Do pollsters really think they are going to fool people again?

[Care4all]

Due to gerrymandering, democrats have to be polling at 7% or higher in a generic poll, over the Republicans, in order to win....

so, with polling saying dems will win by 6%, they will actually lose... is what was explained on the news tonight....

so, once again, it could be that democrats get 6% more of the total votes of its citizenry cast, but still lose.

and that would suck wind!

 

[frigidweirdo]

They failed MISERABLY in 2016 with very few polls getting it right so why do the SAME pollsters that did such a lousy job in 2016 think people are going to be fooled by them again in 2018? Is it just them trying to regain some relevance and crush the populist wave coming? I personally get a gut feeling of how things are going to go and I think the polls are WAY off like worse than 2016 levels. OBVIOUSLY MILLIONS more people are voting and its mostly GOP voters....if the polls are completely off again what happens? Do polls still try to stay relevant? Do they disappear?

The issue isn't about fooling people, for the most part. If the want to stay relevant they have to be as accurate as possible, they're private companies and they are there to make money.

The question is whether they've managed to adapt to the modern world.

 

[Claudette]

2016 was a prime example of how wrong polls, pundant's and talking heads can be.

And boy were they wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

I never get polled........LOL.......I don't answer SPAM calls.............LOL

And if you ever do get polled..lie to them. There has been a movement to do so for some time now.

Lying to Pollsters: Is it Ethical? Is it Desirable? Is it Effective?

I was polled once

I thought it would be a few questions and you hang up. It went on and on with tedious details. I threatened to hang up several times

 

[rightwinger]

They failed MISERABLY in 2016 with very few polls getting it right so why do the SAME pollsters that did such a lousy job in 2016 think people are going to be fooled by them again in 2018? Is it just them trying to regain some relevance and crush the populist wave coming? I personally get a gut feeling of how things are going to go and I think the polls are WAY off like worse than 2016 levels. OBVIOUSLY MILLIONS more people are voting and its mostly GOP voters....if the polls are completely off again what happens? Do polls still try to stay relevant? Do they disappear?

The issue isn't about fooling people, for the most part. If the want to stay relevant they have to be as accurate as possible, they're private companies and they are there to make money.

The question is whether they've managed to adapt to the modern world.

My biggest gripe with the presidential polling is the reliance on the popular vote. As we saw in 2016, the popular vote is irrelevant.

Polls need to concentrate on a dozen swing states only. Give California to the Dems and Texas to the Republicans. Poll Florida, Ohio, Virginia to death.
Results of polls should report electoral vote based on polls not the nationwide vote

 

[frigidweirdo]

They failed MISERABLY in 2016 with very few polls getting it right so why do the SAME pollsters that did such a lousy job in 2016 think people are going to be fooled by them again in 2018? Is it just them trying to regain some relevance and crush the populist wave coming? I personally get a gut feeling of how things are going to go and I think the polls are WAY off like worse than 2016 levels. OBVIOUSLY MILLIONS more people are voting and its mostly GOP voters....if the polls are completely off again what happens? Do polls still try to stay relevant? Do they disappear?

The issue isn't about fooling people, for the most part. If the want to stay relevant they have to be as accurate as possible, they're private companies and they are there to make money.

The question is whether they've managed to adapt to the modern world.

My biggest gripe with the presidential polling is the reliance on the popular vote. As we saw in 2016, the popular vote is irrelevant.

Polls need to concentrate on a dozen swing states only. Give California to the Dems and Texas to the Republicans. Poll Florida, Ohio, Virginia to death.
Results of polls should report electoral vote based on polls not the nationwide vote

Perhaps, but then it's still up to these companies whether they remain relevant or not, isn't it?

 

[Pogo]

First - Rasmussen was the ONLY polster in 2016 to pick Trump, and today they are saying the Republicans will get 46% of the vote tomorrow vs 45% for the democrats ( +1 republicans).

Second - Even Nate Silver has already said he is not confident in the blue wave in a tweet.

This is Nate Silver's problems - he bases his own polls on different things but one main thing is his theory that the best funded races win. BUT, the Dems may have a lot more money in ads this year, including the highest funded democrat running, Beto, who is now behind in all polls 51% for (Cruz) to 45% (Beto). But the money means nothing.

Second - Nate is basing his prediction on the fact that democrats have won more midterms since 1924 than Republicans - BUT, Republicans have won 10 out of 12 of the last midterms since 1998. 10 out of 12 - that is a TREND, my friend. What happened before 1990 has NO BEARING on today - most of the voters he is measuring are long dead - Nate Silver is just a guy who had a good run, but who blew it badly in 2016, and is about to blow it again, I believe and hope.

Remember, most polls are run by the media, who cannot help their own bias. It is so deep they can't even see the bottom, they believe what they see is "fact" not just their own Point Of View. That is the problem with American media - they actually believe most Americans think the same way they do.

I also have not been polled politically for decades. And if I was I would probably lie - why would I want to tell the libs they need to work harder to get out the vote?

Wrong, IBD (Investor Business Daily) was the only poll that got Trump right in 2016
Rasmussen Reports Calls It Right - Rasmussen Reports®

No doubt because "IBD" stands for "Irritable Bowel Distress".

 

[Pogo]

They failed MISERABLY in 2016 with very few polls getting it right so why do the SAME pollsters that did such a lousy job in 2016 think people are going to be fooled by them again in 2018? Is it just them trying to regain some relevance and crush the populist wave coming? I personally get a gut feeling of how things are going to go and I think the polls are WAY off like worse than 2016 levels. OBVIOUSLY MILLIONS more people are voting and its mostly GOP voters....if the polls are completely off again what happens? Do polls still try to stay relevant? Do they disappear?

The issue isn't about fooling people, for the most part. If the want to stay relevant they have to be as accurate as possible, they're private companies and they are there to make money.

The question is whether they've managed to adapt to the modern world.

My biggest gripe with the presidential polling is the reliance on the popular vote. As we saw in 2016, the popular vote is irrelevant.

Polls need to concentrate on a dozen swing states only. Give California to the Dems and Texas to the Republicans. Poll Florida, Ohio, Virginia to death.
Results of polls should report electoral vote based on polls not the nationwide vote

One of the many pitfalls of the WTA Electoral College ---- it makes the electorate dependent on polls to determine whether it's even worth getting out of bed to go vote. That shouldn't matter.

2016 polls did predict Clinton outnumbering Rump, and in that they were correct, Rump's hissyfit fantasies of "three million illegals" notwithstanding. It was only the perfect storm of how they were distributed that resulted in the outcome.

 

[Pogo]

Polls are weapons. Thats all.

Ah yes, you mean like Rasmussen?

 

[rightwinger]

They failed MISERABLY in 2016 with very few polls getting it right so why do the SAME pollsters that did such a lousy job in 2016 think people are going to be fooled by them again in 2018? Is it just them trying to regain some relevance and crush the populist wave coming? I personally get a gut feeling of how things are going to go and I think the polls are WAY off like worse than 2016 levels. OBVIOUSLY MILLIONS more people are voting and its mostly GOP voters....if the polls are completely off again what happens? Do polls still try to stay relevant? Do they disappear?

The issue isn't about fooling people, for the most part. If the want to stay relevant they have to be as accurate as possible, they're private companies and they are there to make money.

The question is whether they've managed to adapt to the modern world.

My biggest gripe with the presidential polling is the reliance on the popular vote. As we saw in 2016, the popular vote is irrelevant.

Polls need to concentrate on a dozen swing states only. Give California to the Dems and Texas to the Republicans. Poll Florida, Ohio, Virginia to death.
Results of polls should report electoral vote based on polls not the nationwide vote

Perhaps, but then it's still up to these companies whether they remain relevant or not, isn't it?

They didn’t seem that relevant in 2016
They completely missed Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin

 

[Pogo]

No one wants to talk to them when they call. They need to make 25,000 calls to get 500 people polled, so what kind of demographic is that? Total bullshit.

Link?

I used to work in polling and I already know this claim is full of shit.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They failed MISERABLY in 2016 with very few polls getting it right so why do the SAME pollsters that did such a lousy job in 2016 think people are going to be fooled by them again in 2018? Is it just them trying to regain some relevance and crush the populist wave coming? I personally get a gut feeling of how things are going to go and I think the polls are WAY off like worse than 2016 levels. OBVIOUSLY MILLIONS more people are voting and its mostly GOP voters....if the polls are completely off again what happens? Do polls still try to stay relevant? Do they disappear?

The issue isn't about fooling people, for the most part. If the want to stay relevant they have to be as accurate as possible, they're private companies and they are there to make money.

The question is whether they've managed to adapt to the modern world.

My biggest gripe with the presidential polling is the reliance on the popular vote. As we saw in 2016, the popular vote is irrelevant.

Polls need to concentrate on a dozen swing states only. Give California to the Dems and Texas to the Republicans. Poll Florida, Ohio, Virginia to death.
Results of polls should report electoral vote based on polls not the nationwide vote

One of the many pitfalls of the WTA Electoral College ---- it makes the electorate dependent on polls to determine whether it's even worth getting out of bed to go vote. That shouldn't matter.

2016 polls did predict Clinton outnumbering Rump, and in that they were correct, Rump's hissyfit fantasies of "three million illegals" notwithstanding. It was only the perfect storm of how they were distributed that resulted in the outcome.

Sometimes it's about being able to read what's in front of you. Often the problem isn't the information, it's the person looking at it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They failed MISERABLY in 2016 with very few polls getting it right so why do the SAME pollsters that did such a lousy job in 2016 think people are going to be fooled by them again in 2018? Is it just them trying to regain some relevance and crush the populist wave coming? I personally get a gut feeling of how things are going to go and I think the polls are WAY off like worse than 2016 levels. OBVIOUSLY MILLIONS more people are voting and its mostly GOP voters....if the polls are completely off again what happens? Do polls still try to stay relevant? Do they disappear?

The issue isn't about fooling people, for the most part. If the want to stay relevant they have to be as accurate as possible, they're private companies and they are there to make money.

The question is whether they've managed to adapt to the modern world.

My biggest gripe with the presidential polling is the reliance on the popular vote. As we saw in 2016, the popular vote is irrelevant.

Polls need to concentrate on a dozen swing states only. Give California to the Dems and Texas to the Republicans. Poll Florida, Ohio, Virginia to death.
Results of polls should report electoral vote based on polls not the nationwide vote

Perhaps, but then it's still up to these companies whether they remain relevant or not, isn't it?

They didn’t seem that relevant in 2016
They completely missed Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin

Well that's their problem, isn't it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First - Rasmussen was the ONLY polster in 2016 to pick Trump

Actually, their last poll in 2016 had Trump losing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

2016 was a prime example of how wrong polls, pundant's and talking heads can be.

And boy were they wrong.

Yes,but the fault wasn't with the polls. It was with people lying to pollsters.

 

[Claudette]

So they are lying now by saying the Dems will take the House?

Good to know.LOL

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So they are lying now by saying the Dems will take the House?

Good to know.LOL

Yes, possibly, some of "them" (the poll respondents) are lying. See, people were embarrassed to admit they were voting for Trump, to the point of lying in anonymous polls. But one could argue that this need to hide has gone away, as Trump the lying peacock proudly prances around with impunity,now.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Due to gerrymandering, democrats have to be polling at 7% or higher in a generic poll, over the Republicans, in order to win....

so, with polling saying dems will win by 6%, they will actually lose... is what was explained on the news tonight....

so, once again, it could be that democrats get 6% more of the total votes of its citizenry cast, but still lose.

and that would suck wind!

80 years of payback is a bitch.

 

[Claudette]

So they are lying now by saying the Dems will take the House?

Good to know.LOL

Yes, possibly, some of "them" (the poll respondents) are lying. See, people were embarrassed to admit they were voting for Trump, to the point of lying in anonymous polls. But one could argue that this need to hide has gone away, as Trump the lying peacock proudly prances around with impunity,now.

I'm not embarrassed at all and I voted for the man. Best vote I ever cast.

You are pretty good at lying. Much better than Trump or anyone else.

Sure sucks to be you. And yes. You are funny as hell.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm not embarrassed at all and I voted for the man. Best vote I ever cast.

I didn't claim all Trump voters were embarrassed. So your response is not appropriate in any sense.

You are pretty good at lying.

Which part? Use your big boy words.