Some polls in favor of Hillary some in favor of Trump

[jg121783 3,915]

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/are-the-polls-rigged-against-trump-all-of-these-wildly-divergent-surveys-cannot-possibly-be-correct

Some of these polls are going to turn out to be dead wrong.

With just over two weeks to go until election day, some surveys are showing a very tight race, while others say that Hillary Clinton has a massive lead. For example, the tracking polls put out by Rasmussen, the L.A. Times and IBD/TIPP have all consistently shown that the race is either tied or Donald Trump is winning by a small margin. But Fox News has Hillary Clinton ahead by six points, Bloomberg has Clinton ahead by nine points, and the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll has Clinton ahead by twelve points. So what in the world is going on here? If the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll is correct, we are likely to see a landslide of historic proportions for Clinton, and this is what many of the experts are now projecting. But if Rasmussen and the L.A. Times are correct, the race could easily go either way. So who are we supposed to believe? Could it be possible that some of the polls are rigged against Trump?

Well, when you take a closer look at the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, it does appear that it is not as accurate as it could be. It turns out that those that conducted the survey purposely included 9 percent more Democrats than Republicans

METHODOLOGY This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats Republicans Independents.

But as Zero Hedge has pointed out, registered Democrats have never outnumbered registered Republicans by 9 percent at any point over the last several decades.

So how in the world can ABC News and the Washington Post possibly justify their methodology?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The economiccolapseblog sounds like a great source, perhaps that answers your question?

[jg121783 3,915]

The economiccolapseblog sounds like a great source, perhaps that answers your question?

Instead of attacking the source perhaps you could tell me how the information presented is incorrect. Didn't think so.

[Rob L 3,811]

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/are-the-polls-rigged-against-trump-all-of-these-wildly-divergent-surveys-cannot-possibly-be-correct

Some of these polls are going to turn out to be dead wrong.

With just over two weeks to go until election day, some surveys are showing a very tight race, while others say that Hillary Clinton has a massive lead. For example, the tracking polls put out by Rasmussen, the L.A. Times and IBD/TIPP have all consistently shown that the race is either tied or Donald Trump is winning by a small margin. But Fox News has Hillary Clinton ahead by six points, Bloomberg has Clinton ahead by nine points, and the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll has Clinton ahead by twelve points. So what in the world is going on here? If the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll is correct, we are likely to see a landslide of historic proportions for Clinton, and this is what many of the experts are now projecting. But if Rasmussen and the L.A. Times are correct, the race could easily go either way. So who are we supposed to believe? Could it be possible that some of the polls are rigged against Trump?

Well, when you take a closer look at the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, it does appear that it is not as accurate as it could be. It turns out that those that conducted the survey purposely included 9 percent more Democrats than Republicans

METHODOLOGY This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats Republicans Independents.

But as Zero Hedge has pointed out, registered Democrats have never outnumbered registered Republicans by 9 percent at any point over the last several decades.

So how in the world can ABC News and the Washington Post possibly justify their methodology?

One explanation:

Pollsters use a variety of methods to determine likely voters. One method is to model based on history which has worked well for TIPP in the past two elections. Another method is ask the folks you are calling : Are you registered and Do you plan to vote? If you say you prefer Trump but you say you are not voting then you vote would be excluded. The whole thing seems more like art than science. Rasmussen has been 3- 5 points high on every election since Rasmussen left the firm and they refuse to adjust their models (there are other reasons than political). Gallup, the granddad of modern polling, inexplicably put an offset favoring Romney into their 2012 results starting about 6 weeks before election. It turns out their offset was the amount of their final error from the actual. They say folks changed their mind but I think they screwed up.

The point being: You cannot take one pollster or one result and get and accurate prediction. Pollsters are best when measuring a trend from a known baseline. If the pollster dinks with the secret sauce on the fly we really don't know what to believe.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Also, it's pretty well-known now that the LA Times Daybreak poll is hinky, though not "crooked" and does provide some interesting information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upshot/how-one-19-year-old-illinois-man-is-distorting-national-polling-averages.html

There is a 19-year-old black man in Illinois who has no idea of the role he is playing in this election.

He is sure he is going to vote for Donald J. Trump.

And he has been held up as proof by conservatives — including outlets like Breitbart News and The New York Post — that Mr. Trump is excelling among black voters. He has even played a modest role in shifting entire polling aggregates, like the Real Clear Politics average, toward Mr. Trump.

How? He’s a panelist on the U.S.C. Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Daybreak poll, which has emerged as the biggest polling outlier of the presidential campaign. Despite falling behind by double digits in some national surveys, Mr. Trump has generally led in the U.S.C./LAT poll. He held the lead for a full month until Wednesday, when Hillary Clinton took a nominal lead.

Our Trump-supporting friend in Illinois is a surprisingly big part of the reason. In some polls, he’s weighted as much as 30 times more than the average respondent, and as much as 300 times more than the least-weighted respondent.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/

What’s the source of the LA Times poll’s Trump lean? There are good “explainers” from The New York Times’s Nate Cohn and Huffington Post Pollster’s David Rothschild. Long story short: The poll’s results are weighted based on how people said they voted in 2012. That’s probably a mistake, because people often misstate or misremember their vote from previous elections.

The poll does some other things differently also, some of which I like. For instance, it allows people to assign themselves a probability of voting for either candidate instead of saying they’re 100 percent sure. And the poll surveys the same panel of roughly 3,000 people over and over instead of recruiting new respondents. That creates a more stable baseline and can therefore be a good way to detect trends in voter preferences, although it also means that if the panel happened to be more Trump-leaning or Clinton-leaning than the population as a whole, you’d be stuck with it for the rest of the year.

But I’m also tired of hearing from the LA Times poll’s critics. I’m not a fan of litigating individual polls, for several reasons. First, in my experience, these critiques tend to involve their own form of cherry-picking. Clinton fans will pick apart the LA Times poll and find a few things wanting — in this case, with good reason (in my opinion). But they’ll give a free pass to a poll like this one that shows Clinton ahead by 16 percentage points in Virginia, even though it’s also something of an outlier. You can almost always find something “wrong” with a poll you don’t like, even if you might have approved of its methodology before you saw its result.

It’s probably also harmful for the profession as a whole when poll-watchers are constantly trying to browbeat “outlier” polls into submission. That can encourage herding — pollsters rallying around a narrow consensus to avoid sticking out — which is bad news, since herding reduces the benefit of averaging polls and makes them less accurate overall.

Furthermore, the trend from LA Times poll still provides useful information, even if the level is off. Before the conventions, the poll had Trump ahead by an average of 2 or 3 percentage points. Trump then got a modest convention bounce in the poll and pulled ahead by 6 or 7 percentage points. But Clinton got a bigger bounce, and she’s been ahead by an average of 1 or 2 percentage points in the poll since the conventions, although it’s been a bit less than that recently, with Trump narrowly leading the poll at times. All of this follows the trend from other polls almost perfectly, as long as you remember that you have to shift things to Clinton by about 6 points.

[Rob L 3,811]

Also, it's pretty well-known now that the LA Times Daybreak poll is hinky, though not "crooked" and does provide some interesting information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upshot/how-one-19-year-old-illinois-man-is-distorting-national-polling-averages.html

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/

LA Times Daybreak has been 5 points leaning from from the other polls shows + 1 Hillary

IBD/TIPP is Tie today

CNN is +5/+6 on the four way

ABC is Plus 12 for Hillary ...

Quinoa PEE Ack is my go to group..Hillary + 6

I think we are + 6 Hillary

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Instead of attacking the source perhaps you could tell me how the information presented is incorrect. Didn't think so.

That would be some trick, being able to respond to your posts before you actually post them. Guess you schooled me big fella!

That would be some trick, being able to respond to your posts before you post them!

Edited October 24, 2016 by ready4ONE

[OriZ 3,157]

Clinton's taking this. Said it months ago, still believe it.

[floridadave 195]

So how in the world can ABC News and the Washington Post possibly justify their methodology?

Good question. Here are the contacts for the survey producers:

http://www.langerresearch.com/contact/

Langer Research Associates:

7 W. 66th St., 6th Floor

New York, NY 10023

info@langerresearch.com

Tel. (212) 456-2621

and

http://www.srbi.com/

Address: 180 Maiden Lane Suite 802 New York, NY 10038 USA

Phone: (212) 779-7700 Fax: (212) 779-7785

If they answer your question, please post. Thank you for your hard work.

________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: This post is for entertainment or rhetorical purposes only. The writer (that would be me) does not necessarily agree with the content. First amendment applies where applicable. None of my pets were harmed in the making of this post.

[Rob L 3,811]

Also, it's pretty well-known now that the LA Times Daybreak poll is hinky, though

Hinky to me is a bit like dodgy which implies corruption. I like to think of the LA times poll as wonky...a bit off like that friend who went to light sabre school on spring break Edited October 25, 2016 by Rob L

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Hinky to me is a bit like dodgy which implies corruption. I like to think of the LA times poll as wonky...a bit off like that friend who went to light sabre school on spring break

Fair nuff. Wonky is indeed a better adjective.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Clinton's taking this. Said it months ago, still believe it.

I agree. However the polls many of which have been accurate in the past are all over the place .

[OriZ 3,157]

I agree. However the polls many of which have been accurate in the past are all over the place .

Good thing it's not the polls I base my conclusions on Not a single one of them

[Rob L 3,811]

Good thing it's not the polls I base my conclusions on Not a single one of them

You struck a deal with the devil to give you stock tips and election results?

[OriZ 3,157]

You struck a deal with the devil to give you stock tips and election results?

They go hand in hand, no need for the devil here.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/577938-one-year-to-nowhere/?p=8262915