
Speaker 1: But the other aspect of the strategic mistake is Democrats
Speaker 1: are finding out that they are the extremists on the
Speaker 1: issue of life and for for stins of history, it's
Speaker 1: um you can look at the eighteen sixty two election,
Speaker 1: and the Democrat Party in eighteen sixty two made their
Speaker 1: entire message about Abraham Lincoln, if you reelect, if you
Speaker 1: send Abraham Lincoln Republican Congress, a Republican Senate, he will
Speaker 1: free the slaves. That was their entire message in eighteen
Speaker 1: sixty two. Now, of course they don't own that today,
Speaker 1: they don't talk about that very much, but that was
Speaker 1: the what you're seeing today with the way they are
Speaker 1: treating an issue of life, is the moral equivalent of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party in eighteen sixty two, where their entire
Speaker 1: message was send us back to Congress and we will
Speaker 1: make sure Abraham Lincoln doesn't free the slaves. And it's
Speaker 1: like this year, we're saying, send us back to Congress
Speaker 1: and we will make sure the Republicans don't say babies.
Speaker 1: It's pretty wild, you know. And you know, and most
Speaker 1: Americans aren't there. You know, they don't believe in abortion
Speaker 1: up until the moment of birth. They fully recognize that
Speaker 1: it's not a clump of sales. As they try to
Speaker 1: tell us that, you know, it doesn't make sense logically
Speaker 1: or from a common sense standpoint. You know, when you're
Speaker 1: looking at you know, you're talking to these volder, these voters,
Speaker 1: you're doing these focus groups, You're seeing the issues. What
Speaker 1: are the top issues on Americans minds right now? I know,
Speaker 1: no inflation, but are there any surprises or is it
Speaker 1: pretty much what we would think? You know, it really
Speaker 1: is what you would think. It is. Inflation, is gas prices,
Speaker 1: is grocery prices? And education the only surprise And it
Speaker 1: maybe isn't a surprise anymore, because as I mentioned, we
Speaker 1: really saw this manifest itself in the young and versus
Speaker 1: mccaulloff election, in which Glenn Yuncan made it very clear
Speaker 1: that he would not have closed schools, and so he
Speaker 1: gave and he was able to put to point to
Speaker 1: the Rhonda Santis is the Kevin Stitz in Oklahoma, to
Speaker 1: unless your extent to Greg Abbotts and Texas and show
Speaker 1: the example of states that did not close their schools
Speaker 1: and didn't fall behind in education. And so what that
Speaker 1: allowed is is that you know, it's even to take
Speaker 1: the analogy further. Uh, the night before the election of
Speaker 1: Canada's Sunday on Monday night, Terry mccauloff campaigned not with
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, not with Kamala Harris, not even with Barack Obama,
Speaker 1: but a campaign with Randy Weinarter. And for anyone who
Speaker 1: doesn't know who that is, she's head of the American
Speaker 1: Federation Teachers and she is the one probably foremost responsible
Speaker 1: for the for the shedding schools and the keep and
Speaker 1: keeping schools closed. And candidly we were high fiving on
Speaker 1: the campaign. We need it. We need to check this
Speaker 1: to see if it's an in kind of contribution to
Speaker 1: our to us. And she continues to campaign on behalf
Speaker 1: of Democrats. And what that has done is it has
Speaker 1: made education. It has gone from an issue that Democrats
Speaker 1: led by about twenty points on just a couple of
Speaker 1: cycles ago, that were two Republicans leading on it. So
Speaker 1: on the key issues facing America today, inflation, Republicans lead
Speaker 1: on gas prices, Republicans lead on homeownership, Republicans lead on
Speaker 1: the economy, and general Republicans lead, but education Republicans now lead.
Speaker 1: And in the most recent poll polling that we're getting
Speaker 1: the highest I have seen abortion on a list of
Speaker 1: most important issues is seventh in the last week seventh
Speaker 1: and Lisa, I have not seen January six mentioned in
Speaker 1: the verbatives on the survey much less as the most
Speaker 1: important issue probably since about Midsummer. So that tells you,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned at the beginning, what Democrats are closing
Speaker 1: on is taxpayer funded abortion at any age through the
Speaker 1: ninth through the ninth month and the canal and oh yeah,
Speaker 1: January six. That's not a winning message for them, and
Speaker 1: it's really I think they're going to pay the price
Speaker 1: for it again in a couple of weeks quick break more.
Speaker 1: In the mid terms, we were being told with a
Speaker 1: straight face by the media that Democrats could somehow outrun
Speaker 1: an incredibly unpopular president, when mid terms are always a
Speaker 1: referendum on the party in charge of the president in charge.
Speaker 1: But yet they sat there with a straight face trying
Speaker 1: to tell us that things were happening that we're not
Speaker 1: talk about that. Well, I think the key thing, I
Speaker 1: think the part there that I'll be critical of our
Speaker 1: party in this situation, unless with the media, because we've
Speaker 1: spent so much time beating them up. I do think
Speaker 1: there are some campaigns that didn't do a great job
Speaker 1: for a while tying their opponents to Joe Biden. So
Speaker 1: I remember I was actually given a talk at Freedom
Speaker 1: Works a few weeks ago and John McLoughlin was a
Speaker 1: very talented poster, a good friend, and he was actually
Speaker 1: the polster on the campaign that I man Inch did
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety four, a long time ago. Right, it
Speaker 1: was David McIntosh who's now head of the Club for Growth.
Speaker 1: I ran his campaign for Congress. And John pointed out
Speaker 1: I was in the audience, had spoken just before him.
Speaker 1: He said, you know, at this point in nine Chris
Speaker 1: was already morphing. Joe Hogs said, who was our opponent
Speaker 1: at the time. He's now mayor of Indianapolis, points stilling
Speaker 1: or interesting into Bill Clinton's face. So why are Republicans
Speaker 1: doing that? And I thought, you know, that's a great
Speaker 1: that's a really important point. So I want to give
Speaker 1: John credit for it. And I think there were a
Speaker 1: lot of Republican campaigns that were running talking about the issues,
Speaker 1: which is good. But let's face it, whenever you are
Speaker 1: running astkinstan Comming in most of these situations, we were
Speaker 1: trying to beat incumbents. You take more Kelly versus Blake
Speaker 1: Masters Mark Kelly. They voters need to be told why
Speaker 1: they should fire him, and they should fire him because
Speaker 1: he's a rubber stamp for Joe Biden. They should fire
Speaker 1: Katherine Cortez Masco because she's a rubber stamp for Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: They should fire her off from the war on because
Speaker 1: she he is a rubber stamp for Joe Biden. And
Speaker 1: I think a lot of campaigns were running on issues
Speaker 1: are running on, spent a little bit too much time
Speaker 1: telling the story as to why they should be elected
Speaker 1: instead of talking there about their opponents. And there's probably
Speaker 1: a lot of altruistic sort of people who listening to
Speaker 1: your podcast who are like, well, I believe in that.
Speaker 1: I believe we should give people a reason to vote
Speaker 1: for us, And yes, we absolutely should, but we need
Speaker 1: to do it and move on. Because if you want
Speaker 1: to get a job and somebody else, sorry has that job,
Speaker 1: that person has to be fired before you can hire
Speaker 1: be hired. That's just a basic tenant of the way
Speaker 1: political campaigns work and the way people's decision ranking process goes.
Speaker 1: So it is. I think that was kind of a
Speaker 1: situation where maybe a few too many campaigns waited a
Speaker 1: little bit too long to begin tying their opponent to Biden,
Speaker 1: and the media probably did a good job head faked
Speaker 1: us out of that and saying, oh, it's a people
Speaker 1: are separating, so some Biden it's uh, they can still win.
Speaker 1: So people bought into that. Candidates brought into that. Campaigns
Speaker 1: one of that Okay, let me go give people a
Speaker 1: reason as to why they should vote for me. Well, okay,
Speaker 1: you've done it. Move on. These last two weeks. Any
Speaker 1: campaign that's spending a single dollar not mentioning tying their
Speaker 1: opponent to Joe Biden is wasting that dollars. That makes
Speaker 1: a lot of sense. And I also just kind of
Speaker 1: a thought popped in my thought bubble popped in my
Speaker 1: head when you're talking about Biden, because I don't know
Speaker 1: if you saw herschel Walker or with NBC and they
Speaker 1: asked him if there's any common ground he could find
Speaker 1: with Biden. He's like, well you likes ice cream. That's
Speaker 1: actually really good line. Yeah. I know, maybe it made
Speaker 1: me laugh because I thought that was just like funny,
Speaker 1: you know, and it kind of you know, ribbing him,
Speaker 1: but in a you know, in a likable way. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, I know you're a busy guy. You're you're
Speaker 1: working on races around the country. You probably aren't sleeping
Speaker 1: right now. What should people before we go you know, Chris,
Speaker 1: what should people be looking for in pulling and the
Speaker 1: dynamics of these races as we head into these mid
Speaker 1: term sprint? You know, we see you man the most
Speaker 1: important one. The pole comes out. First of all, check
Speaker 1: the sample. Are they talking to registried voters? If so,
Speaker 1: don't need pay attention. Are they talking to adults? If so,
Speaker 1: throw it away and never read the publication again. If
Speaker 1: they're talking to likely voters, pay attention. But the other
Speaker 1: thing you want to look at is whether whether or
Speaker 1: not that likely voter universe looks like a eighteen sample
Speaker 1: and now I know I'm getting really deep into it,
Speaker 1: or if it looks like a ten or twenty ten sample,
Speaker 1: because two out here it is that's the sleep thing.
Speaker 1: Uh is gonna look a lot more like en than
Speaker 1: it is gonna look like ten. So that's number one.
Speaker 1: I think the second thing I would do is take
Speaker 1: it with a grain of salt. If a pole has
Speaker 1: a democrat up even double, did you think about what
Speaker 1: you think about some of the examples. I gave a
Speaker 1: little bit ago where I talked about Greenfield in Ohio
Speaker 1: being up by two and or its winning by seven.
Speaker 1: When I talked about getting and being up by six
Speaker 1: and Collins winning by nine. When I talked about Cunningham
Speaker 1: being up by four, until it's winning by two or
Speaker 1: even in South Carolina where Lindsey Graham, most of the
Speaker 1: poles at the end had him down or in a
Speaker 1: dead heat, he won by ten. So don't know, just
Speaker 1: because a pole has a Democrat up by a point
Speaker 1: or two doesn't mean that they're going to win. In fact,
Speaker 1: most likely at that level, it probably means the Republicans
Speaker 1: going to win. So when you see a poll come
Speaker 1: out and a couple of them I saw come out
Speaker 1: this morning out of Pennsylvania that has a Federment up
Speaker 1: over Oz by two, you might want to take read
Speaker 1: into that that Oust is probably gonna win. When you
Speaker 1: see one come out like came out yesterday out of
Speaker 1: Georgia that had uh Warnock and Walker in a tie,
Speaker 1: and then that probably means the lockers up, particularly it
Speaker 1: has Camp up six. So it's I really get skeptical
Speaker 1: whenever I see the public polling that has Democrats up,
Speaker 1: and I look at the ones where I am involved
Speaker 1: in center races I'm doing. Um, I've mentioned las All
Speaker 1: a few times. Um he is up he's he is awesome.
Speaker 1: He's been up in seventh straight polls, and I'll tell
Speaker 1: you he's he's most likely to win that race. I'll
Speaker 1: tell you Eric Eric Schmidt in Missouri, who I'm working with,
Speaker 1: I mean that he's gonna win that thing going away.
Speaker 1: Republicans are going to have a very good year, and
Speaker 1: I think if any pulling that doesn't reflect that, I
Speaker 1: would be suspective immediately. Good to know, Chris Wilson. You're
Speaker 1: busy man. I appreciate you taking the time. I know
Speaker 1: this is a really important election, so we appreciate your insight.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Chris. Happy to do it, Lisa, great
Speaker 1: catch up. That was Chris Wilson. I used to work
Speaker 1: for him. He's a really really solid poster. He does
Speaker 1: great work. And more than solid, he's does great work. Uh.
Speaker 1: It takes a lot of pride in getting things right
Speaker 1: with w p A Intelligence. He's the founder and CEO,
Speaker 1: been in the game for a long time, so you know,
Speaker 1: it just goes to show you how much we're led
Speaker 1: to by all these people, right, you know, And that's
Speaker 1: the whole point of this podcast is trying to identify
Speaker 1: people like him who can really get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of what's happening, which you're you're not going to get
Speaker 1: swere in the media, right, You're not gonna get it
Speaker 1: when you turn on TV and they're still doing register
Speaker 1: voter surveys or they're talking to the same people who
Speaker 1: have gotten every single thing wrong for forever, right, but
Speaker 1: you know, so hopefully we'll learned a lot from that.
Speaker 1: Appreciate you guys listening to the show. I want to
Speaker 1: thank John Cassie On, my producer, for putting it together
Speaker 1: every Monday and Thursday, but you can listen throughout the week.
Speaker 1: Feel free to leave us a review on Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: give us a rating, share with your friends, your family.
Speaker 1: Appreciate you guys listening. Until next time.