I'm just raising the question ... could the polls be wrong?

[healthmyths]

 

[chops_]

I don't believe in polls. I do read them and into what they pollsters want us to believe. But they are as much accurate as "throwing stones at glass houses". Meaning, they don't always say what is really the "true story" behind the polls.

Pollsters gather a bunch of data and scoop them into one big pile. And they just "predict" what the outcome may be. It doesn't necessarily mean, it is accurate to the point, it is believable.

I never trusted in the polls. Never have. Never will.

 

[kyzr]

Many of the "undecided voters" are really Trump voters but are afraid to announce it. They may be union folks, or urban dwellers, or black or Hispanic, but in any event they will vote for Trump and the polls will be proven wrong again. I'm not worried about 2018 or 2020.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I have certainly been wrong before, but I must admit I'm rather expecting a crushing defeat for the Democrats on Nov 6.

Spider sense, if you will.

 

[Redfish]

the lying pollsters said that Hillary had a 97% chance of winning and that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes. Were they wrong or were they lying? I say lying.

Polls today are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it. They have become a form of propaganda, nothing more.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

 

[percysunshine]

the lying pollsters said that Hillary had a 97% chance of winning and that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes. Were they wrong or were they lying? I say lying.

Polls today are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it. They have become a form of propaganda, nothing more.

There is some truth in that. There is a natural human trait to want to be rooting for the winning team. Pollsters know this. But not all pollsters play that game. The most accurate polling (for specific races) tends to settle the week before an election and predicts the winner. By then, people have made up their minds who they will vote for.

 

[Mac1958]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

Yeah, from what I've seen, the polls were not far off at all.

The issue was that they don't break it down into electoral votes.

And, Senate & House races obviously don't use the EC.
.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

Haha..once again GG posts just like a filthy LefTard would...But, but, but...he’s only telling the truth...haha

 

[healthmyths]

Many of the "undecided voters" are really Trump voters but are afraid to announce it. They may be union folks, or urban dwellers, or black or Hispanic, but in any event they will vote for Trump and the polls will be proven wrong again. I'm not worried about 2018 or 2020.

I agree. In fact most pollsters are paid for by biased MSM and there are several ways the polls are tipped including polling more Democrats and asking questions with a slant. For example here is how a pollster can slant a question:
"As an identified GOP voter when you read about 'chaos in the White House' does this affect your perception of Trump"?
Or a question like this: "Given President Trump's tweets, do you feel that is how a responsible President should respond"?

It's kind of like "When did you stop beating your wife"?

'Fraud': Mainstream polls use 29% more Democrats than Republicans
'Fraud': Mainstream polls use 29% more Democrats than Republicans

 

[Redfish]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

the entire PV delta was in NY and Cal and even in those states it came down to a few counties. Yes, Clinton won those two blue states, but she lost the EC by a large margin. Do we really want a few counties in NY and Cal picking our presidents? Do we really want 48 states to have no voice in it?

 

[chops_]

I agree. In fact most pollsters are paid for by biased MSM and there are several ways the polls are tipped including polling more Democrats and asking questions with a slant. For example here is how a pollster can slant a question:
"As an identified GOP voter when you read about 'chaos in the White House' does this affect your perception of Trump"?
Or a question like this: "Given President Trump's tweets, do you feel that is how a responsible President should respond"?

Hell, I would even go a step further. I am sure most of those so-called "polls" on MSM are paid for by the Soros-backed groups that "rigged" the polls for their sole benefits. Am I wrong?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

Haha..once again GG posts just like a filthy LefTard would...But, but, but...he’s only telling the truth...haha

Why yes, thank you for recognizing all I did was report the truth and facts.

 

[Polishprince]

View attachment 223718

View attachment 223717

We'll find out soon enough. Maybe the electorate really is tired of record low unemployment and a booming economy and wants to bring in an era of investigations and impeachments and liberal malaise?


That's why we have the elections in the first place.

 

[healthmyths]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

GG is 100% correct. The pollsters also didn't account for the fact the exit polls ask people how did you vote and with the constant MSM barrage that
any Trump voter was a "deplorable" there was a large group of secret Trump voters that were afraid to say they voted for Trump with a reporter's mike or
voice recorder stuck in their face.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

the entire PV delta was in NY and Cal and even in those states it came down to a few counties. Yes, Clinton won those two blue states, but she lost the EC by a large margin. Do we really want a few counties in NY and Cal picking our presidents? Do we really want 48 states to have no voice in it?

I am not advocating for the PV to choose the election, I merely pointed out that the polls were not a wrong as the sheep have been told.

Historically speaking, Trump's win in the EC was not large at all. It was in the bottom 10% all time for margin of victory.

This past election came down to 3 states, Wi, MI and Penn. Trump won those 3 states by less than a percentage point combined

 

[Mac1958]

If the polls are so screwed up and dysfunctional, why were they so close, as Post 7 demonstrates?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I merely pointed out that the polls were not a wrong as the sheep have been tol

Not as wrong lololololol

They were either right or wrong. We have a president not a "close" president. Is that president Hillary? If not then the polls got it wrong. They predicted an outcome and they were wrong.

Now I know you will cry about the popular vote but since that means exactly squat you'll excuse me for ignoring your predictable response.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Obviously they could be wrong. Anyone who puts faith in polls after 2016 is not very bright.

Yeah, the polls in 2016 were just terrible...Clinton only won the popular vote (which is what polls predict) by 2.4%, not the 2 to 4 percent that most polls were predicting...

View attachment 223724

Haha..once again GG posts just like a filthy LefTard would...But, but, but...he’s only telling the truth...haha

Why yes, thank you for recognizing all I did was report the truth and facts.

We know, we know....it’s just awfully bizarre...somehow, someway you ALWAYS seem to be posting the same “truth and facts” that all our resident LibTardians post...the narrative you hope to induce with your noble truths always seems to align with those same narratives of the filthy Left....weird huh? Ironic huh?