Fox News says that Polls dont matter. Dana Perino's mind is blown

[blackhawk]

As I have said about a million times polls are simply a snapshot of the moment what they show today will not be the same a month from now. Polls can also be easily manipulated to get the results you want by how you phrase the questions you ask and the size of sample of people polled as well as how it's broken down by race, gender, and political party affiliation we often see over sampling of a group when the poll is trying to skew the results a specific way.

 

[ClosedCaption]

 

[Skylar]

Polls don't matter. To many variables to take seriously.

I'm sure those polling Dewey's win were surprised as hell when he lost.

Oh, I believe you. But this 'Claudette' gal? She says you're completely full of it:


"Seems I remember during the election that the Rasmussen poll was the darling of the left when they predicting a win for OL'BO. Rasmussen was spot on then.

Now the Rasmussen is saying BO's numbers are dropping. They were using the exact same techniques during the election as they are now. The left now says they are biased. Hmmmm Funny how that works. Also funny what a difference a year makes doncha know???"

Claudette
Post 78

Rasmussen Is a Neo-Con Tool


Now you're saying they're biased. Hmmmm....Funny how that works. Also funny what a difference an election makes, dontcha know??

As even you are ignoring you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Eric Bolling Dismisses Polling Data Citing Trump Crowds; Dana Perino Incredulous (VIDEO) | RedState


Talk about denial. While a poll here or there can be considered an outlying figure, the trends do not lie. It doesn't matter if 10,000 people show up at a rally. Bolling is just being absurd here and it was right for Dana to call him out on his crap.

All of this is just a precursor to people like Bolling blaming everybody under the sun except for Donald Trump when loses in November. Rigged polls, rigged state operations, #NeverTrump people, "the establishment" and the RNC will all be targets for their ire.

They can do that all they want and live in their own fantasy worlds. But reality still exists for the rest of us.

Dana Perino is confusing you libtards to the point of you finding a chuckle at what you dont understand.

It is called 'integrity' and she is misled by her poll samplings, but that is fine.

Better a misled honest person than a lying crack whore Democrat.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Poor widdle Dimboc-rats, it is so sad to see the election slipping away from your greasy little hands.

Boohooo!

An Example Analysis of the LA Presidential Poll

 

[ClosedCaption]

Polls don't matter. To many variables to take seriously.

I'm sure those polling Dewey's win were surprised as hell when he lost.

Oh, I believe you. But this 'Claudette' gal? She says you're completely full of it:


"Seems I remember during the election that the Rasmussen poll was the darling of the left when they predicting a win for OL'BO. Rasmussen was spot on then.

Now the Rasmussen is saying BO's numbers are dropping. They were using the exact same techniques during the election as they are now. The left now says they are biased. Hmmmm Funny how that works. Also funny what a difference a year makes doncha know???"

Claudette
Post 78

Rasmussen Is a Neo-Con Tool


Now you're saying they're biased. Hmmmm....Funny how that works. Also funny what a difference an election makes, dontcha know??

As even you are ignoring you.

And there you have it. She changes here core beliefs depending on which way the wind blows lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

Polls don't matter. To many variables to take seriously.

I'm sure those polling Dewey's win were surprised as hell when he lost.

Oh, I believe you. But this 'Claudette' gal? She says you're completely full of it:


"Seems I remember during the election that the Rasmussen poll was the darling of the left when they predicting a win for OL'BO. Rasmussen was spot on then.

Now the Rasmussen is saying BO's numbers are dropping. They were using the exact same techniques during the election as they are now. The left now says they are biased. Hmmmm Funny how that works. Also funny what a difference a year makes doncha know???"

Claudette
Post 78

Rasmussen Is a Neo-Con Tool


Now you're saying they're biased. Hmmmm....Funny how that works. Also funny what a difference an election makes, dontcha know??

As even you are ignoring you.

And there you have it. She changes here core beliefs depending on which way the wind blows lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

 

[Skylar]

As I have said about a million times polls are simply a snapshot of the moment what they show today will not be the same a month from now. Polls can also be easily manipulated to get the results you want by how you phrase the questions you ask and the size of sample of people polled as well as how it's broken down by race, gender, and political party affiliation we often see over sampling of a group when the poll is trying to skew the results a specific way.

If polls are so disconnected from the actual election results....then why has the leader in the polls at this point in the election won the popular vote 16 of the last 16 elections?

Seems rather consistent for random chance, don't you think?

 

[JimBowie1958]

If polls are so disconnected from the actual election results....then why has the leader in the polls at this point in the election won the popular vote 16 of the last 16 elections?

Reagan was not leading in the polls at this time, dude, back in 1980 and he won by a landslide?


And why do yo think that the past always predicts the future unfailingly? It really doesnt, you know?

 

[JimBowie1958]

About a week before the election, Gallup had Carter up at 47% and Reagan at 39%, and REAGAN WON IN A LANDSLIDE.

Gallup Oct. 13, 1980: Poll Says Carter 44%, Reagan 40% – Texas Insider

Then came more hard punches. On Oct. 13, Gallup put the race nationally at Carter 44%, Reagan 40%. The bottom appeared to fall out two weeks later when a new national Gallup poll had Carter 47%, Reagan 39%.

 

[Skylar]

If polls are so disconnected from the actual election results....then why has the leader in the polls at this point in the election won the popular vote 16 of the last 16 elections?

Reagan was not leading in the polls at this time, dude, back in 1980 and he won by a landslide?

Yeah, he was:

August 1980:

Reagan:45%
Carter: 29%
Anderson: 14%

Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I ask again, how did the polling in at this point in the election predict the winner of the popular vote 16 of the last 16 elections....if polling has no accuracy and no meaning?

How did Nate Silver call 50 of 50 States in 2012, the popular vote within 2%, every congressional election and every senate election save one....

...if polling has no accuracy and no meaning?

You're blinding yourself with Confirmation Bias, Jim. Ignoring anything that contradicts what you want to believe. And its not serving you well.

 

[Skylar]

About a week before the election, Gallup had Carter up at 47% and Reagan at 39%, and REAGAN WON IN A LANDSLIDE.

Gallup Oct. 13, 1980: Poll Says Carter 44%, Reagan 40% – Texas Insider

Then came more hard punches. On Oct. 13, Gallup put the race nationally at Carter 44%, Reagan 40%. The bottom appeared to fall out two weeks later when a new national Gallup poll had Carter 47%, Reagan 39%.

That was October. This is August. I said that the polls at this point in the election, the few weeks after the convention, have accurately predicted the popular vote for the last 16 of 16 elections.

And of course how do you explain Nate Silver's spectacular record of accuracy in 2012?

You can't. You ignore it. And then pretend that because you ignore it, that reality will magically change to accommodate your desires.

Um, no. It won't.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If polls are so disconnected from the actual election results....then why has the leader in the polls at this point in the election won the popular vote 16 of the last 16 elections?

Reagan was not leading in the polls at this time, dude, back in 1980 and he won by a landslide?

Yeah, he was:

August 1980:

Reagan:45%
Carter: 29%
Anderson: 14%

Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I ask again, how did the polling in at this point in the election predict the winner of the popular vote 16 of the last 16 elections....if polling has no accuracy and no meaning?

How did Nate Silver call 50 of 50 States in 2012, the popular vote within 2%, every congressional election and every senate election save one....

...if polling has no accuracy and no meaning?

You're blinding yourself with Confirmation Bias, Jim. Ignoring anything that contradicts what you want to believe. And its not serving you well.

About a week before the election, Gallup had Carter up at 47% and Reagan at 39%, and REAGAN WON IN A LANDSLIDE.

Gallup Oct. 13, 1980: Poll Says Carter 44%, Reagan 40% – Texas Insider

Then came more hard punches. On Oct. 13, Gallup put the race nationally at Carter 44%, Reagan 40%. The bottom appeared to fall out two weeks later when a new national Gallup poll had Carter 47%, Reagan 39%.

 

[blackhawk]

As I have said about a million times polls are simply a snapshot of the moment what they show today will not be the same a month from now. Polls can also be easily manipulated to get the results you want by how you phrase the questions you ask and the size of sample of people polled as well as how it's broken down by race, gender, and political party affiliation we often see over sampling of a group when the poll is trying to skew the results a specific way.

If polls are so disconnected from the actual election results....then why has the leader in the polls at this point in the election won the popular vote 16 of the last 16 elections?

Seems rather consistent for random chance, don't you think?

If this were a normal election year I might agree but it's not by past election standards Trump wouldn't even be one of the nominees all the things that would have normally knocked him out didn't. This might be the one pattern that continues but I wouldn't put money on it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

About a week before the election, Gallup had Carter up at 47% and Reagan at 39%, and REAGAN WON IN A LANDSLIDE.

Gallup Oct. 13, 1980: Poll Says Carter 44%, Reagan 40% – Texas Insider

Then came more hard punches. On Oct. 13, Gallup put the race nationally at Carter 44%, Reagan 40%. The bottom appeared to fall out two weeks later when a new national Gallup poll had Carter 47%, Reagan 39%.

That was October. This is August. I said that the polls at this point in the election, the few weeks after the convention, have accurately predicted the popular vote for the last 16 of 16 elections.

And of course how do you explain Nate Silver's spectacular record of accuracy in 2012?

You can't. You ignore it. And then pretend that because you ignore it, that reality will magically change to accommodate your desires.

Um, no. It won't.

Lol, you pick some arbitrary point in the polls and claim that is a 100% magic voodoo accurate indicator? roflmao


Show some data there, skin head.

 

[Skylar]

If polls are so disconnected from the actual election results....then why has the leader in the polls at this point in the election won the popular vote 16 of the last 16 elections?

Reagan was not leading in the polls at this time, dude, back in 1980 and he won by a landslide?

Yeah, he was:

August 1980:

Reagan:45%
Carter: 29%
Anderson: 14%

Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I ask again, how did the polling in at this point in the election predict the winner of the popular vote 16 of the last 16 elections....if polling has no accuracy and no meaning?

How did Nate Silver call 50 of 50 States in 2012, the popular vote within 2%, every congressional election and every senate election save one....

...if polling has no accuracy and no meaning?

You're blinding yourself with Confirmation Bias, Jim. Ignoring anything that contradicts what you want to believe. And its not serving you well.

About a week before the election, Gallup had Carter up at 47% and Reagan at 39%, and REAGAN WON IN A LANDSLIDE.

Gallup Oct. 13, 1980: Poll Says Carter 44%, Reagan 40% – Texas Insider

Then came more hard punches. On Oct. 13, Gallup put the race nationally at Carter 44%, Reagan 40%. The bottom appeared to fall out two weeks later when a new national Gallup poll had Carter 47%, Reagan 39%.

You're citing ONE poll. There are a dozen that indicate that Trump is behind. With a dozen more State polls that show he's behind in key battle ground States.

Every poll has a margin of error. And its possible that a poll could skew left or right within that margin. But DOZENS of polls, all mistakenly skewed in the exact same direction at the exact same time?

That's ludicrously unlikely. Yet its your entire pipe dream. That somehow all the polls are wrong. All the dozens of them are wrong. And what you want to happen is right.

Um, yeah. That's just not going to happen.

And exactly as I've predicted you would, you ignore Nate Silver and his stunning record of accuracy. You ignore the polling in the weeks after convention predicting the popular vote 16 of the last 16 elections. Obviously polling has some serious predictive value.

Confirmation Bias isn't going to help you here, Jim. And come November.....I'm going to remind you of WHY your predictions turned out wrong. Not because you simply 'guessed wrong'. But because your process is fatally flawed. As you allow your feelings to influence your perception....and ignore what you don't want to believe.

That's not how reality works.

 

[Skylar]

About a week before the election, Gallup had Carter up at 47% and Reagan at 39%, and REAGAN WON IN A LANDSLIDE.

Gallup Oct. 13, 1980: Poll Says Carter 44%, Reagan 40% – Texas Insider

Then came more hard punches. On Oct. 13, Gallup put the race nationally at Carter 44%, Reagan 40%. The bottom appeared to fall out two weeks later when a new national Gallup poll had Carter 47%, Reagan 39%.

That was October. This is August. I said that the polls at this point in the election, the few weeks after the convention, have accurately predicted the popular vote for the last 16 of 16 elections.

And of course how do you explain Nate Silver's spectacular record of accuracy in 2012?

You can't. You ignore it. And then pretend that because you ignore it, that reality will magically change to accommodate your desires.

Um, no. It won't.

Lol, you pick some arbitrary point in the polls and claim that is a 100% magic voodoo accurate indicator? roflmao


Show some data there, skin head.

I didn't pick an arbitrary voodoo point. I picked the weeks after the conventions, as its an excellent indicator of the where the popular vote is going to go. The convention speeches have been given, the platforms laid, and the candidates have had an opportunity to introduce themselves.

With 16 of the last 16 elections following that pattern. The odds of that occurring by random chance are roughly 0.0015%. And you're going with the 'coincidence theory'. The odds of you being wrong are 99.9985%.

These are the long odds that confirmation bias gets you.

So you ignore it, pretending it doesn't exist. Just like you ignore Nate Silver. Just like you ignore any poll that doesn't say *exactly* what you want to believe. That's pure Confirmation Bias.

And its a fallacy of logic for a reason: its record of accuracy is awful. You're not going to be pleased by the outcome of self deception and fallacies of logic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I didn't pick an arbitrary voodoo point. I picked the weeks after the conventions, as its an excellent indicator of the where the popular vote is going to go. The convention speeches have been given, the platforms laid, and the candidates have had an opportunity to introduce themselves.

With 16 of the last 16 elections following that pattern. The odds of that occurring by random chance are roughly 0.0015%. And you're going with the 'coincidence theory'. The odds of you being wrong are 99.9985%.

These are the long odds that confirmation bias gets you.

So you ignore it, pretending it doesn't exist. Just like you ignore Nate Silver. Just like you ignore any poll that doesn't say *exactly* what you want to believe. That's pure Confirmation Bias.

And its a fallacy of logic for a reason: its record of accuracy is awful. You're not going to be pleased by the outcome of self deception and fallacies of logic.

No, I am asking you to provide proof of this magic voodoo indicator with polls and election turnout for each of the 16 elections this magic voodoo indicator has proven itself on.

You know, the old 'Prove your claim' thingy.

lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

OK, Skylar, I will present the case you claim for you, using your own links supplemented with the source data.

Last 16 elections, with August percentages as Democrat vrs Republican in August (post both conventions) and final result. Correct indicator in bold black, wrong italicized red

*2012 47-45 51-47
2008 48-42 53-46
*2004 46-48 48-51
2000 37-54 48-48 <- right but pitiful correlation
1996 52-30 49-41
1992 56-37 43-37
1988 49-42 46-53 <-WRONG
*1984 41-52 41-59
1980 39-38 (not 29-45 as Dems had convention on Aug 11-14) 41-51 <-WRONG

1976 54-32 50-48 <- right but pitiful correlation here as Ford nearly won
*1972 31-57 38-61
1968 29-45 43-43 <- right but pitiful correlation here as Humphry nearly won
1964 65-29 61-38
1960 44-50 50-50 <- WRONG
*1956 41-52 42-57
1952 no August, using June 43-50.....-55-44

* incumbent ran and won -phhttt, so what?

So, using all 16 elections, there were 13 successful indications and 3 fails, and of the 13 successes, 3 were pathetic indicators as the results could have easily been reversed, and five elections were re-elections of fairly popular incumbents, so that is hardly a win to anyone's credit.

Net record of last 16 elections, 5 successes, 3 dead wrong, 3 very nearly wrong and 5 my cat could have picked right.

That is hardly the 100% accurate miracle voodoo indicator you claimed, dude.

Now that I had to do your job for you, tell me why I got it wrong, why you meant something different and why you are still right that this proves Trump will lose and that lying crook Hillary has the election locked up.