Are Polls being rigged too?

[classhandicapper]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-29/how-reuters-tweaked-its-latest-poll-show-clinton-lead

"In their latest poll, released just two days ago, Reuters found Hillary to have a 6 point lead in a head-to-head contest with Trump. But, when you dig a little deeper you find that Reuters' polling sample included 44% democrats and only 33% republicans. Which would be fine, of course, if it had any basis in reality. But, as The Pew Research Center points out very clearly (see table below), registered democrats represent about 33% of the electorate while republicans are 29%...a modest 4 point gap versus the 11 point advantage in the Reuters sample."

[Fager Fan]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-29/how-reuters-tweaked-its-latest-poll-show-clinton-lead

"In their latest poll, released just two days ago, Reuters found Hillary to have a 6 point lead in a head-to-head contest with Trump. But, when you dig a little deeper you find that Reuters' polling sample included 44% democrats and only 33% republicans. Which would be fine, of course, if it had any basis in reality. But, as The Pew Research Center points out very clearly (see table below), registered democrats represent about 33% of the electorate while republicans are 29%...a modest 4 point gap versus the 11 point advantage in the Reuters sample."

33 and 29? If independents are the majority at 38, then I'm surprised independents have been unable to put forth a more successful candidate.

[Valuist]

I think the Brexit vote is evidence of this. The polls all said "remain" would win, yet I heard several, Gerald Celente and Dennis Gartman among others, say that ignore the polls; leave would win.

[_______]

I think the Brexit vote is evidence of this. The polls all said "remain" would win, yet I heard several, Gerald Celente and Dennis Gartman among others, say that ignore the polls; leave would win.

Polls didn't say Brexit would lose. This seems to be an article of faith here as it's repeated so often. Yet it simply isn't true. The betting markets, which were supposed to be the new kid on the block that was putting polls to shame, absolutely blew the call on the election. The polls showed an election that was simply too close to call and that had moved steadily toward exit as the election drew near. The betting markets stood out as failing to predict Brexit. This somehow is now bleeding over into a belief that the polls showed something they never did.

There are problems with polling in Great Britain. There, conservative votes ARE undercounted. The recent evidence for that however is David Cameron's re-election and the scale of his victory NOT Brexit.

Edit for attached article: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/polls-versus-prediction-markets

[_______]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-29/how-reuters-tweaked-its-latest-poll-show-clinton-lead

"In their latest poll, released just two days ago, Reuters found Hillary to have a 6 point lead in a head-to-head contest with Trump. But, when you dig a little deeper you find that Reuters' polling sample included 44% democrats and only 33% republicans. Which would be fine, of course, if it had any basis in reality. But, as The Pew Research Center points out very clearly (see table below), registered democrats represent about 33% of the electorate while republicans are 29%...a modest 4 point gap versus the 11 point advantage in the Reuters sample."

Polls are not skewed. They weren't in 2012 and they aren't now.

The basic premise of unskewers is wrong. Pollsters don't weight their results by party identification.

I have an overly long post in me to explain in detail why this is true but I don't think facts would actually persuade anyone who still believes in this enough to share yet another unskewing article here in 2016 so I won't bother.

But just think about this: The premise being offered is that a professional organization whose entire reputation is based on the accuracy of their data is deliberately manipulating it to present an inaccurate picture of the state of the election.

Like any conspiracy theory, that seems unlikely.

[barahona44]

33 and 29? If independents are the majority at 38, then I'm surprised independents have been unable to put forth a more successful candidate.
I've always thought than many independents are Democrats who live in red states and Republicans who live in blue states.Your party affiliation is a matter of public record in most, if not all , states.

[Clocker]

33 and 29? If independents are the majority at 38, then I'm surprised independents have been unable to put forth a more successful candidate.

These party identifications are based on voter registration or on self-identifications. Studies and interviews I have seen indicate that most "independents" lean heavily toward one party or the other. I would guess that true independents make up less than 20%.

[_______]

I've always thought than many independents are Democrats who live in red states and Republicans who live in blue states.Your party affiliation is a matter of public record in most, if not all , states.

The question pollsters ask is party identification, not party affiliation.

In Kentucky, for example, there are more registered Democrats than Republican's. But in 2014, exit polling showed more voters identified as Republican than Democrat.

Which is a small part of the overlong post I decided against as to why unskewers don't know what they are talking about.

[hcap]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-29/how-reuters-tweaked-its-latest-poll-show-clinton-lead

"In their latest poll, released just two days ago, Reuters found Hillary to have a 6 point lead in a head-to-head contest with Trump. But, when you dig a little deeper you find that Reuters' polling sample included 44% democrats and only 33% republicans. Which would be fine, of course, if it had any basis in reality. But, as The Pew Research Center points out very clearly (see table below), registered democrats represent about 33% of the electorate while republicans are 29%...a modest 4 point gap versus the 11 point advantage in the Reuters sample."It is still too early, however that poll was at least more reputable than all the online junk polls Trump giddily announced the morning after the debate. :lol:

However here is 538.

Election Update: Early Polls Suggest A Post-Debate Bounce For Clinton

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-early-polls-suggest-a-post-debate-bounce-for-clinton/

Every scientific poll we’ve encountered so far suggests that voters thought Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump in Monday night’s debate. In fact, some of them showed her winning by a wide margin — wide enough to make it a good bet (though not a guarantee) that she’ll gain in horse-race polls against Trump over the next week or so.

[PaceAdvantage]

I would hope the debate would help her standings in the polls.

If it didn't, that would signal humongous trouble for camp Clinton.

[_______]

I would hope the debate would help her standings in the polls.

If it didn't, that would signal humongous trouble for camp Clinton.

The LA Times tracking poll shows no movement. It's just one and there will be a lot of high quality polls out on Sunday but there might be reason for Clinton and her supporters to be concerned.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I don't see it. She was better than Trump, to me that seems clear anyway, but she won nothing. Unless the goal was to simply walk away without Trump overachieving massively or survive ninety minutes without medical intervention, she gave nobody a reason to like or vote for her that wasn't already committed. Neither did Trump. Being better than the competition, especially in this debate, has nothing to do with scoring a 'win'. You need to win over people that you didn't already have in your corner, or pocket, as the case may be. I just can't imagine how this particular debate does much of anything to influence voters. If you are undecided and relying on debates to get a push, I can only speculate that you came away thinking you'd have to wait for the second and see if anyone does anything worthwhile there. Or else you committed binge watching Netflix on election day.

[hcap]

I would hope the debate would help her standings in the polls.

If it didn't, that would signal humongous trouble for camp Clinton.
Well if the Trumpeters' belief Trump can shoot someone on fifth avenue in broad daylight and walk scot free are correct, there is NOTHING Hillary can do.

We will see more at the next 2 debates, assuming he doesn't cop out.

Actually if he does cop out it will be the equivalent of shooting himself :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

I posted this on another thread.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-early-polls-suggest-a-post-debate-bounce-for-clinton/

Election Update: Early Polls Suggest A Post-Debate Bounce For Clinton

[Clocker]

survive ninety minutes without medical intervention,

I think that was a major goal, and she did it. That should bring a little bounce in itself.

You need to win over people that you didn't already have in your corner, or pocket, as the case may be. I just can't imagine how this particular debate does much of anything to influence voters.

This election is much less about issues than most. Both candidates are running on the same premise: The country is a mess and I can fix it with more government solutions and more presidential action.

It's just a question of which one you believe. Or which one you disbelieve more.

[_______]

I don't see it. She was better than Trump, to me that seems clear anyway, but she won nothing. Unless the goal was to simply walk away without Trump overachieving massively or survive ninety minutes without medical intervention, she gave nobody a reason to like or vote for her that wasn't already committed. Neither did Trump. Being better than the competition, especially in this debate, has nothing to do with scoring a 'win'. You need to win over people that you didn't already have in your corner, or pocket, as the case may be. I just can't imagine how this particular debate does much of anything to influence voters. If you are undecided and relying on debates to get a push, I can only speculate that you came away thinking you'd have to wait for the second and see if anyone does anything worthwhile there. Or else you committed binge watching Netflix on election day.

Disagree. Trump needs to demonstrate competence and an ability to keep his head in difficult circumstances. I don't expect his partisans to agree with that analysis but if he wanted to persuade undecided voters, Monday night was a missed opportunity.

Clinton was composed. Trump was a hot mess. Those optics SHOULD matter and if they didn't, then dems are in huge trouble.

[classhandicapper]

Polls are not skewed. They weren't in 2012 and they aren't now.

The basic premise of unskewers is wrong. Pollsters don't weight their results by party identification.

I have an overly long post in me to explain in detail why this is true but I don't think facts would actually persuade anyone who still believes in this enough to share yet another unskewing article here in 2016 so I won't bother.

But just think about this: The premise being offered is that a professional organization whose entire reputation is based on the accuracy of their data is deliberately manipulating it to present an inaccurate picture of the state of the election.

Like any conspiracy theory, that seems unlikely.


All I ask is that someone explain the math behind what they are doing in that poll and why it makes sense?

This article is not from some right wing conspiracy theory source. It's from perhaps the best Twitter feed for investment information you can find. The author of the actual article is an often quoted source that's a very good for investment information.

[_______]

All I ask is that someone explain the math behind what they are doing in that poll and why it makes sense?

This article is not from some right wing conspiracy theory source. It's from perhaps the best Twitter feed for investment information you can find. The author of the actual article is an often quoted source that's a very good for investment information.

I'm going to skip a lot of detail but in a nutshell: No one knows what the 2016 electorate will look like in terms of party identification. In 2000, Democrats were +4. In 2004, it was close to even. In 2008 Democrats were +7. In 2012, they were +6. Over 50 years, Democrats almost always lead in party identification in presidential election years. But you never know specifically what will happen until the election.

Pollsters don't ask party identification and THEN select a pool of respondents. They select a pool of respondents and as part of the poll, ask about party identification. Their due diligence in releasing party ID isn't evidence of an attempt to skew results. It's actually pretty good evidence that they aren't screwing with the numbers.

Party identification is far more fluid than party affiliation. No one knows what the 2016 electorate will look like ahead of time. And past experience tells us that Democrats almost always lead in identification.

For all those reasons, you don't adjust raw numbers like those in the poll the article cited.

What I have been suggesting is that people stop cherry picking what poll they want to believe (or disbelieve) and just take the average of all polls. Do that over a period of time and you will see that it paints a clearer picture with less noise than any single poll.

[ReplayRandall]

Don't know if polls are rigged, but realclearpolitics is the best barometer I can find. BTW, I see no Clinton bounce:

Thursday, September 29 PollResultsSpread
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html)Rasmussen Reports (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_sep29)Clinton 42, Trump 41, Johnson 7, Stein 2 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html) Clinton +1

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html)LA Times/USC Tracking (http://www.latimes.com/politics/)Clinton 43, Trump 47 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html) Trump +4

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html)PPP (D) (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/PPP_National.pdf) Clinton 44, Trump 40, Johnson 6, Stein 1 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html) Clinton +4

Spread RCP Average 9/15 - 9/28----43.9 - 41.07= Clinton +2.9

[thaskalos]

I don't see it. She was better than Trump, to me that seems clear anyway, but she won nothing. Unless the goal was to simply walk away without Trump overachieving massively or survive ninety minutes without medical intervention, she gave nobody a reason to like or vote for her that wasn't already committed. Neither did Trump. Being better than the competition, especially in this debate, has nothing to do with scoring a 'win'. You need to win over people that you didn't already have in your corner, or pocket, as the case may be. I just can't imagine how this particular debate does much of anything to influence voters. If you are undecided and relying on debates to get a push, I can only speculate that you came away thinking you'd have to wait for the second and see if anyone does anything worthwhile there. Or else you committed binge watching Netflix on election day.

When both presidential candidates have serious faults, as is the case here...then the most that the voters can do is try to pick one over the other. The voters in this election are not looking to be "won over"; they are picking the best of two evils...and they know it. And these debates are the best chance that the voters have to actually place the candidates side-by-side...and determine which of these two sad choices may be slightly better than the next.

No one is being "won over" here. This election is strictly a hold-your-nose affair.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Disagree. ...

I guess I agree with your disagree in the sense that there are those that really don't want to vote for Clinton and were somewhat hoping that Trump would give them a reason to get behind him and he didn't at all. I just don't think that he was a) quite awful enough or b) she was good enough in this debate for those people to say, well, that does it, I don't need to watch anymore, I'm on the Clinton train. Those people, I think, are probably still feeling the same way coming out of it and, as mentioned, either looking ahead to the second debate to get what they want or just fed up that nobody seems to be worth their vote and will find something better to do with their time than worry about it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

No one is being "won over" here. This election is strictly a hold-your-nose affair.

I get that. But the hold nosing is over Trump being a blowhard clown and Clinton being a sketchy, elitist fraud. So someone has to try to dispel those perceptions to get that held nose to actually pull the lever, or poke the button, or whatever for them. Trump didn't do a very good job. Hillary didn't either. Maybe a few forced smiles gave Clinton a bit of an upper hand, and I realize I'm jaded enough about her to make it hard for me to bend, but I just don't see where she made any inroads combating the perception problems she faces. We all know that she's competent and understands geopolitics. Throwing out names and places with an air of familiarity to distinguish herself from Trump on that level doesn't do much but that seems like the sort of thing she was coached on. Making herself seem more Presidential than him. She needs to worry about making herself seem like less of a jerk. She didn't appear to do that much at all.

[thaskalos]

I get that. But the hold nosing is over Trump being a blowhard clown and Clinton being a sketchy, elitist fraud. So someone has to try to dispel those perceptions to get that held nose to actually pull the lever, or poke the button, or whatever for them. Trump didn't do a very good job. Hillary didn't either. Maybe a few forced smiles gave Clinton a bit of an upper hand, and I realize I'm jaded enough about her to make it hard for me to bend, but I just don't see where she made any inroads combating the perception problems she faces. We all know that she's competent and understands geopolitics. Throwing out names and places with an air of familiarity to distinguish herself from Trump on that level doesn't do much but that seems like the sort of thing she was coached on. Making herself seem more Presidential than him. She needs to worry about making herself seem like less of a jerk. She didn't appear to do that much at all.

I am a liberal who happens to be a Hillary hater...and I wanted to see how Trump would be when he was forced to actually think on his feet. I thought he did a terrible job with those debate questions...and he clearly appeared out of touch with the sentiment of the average voter as it pertained to some key issues.

When you are a billionaire, and your opponent accuses you of not paying any taxes...of stiffing the purveyors who supplied you with goods and services...and of wishing that the housing bubble would burst so you could pick up real estate on the cheap...you don't endear yourself to the average voter (who suffered in this housing crisis) by standing there with a smirk on your face and declaring..."That's good business...by the way".

Trump hurt himself in that debate, IMO...while Hillary is still who we always thought she was.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Trump hurt himself in that debate, IMO...while Hillary is still who we always thought she was.

I can't disagree, I guess. To me it looked like par for the course, more of the same from Trump so I suppose I just saw the outcome that both are still who always thought them to be. To be honest, without being able to attack Hillary the way he did his Republican primary rivals and not come off looking way worse, I couldn't have really had any lower expectations for Trump so maybe that's why I don't see his debate performance quite so bad, despite how awful it was. Maybe people expected more from him and will hold it against him but he's never exactly shined in any way in a debate setting unless he was tearing into someone else and avoiding answering the question as asked.

[ReplayRandall]

Trump hurt himself in that debate, IMO...while Hillary is still who we always thought she was.
And yet Clinton gets no bounce in the polls??....See post# 19.

[thaskalos]

And yet Clinton gets no bounce in the polls....See post# 19.

I have never been impressed by what the polls show. Romney got plenty of "bounce in the polls" right before the last election...but this "bounce" didn't exactly materialize come November.

[ReplayRandall]

I have never been impressed by what the polls show. Romney got plenty of "bounce in the polls" right before the last election...but this "bounce" didn't exactly materialize come November.

Alright, throw the polls out for a minute....if any other candidate had been representing the GOP as the nominee, do you think a record 84 million+ viewers are going to be watching the debate against Hillary? Of course, the answer is no, so bottom-line the nation is focused on Trump....It's his election to win or lose, and he'd better up his game in the next debate, or it's over for him.

[Fager Fan]

Disagree. Trump needs to demonstrate competence and an ability to keep his head in difficult circumstances. I don't expect his partisans to agree with that analysis but if he wanted to persuade undecided voters, Monday night was a missed opportunity.

Clinton was composed. Trump was a hot mess. Those optics SHOULD matter and if they didn't, then dems are in huge trouble.

That's an exaggeration. She was composed if you call smarmy smiles and stupid retorts composed. He wasn't a hot mess however you slice it. He defended himself too much and in too much detail for the occasion, and the fight between him and the moderator was bad but I understand it (I too have a hard time leaving what I deem a lie as the last word on the table), so some things could've been better, but "hot mess" it wasn't.

[Saratoga_Mike]

All I ask is that someone explain the math behind what they are doing in that poll and why it makes sense?

This article is not from some right wing conspiracy theory source. It's from perhaps the best Twitter feed for investment information you can find. The author of the actual article is an often quoted source that's a very good for investment information.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=15944

Please see pages 10-15. The guy at ZH is absolutely biased toward Trump, just like the Huffington Post is biased toward Hillary.

[reckless]

Throughout the past year people like Jeb Bush spent about $100 million or so in ads telling the world that Donald Trump is a slug, unqualified, a boor, all the usual knocks that come from a sissy and a loser.

Hillary Clinton also spent $100 million or so in ads telling the world that Donald Trump is mean, unqualified, boorish, a phony, and someone who denounces fat women (one who violated her Miss Universe contract by gaining 70 pounds and who later got involved in a scheme to commit murder while tramping around with a drug-dealer, which Hillary didn't mention).

Hillary also said that Donald Trump isn't as rich as he claims, isn't as generous as he claims and isn't as patriotic as he claims, while knocking Trump for not releasing his tax returns. The usual knocks that come from a despicable person and a serial failure who has fed and drank off the public trough for 35 years or so.

Her comments are remarkable coming from a woman who was the general in an army that destroyed all the women who had the nerve to be raped and sexually abused by Bill Clinton and went public about it.

Her comments are remarkable coming from a woman who own joint tax returns showed that they took a tax deduction on their underwear. Shameless, vulgar and loathsome Hillary and her husband truly are.

This is remarkable coming from a woman whose husband when President denied our soldiers the right to vote. (The slimy Ed Rendell's job was to the squash the votes of soldiers in 1996.) These accusations also come from a woman whose husband was impeached and disbarred, and yet she said Trump isn't patriotic. :lol:

Yes, Trump didn't have a great debate in my view. He could have ended this race right then and there on a number of occasions but for some reason, he didn't. Doesn't matter anyway because the country forgot about the debate by Wednesday.

And yet, right now, after all the negativity from Bush, the same negativity from Hillary in ads and during the debate itself ... Trump is roughly behind by only three percentage points. And the race is even closer in the 3-4 key battleground states -- those states that have been in the Democrat column for years too while now trending toward Trump.

I wouldn't be betting on a Hillary win if I were you guys. Deny this all you wish; quote all the biased polls all you want; link to the phony and crazy Nate Silver to your cold heart's content ... it means nothing: Trump is a mortal lock and you can bet on that.

[chadk66]

I guess if any polls carry any weight I would think the polls of "likely voters" would hold the most weight.

[barahona44]

Throughout the past year people like Jeb Bush spent about $100 million or so in ads telling the world that Donald Trump is a slug, unqualified, a boor, all the usual knocks that come from a sissy and a loser.

Hillary Clinton also spent $100 million or so in ads telling the world that Donald Trump is mean, unqualified, boorish, a phony, and someone who denounces fat women (one who violated her Miss Universe contract by gaining 70 pounds and who later got involved in a scheme to commit murder while tramping around with a drug-dealer, which Hillary didn't mention).

Hillary also said that Donald Trump isn't as rich as he claims, isn't as generous as he claims and isn't as patriotic as he claims, while knocking Trump for not releasing his tax returns. The usual knocks that come from a despicable person and a serial failure who has fed and drank off the public trough for 35 years or so.

Her comments are remarkable coming from a woman who was the general in an army that destroyed all the women who had the nerve to be raped and sexually abused by Bill Clinton and went public about it.

Her comments are remarkable coming from a woman who own joint tax returns showed that they took a tax deduction on their underwear. Shameless, vulgar and loathsome Hillary and her husband truly are.

This is remarkable coming from a woman whose husband when President denied our soldiers the right to vote. (The slimy Ed Rendell's job was to the squash the votes of soldiers in 1996.) These accusations also come from a woman whose husband was impeached and disbarred, and yet she said Trump isn't patriotic. :lol:

Yes, Trump didn't have a great debate in my view. He could have ended this race right then and there on a number of occasions but for some reason, he didn't. Doesn't matter anyway because the country forgot about the debate by Wednesday.

And yet, right now, after all the negativity from Bush, the same negativity from Hillary in ads and during the debate itself ... Trump is roughly behind by only three percentage points. And the race is even closer in the 3-4 key battleground states -- those states that have been in the Democrat column for years too while now trending toward Trump.

I wouldn't be betting on a Hillary win if I were you guys. Deny this all you wish; quote all the biased polls all you want; link to the phony and crazy Nate Silver to your cold heart's content ... it means nothing: Trump is a mortal lock and you can bet on that.
Three percentage points represents 4 million votes (130 million people are expected to vote),meaning 2 million would have to change from Clinton to Trump for it to be a popular vote tie and Clinton still has a electoral college edge.He can do it, but it will be uphill all the way as he has to run the table on several swing states, where as CLinton can lose a few..

[reckless]

Three percentage points represents 4 million votes (130 million people are expected to vote),meaning 2 million would have to change from Clinton to Trump for it to be a popular vote tie and Clinton still has a electoral college edge.He can do it, but it will be uphill all the way as he has to run the table on several swing states, where as Clinton can lose a few..

Allegedly, close to 5 million registered Republicans stayed home in 2012. If true remember that Romney lost to Obama by about 2.8 million votes. (Of course, this is the popular vote difference since Obama beat Romney in a landslide in the Electoral College.)

What really shocked me to no end last time out was that Romney received 2.1 million less votes than John McCain! If anyone told me in 2012 that less people would vote for Romney than they did McCain, I'd say they were crazy. But they did.

Trump could easily get many of those 5 million stay at home voters to come out in November. He will also win almost every state that Romney won and he'll win those important states that the GOP lost and simply needs to win -- Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

He'll do all this simply because Trump owns the issues that concern the American people the most, such as illegal immigration, jobs and the economy, and national security and defense.

Plus, Hillary simply isn't as liked by Democrats and independents as was Obama, a fact even the most hardcore Democrat partisans say regularly on TV. All this is why she'll probably also lose Colorado, Michigan, Iowa, plus 1-2 states in New England.

[horses4courses]

You guys have no need to worry.
The Russian hackers are working feverishly
to get into the US voting system.

We all know who they want to win.

[_______]

Allegedly, close to 5 million registered Republicans stayed home in 2012. If true remember that Romney lost to Obama by about 2.8 million votes. (Of course, this is the popular vote difference since Obama beat Romney in a landslide in the Electoral College.)

What really shocked me to no end last time out was that Romney received 2.1 million less votes than John McCain! If anyone told me in 2012 that less people would vote for Romney than they did McCain, I'd say they were crazy. But they did.

Trump could easily get many of those 5 million stay at home voters to come out in November. He will also win almost every state that Romney won and he'll win those important states that the GOP lost and simply needs to win -- Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

He'll do all this simply because Trump owns the issues that concern the American people the most, such as illegal immigration, jobs and the economy, and national security and defense.

Plus, Hillary simply isn't as liked by Democrats and independents as was Obama, a fact even the most hardcore Democrat partisans say regularly on TV. All this is why she'll probably also lose Colorado, Michigan, Iowa, plus 1-2 states in New England.

Romney received about 1 million more votes than McCain did. I'm not sure where you got the idea that Romney underperformed McCain. That would be shocking if true. But it isn't.

Republican's are more reliable voters than Democrats. It's why you see the circadian rhythm of Democrats generally outperforming in Presedential election years where interest is higher and Republican's generally outperforming in off year elections where it's lower.

Higher turnout isn't going to help Trump. It will hurt him. It's a fantasy that whatever turns out disaffected Republican leaners wouldn't simeltaneously turn out a greater number of Democrats.

[mostpost]

It is still too early, however that poll was at least more reputable than all the online junk polls Trump giddily announced the morning after the debate. :lol:

However here is 538.

Election Update: Early Polls Suggest A Post-Debate Bounce For Clinton

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-early-polls-suggest-a-post-debate-bounce-for-clinton/

Every scientific poll we’ve encountered so far suggests that voters thought Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump in Monday night’s debate. In fact, some of them showed her winning by a wide margin — wide enough to make it a good bet (though not a guarantee) that she’ll gain in horse-race polls against Trump over the next week or so.
I'm sure that you are aware that the latest fivethirtyeight chances of winning pole puts Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the presidency at 63.7%-up 8.9% since the debate. Should we tell the others?

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Polls have always been rigged to suit the agenda of the ones taking the polls.

People like me (never answer the phone if I don't know the caller) are never counted. I think we make up the majority.

[ReplayRandall]

I'm sure that you are aware that the latest fivethirtyeight chances of winning pole puts Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the presidency at 63.7%-up 8.9% since the debate. Should we tell the others?

Read post #19......Now you're surely aware that even though Trump didn't win the first debate, there was NO Clinton bounce? Glad I could assist you about the reality of Clinton's dilemma. Hillary is probably the most DISLIKED Dem nominee ever, and unless Trump totally botches the next 2 debates, which could happen, voters have had enough of the Bushes and the Clinton's, once and for all.....Now go tell "the Others"...:rolleyes:

[_______]

Polls have always been rigged to suit the agenda of the ones taking the polls.

People like me (never answer the phone if I don't know the caller) are never counted. I think we make up the majority.

Polls must have some incredible power I'm currently unaware of. Otherwise, why would the dark powers behind this manipulation be making the effort to rig them?

This theory seems to suggest that lying about the score of a baseball game in the 5th inning would somehow affect it's real world outcome.

Good luck with that.

[thaskalos]

Read post #19......Now you're surely aware that even though Trump didn't win the first debate, there was NO Clinton bounce? Glad I could assist you about the reality of Clinton's dilemma. Hillary is probably the most DISLIKED Dem nominee ever, and unless Trump totally botches the next 2 debates, which could happen, voters have had enough of the Bushes and the Clinton's, once and for all.....Now go tell "the Others"...:rolleyes:

If the election were held tomorrow, Randall...WHO wins, in your opinion?

If your answer is "Hillary"...then Trump has to do more than just "not totally botch the next 2 debates". He has to actually convince people to change their minds.

[ReplayRandall]

If the election were held tomorrow, Randall...WHO wins, in your opinion?

If your answer is "Hillary"...then Trump has to do more than just "not totally botch the next 2 debates". He has to actually convince people to change their minds.

You're right.....But Trump single handedly destroyed the last of the Bush dynasty- Jeb!...Now he's in position to slay the last of the Clintons, I like his chances.....It's what the country wants, and what the voters will ultimately select behind closed curtains, the end of establishment politics.

[whodoyoulike]

Polls have always been rigged to suit the agenda of the ones taking the polls.

People like me (never answer the phone if I don't know the caller) are never counted. I think we make up the majority.

These kinds of Polls aren't rigged only losers always feel this way. They can go either way. So, if it shows the results in their favor they'll be shouting, "I agree" with the results if not in their favor then, "it's rigged". Losers always find an excuse haven't you noticed e.g., "I had a faulty mic" etc.

For these kind of Polls just don't rely on their results because as you've noted it's not statistically valid. It's more for show frequently presented by entities with ulterior motives as you've stated which is most likely for generating ad revenue.

[thaskalos]

You're right.....But Trump single handedly destroyed the last of the Bush dynasty- Jeb!...Now he's in position to slay the last of the Clintons, I like his chances.....It's what the country wants, and what the voters will ultimately select behind closed curtains, the end of establishment politics.

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that, no matter what the "naysayers" say, the average American voter who is walking the streets thinks that "improvement" has been made in this country over the last few years. SLOW improvement, to be sure...but improvement nonetheless. Going by my own personal experience while dealing with the "average voters" that I encounter in my day-to-day life...I rarely see the dire predictions about the future of this country that I keep witnessing when I browse this site. The optimistic Americans that I encounter outnumber the pessimists by a wide margin. I am not saying that I agree with this optimism, mind you. I am just reporting what I see.

And, if the majority of the Americans think that "progress", albeit slow, is being made in this country...then this would be a very tough obstacle for Trump to overcome.

[reckless]

Romney received about 1 million more votes than McCain did. I'm not sure where you got the idea that Romney underperformed McCain. That would be shocking if true. But it isn't.

Republican's are more reliable voters than Democrats. It's why you see the circadian rhythm of Democrats generally outperforming in Presedential election years where interest is higher and Republican's generally outperforming in off year elections where it's lower.

Higher turnout isn't going to help Trump. It will hurt him. It's a fantasy that whatever turns out disaffected Republican leaners wouldn't simeltaneously turn out a greater number of Democrats.

This comes from an old thread on the freerepublic.com website.

I guess all of us are wrong because you know better and you say so, Don. :lol: :lol:

I know you also have said at times that all those 10,000, 15,000 people that regularly attend Trump rallies and speeches doesn't mean a thing. And, according to you, all those millions of voters that have said they haven't voted in years but will now vote for Trump, or those that identify as Democrats but have registered as Republicans solely to vote for Trump does not mean much either. :lol:

I also assume that the 2,300 that recently attended a Hillary rally doesn't mean anything either. How about Hillary losing Michigan in a primary? Or Hillary no longer campaigning in Ohio? Or Obama, Biden, Bill Clinton constantly stumping in Pennsylvania means nothing either... :lol:

Say what you want, think what you want.

The quote below is where I got this 'idea'. Where did you get the idea that you were right ... either on this matter or the entire primary/election campaign?

11/07/2012

Posted on 11/7/2012, 11:14:26 PM by SeekAndFind

I just did a quick lookup of the Obama vs McCain popular vote as compared to the Obama vs Romney Popular vote and here is what I see:

Election 2008

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

2008: Obama: 69,456,897 McCain: 59,934,814

TOTAL VOTES CAST: 129,391,711

Obama Victory Margin: 52.9% to 45.7% (9,522,083 votes)

Obama: 365 EV McCain: 173 EV

_______________________

Election 2012

Source:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-election-results

2012: Obama: 60,652,149 Romney: 57,810,390

TOTAL VOTES CAST: 118,462,539 (2,841,759 votes)

Obama Victory Margin: 51.2% to 48.8%

Assuming Obama takes Florida (which as of this writing is still uncalled)...

Obama: 332 EV Romney: 206 EV

___________________

What I find interesting are the following:

1) There were more people who voted in 2008 compared to 2012.

2) McCain got MORE votes in 2008 than Romney in 2012. In fact, McCain got 2,124,424 MORE VOTES than Romney !!

QUESTION : WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE 2,124,424 McCAIN VOTES IN 2012?

3) Obama LOST OVER 8,804,748 Votes in 2012 compared to 2008!!

QUESTION: What happened to those 8,804,748 voters? Did they stay home?

I can only conclude the following, based on the above observations:

* There was LESS ENTHUSIASM by Americans to vote in 2012 than in 2008.

* Contrary to what we were led to believe by the GOP and what some FReepers claim they saw on the ground in their state, REPUBLICANS WERE NOT ENTHUSIASTIC TO VOTE THIS YEAR. In fact, I can see at least 2 Million of them staying home this year compared to 2008 based on the above numbers.

So much for the huge Get Out the Vote Effort, the huge, sellout crowds in Red Rocks Colorado and in Ohio...

* Even though Obama lost over 8 Million votes this year, most of those voters DID NOT switch to Romney, preferring to stay home ( I suspect many of these would be the disappointed youth of 2008 and the socially conservative blacks of 2008. The former still can't find good jobs and the latter couldn't vote for a gay marriage supporting candidate. However, they still could not vote for Romney. So, they stayed home ).

Also, I cannot help but conclude that a huge proportion of the GOP base STAYED HOME in 2012. Otherwise, where were the over 2 million votes that went to McCain in 2008?

This was a self-inflicted loss on the part of the Republicans.

[_______]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

Your fox link is dead. Stick with Wikipedia.

[ReplayRandall]

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that, no matter what the "naysayers" say, the average American voter who is walking the streets thinks that "improvement" has been made in this country over the last few years. SLOW improvement, to be sure...but improvement nonetheless. Going by my own personal experience while dealing with the "average voters" that I encounter in my day-to-day life...I rarely see the dire predictions about the future of this country that I keep witnessing when I browse this site. The optimistic Americans that I encounter outnumber the pessimists by a wide margin. I am not saying that I agree with this optimism, mind you. I am just reporting what I see.

And, if the majority of the Americans think that "progress", albeit slow, is being made in this country...then this would be a very tough obstacle for Trump to overcome.

I printed out your post, it was written beautifully...:cool:...But the UGLY reality of what I see, right here in Charlotte, Tulsa, Ferguson, Dallas and Chicago, etc, etc, is not a pretty picture of the state affairs for the majority/minorities of the population. Bottom-line, our country is hurting and has been adrift for many years. In the end, this is the LAST chance for Americans to turn around the way this country is run, turning it in a stronger direction towards restoring it's former greatness in the world.

[_______]

I think I see the problem, reckless. The quote you posted below the fox link indicates the election count was still in progress.

Obama's total is wrong, too. Romney would have beat him with that number.

[thaskalos]

I printed out your post, it was written beautifully...:cool:...But the UGLY reality of what I see, right here in Charlotte, Tulsa, Ferguson, Dallas and Chicago, etc, etc, is not a pretty picture of the state affairs for the majority/minorities of the population. Bottom-line, our country is hurting and has been adrift for many years. In the end, this is the LAST chance for Americans to turn around the way this country is run, turning it in a stronger direction towards restoring it's former greatness in the world.

And you have convinced yourself that TRUMP is capable of being the catalyst for this great change of "direction"? Put aside your hatred for the "politicians" of the past decade or so...and tell me what Trump has done to gain your confidence in this "revolution".

Many revolutionaries have gained leadership control, Randall. The majority of them have proven to be worse than the tyrants whom they replaced.

[_______]

Wow. I finally read your entire post and realized you were quoting someone else.

It's one thing to make a little mistake on a BB like this. It's really something else to publish an opinion piece based on entirely flawed data that is easily fact checked.

[whodoyoulike]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

Your fox link is dead. Stick with Wikipedia.

Just Google it. Romney 60.6 million vs McCain 59.6 million per Cornell Univ. report.


http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/popular-vote/

[ReplayRandall]

And you have convinced yourself that TRUMP is capable of being the catalyst for this great change of "direction"? Put aside your hatred for the "politicians" of the past decade or so...and tell me what Trump has done to gain your confidence in this "revolution".

Many revolutionaries have gained leadership control, Randall. The majority of them have proven to be worse than the tyrants whom they replaced.

Two horrible choices out of 330 million Americans, and this is the best we can do? That should tell you how bad things truly suck in our country. Who got us in this mess?....The established politicians, end of story. There is no difference between a Bush and a Clinton, they're one and the same. It's over for them, and I can't vote for "don't know Aleppo" Johnson, so I have to go with the person who has destroyed half of the establishment via Jeb!....Let Trump get rid of the other half, who is Hillary, and if it doesn't work out in 4 years, then maybe there will finally be a viable new 3rd party that will unite the country.

[hcap]

I think 538 is as good as realclear and the Huffpost. I generally look at all thee. Debate bounce? Still too early but here is a graphic from 538. A distinct upward movement for Clinton and a decline for Trump.

[hcap]

Update from 538 more on the debate bounce. Trump must be wondering seriously if he will show for 2 and 3

[chadk66]

I can't see where polling of anybody other than "likely voters" matters in the least.

[Tom]

Many revolutionaries have gained leadership control, Randall. The majority of them have proven to be worse than the tyrants whom they replaced.

None of them have replaced anything like Hillary! :eek:

[Tom]

I can't see where polling of anybody other than "likely voters" matters in the least.

Agree.
AND, if you don't see EXACTLY how the questions were worded, you can't say a lot about the results.

[chadk66]

Agree.
AND, if you don't see EXACTLY how the questions were worded, you can't say a lot about the results.exactly. and if the poll doesn't state the percentage of each party polled it's of no use either.

[JustRalph]

Revealed today that NBC poll that showed Hill with an 11 point lead was faked by a Hillary PAC and reported widely

[Tom]

People who did the poll are on her campaign staff.

NBC...Nothing but Crap.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Two horrible choices out of 330 million Americans, and this is the best we can do? That should tell you how bad things truly suck in our country. Who got us in this mess?....The established politicians, end of story. There is no difference between a Bush and a Clinton, they're one and the same. It's over for them, and I can't vote for "don't know Aleppo" Johnson, so I have to go with the person who has destroyed half of the establishment via Jeb!....Let Trump get rid of the other half, who is Hillary, and if it doesn't work out in 4 years, then maybe there will finally be a viable new 3rd party that will unite the country.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a lot of people who believe we have two great choices, so in that regard I agree.

Whether or not things really suck badly is probably a matter of perspective. But I would disagree at least in part with the conclusion the established politicians got us into whatever mess people see all by themselves. I'd say both parties have to pander to their base, but I'd say the base for the Democrats may be a little less heterogeneous. Their main supporters have been unions, minorities, women, and educated urbanites, and they are not as far apart on a lot of issues. The Republicans used to be the party of big business. They are now the party of big business, evangelicals, the tea party, the NRA, defense industries, health care industries, and intellectual conservatives. The problem is that every one of those groups wants to be driving the party. If you vote your conscience or what is in the best interest of the country, but it isn't acceptable to the hard line, you get primaried. If you aren't vehemently anti-abortion, you get primaried. If you aren't rabidly anti-tax you get primaried. If you suggest you want to work across the aisle, you get primaried. If you don't believe there should be no restrictions on gun ownership, you get primaried. How in the world can you be an effective Republican when you have so many hard line groups you have to please, or else? And the hard line groups make no bones about it - vote our way or we'll get someone in here that will. I think you have one group that can't afford to compromise if they want to keep their jobs. If you look at the 50 longest serving people in Congress, 38 are Democrats. I'm not sure if they forgive their people their miscues too easily, but it appears the Dems don't feel nearly as threatened by primaries. I think the problem is that if the right thing to do is develop bi-partisan, compromise legislation, nobody wants to be seen as a compromiser. And I don't think that changes if you change the people in Congress. I don't think that changes with a third party person. The third party is going to have it's own priorities. Plus, I'd love to see the third party that unites all the groups I just mentioned.

I think we'd be better off with a parliamentary type system where the party that gets the most votes controls government. That way they can implement their platform, and if it sucks you vote the next party in. The other thing about that system is that third parties actually have a chance to be part of the government. Certainly it's hard to argue the gridlock is a winning system.

[hcap]

538 is not "rigged" no matter what the Chumpeters think. Nate Silver and crew also tally and include individual state polls in their forecast. Latest including the 2 nd debate further eroding Trumps chances.

[hcap]

Neither is this composite of polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Real clear Politics Update

RCP Average 9/29 - 10/10 -- -- 47.9 to 41.9 Clinton +6.0

[hcap]

And another compilation.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

There are some polling errors, but highly doubtful ALL of these results a few weeks out from Nov 8/th are wrong showing today's state of things.
Unless Hillary dies, Trump is toast.

[rastajenk]

One can hope.

[_______]

The amazing thing is that since the nominations, bad news for either candidate affect the polls as you would expect.

I understand denial but how any rational person can look at the last week and not expect to see Trump fall further behind seems to require a herculean effort to remain obtuse.

Yet...we have more reposts from sites that want to tell you it didn't happen and the polls are being manipulated.

I'd say "amazing" but I've been here long enough to understand that this will be happening in 2020 even after this election has shown the folly of unskewing yet again.

[rsetup]

Time to evoke The Cool Ruler: its a UNIVERSAL tribulation for the Reps.

The fix is in, baby:ThmbUp:

[EasyGoer89]

Is it all rigged? You decide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

[Fager Fan]

The amazing thing is that since the nominations, bad news for either candidate affect the polls as you would expect.

I understand denial but how any rational person can look at the last week and not expect to see Trump fall further behind seems to require a herculean effort to remain obtuse.

Yet...we have more reposts from sites that want to tell you it didn't happen and the polls are being manipulated.

I'd say "amazing" but I've been here long enough to understand that this will be happening in 2020 even after this election has shown the folly of unskewing yet again.

There's that wagging finger again.

[classhandicapper]

538 is not "rigged" no matter what the Chumpeters think. Nate Silver and crew also tally and include individual state polls in their forecast. Latest including the 2 nd debate further eroding Trumps chances.

I don't know enough about the probability math to know who has it right, but Nassim Nicholas Taleb has been trashing Nate Silver's model on Twitter for a couple of months. He's not a pollster making a prediction. He's a probability and math genius simply stating that Silver is doing it wrong. For all I know he may think it's more likely that Hillary wins than Silver. I'm just making the point that I suspect that NNT is right.

[_______]

I don't know enough about the probability math to know who has it right, but Nassim Nicholas Taleb has been trashing Nate Silver's model on Twitter for a couple of months. He's not a pollster making a prediction. He's a probability and math genius simply stating that Silver is doing it wrong. For all I know he may think it's more likely that Hillary wins than Silver. I'm just making the point that I suspect that NNT is right.

Taleb is a serious thinker. I'd recommend his book, "The Black Swan" to anyone.

I don't follow him on twitter but if he has criticisms of the model at 538, I'm sure they're based on the assumptions made in the model and not farcical theories about "inside info".

The bottom line is that 538 discloses their methodology. It isn't a black box that numbers go into and some other numbers come out of. Anyone can look at their inputs and do the math themselves if so inclined.

All models suffer from not being the much more complex real world. I think the measure should be the ability to better model the real world. Until someone does that, I'll still look toward the number geeks who have a record of success.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

All polls are rigged to the agenda of the poll creator. Of this there is little doubt.

[_______]

All polls are rigged to the agenda of the poll creator. Of this there is little doubt.

And given that every organization engaged in the business of polling knows they will be graded on Election Day, we know what their agenda is.

The flat earth society's denial that the world is spherical doesn't change it's actual shape.

[hcap]

Thought I would update things. And the claim that all polls are rigged I believe fails in the light of all these three compilations and projections. Btw, right after the republican convention and the Chump had a slight bounce, 538 was the poll of choice by the right here.

Analysis of failures of the polls is valid, but how come we have not seen poll projections from Nicholas Taleb. I would be more inclined to take his criticisms seriously.

[hcap]

Real Clear
Clinton at +7

[hcap]

Huff Pollster......

[MutuelClerk]

Polls change elections. More people should lie in them.

[hcap]

Polls change elections. More people should lie in them.Versus making up any nonsense they want regardless of facts and history. What is being done by the Chumpeters is when the claim that "polls are rigged" is not enough, go to "the election is" :lol: rigged.










' is not enough, going to

[EasyGoer89]

amazing stuff by bev harris.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFxKJ7RJ1jE

[Tom]

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/11/01/donald-trump-surges-to-12-point-lead-in-texas/

I guess the lefties area correct - the polls are not rigged! :lol:

If the presidential election were held today, 52 percent of likely general election voters said they would vote for Trump while 39 percent said they would vote for Clinton. This marks the first time Trump has polled over 50 percent in Texas and casts doubt on any Democratic victory on November 8.

[EMD4ME]

Versus making up any nonsense they want regardless of facts and history. What is being done by the Chumpeters is when the claim that "polls are rigged" is not enough, go to "the election is" :lol: rigged.










' is not enough, going to


How long will you disappear from here when Donald Trump earns his way into the White House?

[classhandicapper]

Looks like there WAS a segment of the population that refused to say they were voting for Trump because the other side was using shame to try to get people to not vote for him.

[chadk66]

once again this is why the polls don't mean shit.

[Steve 'StatMan']

once again this is why the polls don't mean shit.

True. I probably skipped out on a dozen or more phone polls when my I refused to answer my phone due to the unrecognized out-of-state call. I had a lot more in the last month that usual. I get them from credit card scams as well, so I normally ignore them. And I know a few came from the Gary Johnson campaign. Sorry. I looked. No could do. Didn't affect Illinois anyway.