The one political poll that matters

[cutter]

Since Calif and other states now say their electoral votes will go to whoever wins the popular vote you will see states that never vote Republican vote for Trump. Isn’t payback a bitch.

 

[Redfish]

"we have been trying to reach you about your car warranty" do you really think they don't know who they are calling?

Of course they do not know who they are calling, they make 10,000 of those calls in a night. Have you ever talked to one of them? They have no clue what sort of car you have.

I have worked on surveys before, I have seen the call centers. They are people being paid minimum wage with a bonus if they make enough calls. The entire system is automated, they have no control over which number is dialed next.

If its totally random how do the pollsters back up the claim that their samples proportionately represent every demographic in the USA?

I lack the energy to try and educate you on sampling methods...so here you go...

Survey Sampling Methods

more BS. the pollsters claim that their samples PROPORTIONATELY represent every demographic in the USA. So with a sample of 1000 or less how many left handed asian transvestites were included? how many blind irishmen? how many childless lesbians? how many Hindu convenience owners? How many Japanese coal miners?

Its a totally ridiculous claim since there are clearly more than 1000 demographics in the USA today.

So, what to they do? the oversample the demographics of the people that think they way the people paying for the poll think. Its rigged, and if you are too naive to understand that, there is nothing more to be said.

 

[Redfish]

So you are saying that since it is random they are sampling a large amount of Democrates and a smaller sampling of republicans and independents. Sounds like a well run poll.

Poor thing I really won't bother calling you names but I can understand why you feel threatened enough to need to.

I am explaining how the calling for a poll works since you were too afraid to answer the questions honestly.

I have made no comments about the polls themselves, but I can see why you changed the subject to hide your fear of a random stranger on the other end of the phone.

Lol you are one funny little child. I will let you go since talking rationally appears to trigger you.

I accept your surrender, run off and hide now.

Just like when Trump wins in 2020 you ban yourself from this board so you won't be mocked.

I expect Trump to win in 2020, have said so multiple times.

do try and keep up. It gets old having to recap for you reading impaired folks.

lol, but you claim that the polls predicting his loss are accurate, WTF dude, you have completely lost it.

 

[Redfish]

"we have been trying to reach you about your car warranty" do you really think they don't know who they are calling?

Of course they do not know who they are calling, they make 10,000 of those calls in a night. Have you ever talked to one of them? They have no clue what sort of car you have.

I have worked on surveys before, I have seen the call centers. They are people being paid minimum wage with a bonus if they make enough calls. The entire system is automated, they have no control over which number is dialed next.

If its totally random how do the pollsters back up the claim that their samples proportionately represent every demographic in the USA?

I lack the energy to try and educate you on sampling methods...so here you go...

Survey Sampling Methods

SO WHO VERIFIED THEIR METHODS?

the people paying for the poll, obviously.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

lol, but you claim that the polls predicting his loss are accurate, WTF dude, you have completely lost it.

I have never made such a claim, why must you just lie all the time.

The claim I have made about 100 times on this forum is that a poll does not predict anything, polls have no predictive power. A poll is a snapshot in time of what would happen if people voted the day of the poll.

 

[Flopper]

Take every democrat wannabe rally together and the attendance might equal one Trump rally.

I don't doubt most of the people that answer the so called polls don't give an actual accurate answer for fear of reprisal.

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

 

[Redfish]

lol, but you claim that the polls predicting his loss are accurate, WTF dude, you have completely lost it.

I have never made such a claim, why must you just lie all the time.

The claim I have made about 100 times on this forum is that a poll does not predict anything, polls have no predictive power. A poll is a snapshot in time of what would happen if people voted the day of the poll.

when you say "what would happen if people voted the day of the poll" you are saying that the poll is correct at that point in time.

composition 101.

so are you now changing that and saying that the polls are not accurate in predicting an outcome? you are already on both sides of this, trying for a third?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Take every democrat wannabe rally together and the attendance might equal one Trump rally.

I don't doubt most of the people that answer the so called polls don't give an actual accurate answer for fear of reprisal.

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

Sure you would go to one

 

[rightwinger]

Any questions?
View attachment 284874

Trump pep rallies are not polls

The elections are. Trump has been losing ground in the 2018 and 2019 elections

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Any questions?
View attachment 284874

Trump pep rallies are not polls

The elections are. Trump has been losing ground in the 2018 and 2019 elections

That's how I predicted his win in 2016 and rally attendance being the same as 2016 predicts he'll win in 2020
And when it get's closer to election day you can throw in political yard signs and bumper stickers.

 

[Flopper]

Take every democrat wannabe rally together and the attendance might equal one Trump rally.

I don't doubt most of the people that answer the so called polls don't give an actual accurate answer for fear of reprisal.

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

Sure you would go to one

Why not? It's one of best shows in town.

 

[Flopper]

Any questions?
View attachment 284874

Trump pep rallies are not polls

The elections are. Trump has been losing ground in the 2018 and 2019 elections

That's how I predicted his win in 2016 and rally attendance being the same as 2016 predicts he'll win in 2020
And when it get's closer to election day you can throw in political yard signs and bumper stickers.

The 10% of the voters that attend political rallies, town halls, and political speeches are generally ardent supporters and campaign workers. They are not representative of the other 90% of the voters.

In spite of the polls failure to pick the winner in 2016, polls remain fairly accurate. Their track record is excellent at predicting numbers of votes nationally and within states. Just as the House will win most the time, polls will predict the correct outcome most of the time, but there is always a margin of error, usually 3%.

If electoral votes in a state were award proportionately to the popular vote within the state, then polls would be far more accurate at predicting the winner in a presidential race.

 

[Maxdeath]

Take every democrat wannabe rally together and the attendance might equal one Trump rally.

I don't doubt most of the people that answer the so called polls don't give an actual accurate answer for fear of reprisal.

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

 

[Flopper]

Take every democrat wannabe rally together and the attendance might equal one Trump rally.

I don't doubt most of the people that answer the so called polls don't give an actual accurate answer for fear of reprisal.

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Take every democrat wannabe rally together and the attendance might equal one Trump rally.

I don't doubt most of the people that answer the so called polls don't give an actual accurate answer for fear of reprisal.

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

Bumper stickers and yard signs was another part of my 2016 poll that helped to predict the 2016 winner.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Any questions?
View attachment 284874

Trump pep rallies are not polls

The elections are. Trump has been losing ground in the 2018 and 2019 elections

That's how I predicted his win in 2016 and rally attendance being the same as 2016 predicts he'll win in 2020
And when it get's closer to election day you can throw in political yard signs and bumper stickers.

The 10% of the voters that attend political rallies, town halls, and political speeches are generally ardent supporters and campaign workers. They are not representative of the other 90% of the voters.

In spite of the polls failure to pick the winner in 2016, polls remain fairly accurate. Their track record is excellent at predicting numbers of votes nationally and within states. Just as the House will win most the time, polls will predict the correct outcome most of the time, but there is always a margin of error, usually 3%.

If electoral votes in a state were award proportionately to the popular vote within the state, then polls would be far more accurate at predicting the winner in a presidential race.

I've been here before poll attendance yard signs and bumper stickers all played their part in my poll for the 2016 winner.

Take every democrat wannabe rally together and the attendance might equal one Trump rally.

I don't doubt most of the people that answer the so called polls don't give an actual accurate answer for fear of reprisal.

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

Sure you would go to one

Why not? It's one of best shows in town.

the only reason I would go to a democrat rally would be to cause a disturbance or make that candidate look bad as some leftist tried at Trump rallies

 

[Redfish]

Any questions?
View attachment 284874

Trump pep rallies are not polls

The elections are. Trump has been losing ground in the 2018 and 2019 elections

dream on winger, Trump will win in 2020 by a bigger margin than he did in 2016, The pollsters are lying to you now just as they were then.

As to rallys, which of the dem clowns can draw a crowd even close to Trump's crowds?

 

[Redfish]

Take every democrat wannabe rally together and the attendance might equal one Trump rally.

I don't doubt most of the people that answer the so called polls don't give an actual accurate answer for fear of reprisal.

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

 

[Maxdeath]

Take every democrat wannabe rally together and the attendance might equal one Trump rally.

I don't doubt most of the people that answer the so called polls don't give an actual accurate answer for fear of reprisal.

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

 

[rightwinger]

Dallas says Impeach this bitches

Biggest crowd in the history of the world