Analysis: The ABC/Washington Post Poll was by far the least accurate o...

8y ago Sep 1, 2018 at 2:35 AM

The ABC/Washington Post Poll was by far the least accurate one 2 weeks out from the 2016 Election. I call it a suppression poll - but by Election Day they brought us, out of shame, to about even. They will never learn!

0:00 0:00

AI Analysis

Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-03-15. Not written by the author of the post.

Danger Level

None

Narcissistic State

Vulnerable

Authorship

Self-Written

Intensity

52%

A characteristic late-evening reactive post triggered by unfavorable contemporary polling, displaced onto a 2016 grievance where victory is already secured. The "suppression poll" label transforms statistical methodology into deliberate political conspiracy, reflecting paranoid object relations in which institutions producing unfavorable data are malevolent rather than fallible. Core defenses are denial, distortion, and rationalization. The same-day endorsement of Rasmussen's 48% exposes a transparent cherry-picking schema. Factual claims are mostly false: the ABC/WaPo final 2016 poll showed Clinton +4, not "about even," and was not "by far" the least accurate in the field. The ambient context of McCain memorial exclusion may be an activating stressor, though the post does not reference it. No danger indicators. No cognitive deviation from established baseline. This is a normative instance of the subject's well-established psychological operation rather than a clinically significant outlier.

Authorship Analysis

Self-Written

Indicators:

Posted at 10:35 PM Eastern Time (EDT, UTC-4) on August 31 — well within authentic late-evening window
First-person framing: 'I call it a suppression poll'
Stream-of-consciousness parenthetical aside: 'out of shame'
Personal grievance genre (media/poll attack)
Mild grammatical awkwardness: 'brought us, out of shame, to about even'

Psychological Profile

▶ State

Vulnerable State

Trigger: Narcissistic Injury — Criticism (ABC/Washington Post poll presumably showing low current approval ratings)

Rage: Intensity 45% targeting ABC News and Washington Post (media/polling complex)

Proportionality

25%

Sentiment

-0.62

▶ Clinical

Malignant Narcissism:

Narcissistic

72%

Antisocial

18%

Paranoid

55%

Sadism

10%

Defense Mechanisms:

denialrationalizationdistortionprojection

Cognitive Complexity:

Complexity

42%

Parasocial Techniques:

Validation-seeking through denigrating credentialed institutionsPositions audience as co-victimized insiders who 'know the truth'Uses 2016 election win as shared tribal memory/proof point

Danger Assessment

None

Gaslighting Detected:

Attacks institutional credibility of ABC/WaPo to pre-emptively delegitimize any unfavorable current polling
Reframes pollsters' routine tracking-poll correction as shame-driven moral capitulation, implying their earlier numbers were knowingly dishonest
Conspiracy label 'suppression poll' invites followers to reject all unfavorable polling data as deliberate manipulation
'They will never learn' positions the audience to treat future unfavorable polls as further evidence of irredeemable bias

Reality Distortions:

Claims ABC/WaPo final 2016 poll was 'by far the least accurate' — overstated; final poll was Clinton +4, within margin of error of popular vote result
Claims pollsters brought numbers 'to about even' by election day — false; final ABC/WaPo poll showed Clinton +4, not approximate parity
Implies suppression intent was deliberate — no evidence supports this; variation explained by standard methodology

Fact Checks (3)

"ABC/Washington Post Poll was by far the least accurate one 2 weeks out from the 2016 Election"

Mostly False

The ABC/WaPo October tracking polls showed Clinton leads ranging from +4 to +12; the final pre-election reading was approximately +4. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1 points (~2-point error). Multiple other outlets showed similar or larger Clinton margins; 'by far the least accurate' significantly overstates the case.

"By Election Day they brought us, out of shame, to about even"

False

The final ABC/WaPo pre-election poll showed Clinton +4, not approximately even. A 4-point lead is not approximate parity. The characterization distorts the documented final number.

"It was a suppression poll (deliberately constructed to suppress Trump turnout)"

Unverifiable

No documented evidence supports deliberate suppression intent. Pre-election polling variation is well-explained by sampling methodology, likely voter screen design, and late-breaking voter movement. The conspiratorial interpretation is asserted without supporting evidence.

Receipts

No contradictions with other posts detected yet.

Psychological & Rhetorical Analysis

Post ID: x_1035717747936768000 | Date: 2018-09-01 02:35 UTC (10:35 PM EDT Aug 31)

Authorship

High confidence: authentic Trump. Late-evening local time, personal grievance content, idiosyncratic punctuation, first-person conspiratorial label ("I call it"), and mild grammatical awkwardness ("brought us, out of shame, to about even") are all consistent with unmediated composition. Aide-authored posts in this period typically involve event announcements, scheduling, or polished multi-clause sentences — none of which are present here.

Psychological State & Trigger

State: Vulnerable narcissism with paranoid coloring.

The implicit trigger is almost certainly a contemporaneous ABC/Washington Post poll showing unfavorable approval numbers — revealed by contrast with the same-day endorsing retweet of Rasmussen at 48%. When confronted with unflattering data, the subject does not engage the numbers; instead he displaces the entire confrontation onto a 2016 grievance whose outcome is already known and favorable. This is a mature instance of a well-established coping pattern: when present-state reality is threatening, retreat to an archived victory.

Narcissistic injury mechanism: The poll is experienced not as a statistical estimate but as a personal attack requiring moral rebuttal. The framing "brought us, out of shame, to about even" is psychologically revealing — it attributes to the pollsters a conscience-driven capitulation, which implicitly confirms that their earlier numbers were knowingly dishonest. This is a paranoid object-relations schema: institutions that produce unfavorable data are not neutral but malevolent, and any subsequent correction is not methodology but moral surrender.

Defense Mechanisms

Denial (pathological): "By far the least accurate" — wholesale rejection of data without engaging methodology.
Rationalization (neurotic): The "suppression poll" construct transforms routine pre-election polling variance into a deliberate disinformation campaign.
Distortion (pathological): Variance toward the mean ("they brought us to about even") is recast as a morally motivated act ("out of shame"), reshaping probability into narrative.
Projection (immature): Attributing deliberate narrative manipulation to pollsters — consistent with the subject's own selection of favorable polls (Rasmussen same day).

Narrative Identity (McAdams Level 3)

Protagonist role: Vindicated truth-teller; the lone figure who correctly read reality while credentialed institutions lied.
Narrative sequence: Contamination → redemption: the "suppression" was a threat; the election win was ultimate proof.
Identity claim: "I was right; they were dishonest."
Contrasting other: The ABC/Washington Post polling apparatus as proxy for the broader institutional-media complex.

Rhetorical Techniques

The post deploys several interlocking moves:

Superlative without evidence ("by far the least accurate") establishes a hierarchy asserted as fact.
Neologistic conspiracy label ("suppression poll") reframes standard polling methodology as political weaponization.
Moral motive attribution ("out of shame") — a miniature character assassination of an institution.
Paternalistic dismissal ("They will never learn!") positions the subject above credentialed experts.
Implicit cherry-picking: Same-day praise of Rasmussen exposes the selection logic — polls are assessed by flattery, not method.

Big Five Indicators (Level 1)

Neuroticism (angry hostility): Moderate. Not acute rage; more sustained resentment.
Agreeableness (low): Contemptuous dismissal of expert institutions.
Openness (low): Rigid interpretation; no engagement with competing explanations.
Extraversion: Assertiveness present; characteristic public grievance performance.

Fact Verification

Claim	Verdict	Evidence
"ABC/Washington Post Poll was by far the least accurate one 2 weeks out from the 2016 Election"	Mostly False	The ABC/WaPo October tracking polls showed Clinton leads ranging from +4 to +12; the final pre-election reading was approximately +4. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1 points (~2-point error). Multiple other outlets showed similar or larger Clinton margins; 'by far the least accurate' significantly overstates the case.
"By Election Day they brought us, out of shame, to about even"	False	The final ABC/WaPo pre-election poll showed Clinton +4, not approximately even. A 4-point lead is not approximate parity. The characterization distorts the documented final number.
"It was a suppression poll (deliberately constructed to suppress Trump turnout)"	Unverifiable	No documented evidence supports deliberate suppression intent. Pre-election polling variation is well-explained by sampling methodology, likely voter screen design, and late-breaking voter movement. The conspiratorial interpretation is asserted without supporting evidence.

Overall Veracity: 23%