Today The MSM is claiming that Biden has a 2-1 lead over Sanders.

Former Vice President Joe Biden has a 2-to-1 lead nationally over the next closest Democratic presidential contender after the second round of debates, according to the latest Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll. The new survey finds Biden with 34 percent support among Democrats, followed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at 17 percent.

Which seems kind of, well, NOT FUCKING BELIEVABLE considering that a new survey has actual facts showing us that Sanders dominates the entire nation in donations:

That, folks, is the only qualifying poll that matters. And in every region where Bernie didn't come in first, he came in second. The polls the MSM is feeding the public? Well, we've heard that story before:

In the poll released April 30, Biden is shown with an impressive 24-point edge over Sanders, with 39% of voters saying they supported him, compared to just 15% for the Vermont senator. However, a Grit Post analysis of the results found that the poll largely excluded voters under the age of 50 in coming to that conclusion.

Also, the poll didn’t give respondents the option to offer their approval or disapproval of Sen. Sanders, even though the poll did ask respondents to give their approval or disapproval of lesser-known candidates like Reps. Seth Moulton (D-Massachusetts), Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), and Eric Swalwell (D-California), and even Miramar, Florida mayor Wayne Messam.

“We’d like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people – or if you have never heard of them. How about Joe Biden?” the poll asked. “How about Pete Buttigieg? … How about Kirsten Gillibrand? … How about Tim Ryan? … How about Eric Swalwell? … How about Seth Moulton?”

The phrase “How about Bernie Sanders?” does not appear in the poll.

In the overall breakdown of how the CNN/SSRS poll arrived at the conclusion that Biden had 39% support to Sanders’ 15%, the age breakdown of respondents shows that the only data available was for ages 50 to 65+. The columns for ages 18-34 and 35-49 all read “N/A,” meaning there weren’t at least 125 people who were part of those age groups participating in the poll to provide an adequate enough representation of the greater U.S. population.

One has to ask oneself: should I trust a poll when the pollsters have already been caught lying or should I use my own two eyes and see that Biden is barely drawing 100 people to his rallies and Sanders is drawing 10,000? That Bidens donor base comes from DC and Bernie leads donors across the entire nation?

Why should I believe that despite every bit of evidence visible to my own two eyes that Biden is somehow magically ahead 2-1 because corporate owned polls say so? The same pollsters who had Hillary ahead of Trump by 18% btw and we saw how that turned out.

Those are called Suppression polls to make voters believe it's a waste of time to vote for who they want, thus suppressing the vote.

And people think Russia is manipulating our elections.

But to be fair, the polls are an archaic thing of the past and it's been nearly half a decade since this fact was exposed:

In an unprecedented internal report on its 2012 Romney blunder, Gallup says it made mistakes in its core samples, including its racial makeup and political ideology, as well as its overall methodology.

Gallup's audit, however, also says the entire industry is due for an overhaul, with some of the leading firms using analog, black-and-white methods in a digital, multicultural world. Case in point: the rise of the cell phone and the fall of public engagement in opinion surveys.

Besides not being tied to a fixed address – it's not unusual for owners to have a different area code than where they actually live, and the numbers usually aren't listed in the white pages – cell phones provide more control over its users' privacy than a landline. It's likely, analysts say, that the ability to screen or block incoming calls has accelerated the public's unwillingness to take part in what used to be considered a civic duty.

Another key factor is polling firms' methodologies, the "secret sauce" of the industry, Traugott says. Put simply, if you ask the right sampling of people the wrong thing – questioning disengaged Virginia residents in 2014, for example, whether they prefer Rep. Eric Cantor, a veteran politician with wide name recognition, or Dave Brat, his unknown but more radical challenger, without determining if they'll actually show up to vote – you'll get a bad result.

That was written in 2015. As we all know, in 2016 the polls said Hillary would win and come election day, the people polled didn't actually show up to vote.

Well, 100 people show up for Biden rallies. 10,000 show up for Sanders rallies. Who do you think is actually going to show up to vote?