Sheryl Attkisson on polling

[JustRalph]

https://sharylattkisson.com/trump-outperforming-romney-by-16-points-washington-postabc-news-poll/

This gal has her shit together

[chadk66]

the polling is always democrat heavy. they just divulge that information without an AR pointed at their head. Sheryl is right on with this. One couldn't honestly think Trump was doing that bad when he had a record amount of votes in the primary.

[_______]

This is just the unskewed nonsense redux.

If you are surveying likely voters you will have more that self identify as Democrats than Republicans.

Do people seriously believe otherwise? The final polls in 2012 UNDERESTIMATED the scale of Obama's win. There has been zero evidence in election results of any generalized polling bias against Republican's.

It was a ridiculous unsupported theory in 2012. How does it fail so badly then and yet still have adherent's today? Do you seriously hate the truth that much?

[chadk66]

if you notice, in the polls that actually list their polling data, most poll around 10% with democrats. the people doing the poll have a pre-determined result they want. they know how to get it.

[lamboguy]

the only poll i believe in is the betting line from THEGREEK.COM. they take big money on the election and are not about to get picked off by phony misleading polls by sharp people that benefit by this malarchy.

right now the line on this election is Democrats - $420- $100 come back $100 - $300. another words the Democrats are 7/2 favorites for the time being. this is roughly the same price that Dukakis was over Bush at this particular point in time during their election cycle. Bush wound up trouncing him and i remember the week of the election that Bush was an 8-1 favorite to cash the election.

this doesn't mean that Trump can tilt this election, but he certainly has a fighting chance by looking at prior events.

[_______]

if you notice, in the polls that actually list their polling data, most poll around 10% with democrats. the people doing the poll have a pre-determined result they want. they know how to get it.

Why doesn't this bias show up in election results? By now, it should be clear that all these polls have been consistently undercounting Republican's by the many examples of elections with vastly different results from the final polls.

Except, of course, there is no evidence of this alleged undercount. Polling isn't always exact but it's wrong on both sides of the political spectrum. In 2012, as I've pointed out many times in response to this nonsense, the RCP average of the final polls showed Obama with a 0.7 point lead over Romney. He won by almost 4%.

Do you see the obvious bias against Republican's of all those polls in that result?

Most polling firms have been around for years with datasets that go back decades. What exactly would be in it for a company whose reputation is based entirely on their historical accuracy to suddenly gin up their numbers?

Nothing. It would be bad for future business.

So, other than polling firms having a negative consequence if they did juice the numbers and there being no historical example documenting it's existence, why do you insist this is true?

[chadk66]

Why doesn't this bias show up in election results? By now, it should be clear that all these polls have been consistently undercounting Republican's by the many examples of elections with vastly different results from the final polls.

Except, of course, there is no evidence of this alleged undercount. Polling isn't always exact but it's wrong on both sides of the political spectrum. In 2012, as I've pointed out many times in response to this nonsense, the RCP average of the final polls showed Obama with a 0.7 point lead over Romney. He won by almost 4%.

Do you see the obvious bias against Republican's of all those polls in that result?

Most polling firms have been around for years with datasets that go back decades. What exactly would be in it for a company whose reputation is based entirely on their historical accuracy to suddenly gin up their numbers?

Nothing. It would be bad for future business.

So, other than polling firms having a negative consequence if they did juice the numbers and there being no historical example documenting it's existence, why do you insist this is true?it does. happened when Reagan got elected. happened the last two elections for congress when the republicans gained a majority. Happened right here in ND in the primary when the sitting AG polled way ahead but was smoked in the primary by a business man. Oh the irony.

[biggestal99]

the polling is always democrat heavy. .

They hit the target in 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_20121104.html

you cannot get more accurate than their final election poll in 2012.

Allan

[chadk66]

They hit the target in 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_20121104.html

you cannot get more accurate than their final election poll in 2012.

Allaneven a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while