POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
In your professional opinion, how could the polls have been so wrong? Were there that many people who simply lied to the pollsters? Wouldn't an effort that large had to have been coordinated?
Don't take it personal, but if polls, many of them, could be that wrong then what actual value do they have? How can we know if this is one of the polls that happens to be right or one of the polls like we saw during the last election?
I wouldn't ask so many questions but I know you have lots of answers.
Not quite 98%, but pushing it.
Clinton has 90 percent chance of winning: Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation
(Reuters) - With hours to go before Americans vote, Democrat Hillary Clinton has about a 90 percent chance of defeating Republican Donald Trump in the race for the White House, according to the final Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project.
Clinton has 90 percent chance of winning: Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation
(Reuters) - With hours to go before Americans vote, Democrat Hillary Clinton has about a 90 percent chance of defeating Republican Donald Trump in the race for the White House, according to the final Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project.
Who Will Be President? - NYT
Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance to win.
The Upshot’s elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls.
Yes it is. Most of the polls come from left wing universities and left wing media. Trump could've been up 50 points and they would do democrat +65 samples to make it look like hes losing. Most polling is incredibly biased. I think the only poll that got the election right was the IBD poll, all of the others were wrong.
Why is this even a discussion? You'd have to legitimately be insane to think most political polling isn't biased. Theres a million examples from this past election alone. Polling has been bad for many years, but this past election really showed just how bad it is.
Hell, didn't 538 also have her winning at 85% clip...
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
The day before election day they reeled it in to about 72%, but, yeah, they were pushing high 80's themselves.Hell, didn't 538 also have her winning at 85% clip...
Throughout history we watch the media build up actors, sports figures, celebs, politicians, and etc. only to knock them down. This one is not going down so easy and it is about time we fight back.
Legitimate being the key word. Few if any polls anymore are legit.
Same way with approval. No way Obama had record approval, while his policies were continually rebuked at the polls. His policies were responsible for dems losing record number of elections.
A legitimate for profit business is trying to make money. The leaks already showed it was a peer pressure alinski effort to make people think hillary was the clear choice. They also showed many pollsters hillary considered "friendly"; silver being one.
The profit aspect of it is especially important when it's crystal clear had hillary won, dems would be in power for perpetuity.
In the end, (pun intended) the polls were up the butts of those that wanted Hillary to win.
Accurate polling has gotten harder with cell phones. Many people do not answer numbers they do not recognize.
I don't answer numbers I do recognize.
Maybe not every single penny, but they've already agreed to help. Believe it or not, the Arab Gulf countries don't want those savages in their countries either. They have completely closed their borders and, combined, have not allowed a single Syrian refugee in.
They know it's only a matter of time before this problem is forced upon their doorsteps. They're filthy rich beyond belief, and them forking over money for safe zones is the easiest, simplest, most logical way out for them.
President Trump and Saudi Arabia’s king agreed to support “safe zones” in Syria and Yemen, according to the White House, signaling a potential policy shift in the Middle East.
The agreement was reached during a phone call Sunday between Trump and King Salman bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud.
“The President requested and the King agreed to help support safe zones in Syria and Yemen, as well as supporting other ideas to help the many refugees who are displaced by the ongoing conflicts,” a White House readout of the call said.
Trump also pitched the idea of safe zones on a second phone call Sunday with the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Zayed.
“The President also raised the idea of supporting safe zones for the refugees displaced by the conflict in the region, and the Crown Prince agreed to help support this initiative,” the White House readout of the call said.
Well, isn't this interesting.
Fox News reports The Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee…is seeking criminal charges against a former State Department employee who helped set up Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/net-just-closed-little-tighter
Fox News reports The Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee…is seeking criminal charges against a former State Department employee who helped set up Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/net-just-closed-little-tighter
Figured it was only a matter of time. Chaffetz and Gowdy have a major hard on for this case. They've pledge from day 1 to pursue it as far as the evidence takes them.
I still think Hillary goes down. This case ain't over by a long shot. I just can't see Sessions not doing something.
The liberal media, fake news spin begins. Jason Chaffetz and Mitch McConnell are the new 'Hardy Boys' except much worse
Don't be surprised when Pagliano commits "suicide" before ever answering a single question. He'll probably shoot himself in the back.
I won't be satisfied unless Obama sits before Congress and answers some questions about the Podesta emails that implicate him.
Vandalay, my theory as to why the polls were so wrong last presidential cycle has to do with two assumptions.
1. people were afraid to admit their position because of the lefts polarizing rhetoric toward trump supporters?
2. using the data collected from 2008 and 2012 wasn't helpful because he was our first black president making it tough to gauge the cycle after.
How much of a factor do you see those positions playing a role in the polls being so off?
That isn't a poll. They're doing analysis based upon compiling other polls. A poll doesn't predict the likelihood of winning.
Is there anyway Gowdy would run against Lyndsey Graham for his senate seat in 2020? Someone needs to run against him to get his ass out of Washington.
I would put Gowdy in any seat he wanted. No bullshit, not corrupt, law is law, and will go "Gowdy mode" on you in a hurry. I love watching those hearings when someone bullshits him, and you can just see the look on his face when it's about to happen. Gowdy Mode Activated
No doubt that Obama needs to go down too. Maybe if Obama and his minions at OFA keep trying to disrupt and sabotage Trump, it'll piss the WH off to where they go after him too.
A dog turd would do better than Graham. He and his boyfriend McCain need sent packing badly.
These are great questions. I think traditional polling methodology is inherently wrong and they're using old-school methods to predict elections and haven't modernized. I think the biggest problems are early voting, online surveys not being accepted by most methodologists and depending on telephone data, an inability to predict turnout by party, which party is more motivated, etc. They've done a horrible job at modeling who will actually vote. Polling was traditionally done with random sampling and that isn't even possible any longer. I do think there was some hesitance on some people to admit that they'd vote for Trump, particularly in telephone surveys.
And exit polling is just horrible and IMO shouldn't even be done. If there's bias, it's calling elections/states too early based upon exit polling data. And this has been done forever and has always caused problems (2000 election for example).
And your overall question about market research/polling is absolutely valid and I somewhat I agree with you. Polling is the one time that market researchers can see if their predictions hold true, and obviously they don't and this isn't just true in the US. Pollsters were wrong in the US, Britain, Brexit, Israel, Canada...the list goes on and on. They need to evolve the methodology and if I knew how to fix it, I would be much wealthier.
This holds true in other forms of market research - measuring customer satisfaction, determining new products, etc. Fortunately for me, companies have become dependent on research to drive their business decisions. IMO it should only be directional, meaning an analyst can tell you to go north instead of south, but can't tell you to go NNE for example.
Graham never married............I think we all know what his problems are. He's been on the wrong side but he enjoys stoking flames in other regions so he can't go full left.
Ms. Lindsey Grahamnesty is the worst republican in history, maybe.
Completely agree and I think it was a strong factor. Predicting AA vote was incredibly tough and obviously their enthusiasm was way down compared to Obama's elections.
The biggest problem? Hillary. No one was enthusiastic about her, so who was going to go out of their way to vote for her? If it was cold, rainy, snowy, they had a bad day, etc no one forced themselves to vote for her, unlike Obama and even Trump.
I think McCain took the title as the worst when he went to Europe and bashed Trump. Hes a coward on top of being awful. But Graham is right up there with McCain.
I really hate it for Mccain. But the guy has obviously been a phony for a long time. My father did some research on the VA, I might post it if I can find it. It comes out to look really bad on ole John. Had manny chances through decades to make some changes for the vets and not only didn't support some of the measures, but rejected it.
Just being a war hero doesn't mean you're free of issues, especially being a politician. Trump exposed Mccain using the current state of the VA + Mccains years of service in politics. How do you not get something done in mccains position? Anynthing?
Nothing. He's been controlled.
Reuters/Ipsos is most certainly a poll, one of the more respected, yet it may not have been 98%, they did, in fact, give a prediction. Hillary was given a 90% chance of winning by their pollsters on election day. Not debatable.
Besides, as far as HuffPost poster polls goes, if the polls, such as Reuters/Ipsos, weren't off by so much, their analysis of compiling couldn't have reached the monumental failure of predicting a 98% chance of a win. The polls being so wrong are to blame for 98% compilation. The two go hand in hand.
Here's more on Reuters, a nationally respected poll. If this isn't biased, then I don't know what is. Matter of fact, it's way beyond biased. It most definitely isn't bad data or accidentally wrong.
They purposely manipulated their own formula, changed a week's worth of results, and scrubbed all prior polling data to garner the 90% chance of winning outcome they desired, in an attempt to intentionally mislead the public into thinking Trump had no chance.
Pat Caddell on 'Cooked' Reuters Poll: 'Never in My Life Have I Seen a News Organization Do Something So Dishonest'
On Sunday’s Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Alex Marlow, political strategist Pat Caddell outlined his charge that Reuters tampered with its own daily tracking poll to manufacture a sudden surge for Hillary Clinton.
“They not only changed their formula, to put Hillary ahead. They went back and changed the results, for a week of results where Trump was ahead, and then they turned those into Hillary leads,” said Caddell. “They also erased all the former polling off the site. They didn’t tweak their procedure – they cooked it.”
“Never in my life have I seen a news organization, and a supposedly reputable poll, do something so dishonest,” Caddell continued. “What they have done is, they decided the people who said, ‘oh, I’m never for someone’ – oh, those must be Hillary votes. They used to be Trump voters.”
“They made a switch, as much as nine points, in their results from the beginning of last week, the 25th and 26th. It is, beyond doubt, the most outrageous thing,” he declared, noting that results in three- and four-way polls that include independent candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were also skewed.
“This is what the media is willing to do, to try to elect her,” Caddell said. “This poll is nothing but a part of a media offensive. In the 45 years since I was a child, in top-level presidential campaigns, I have never seen the media on such a jihad, and so involved in hiding facts, and not following up. This is a crisis of democracy, what the press is now doing.”
They purposely manipulated their own formula, changed a week's worth of results, and scrubbed all prior polling data to garner the 90% chance of winning outcome they desired, in an attempt to intentionally mislead the public into thinking Trump had no chance.
Pat Caddell on 'Cooked' Reuters Poll: 'Never in My Life Have I Seen a News Organization Do Something So Dishonest'
On Sunday’s Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Alex Marlow, political strategist Pat Caddell outlined his charge that Reuters tampered with its own daily tracking poll to manufacture a sudden surge for Hillary Clinton.
“They not only changed their formula, to put Hillary ahead. They went back and changed the results, for a week of results where Trump was ahead, and then they turned those into Hillary leads,” said Caddell. “They also erased all the former polling off the site. They didn’t tweak their procedure – they cooked it.”
“Never in my life have I seen a news organization, and a supposedly reputable poll, do something so dishonest,” Caddell continued. “What they have done is, they decided the people who said, ‘oh, I’m never for someone’ – oh, those must be Hillary votes. They used to be Trump voters.”
“They made a switch, as much as nine points, in their results from the beginning of last week, the 25th and 26th. It is, beyond doubt, the most outrageous thing,” he declared, noting that results in three- and four-way polls that include independent candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were also skewed.
“This is what the media is willing to do, to try to elect her,” Caddell said. “This poll is nothing but a part of a media offensive. In the 45 years since I was a child, in top-level presidential campaigns, I have never seen the media on such a jihad, and so involved in hiding facts, and not following up. This is a crisis of democracy, what the press is now doing.”
Just to clarify... What are his problems, in your opinion, and what does that have to do with his marital status?
I said 3 months before the election that this was happening. The media and some polling outlets seemed to be trying to suppress the vote. Glad it didnt work.
I argued Jamo on this and of course was arrogantly laughed at.
You're an idiot they said.
2 touchdown lead they said.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Starting PG looks to be locked up according to Kerr
- Latest: bigblueinsanity
-
Movie/TV Tropes that never happen in real life
- Latest: thabigbluenation