Please Make Your Donation Today!
Posted on 08/19/2016 11:33:03 PM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
ELDER PATRIOT – There's a strange and growing dichotomy emerging between the polls conducted by the mainstream media and those using newer and more sophisticated analytical techniques.
The most recent poll reveals Trump is trouncing Hillary by 28 points nationwideaccording to unbiased responses from 100,000 respondents. By comparison, the average number of respondents to the last six polls cited on the Real Clear Politics website was only 2,858.
The poll uses social media through an app called Zip Question and Answer and it allows users to both ask and answer questions with instant results from a cross-section of demographics and geography.
Developer and co-founder the San Diego based company Crazy Raccoons, Ric Militi said this question was posed to users:
"New polls suggest Trump is getting crushed by Clinton. Do they reflect how you are going to vote?"
Considering the biased nature in the way the question was framed the response was shocking: 64% told Zip they would vote for Trump and only 36% responded that their choice was Clinton.
It should also be noted that social media is mostly used by younger voters who would be expected to support Mrs. Clinton indicating Trump would be even further ahead when older voters are added in.
Of course the mainstream media immediately attacked Zip Question and Answer'smethodology when the results didn't support Hillary Clinton.
USA Today reported:
“"ouglas Rivers, a Stanford University political science professor and chief scientist for YouGov, which conducts online polls with such partners as CBS and the Economist, disagrees. 'What do they know about these people?' Rivers says. 'We worry a lot about who we're talking to.'"
'We worry a lot about who we're talking to." No shit. This explains why the polls conducted by the mainstream media consistently oversample registered Democrats by as much as 15% in order to get the results that satisfies their narrative that Americans are embracing the progressive agenda so strongly that they're willing to elect the a candidate they consider totally corrupt, dishonest and untrustworthy.
One such poll conducted by mainstream media member Reuters was "re-worked" to obscure a 17-point swing towards Trump in order to bring it into line with the rest of the mainstream media's "cooked" polls.
They arrogantly did this after they had released the poll's true findings that showed Trump winning. This called attention to the rampant corruption that has engulfed the old guard polling industry by shining a bright light on their collective efforts to tilt the election towards Hillary Clinton.
Pat Caddell, a respected, longtime Democratic pollster and political consultant had this to say after reviewing the differing methodologies that Reuters used to interpret the same data set, "This comes as close as I have ever seen to cooking the results. "I suppose you can get away with it in polling because there are no laws. But, if this was accounting, they would put them in jail."
http://powderedwigsociety.com/credible-water/
from 100,000 respondents. How the heck can they do that?
There is little difference between a poll of 2,858 people and 100,000 people
The poll of 2,858 has a margin of error of 1.83% while a poll of 100,000 has a margin of error of .31%.
The 97,000 extra respondents don’t make all that much of a difference.
Internals? Party breakdown even to +2D? Gender 52-48 or 53-47 F?
All I get are a bunch of ads. No detail. Just vague text.
Come on! No one is going to win this election by more than 5%, let alone by 28%. This poll is as bogus as the network polls.
I believe the tracking polls showing a dead heat at this time are probably the most accurate. But after a good couple days, I hope to see Trump move up a bit.
“The poll of 2,858 has a margin of error of 1.83% while a poll of 100,000 has a margin of error of .31%.”
If someone lies to a pollster, it is not reflected in the “margin of error” numbers, it makes them much worse.
Many people lie to pollsters. Additionally, the act of getting a representative sample also is not reflected in the margin of error numbers.
Political bias is also not reflected in statistical error.
So, 100,000 is much better, assuming you know who people are, statistically speaking.
The margin of error should be considered a “minimum ideal error” for best case statistical samples, with the maximum error being some multiple (5x or 10x?) Of the statistical rate to account for many factors that amplify the ideal statistical error rate.
There is no cheap way to poll acurately anymore. A great deal of money and effort must be spent finding demographically relevant statistical samples. That’s hard, and most pollsters are lazy, so you cannot draw too many conclusions from most polls these days. Pollsters simply pull stuff out of their wazoo and call it science.
Personally I think they should let Hillary think she has this in the bag so she can get b#tchslapped hard on election day.
Yep we sure do and for good reason....: )
Strange verb choice in the headline. Does Monica Lewinski work there?
Their argument that a few hundred is not a large enough sample size does not hold water. It is large enough--provided the method one uses to select the sample is accurate. If the method is not accurate, then increasing the sample size will not help. This is strictly mathematics, not really a judgement call.
The judgement call comes in determining what a valid method of selecting a sample is. While I am not sure the professional pollsters have it down for this election, I suspect they are far closer than these guys.
Yeah, the “margin of error” term makes me cringe because so many people misunderstand it, including the talking heads on TV. Its probably better not to list it with polls.
HAVE you ?
TRUMP by a landslide.
First thing that caught my eye.
there is no “dead heat”.
there is no “its just a neck and neck” horserace...
trump will slaughter, literally slaughter hillary, unless the dems do the right thing and drop her like an aids tainted blood transfusion and run one of their other less criminal “likely” candy dates.
and the false narrative that if we don’t assume we are likely to lose, that folks won’t worry enough to vote... as if KNOWING your side is going to win... somehow is arrogant and we might slack off out of complacency...
horse manure!
the thing I like about trump and fellow trump “REAL” supporters is their harshest intention to pile on, run up the score, slaughter the enemy and send the remaining loser victims, to the mental hospital, or a federal prison... with glee, joy while spitting in their faces.
and since this is politics, NOT churchianity... I for one don’t intend to be particularly “christian” about it either. Democrats and liberals should not “DEPEND” on us cutting them some slack, until they are on their knees, throat exposed and begging for mercy. I think it highly appropriate to discuss how much money we will be spending on Hillary’s depends diapers, if she can climb the stairs to an inauguration... and make light of her deplorable medical and mental capacity... until she drops out, is replaced or collapses.
Then I can send them a thank you card, with a discount coupon.
Trump is actually well over 10 points ahead... and is likely to carry EVERY state. not a landslide... a slaughter of EPIC proportions.
America has had enough of the clintongs.
My strategy is to lie only on every other question. It kills not only the statistical accuracy, but also any other research or other objectives they have for the poll. Sometimes I tell them I’m lying to them.
I believe the Democrats know Hillary is doomed, but won’t fight that hard at the end to save her. Her defeat rids the party of the Clinton influence forever and the decks are cleared in 2020 for someone in the Obama wing of the party to be the nominee, possibly Cory Booker but I think it will be Michelle who will be pushed to be the nominee. Just a hunch.
yep...
exactly right.
Now that the “dirty” little secret is out... every time I see a picture of her... it actually triggers the rancid scent of dirty leaking diapers.
I can’t help it.
Now we really do mean literally “she stinks”. Because she does.
Pass it on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.