Here is an example of polling discrepency.
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton Remington Research (R)*
Clinton 45, Trump 43 Clinton +2

Here Remington Research has literally posted outlier numbers that no one else has, implying that Clinton is actually in danger of losing Pennsylvania. Whats interesting is that not only is Pennsylvania not even a swing state, its not even a "lean" state. Its firmly since 1988 a Democrat stronghold. If trump were truly within 2 points in pennsylvania this would be on the cover of every major news outlet in America as it would signal the end for Hillary for sure.

Verdict: Oversampling of REPUBLICAN sources to force Hillary to spend unnecessary funds in a firmly democrat stronghold; akin to idiots claiming Texas will go Blue. (Its simply moronic).

North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson
Remington Research (R) Clinton 45, Trump 47, Johnson 2 Trump +2

Once again, Remington conjures magical nonexistant numbers. This differs from some polls by as much as 8-9 points on average.

Colorado: Trump vs. Clinton Remington Research (R)* Clinton 45, Trump 44 Clinton +1

Once again, Remington. aint that funny? How do these guys seem to have such different numbers from other sources??




Here is a poll from yesterday, SAME STATES, different polling sources.

North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 47, Trump 41, Johnson 8 Clinton +6

Wow, thats a 8 point difference in a state that was won by less than 1% in 2008, and less than 2% in 2012. Someone is lying.

North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson CBS News/YouGov Clinton 48, Trump 45, Johnson 3 Clinton +3

CBS News, since you wont trust NBC, looks even more realistic. Still 5 points different than the leading GOP polls.


Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein CBS News/YouGov Clinton 48, Trump 40, Johnson 5, Stein 2 Clinton +8

Wow, a 6 point difference between CBS and Remington on Pennsylvania?
Thats pretty significant?

@brainbomb -- if you read what I wrote, I made reference to an example of bogus polling in the 1970's.

I **ALSO** made reference to polling data that is *magically* "tightening up" in the last two weeks, even aftre the media has been bashing Trump daily *(until Clinton's criminal actvitiy became the highlight of the news) and I have *ALSO* sighted the media ADMITTED over-sampling of Democrats in their polls.


I get it -- you HATE truth, especially when it goes against what you hope is oging to happen.

but ignoring what I have cited about CURRENTLY flaws in polling doesn't mean it doesn't/didnt' happen

@JAmes "@Krellin

the only problem is, he underperformed during the primary polls. Many of the polls used THEN are still predicting him being down. Many conservative polls have showed him down"



YEAH,.....YOU ARE MAKING MY POINT. the polls have consistently been WRONG THROUGHOUT THE ELECTION CYCLE....because the media is trying to CREATE news, not report it.

Fair point, JamesYanik. How that interacts with the comments I made depends on who's changing their favorability, though.

krellin, you're abusing the concept of 'oversampling' beyond recognition (hint: it's NOT "add more Democrats to the poll to make it look good for Hillary"). You also know fuck-all about how pollsters are gathering information about turnout, and you have no idea how polling has changed to invalidate your comparison to Carter-Reagan. And you only state changes in the electorate that lead in one direction--discounting, for example, that Trump will likely be the first Republican candidate to lose the white college-educated vote in several decades.

So no, your cynicism does not make you any less ignorant than a wide-eyed naif.

Trump will also be the first GOP candidate to carry less than 30% of all female voters. Theres more women than men in this country.

Polls have incentive to be accurate. They're accurate.

Let's keep it on the polls/topic rather than on personal flaws.

Also, vote Hillary #MODS_ARE_SHILLS #CTRonWebDip

Number of signs and number of people at a rally just speaks to how enthusiastic Trump's base is. It doesn't automatically put him at an advantage.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the polls today are the best chance the GOP has to publish data start of a work week after new Hillary email scandal allegations. The numbers will be skewed to show any residual effect that whole story has. Hence why so many of the polls being released today are from Remington and Rasmussen.

Its interesting to note that the email scandal numbers typically do not affect ANYONE demographically outside of GOP voters. less than 30% of all voters say that the emails matter to them in this election. LESS than 30%!?

The media hasnt suppressed this story, people just dont care. They are sick of hearing about it in fact, and I would bet the same if true of Donald Trump's forcing himself on people stories too. I really doubt anyone cares about the scandals of these two at this point, either way you go, you are getting a less than perfect person. Trump just happens to be losing on policy, and demographics with alot more people than hillary, in alot more battlegrounds than Hillary.

The media isn't suppressing anything. They twist the narrative to fit their ratings requirements, which, at this time of year every four years, means a close election. They did it in 2004, even with Bush as a somewhat popular incumbent, and 2008. They tried in 2012, but Romney was so far behind that nobody bought into it. Why should this election, the greatest media frenzy in my lifetime, be different?

Also, 538 (whose model will have a more accurate adjustment to recent polls and this scandal by he Middle of the week) pointed out that undecided voters are FINALLY deciding, something they've been more hesitant about now than in past elections. Which most definitely points to a tighter election.

In 2012 Obama defeated Romney 332-206 carrying some states we know Hillary may not: Iowa, Ohio, Florida.

Obama carried Colorado by +5, which matched up with most polling data that had been published in the weeks before the election. +5 in Colorado is a victory by 140,000 votes.

Obama won Nevada by +6 or 70,000 votes.

Obama carried Virginia by +4, or 150,000 votes.



So when you say the polls are wrong, or they are skewed, it is really hard to mess up nearly 100-50 thousand votes. There are NOT that many undecided voters this election. I dont know where you are getting this idea that there are millions of undecideds waiting til election day to make a decision is coming from but its not true. I think there was actually MORE indecision heading into election day in 2012 and 2008 than there will be here.

Obama won with women Women: 53%
Hillary leads by a much larger margin.

Obama carried 60% of the 18-30 year old voters
His worst demographic was among voters aged 44 and up.

Obama carried 93% of the African American vote, 71% of the Latino vote, but only 39% of the white voters.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/

Some of the by income numbers are interesting too.

And just because its interesting, in 2012 voters who felt Abortion should be illegal (Trump has promised to pack the supreme court with Pro Life judges), 59% of all voters said that Abortion should be legal, Among that demographic, Obama won 67% of those voters. Among voters who said abortion should be Illegal, Romney carried an overwhelming 77%.

As you can see, people who vote on these issues, tend to be very unwilling to budge.


Economy:
only 15% of all voters in 2012 were focused on the deficit. Not suprisingly, if they were focused on that voter issue, the overwhleming majority went Romney.

59% of all voters in 2012 said the Ecomony was their most important issue. Romney actually carried this category 51-47.

18% of all voters said Health care was their top concern, and over 70% of voters in 2012 voted Obama as being more trustworthy on healthcare policy than Romney. So what was Romneys policy? repeal and replace.... sounds familiar....

Just some rapid fire facts for you...
People who felt income tax should be raised for Wealthy people voted overwhelmingly 70% for Obama. (This represented 47% of the electorate)

People who felt Obamacare should be repealed voted heavily for Romney, but nationwide the numbers on that key issue were split 49-45% of voters. Very polarizing topic obviously.

And finally, 65% of voters feel that Illegal Immigrants should be.... *drum roll*
Offered legal status: and among that demographic majority, they voted massively for Obama.

Only 28% of all voters beleive deportation is the answer. (2012)

@Leth....blah blah blah....yes, I suppose you know *everything*. lol

Ok Sheep-boy....keep drinking the Kool-aide.

I know exactly what the democrats/media are doing to maniuplate polling data. You, on the otherhand, are in abject denial.

Just becuase I oversimplified my description to talk on a level that hopefully your pee-brain could understand (which apparently wasn't low enough...) doens't mean I dont' get the process. I get it. YOU DON'T, and apparently no level of explanation will work for you. Of course, you DON'T WANT to understand the manipulation, becuase it conflicts with your unicorn wishes and dreams.

Sure, krelly baby, whatever supports your world view.

@Leth adn BB...also, you "Trump won't get xxxx of this vote or that vote....."

Ahhhhhhh ha ha ha ha ha....You ridiculous fools. Yeah, keep on believing that. and HOW do you know that Trump will or won't get x% of some demographic?

OH>>>>THE MEDIA TOLD YOU!!!!! aHHHHHHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA.....

Yeah...and the media never manipulates pllling data so that the adorable sheep will bleep happy sounds and parrot the results like good little robots.

AHHHHHHHH ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....

Sorry... imixed metaphores there....calling you both sheep and robots....but...well....yeah....that's what you are.

Krellin, you don't think that the Republicans influence and manipulate the media? Do you buy Donald Trump's call for censorship and total disregard of freedom of the press?

I am a student of History krellin. those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.

I'm currently sitting in a history class where my professor thinks that the phrase "survival of the fittest" means that predatory species are more likely to survive than prey species because they are stronger.

History is only valuable when it isn't skewed by idiots.

the media didnt force people to answer those questions. people do exit polling so we know historically WHY someone voted a certain way. when you multiply that "someone" by millions of others who ALSO did, it isnt biased sampling, its literally letting the voters (the people who ACTUALLY matter) explain their thinking.

None of these numbers show an Obama landslide in fact, if Economy was the ONLY thing people voted on, Romney, Trump, McCain types would win every single election. People dont exclusively vote down party lines on other issues unless they come from a fringe pro life voter bloc, or an anti gay voting bloc, or a deportation mindset. The majority of voters in America, have not, and still DO NOT favor repealing roe v wade, building a wall, deporting people, or making larger tax cuts for millionaires. Most voters support using revenue 2008/2012 exit polling indicates, to help with the deficit.

Im literally showing you why Romney lost, and why Trump is running on the same, if not worse strategy as Romney and all you can tell me is that this data is not valid. Of course its valid, the country and its opinion of the economy is still tenuous, but the vast majority of the electorate didnt just become a bunch of single issue bigot fucks.

Trump is not running on the same strategy as Romney *at all*. Trump's strategy is revolutionary and more people are going to try it (and probably fail) in the future. Romney was a smart, establishmentarian Republican with typical, if not slightly further right, conservative ideals. He was uncharismatic, uninspiring, and totally boring. Trump is a smart, completely non-establishment non-affiliated businessman allying with Republicans because he can prey on stupid and gather the Romney voting bloc anyway, because Clinton scares Republicans even though she could pass as one. Trump is extremely charismatic, wild, off the cuff, and manipulative as all hell - all things that help him. Comparing Romney and Trump is like comparing a teddy bear to a grizzly bear. Both bears, but not even close.

Here is my prediction for the exit polling.

there will be a question about how important are Hillarys Emails in your decision.
Right now national numbers have that at about 30%. I am gonna wager a guess that among that group 98% will vote Trump.

The next question will be how important are Trumps sexual misconduct?
I havent seen data, but Trump is polling slightly more unfavorably in the disliked columns than Hillary, so I would wager that if you are voting because of Trumps lack of class with women its probably about 98% for Hillary in that column, encompassing maybe 30%-35% of the overall electorate.

-Again I say that because I think voters are concerned about economy, illegal immigration, deficit, is the country going in the right direct, student loans, healthcare, education.

I have no idea what the numbers are, but on healthcare, I cant imagine that much has changed since Romney. If 49% of all voters like in 2012 say that the healthcare law should be repealed, well Trump has a better shot than Hillary. I doubt this to be the national trend however because fully destroying obamacare is only at a 25% popularity rating, where-as improving or tweaking obamacare is at 26%. Close, but consider that again if you want Obamacare eliminated you are voting Trump already anyway.

If foreign policy is your primary issue, Obama trounced Romney +8 and I have to imagine that Hillary would poll even stronger on Foreign Policy than Trump by experience alone as well as trustworthiness on Putin, ect.

projection is a helluva drug, krellin.

@bo:
"The media isn't suppressing anything. They twist the narrative to fit their ratings requirements, which, at this time of year every four years, means a close election. They did it in 2004, even with Bush as a somewhat popular incumbent, and 2008. They tried in 2012, but Romney was so far behind that nobody bought into it."

Well...each of 2000 and 2004 were decided by a single state. Either the media is just that good at controlling the narrative, or the election really was pretty close and there wasn't much 'twisting' needed.

Also, in 2012 plenty of people bought into the idea that the polls were 'skewed' towards Obama because respondents' party self-identification turned up bluer than actual party registration. (A buck gets you ten krellin was all over poll-unskewing in 2012.) As it turns out, the only skewing that happened was Romney's internal polls mistakenly predicting the turnout would be older and whiter than it actually was, which was why Romney was so confident heading into election night.

https://newrepublic.com/article/110597/exclusive-the-polls-made-mitt-romney-think-hed-win

@bo Romney was pro deportation, border security. Trump is slightly more to the Right of Romney on this issue. Which has proven to be really only popular with about 30% of the electorate.

On healthcare Trumps policy is word for word Romney's policy. Repeal on day 1. No other details given. And whats weirder is that Romneycare was actually BETTER than the shit Trump is saying. At least Romney had PROVEN he knew how to handle healthcare properly when he was a governor.

On foreign policy, syria, Iran, Romney and Trump seem like parrots to the GOP. I see no difference at all. Trump says alot of stuff about trade deals and allies. From what I can tell Trump just thinks people will want to work with him because he's better than anyone else at negotiations. Which is idiotic, nobody cares about some bankrupt oompa loompa trying to force a trade deal down their throat more or less than they did some out of touch mormon yahoo.

On jobs, meh, maybe Trump is stronger than Romney, but I dont see how Trump's plans to reverse the deficit are even anywhere near as aggressive as Romney. In fact, his economic plans were shown to increase the deficit exponentially.

I just dont see how he is any different than Romney other than who he is up against. The best thing Trump has going for him is that Hillary is alot less loved than Obama was.

People who felt income tax should be raised for Wealthy people voted overwhelmingly 70% for Obama. (This represented 47% of the electorate)
Funny how that nearly matches the percentage of people who pay NO federal income tax because their of income and deductions; and not because they are rich.

Trump pays NO federal income tax...

The Buffet rule is pretty solid conceptually. you should look into it.

Oh yeah, quick explanations on two points:

1) Oversampling is where pollsters sample a larger percentage of a certain demographic to get a closer read of where that demographic stands. Then, if they want to estimate overall support using that data, they reduce the weighting of that portion of their sample. So, if pollsters think 3% of the electorate will be Asian-American, but they want to study Asian-American voters in more detail, they'll include a larger percentage of Asian-Americans in their sample (say, 15%), but only count those respondents as 3% of their weighted average when estimating overall support.

2) Party self-identification is a shit demographic to control for, because people's self-identification changes on a whim. People will forget or lie about who they voted for in the last election; based on polls, the sitting President usually had a landslide victory in the last election...even if he actually didn't. When people decide to support a candidate, sometimes they'll change their party self-identification to reflect that. That sort of thing. Pollsters don't balance on party identification because it makes their polls less accurate.

@CAPT Brad:
No, it's not funny, because that percentage you're snidely referring to usually has pretty shitty turnout on election day.

Side note, it's not just poor people who think the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/190775/americans-say-upper-income-pay-little-taxes.aspx

Leth, Bush carried 31 states in 2004 to Kerry's 19. He carried 50.7% of the popular vote. He carried 286 electoral votes. Kerry carried 251. You can say that he won based on one state, depending on the state you claim. Bush won Colorado by 3%. He won Florida by over 4%. Iowa was incredibly close, but even had it flip flopped (lol), it wouldn't have changed the results. Same goes for Nevada and New Mexico. He won Ohio by well over 100,000 votes, which is close as hell, but he won it on the exact same margin that he won the popular vote. That vote was extremely representative of the vote of the nation.

Obviously, 2004 wasn't a blowout. It was about as close as an incumbent gets to losing. But media bias still exists in close elections, the narrative is still shifted in close elections, and the media feasts on them. Do you think they would sit back and chill out when the election is close? No, they were all over it. In 2004, they were biased.

https://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/exhibit-2-7-bias-2004-presidential-campaign

I don't remember tons about 2004. I was almost 10 on Election Day. The facts are pretty plain, though.

The election in 2012 was largely fair as far as media goes, probably because most of the controversy was down ballot with Todd Aiken and Richard Mourdock (bless his stupid, cold heart, he's actually a really nice guy when he keeps his mouth shut). I enjoyed getting a chance to involve myself in it while actually understanding what was going on. Still, the polls showed it being far, far closer than it actually was, as you mention, which is a hilarious screw up on the part of Gallup and the others that had him ahead.