There I was, in Springfield, Missouri, at Mike Lindell’s August 2023 Summit.  I was out in the main hallway adjacent to the exposition floor doing a few interviews and talking with colleagues in the battle for election reform, including the venerable Toni Shuppe, founder of Audit the Vote PA and a patriot second to none.  The Lindell events are never without some sort of suspense or drama, which is mainly due to so many people from across the country coming together to inevitably butt heads or feel the spotlight was stolen from them.  Last year’s powwow was no different, and sometimes it’s the media trying to dig a story or spin something out of nothing that provides the fireworks.

In those days, The New York Times had (and maybe still does) Alexandra Berzon running around the country digging up elections coverage, with a major focus on keeping tabs on those pesky election deniers and their attempts to disrupt such a marvelous system of voting (sarcasm intended) from selecting people who don’t have the inherent ability to serve up shakes and fries at Sonic, let alone head the government of the world’s greatest, albeit waning, superpower.  Now, a few things about the Times, objectively speaking:

·      They have outstanding online Election Night coverage, with sharp maps, graphics, widgets, and rapidly updating data.  They saw the Trump victory coming in 2016 before any other models did.

·      Their pollster, Siena College, is one of the better pollsters contracted by mainstream media organizations.

·      They have one of the most widely read publications worldwide.

Back to Alexandra – we most certainly have different viewpoints for how this country should operate, and she probably thinks I’m a right-wing nutjob who has an axe to grind because it was Biden who took the oath on January 20, 2021, and not Trump… but, we’ve never had any personal beef.  When I saw her bobbing around in the background of the Lindell event, I offered her some election insights directly rather than forcing her to eavesdrop on everyone else to find content worth printing.  So, to her notepad she went.

My strategy has always been, inundate them with so many facts, figures, statistics, and counterpoints that they will either print them and make believers out of their audience, or they will discard them for fear of bringing them to light.

So, imagine my surprise when I started going over some figures with her in response to her “don’t you think it’s time to…” questions, and Toni gave me a body check that would render any NHL star envious.  I mean, I’m 245 pounds and I found myself first being knocked back, then spun around by my sports coat and questioned by this perturbed woman from the Pittsburgh area:

Don’t you know WHO she is with?

You may be wondering why I’m writing this perspective.  That is because I’m about to be the focal point of a 2024 Election piece in The New York Times.  Many people who consider themselves political outcasts and in alignment with populist movements wonder why the voices they listen to or follow agree to be interviewed by mainstream media when coverage is so slanted against outsiders, often with an end goal of ruination.  Let me explain, in my estimation, the two primary reasons this occurs:

·      You receive written notice that something so grossly inaccurate, damaging, or salacious is about to go to print, and have no choice but to rebut it or correct the record.

·      You have a golden opportunity to put valuable information into the information space, even if there is reputational risk involved.

In this case, my interview request from The New York Times fell into the second category, although I have given plenty of written or verbal responses to news outlets who were looking for scalps, as suggested in the first point.  One defensive response led to an article that coincided with a permanent change of employment in January 2022.  This article is for you, the reader, to have so you can understand my thought process in granting interviews to organizations that certainly don’t support my operational picture, and in a negative case, would like to see my sidelined.

I deal in numbers, statistics, probabilities, and courses of action.  In many ways, I am more of an intelligence officer than I was when I was in uniform.  My percentages tell me that 5 out of 8 American likely voters don’t believe the 2020 election was decided fairly, that an even higher number are worried about similar circumstances occurring beginning right now and extending into next month and are likely flummoxed by the inconsistent and comical polling exaggerations in favor of Harris, and that about 30% of Americans will believe everything they are told to believe until they are herded to work camps and issued a shovel or pickaxe.  Simple deduction means that less than 10% of Americans are persuadable on the issue of elections.  Do you know what types of publications they read?

The New York Times.

That’s right – savvy, business-minded, American, and right here in my coffee shop or subway car spread in front of my face while other people admire me on my journey to an early heart attack and stress-related disease.  Stuart Thompson’s request of me was specifically to document why I constantly take a contrarian position to polling, how my forecasts are generally contrived, and how I expect each of the seven decisive states plus North Carolina to vote this year. In other words, why are these guys wrong, but you are right?

You may be saying, aren’t you giving them the answers for how many ballots they need to stuff, and where?  Sure, perhaps that’s a concern for you, but those figures are published all over three social media accounts plus this journal you are reading right now.  Analytics, and rebutting narratives, is exactly what I do.  If this election proves to be another quasi-election with a predetermined outcome executed with deception over four days, then my work serves as a time capsule for what our elections should look like, and just like the last time, from which we have since moved from 44% of the country believing the outcome was compromised at the time of that election, to over 60% today, eventually we impact a massive change and overwhelming tide in favor of reforming the issue.  That’s not what you want to hear, and I get it fully.  I’m not so sure we can survive another four years, especially if we find confirmation elections are an unconquerable mountain – but I can guarantee you, now that the cat is out of the bag, Americans will not be voting in third-world elections for the rest of time.  We will either sink or swim.

If, by chance, my predictions turn out to be right, then the documentation of my correct predictive analysis ahead of time in a major publication will expedite the demise of the corrupt and compromised polling industry that serves as a propaganda arm of those who seek to cling to power by any means necessary.  I am not sure what is going to be printed in the coming days, or what, if anything, will be misconstrued, but I made it clear that Trump is the clear favorite in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada, should win Michigan and Georgia but may not because they are the most vulnerable and most highly impacted by the crisis of Automatic Voter Registration, and stands to have a puncher’s chance in New Hampshire, which is the most distant of the decisive states.

This Election Night, I’ll be co-anchoring a program with Larry Schweikart and Ashe Epp, which is intended to provide realistic coverage of the returns not skewed by propaganda, or efforts like Fox News’ play to call the most reliably Republican state for Joe Biden with less than 10% of the vote counted, triggering the counting stoppage in other states and the unraveling of a very red map.  I was asked if I would cry fraud if any of the returns fell out of alignment with trends, indicators, bellwethers, or predictors that I’ve been discussing for these many months.  I, of course, cannot render such an opinion without being able to review what and where, but other than that, most of our interview was focused on key states and why I believe that accurate election forecasting in the modern era hinges on a fusion of polling crosstabs analysis (demographic voting trends, not top lines), voter registration analysis, and a consideration of what laws and methods of voting states have adopted.  I explained to him how I go with the “chalk” picks (ones that history has proven most frequently occur), and explained how New York moving substantially right dooms Harris in the working-class states, and that we aren’t likely to have a Trump-won Nevada and a Harris-won Arizona, given that a red Nevada and blue Arizona have never happened together in any election since Arizona gained statehood in 1912.

But, ultimately – Dad said the best officers go to the sound of the guns.  I love Truth Social and Telegram, but they are home games and comfort zones.  Trips through Arlington National Cemetery remind me that nothing great comes from comfort zones.

Likewise, I am not a fan of X/Twitter because discourse in this country has become toxic and subjects people to horrific and aggressive online behavior and attacks; however, now is the time to put accurate information downrange or forever hold your peace.  The same is true as to why I’m willing to share my election insights with the mainstream media, who will either print it as told, misrepresent it, or cast me as a conspiracy theorist and seek to harm my reputation.  Do you know who else continues to suit up and face the cameras?

Trump took his most recent debate knowing that it was going to be a hatchet job.  It was, in fact, such a hatchet job that CNN immediately began warring publicly with ABC News.  Harris was believed to have won the skirmish on points, but as days passed by, it became clear that swing voters viewed her as a nagging, hectoring voice of the political establishment who cannot successfully distance herself from the fact that she has been the second most powerful political office holder in America in a time of nearly unprecedented national discord, decline, and upheaval.

Taking the debate, or any of the various interviews or exposes Trump has sat for, almost always comes with at least tinge of personal embarrassment or mockery but serves a purpose if they are entered into with goals of moving the Overton window in mind.  I decided to move ahead with allowing my viewpoints to be published because Americans need to hear something counter to the garbage they are fed, and most specifically, the well-off, suburban-centric, and emotionally detached readers of The New York Times are in immediate need of reading something that will jar their thinking and shake their trust in institutions, like mainstream polling, that are always wrong, yet constantly trotted out as if they are trustworthy.

I have crossed paths with great Americans I admire, and with people I don’t care for much anymore.  I’ve known great people with great intentions that changed their ways.  I have done events with people who are a liability, and I’ve said things in writing that may limit my economic prospects If I ever attempt to return to a quiet life.  I have my own personal baggage, too, and sometimes that is what people try to use against you to stop you from using your gifts.  But nevertheless, it is time to put the truth out in the public space and let it speak for itself.

That’s why I give interviews to mainstream media. If I don’t speak the truth about forecasting and polling, then who will?

Seth Keshel, MBA, is a former Army Captain of Military Intelligence and Afghanistan veteran. His analytical method of election forecasting and analytics is known worldwide, and he has been commended by President Donald J. Trump for his work in the field.