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

[BluesLegend]

could the polls be wrong?

Trump Wins 2016

 

[Redfish]

If memory serves me well......everyone of GatorMacs' MSM outlets were predicting 400+ EV win for their candidate (Beast).

My candidate was Johnson, so you are mistaken there.

And instead of going from "memory" how about a link or two to back up what you are peddling?

so you supported a pothead with no platform or ideas beyond legalizing pot? wow, how brilliant.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In your own link the maximum is 6%, not 4%. How difficult is it to read a chart?

hmmmm...that must have been why I said "most polls".

I guess that word "most" is a bit too complicated for you.

It's you who have the problem with the concept. There is only one poll with 2%. Did you not have a degree in statistics?

In any case that comment was posted accidentally. Only the bottom of it was supposed to be posted.

Actually I have a degree in Applied Analytics, I just happen to be working as a statistician at this time.

The bottom part is meaningless without something to support it. A fake meme means nothing to me.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If memory serves me well......everyone of GatorMacs' MSM outlets were predicting 400+ EV win for their candidate (Beast).

My candidate was Johnson, so you are mistaken there.

And instead of going from "memory" how about a link or two to back up what you are peddling?

so you supported a pothead with no platform or ideas beyond legalizing pot? wow, how brilliant.

I supported the one candidate that was for smaller government, more personal freedoms and a non-deficit spending.

Three things that you are opposed to.

 

[Norman]

In your own link the maximum is 6%, not 4%. How difficult is it to read a chart?

hmmmm...that must have been why I said "most polls".

I guess that word "most" is a bit too complicated for you.

It's you who have the problem with the concept. There is only one poll with 2%. Did you not have a degree in statistics?

In any case that comment was posted accidentally. Only the bottom of it was supposed to be posted.

Actually I have a degree in Applied Analytics, I just happen to be working as a statistician at this time.

The bottom part is meaningless without something to support it. A fake meme means nothing to me.

The meme is not fake. Those are the actual predictions.

With that degree of yours, I am sure you have ample training in how to use google.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

when a poll says that Hillary has a 97% chance of becoming president is it predicting the PV or the EC? are you really as ignorant as you appear to be?

when a poll says that Trump has no path to 270 EC votes is it predicting the PV or the EC?

Links please.

I am not here to be your teacher, everyone knows about those polls.

better quit here gator, you are embarrassing yourself.

In other words you are just making shit up and cannot support a single thing you say.

Well, some things never change I suppose.

I don't feel the need to post cites for things that are common knowledge, sorry if the facts don't support your left wing rhetoric.

BTW, Hillary will NEVER be president and will always be a criminal who should be in a jail cell.

Common knowledge is very often wrong. It is a common logical fallacy known as "argument to the people".

And I agree 100% with your last sentence.

 

[leftwinger]

If memory serves me well......everyone of GatorMacs' MSM outlets were predicting 400+ EV win for their candidate (Beast).

My candidate was Johnson, so you are mistaken there.

And instead of going from "memory" how about a link or two to back up what you are peddling?

Links too hard on smallscreen tablet. Nice try using liberal tactic #13? Then StormyMac will bash the link and around we go. Wheee....

Go watch your commmee homo superstar madcow video (linked here 100s' of times). Flat out stating "even if Trump wins every swing state, he can't win".
Like a herd of RINO you can run but not hide.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If memory serves me well......everyone of GatorMacs' MSM outlets were predicting 400+ EV win for their candidate (Beast).

My candidate was Johnson, so you are mistaken there.

And instead of going from "memory" how about a link or two to back up what you are peddling?

Links too hard on smallscreen tablet. Nice try using liberal tactic #13? Then StormyMac will bash the link and around we go. Wheee....

Go watch your commmee homo superstar madcow video (linked here 100s' of times). Flat out stating "even if Trump wins every swing state, he can't win".
Like a herd of RINO you can run but not hide.

I understand about the links, very big pain in the ass on anything small.

And it is very likely that the media outlets were doing so, but that was their opinions not the polls. Most media people are not smart enough to understand how polls work or what they are capable of predicting.

 

[BookShaka]

Of course the polls could be wrong. The results are usually based on a very scant number of people compared to the entire population of the US as a whole. The premise that 1000 people are varied enough to represent the interests of 300,000,000 is absurd.

 

[ptbw forever]

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.

Pretty much all of the secret Trump voters are open about it now, and now there are new secret Trump supporters in deep blue districts in blue states.

Democrats are in much deeper trouble than they could ever imagine.

The only safe states for Democrats are California, Illinois and maybe Virginia, and we can win those too.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Did the polls predict Wisonsin, Michigan & Penn.

Sure seems she didn't pay attention to them.

 

[ptbw forever]

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

Polls are used to drive a narrative by the media. Propaganda and not much more. We are supposed to ignore economic reality and instead base our opinions on skewed polls.
And sadly many ignorant Americans will eat it up.

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

Because polls herded public opinion, like they always do. They were way off for almost the entire election.

Polls ALWAYS help Democrats. Even in 2010 and 2014. No matter how far ahead the Republican is they always tighten the polls far more than the realm of possibility, and on the other hand they always keep the Democrat up for the vast majority of race if they start ahead no matter how much scandal is hurting the Democrat(and no matter what the end result is), that kills Republican turnout.

In House races it is particularly bad because most races only have a few outdated polls that don’t really show any possible shifts until immediately before the election.

 

[Redfish]

If memory serves me well......everyone of GatorMacs' MSM outlets were predicting 400+ EV win for their candidate (Beast).

My candidate was Johnson, so you are mistaken there.

And instead of going from "memory" how about a link or two to back up what you are peddling?

so you supported a pothead with no platform or ideas beyond legalizing pot? wow, how brilliant.

I supported the one candidate that was for smaller government, more personal freedoms and a non-deficit spending.

Three things that you are opposed to.

Trump is actually giving us two of those things, the spending is done by the congress, the president only has a minor influence on it, however, his policies have greatly improved the economy which will result in more revenue to the govt and lessen the need for deficit spending. A balanced budget can be achieved, but not as long as the liberal democrats have a significant voice. Just another reason to vote R next month.

 

[Foxfyre]

View attachment 223718

View attachment 223717

Rasmussen puts the generic ballot at even between Democrats and Republicans. The more left wing organizations give the Democrats a strong edge just as they gave Hillary a strong edge in the 2016 election.

So I don't have a clue how the vote is going to go in November. I suppose if the Democrats terrorize, bribe, push, entice enough people to go vote as they order them to vote, yes the Republicans, who don't do that, could lose the House and maybe the Senate next month.

But think what losing both will mean:
--no chance that tax reform will be completed or that we already have will be made permanent
--the President will have little or no chance to get his appointments confirmed
--near certainty that the economic boom we are enjoying will lose much momentum or even be stopped
--no chance to get a handle on illegal immigration
--endless investigations to find something to accuse the President and/or members of his administration
--possible impeachment moves on the President and Supreme Court
--pretty much crushing consumer and business enthusiasm and confidence
--roll back of spending to strengthen the military and national security and a lot of push for more social programs.

In other words a whole lot of the good stuff that is happening will pretty well go away.

 

[Redfish]

Of course the polls could be wrong. The results are usually based on a very scant number of people compared to the entire population of the US as a whole. The premise that 1000 people are varied enough to represent the interests of 300,000,000 is absurd.

agree, the pollsters violate every rule of statistics. there is no way that a sample or 1000 is significant for a population of 300,000,000.

 

[Redfish]

when a poll says that Hillary has a 97% chance of becoming president is it predicting the PV or the EC? are you really as ignorant as you appear to be?

when a poll says that Trump has no path to 270 EC votes is it predicting the PV or the EC?

Links please.

I am not here to be your teacher, everyone knows about those polls.

better quit here gator, you are embarrassing yourself.

In other words you are just making shit up and cannot support a single thing you say.

Well, some things never change I suppose.

I don't feel the need to post cites for things that are common knowledge, sorry if the facts don't support your left wing rhetoric.

BTW, Hillary will NEVER be president and will always be a criminal who should be in a jail cell.

Common knowledge is very often wrong. It is a common logical fallacy known as "argument to the people".

And I agree 100% with your last sentence.

common knowledge = something that is commonly known to be true by all members of a society. Knowledge and beliefs are two completely different things.

 

[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

Did the polls predict Wisonsin, Michigan & Penn.

Sure seems she didn't pay attention to them.

She was a terrible candidate that quit campaigning in August, and that cost her.

The poll average for Mich was Clinton by 3.6%, Trump won by .3%. So not great but not all that far off

The poll average for Wisc was Clinton by 6.5%, Trump won by .8%. So that was terrible.

The poll average for Penn was Clinton by 1.9%, Trump won by .7%. So that was well within any reasonable margin of error.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Links please.

I am not here to be your teacher, everyone knows about those polls.

better quit here gator, you are embarrassing yourself.

In other words you are just making shit up and cannot support a single thing you say.

Well, some things never change I suppose.

I don't feel the need to post cites for things that are common knowledge, sorry if the facts don't support your left wing rhetoric.

BTW, Hillary will NEVER be president and will always be a criminal who should be in a jail cell.

Common knowledge is very often wrong. It is a common logical fallacy known as "argument to the people".

And I agree 100% with your last sentence.

common knowledge = something that is commonly known to be true by all members of a society. Knowledge and beliefs are two completely different things.

Once again, common knowledge is almost always wrong.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If memory serves me well......everyone of GatorMacs' MSM outlets were predicting 400+ EV win for their candidate (Beast).

My candidate was Johnson, so you are mistaken there.

And instead of going from "memory" how about a link or two to back up what you are peddling?

so you supported a pothead with no platform or ideas beyond legalizing pot? wow, how brilliant.

I supported the one candidate that was for smaller government, more personal freedoms and a non-deficit spending.

Three things that you are opposed to.

Trump is actually giving us two of those things, the spending is done by the congress, the president only has a minor influence on it, however, his policies have greatly improved the economy which will result in more revenue to the govt and lessen the need for deficit spending. A balanced budget can be achieved, but not as long as the liberal democrats have a significant voice. Just another reason to vote R next month.

The deficit for FY-18 was 1.27 trillion dollars!

But I am sure you will blame that on the Libs and not the party that controls Congress and the White House which has to sign off on spending bills.

 

[DJT for Life]

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.
.

That's pretty much it.

One exception though. They were using a National Poll to compute
the EC vote. You can only do that by state to state.

The National Poll was proven correct because HRC beat Trump by 4.4
million votes in Calif. (2.8 million overall) If you do the math then DJT
won the PV in the other 49 states by 1.6 million votes.

Too many National Polls, right now, reflecting on an election that is
not decided in any race by a National Poll...just state-wide or even reduced
down to just a District.

One such is generic favorite candidate...done nationwide. 49% say they
prefer Dems 42% say they prefer GOP...9% don't respond.

Well...then you have to break down how many Calif voters were polled
and how many NYC voter were polled. Then look at those averages
if both of those states were 65% Dems and 35% Gop...the rest of the
country's choices may very well be hidden.

It's like living in a High-rise apartment. "One man's ceiling is another man's
floor." It just depends on where you are standing at the time.