Are the Polls Accurate? Here is the Unbiased Data.

[NYcarbineer]

All elections are won by one simple factor......turnout. It truly is that simple. When 40% to 50% of the electorate doesn't show up to vote in Presidential elections what is important is who does show up to vote.

Obama won in 2008 and 2012 because the Dems enjoyed a 7%-8% turnout advantage over the GOP. Romney got high voter turnout from traditional GOP voters...but Obama got more. In fact, minority voters turned out for Obama 30% higher than any other election in history.

Pollsters obviously got things right in 2008 and 2012. Most built in a 7%-8% Dem turnout advantage. However, in the 2014 mid-terms the pollster fucked up big time. Remember all of those Senate races that were "too close to call." Remember Kentucky.....North Carolina....Kansas....Colorado.....Georgia. The GOP won every close Senate race but one...in New Hampshire.

The reason....The pollsters on average had the GOP with a 1.5% turnout advantage, when in fact it was 4.5%. That 3% margin is the sole difference between winning and losing elections.

So that brings us to 2016. Here is data from Nate Silver (hardly a GOP supporter).

FiveThirtyEight's Pollster Ratings


You can see the built in bias from each polling organization. Notice most of the biggest pollsters and factoring in a slight Dem turnout advantage. Internal data I have seen is indicating the GOP should have between a +2% to 5% turnout advantage this election cycle. If so Trump probably wins the election. That is not currently reflected in virtually any polls. Please note...almost all the major polling organizations are now showing a slight Dem turnout advantage. I am very skeptical to say the least.

Here is another excellent article about polling from Nate Silver. I think this is very fair and accurate.

The State Of The Polls, 2016

I am copying Doc because he has been a political operative and I am curious what he thinks. Please add your comments if you are interested. Thanks.


theDoctorisIn

Hillary Clinton is winning Moderates by huge margins. That is fact in the polling that cannot be skewed.

Nope...per all the polling I have seen, Trump is winning with self-identified Independents and moderates.

Okay, cite those polls.

 

[WelfareQueen]

All elections are won by one simple factor......turnout. It truly is that simple. When 40% to 50% of the electorate doesn't show up to vote in Presidential elections what is important is who does show up to vote.

Obama won in 2008 and 2012 because the Dems enjoyed a 7%-8% turnout advantage over the GOP. Romney got high voter turnout from traditional GOP voters...but Obama got more. In fact, minority voters turned out for Obama 30% higher than any other election in history.

Pollsters obviously got things right in 2008 and 2012. Most built in a 7%-8% Dem turnout advantage. However, in the 2014 mid-terms the pollster fucked up big time. Remember all of those Senate races that were "too close to call." Remember Kentucky.....North Carolina....Kansas....Colorado.....Georgia. The GOP won every close Senate race but one...in New Hampshire.

The reason....The pollsters on average had the GOP with a 1.5% turnout advantage, when in fact it was 4.5%. That 3% margin is the sole difference between winning and losing elections.

So that brings us to 2016. Here is data from Nate Silver (hardly a GOP supporter).

FiveThirtyEight's Pollster Ratings


You can see the built in bias from each polling organization. Notice most of the biggest pollsters and factoring in a slight Dem turnout advantage. Internal data I have seen is indicating the GOP should have between a +2% to 5% turnout advantage this election cycle. If so Trump probably wins the election. That is not currently reflected in virtually any polls. Please note...almost all the major polling organizations are now showing a slight Dem turnout advantage. I am very skeptical to say the least.

Here is another excellent article about polling from Nate Silver. I think this is very fair and accurate.

The State Of The Polls, 2016

I am copying Doc because he has been a political operative and I am curious what he thinks. Please add your comments if you are interested. Thanks.


theDoctorisIn

Hillary Clinton is winning Moderates by huge margins. That is fact in the polling that cannot be skewed.

Nope...per all the polling I have seen, Trump is winning with self-identified Independents and moderates.

Okay, cite those polls.

Fox News for one. Look it up yourself. And btw.....Nate Silver says Fox is one of the top three best polling organizations since 2011. See link on page one.

 

[Carla_Danger]

All elections are won by one simple factor......turnout. It truly is that simple. When 40% to 50% of the electorate doesn't show up to vote in Presidential elections what is important is who does show up to vote.

Obama won in 2008 and 2012 because the Dems enjoyed a 7%-8% turnout advantage over the GOP. Romney got high voter turnout from traditional GOP voters...but Obama got more. In fact, minority voters turned out for Obama 30% higher than any other election in history.

Pollsters obviously got things right in 2008 and 2012. Most built in a 7%-8% Dem turnout advantage. However, in the 2014 mid-terms the pollster fucked up big time. Remember all of those Senate races that were "too close to call." Remember Kentucky.....North Carolina....Kansas....Colorado.....Georgia. The GOP won every close Senate race but one...in New Hampshire.

The reason....The pollsters on average had the GOP with a 1.5% turnout advantage, when in fact it was 4.5%. That 3% margin is the sole difference between winning and losing elections.

So that brings us to 2016. Here is data from Nate Silver (hardly a GOP supporter).

FiveThirtyEight's Pollster Ratings


You can see the built in bias from each polling organization. Notice most of the biggest pollsters and factoring in a slight Dem turnout advantage. Internal data I have seen is indicating the GOP should have between a +2% to 5% turnout advantage this election cycle. If so Trump probably wins the election. That is not currently reflected in virtually any polls. Please note...almost all the major polling organizations are now showing a slight Dem turnout advantage. I am very skeptical to say the least.

Here is another excellent article about polling from Nate Silver. I think this is very fair and accurate.

The State Of The Polls, 2016

I am copying Doc because he has been a political operative and I am curious what he thinks. Please add your comments if you are interested. Thanks.


theDoctorisIn

If the election were today, according to your link, Hillary has an 83% chance of winning. I don't think the angry white man vote is gonna be enough.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

And two weeks ago Nate Silver said Trump had a 58% chance of winning the election. Three months to go.....take a deep breath.

I think something pretty amazing would have to happen, and I don't see Trump keeping his fat yapper shut. lol

Of course we've got the debates, where Trump's lack of foreign policy will be obvious, so there's that.

 

[Carla_Danger]

All elections are won by one simple factor......turnout. It truly is that simple. When 40% to 50% of the electorate doesn't show up to vote in Presidential elections what is important is who does show up to vote.

Obama won in 2008 and 2012 because the Dems enjoyed a 7%-8% turnout advantage over the GOP. Romney got high voter turnout from traditional GOP voters...but Obama got more. In fact, minority voters turned out for Obama 30% higher than any other election in history.

Pollsters obviously got things right in 2008 and 2012. Most built in a 7%-8% Dem turnout advantage. However, in the 2014 mid-terms the pollster fucked up big time. Remember all of those Senate races that were "too close to call." Remember Kentucky.....North Carolina....Kansas....Colorado.....Georgia. The GOP won every close Senate race but one...in New Hampshire.

The reason....The pollsters on average had the GOP with a 1.5% turnout advantage, when in fact it was 4.5%. That 3% margin is the sole difference between winning and losing elections.

So that brings us to 2016. Here is data from Nate Silver (hardly a GOP supporter).

FiveThirtyEight's Pollster Ratings


You can see the built in bias from each polling organization. Notice most of the biggest pollsters and factoring in a slight Dem turnout advantage. Internal data I have seen is indicating the GOP should have between a +2% to 5% turnout advantage this election cycle. If so Trump probably wins the election. That is not currently reflected in virtually any polls. Please note...almost all the major polling organizations are now showing a slight Dem turnout advantage. I am very skeptical to say the least.

Here is another excellent article about polling from Nate Silver. I think this is very fair and accurate.

The State Of The Polls, 2016

I am copying Doc because he has been a political operative and I am curious what he thinks. Please add your comments if you are interested. Thanks.


theDoctorisIn

If the election were today, according to your link, Hillary has an 83% chance of winning. I don't think the angry white man vote is gonna be enough.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Actually it's worse for Trump, if the election were today Silver is showing a 91.7% chance of winning for Clinton.

That's funny.

 

[HappyJoy]

All elections are won by one simple factor......turnout. It truly is that simple. When 40% to 50% of the electorate doesn't show up to vote in Presidential elections what is important is who does show up to vote.

Obama won in 2008 and 2012 because the Dems enjoyed a 7%-8% turnout advantage over the GOP. Romney got high voter turnout from traditional GOP voters...but Obama got more. In fact, minority voters turned out for Obama 30% higher than any other election in history.

Pollsters obviously got things right in 2008 and 2012. Most built in a 7%-8% Dem turnout advantage. However, in the 2014 mid-terms the pollster fucked up big time. Remember all of those Senate races that were "too close to call." Remember Kentucky.....North Carolina....Kansas....Colorado.....Georgia. The GOP won every close Senate race but one...in New Hampshire.

The reason....The pollsters on average had the GOP with a 1.5% turnout advantage, when in fact it was 4.5%. That 3% margin is the sole difference between winning and losing elections.

So that brings us to 2016. Here is data from Nate Silver (hardly a GOP supporter).

FiveThirtyEight's Pollster Ratings


You can see the built in bias from each polling organization. Notice most of the biggest pollsters and factoring in a slight Dem turnout advantage. Internal data I have seen is indicating the GOP should have between a +2% to 5% turnout advantage this election cycle. If so Trump probably wins the election. That is not currently reflected in virtually any polls. Please note...almost all the major polling organizations are now showing a slight Dem turnout advantage. I am very skeptical to say the least.

Here is another excellent article about polling from Nate Silver. I think this is very fair and accurate.

The State Of The Polls, 2016

I am copying Doc because he has been a political operative and I am curious what he thinks. Please add your comments if you are interested. Thanks.


theDoctorisIn

If the election were today, according to your link, Hillary has an 83% chance of winning. I don't think the angry white man vote is gonna be enough.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Actually it's worse for Trump, if the election were today Silver is showing a 91.7% chance of winning for Clinton.

Too bad the election isn't being held today. If Nate has the same number a week before the election.....different story.

True and I'm not claiming differently. According to the polling patterns Silver only gives Clinton an 83.4% chance in his polls only forcast and a 76.4% chance in his polls plus for election day.

These three scenarios all point to one thing, the polls are not a convoluted mess showing results all over the map like you seem to be implying. Outside of some outliers on either side they are pointing to a Clinton victory. Situations come up and opinions can change based on anything that happens between now and November.

Trump also has the challenge that his campaign does not appear to have any ground game where as Clinton is inheriting the Obama machinery and that leads to higher Democratic turnout, this is something the Republicans have struggled with and it appears to be made worse by Trump not having many boots on the ground. Adding to that issue is that many state and local politicians don't ant to be seen with Trump. He's going to need local support in order to win and I'm not sure he's put any effort into it at all.

 

[WelfareQueen]

You'll be long gone the day after the election.

I've been around here longer than you, and I'm sure that I'll continue to find ways to get under

All elections are won by one simple factor......turnout. It truly is that simple. When 40% to 50% of the electorate doesn't show up to vote in Presidential elections what is important is who does show up to vote.

Obama won in 2008 and 2012 because the Dems enjoyed a 7%-8% turnout advantage over the GOP. Romney got high voter turnout from traditional GOP voters...but Obama got more. In fact, minority voters turned out for Obama 30% higher than any other election in history.

Pollsters obviously got things right in 2008 and 2012. Most built in a 7%-8% Dem turnout advantage. However, in the 2014 mid-terms the pollster fucked up big time. Remember all of those Senate races that were "too close to call." Remember Kentucky.....North Carolina....Kansas....Colorado.....Georgia. The GOP won every close Senate race but one...in New Hampshire.

The reason....The pollsters on average had the GOP with a 1.5% turnout advantage, when in fact it was 4.5%. That 3% margin is the sole difference between winning and losing elections.

So that brings us to 2016. Here is data from Nate Silver (hardly a GOP supporter).

FiveThirtyEight's Pollster Ratings


You can see the built in bias from each polling organization. Notice most of the biggest pollsters and factoring in a slight Dem turnout advantage. Internal data I have seen is indicating the GOP should have between a +2% to 5% turnout advantage this election cycle. If so Trump probably wins the election. That is not currently reflected in virtually any polls. Please note...almost all the major polling organizations are now showing a slight Dem turnout advantage. I am very skeptical to say the least.

Here is another excellent article about polling from Nate Silver. I think this is very fair and accurate.

The State Of The Polls, 2016

I am copying Doc because he has been a political operative and I am curious what he thinks. Please add your comments if you are interested. Thanks.


theDoctorisIn

If the election were today, according to your link, Hillary has an 83% chance of winning. I don't think the angry white man vote is gonna be enough.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

And two weeks ago Nate Silver said Trump had a 58% chance of winning the election. Three months to go.....take a deep breath.

I think something pretty amazing would have to happen, and I don't see Trump keeping his fat yapper shut. lol

Of course we've got the debates, where Trump's lack of foreign policy will be obvious, so there's that.

Or wikileaks could do a couple more document dumps that royally screws Hillary again. Carla...the reality is neither of us knows who will win this election. I get that Dems and happy now....just like two weeks ago they were not.

My advice....enjoy the moment now.

 

[Billy000]

Please note.....per Nate Silver's data most big name pollsters currently have a slight Democrat bias. These include Pew, NBC, ABC, Fox, Reuters, Time, NYT Times...etc.

Gallup and Rasmussen are the only major pollsters I can see with a slight GOP built in bias.

Also Quinnipiac, Marist, Siena, LA Times, Ohio Poll, Fox/Opinion Dynamics, Public Policy Institute.

Those are all "major" pollsters, too.

What's hilarious about this is that all the polls that cons claim have liberal biases have A-ratings like CNN lol.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You'll be long gone the day after the election.

I've been around here longer than you, and I'm sure that I'll continue to find ways to get under your thin skin.

Based on your posts, it's clear that you've been around longer than the dinosaurs.

I appreciate you following my posts so intently...now I feel bad for not paying any attention to you. Sorry, bro.

You responded to my post, Fatty.

Just because you're acting all pitiful doesn't mean that I'm going to start noticing your posts outside of this thread, and I don't think you should take that personally and get all bent, dude.

It's a shame you

All elections are won by one simple factor......turnout. It truly is that simple. When 40% to 50% of the electorate doesn't show up to vote in Presidential elections what is important is who does show up to vote.

Obama won in 2008 and 2012 because the Dems enjoyed a 7%-8% turnout advantage over the GOP. Romney got high voter turnout from traditional GOP voters...but Obama got more. In fact, minority voters turned out for Obama 30% higher than any other election in history.

Pollsters obviously got things right in 2008 and 2012. Most built in a 7%-8% Dem turnout advantage. However, in the 2014 mid-terms the pollster fucked up big time. Remember all of those Senate races that were "too close to call." Remember Kentucky.....North Carolina....Kansas....Colorado.....Georgia. The GOP won every close Senate race but one...in New Hampshire.

The reason....The pollsters on average had the GOP with a 1.5% turnout advantage, when in fact it was 4.5%. That 3% margin is the sole difference between winning and losing elections.

So that brings us to 2016. Here is data from Nate Silver (hardly a GOP supporter).

FiveThirtyEight's Pollster Ratings


You can see the built in bias from each polling organization. Notice most of the biggest pollsters and factoring in a slight Dem turnout advantage. Internal data I have seen is indicating the GOP should have between a +2% to 5% turnout advantage this election cycle. If so Trump probably wins the election. That is not currently reflected in virtually any polls. Please note...almost all the major polling organizations are now showing a slight Dem turnout advantage. I am very skeptical to say the least.

Here is another excellent article about polling from Nate Silver. I think this is very fair and accurate.

The State Of The Polls, 2016

I am copying Doc because he has been a political operative and I am curious what he thinks. Please add your comments if you are interested. Thanks.


theDoctorisIn

Hillary Clinton is winning Moderates by huge margins. That is fact in the polling that cannot be skewed.

Nope...per all the polling I have seen, Trump is winning with self-identified Independents and moderates.

Okay, cite those polls.

Fox News for one. Look it up yourself. And btw.....Nate Silver says Fox is one of the top three best polling organizations since 2011. See link on page one.

The Fox poll didn't measure the Lib/Con/Moderate vote.

 

[buckeye45_73]

All elections are won by one simple factor......turnout. It truly is that simple. When 40% to 50% of the electorate doesn't show up to vote in Presidential elections what is important is who does show up to vote.

Obama won in 2008 and 2012 because the Dems enjoyed a 7%-8% turnout advantage over the GOP. Romney got high voter turnout from traditional GOP voters...but Obama got more. In fact, minority voters turned out for Obama 30% higher than any other election in history.

Pollsters obviously got things right in 2008 and 2012. Most built in a 7%-8% Dem turnout advantage. However, in the 2014 mid-terms the pollster fucked up big time. Remember all of those Senate races that were "too close to call." Remember Kentucky.....North Carolina....Kansas....Colorado.....Georgia. The GOP won every close Senate race but one...in New Hampshire.

The reason....The pollsters on average had the GOP with a 1.5% turnout advantage, when in fact it was 4.5%. That 3% margin is the sole difference between winning and losing elections.

So that brings us to 2016. Here is data from Nate Silver (hardly a GOP supporter).

FiveThirtyEight's Pollster Ratings


You can see the built in bias from each polling organization. Notice most of the biggest pollsters and factoring in a slight Dem turnout advantage. Internal data I have seen is indicating the GOP should have between a +2% to 5% turnout advantage this election cycle. If so Trump probably wins the election. That is not currently reflected in virtually any polls. Please note...almost all the major polling organizations are now showing a slight Dem turnout advantage. I am very skeptical to say the least.

Here is another excellent article about polling from Nate Silver. I think this is very fair and accurate.

The State Of The Polls, 2016

I am copying Doc because he has been a political operative and I am curious what he thinks. Please add your comments if you are interested. Thanks.


theDoctorisIn

Yeah I think Nate is correct on this issue. Polls are just a snapshot and right now the electorate is very volatile, with 2 unpopular candidates and a very negative race, but people put these guys in these positions...if you didn't vote, don't bitch.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please note.....per Nate Silver's data most big name pollsters currently have a slight Democrat bias. These include Pew, NBC, ABC, Fox, Reuters, Time, NYT Times...etc.

Gallup and Rasmussen are the only major pollsters I can see with a slight GOP built in bias.

Also Quinnipiac, Marist, Siena, LA Times, Ohio Poll, Fox/Opinion Dynamics, Public Policy Institute.

Those are all "major" pollsters, too.

What's hilarious about this is that all the polls that cons claim have liberal biases have A-ratings like CNN lol.

The RWnuts always claim the polls are biased as soon as the polls turn against them.

They're fucking children.

 

[Sherry]

I've been around here longer than you, and I'm sure that I'll continue to find ways to get under your thin skin.

Based on your posts, it's clear that you've been around longer than the dinosaurs.

I appreciate you following my posts so intently...now I feel bad for not paying any attention to you. Sorry, bro.

You responded to my post, Fatty.

Just because you're acting all pitiful doesn't mean that I'm going to start noticing your posts outside of this thread, and I don't think you should take that personally and get all bent, dude.

It's a shame you

Did your thought short-circuit??

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Also Quinnipiac, Marist, Siena, LA Times, Ohio Poll, Fox/Opinion Dynamics, Public Policy Institute.

Those are all "major" pollsters, too.

And interestingly.....Fox, CBS/NYT, ABC/Washington Post all currently have a .6% Democrat bias. When the spread is now 7 points between all polling organizations it tells me they are uncertain and the polls are not to be trusted very highly. The last three election cycles there was general consensus among pollsters and they were mostly correct.

The fact there does not appear to be strong consensus is troubling.

There is consensus, though. A point or two in either direction doesn't make the polls conflict.

There is much more than a 1 point spread between the polls. The range is from Dem +2.5 to GOP +4.5. Granted....those are the outliers....but a seven point spread is a huge difference.

There will always be outliers, but the majority (or the respectable ones, at least) have biases within their own polling margin of error.

I agree that there are plenty of problems with polling, and they're all getting worse - but there are even more issues with the way people use polling.

Polls don't tell you who's going to win the Presidency. They give you a snapshot of public opinion at a given time.

Doc I sincerely appreciate your comments. I have learned some things. And yeah...when a guy like Nate Silver says he's concerned about current polling then I sit up and take notice. But I want to be clear....Right now I think Trump is down...no question. But how much.....I don't really know.

Thanks - I always appreciate a polite conversation, particularly on subjects that fascinate me.

As for what Trump's "real" numbers are, I have no idea. I would guess his actual numbers to be between -5 and -10%, but I don't know. The big mistake now is taking any of this polling to mean something that it doesn't.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Please note.....per Nate Silver's data most big name pollsters currently have a slight Democrat bias. These include Pew, NBC, ABC, Fox, Reuters, Time, NYT Times...etc.

Gallup and Rasmussen are the only major pollsters I can see with a slight GOP built in bias.

Also Quinnipiac, Marist, Siena, LA Times, Ohio Poll, Fox/Opinion Dynamics, Public Policy Institute.

Those are all "major" pollsters, too.

What's hilarious about this is that all the polls that cons claim have liberal biases have A-ratings like CNN lol.

Nate Silver isn't a "con".

 

[Shrimpbox]

Another factoid of interest that sort of dilutes the polling results. Because of the olympics, we are a month ahead of schedule for the election. The window of opportunity for both campaigns as well as the fickle finger of fate looms large. As WQ says, buckle up for the ride.

 

[Billy000]

Please note.....per Nate Silver's data most big name pollsters currently have a slight Democrat bias. These include Pew, NBC, ABC, Fox, Reuters, Time, NYT Times...etc.

Gallup and Rasmussen are the only major pollsters I can see with a slight GOP built in bias.

Also Quinnipiac, Marist, Siena, LA Times, Ohio Poll, Fox/Opinion Dynamics, Public Policy Institute.

Those are all "major" pollsters, too.

What's hilarious about this is that all the polls that cons claim have liberal biases have A-ratings like CNN lol.

Nate Silver isn't a "con".

You misunderstand. I'm not saying he is a con. I'm saying the cons on here claim polls like that of CNN have a liberal bias and this report says otherwise. I think Nate is brilliant.

 

[2aguy]

All elections are won by one simple factor......turnout. It truly is that simple. When 40% to 50% of the electorate doesn't show up to vote in Presidential elections what is important is who does show up to vote.

Obama won in 2008 and 2012 because the Dems enjoyed a 7%-8% turnout advantage over the GOP. Romney got high voter turnout from traditional GOP voters...but Obama got more. In fact, minority voters turned out for Obama 30% higher than any other election in history.

Pollsters obviously got things right in 2008 and 2012. Most built in a 7%-8% Dem turnout advantage. However, in the 2014 mid-terms the pollster fucked up big time. Remember all of those Senate races that were "too close to call." Remember Kentucky.....North Carolina....Kansas....Colorado.....Georgia. The GOP won every close Senate race but one...in New Hampshire.

The reason....The pollsters on average had the GOP with a 1.5% turnout advantage, when in fact it was 4.5%. That 3% margin is the sole difference between winning and losing elections.

So that brings us to 2016. Here is data from Nate Silver (hardly a GOP supporter).

FiveThirtyEight's Pollster Ratings


You can see the built in bias from each polling organization. Notice most of the biggest pollsters and factoring in a slight Dem turnout advantage. Internal data I have seen is indicating the GOP should have between a +2% to 5% turnout advantage this election cycle. If so Trump probably wins the election. That is not currently reflected in virtually any polls. Please note...almost all the major polling organizations are now showing a slight Dem turnout advantage. I am very skeptical to say the least.

Here is another excellent article about polling from Nate Silver. I think this is very fair and accurate.

The State Of The Polls, 2016

I am copying Doc because he has been a political operative and I am curious what he thinks. Please add your comments if you are interested. Thanks.


theDoctorisIn

Every aspect of the media is in full support of hilary.........the Borg Queen has assumed complete control of the Drones and they are obeying her every whim......