Posted on 10/12/2016 12:44:06 PM PDT by SpeedyInTexas
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I thought it was Diamond or Silk. This chap?
Can you give a synopsis for those who have a moral objection to clicking on that link? Thanks
That’s hilarious.
They need to rework their sample frame.
They’re saying he is a panelist in a small panel that keeps on getting polled, and his vote for Donald is being scaled up as though he were all the black voters.
I do see a smattering of black support for Donald on Youtube and obviously it isn’t all this chap.
Also, whatever Donald pitches at black America, he can’t turn this guy into twins, so if this was his measure he’s getting a misleading picture.
This jerk all over twitter today trying to debunk tracking polls as bad and media polls or college polls as good. Pass on it. If Dornsife has Trump rising in two days you’ll know tracking is good and our hopes are alive. If he isn’t going back up.......
Nate Silver, Nate Cohn and 538 attempt to unskew the most favorable-to-Trump (LA Times) poll.
This is very interesting. This can work either way.
I guess you are not as “moral” as MountainWalker.
I ain’t purist about “never look at New York Times.”
They’re kind of charming, actually. Too bad that they also have a record of being full of a pack of lies. The challenge is to determine what the lies are.
I’d be asking, for starters, if this is even something special as polls go.
Long article with charts and data. I did a quick read and it appears that the polling is based on the same group of 3,000 (maybe) voters. Broken down into age - race - etc. and tracked for changes. A mathematical theory of evolution;)
I could be wrong.
What a surprise! The New York Slimes, the Paper of Liberal Propaganda, attacks the one poll that has Trump consistently in the lead. [/sarc]
From the article:
In 2012, they defended the disparity of their results by stating their model “allows us to ask the same people for their opinion repeatedly over time,” which “leads to much more stable outcomes; changes that we see are true changes in people’s opinions and not the result of random fluctuations in who gets asked the questions.” Basically, if you can identify and track a representative sample of truly undecided voters–those who will ultimately decide the outcome of the election–than you can more accurately predict that outcome. They were trying to effectively minimize their exposure to what causes sampling errors in random samples while at the same time more correctly identify those who were most likely to vote. They argued they “may be more accurately capturing the likely votes of a greater number of voters in the crucial ‘middle’ by allowing respondents to more precisely assign their own numerical probability (or percent chance) to both the likelihood that they will vote and the likelihood that they will vote for a particular candidate.”
Just part of the Dems’ vote fraud PR campaign.
I have awful morals. I even wander over to DU sometimes! And many other liberal websites. Can’t fight your enemy if you don’t know what they’re up to.
Of course NYT and Nate Silver and Nate Cohn absolutely must dissect the poll that has shown the most positive results for Trump. And of course they have to dismiss the tracking polls that as a class appears to give another results than the heavily biased MSM flash polls.
Nevertheless, there are some interesting points.
#1: It is highly to the credit of the USC Dornsife poll that it is so transparent that it can be analyzed in this way. Why are not the other polls as transparent? (As if I did not know. The Nates do not seem to care. As long as all the other polls get much the same results they must be correct is their position. Bad!!!)
#2: The fact that the USC Dornsife puts weights to relatively small samples is I think a problem. It does explain some phenomenon I have spotted in the results, such as the AA vote reacts almost digitally.
# 3: Nate C is very upset that the USC Dornsife poll weighs according to the response received regarding voting in 2012. I am not so sure about that. Other polls are apparently happy with samples that shows 8, 10, or 12% more Obama voters than Romney voters. USC also has 8% more Obama voters than Romney voters, but tries to correct for this. It may be trues that people have a tendency to “remember” that they voted for the winner, but in highly polarizing contests like the last two elections (and this one) I am not so sure that is true. It may be that USC Dornsife actually is correcting for the “shy GOP” voter (shy Trump voter is probably more correct now).
Thus, I am not at all sure that this poll is inherently worse than others, It is different, and different may be good. We will see!
“...sometimes it took all night to count what everyone said and people were impatient. So they invented special machines which could look at the first few votes and compare them with the votes from the same places in previous years. That way the machine could compute how the total vote would be and who would be elected. You see?”
She nodded. “Like Multivac.”
“The first computers were much smaller than Multivac. Bu the machines grew bigger and they could tell how the election would go from fewer and fewer votes. Then, at last, they built Multivac and it can tell from just one voter.”
— from the short story “Franchise”, by Isaac Asimov
Here are some of my thoughts on the latest USC/LA TIMES poll: http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
1). If you look at the BY AGE charts: 18-34 looks about right to me. 35-64 looks about right to me. 65+ looks wrong to me. Almost all polls show Trump winning 65+. To have Clinton leading in that age group looks wrong to me.
2). All the BY EDUCATION charts look reasonable to me.
3). All the BY INCOME charts look reasonable to me. Although I think he should be leading in the 75k+ range. Small disagreement here.
4). All the BY RACE charts look reasonable to except the Black chart. With the “19 year old” being dropped, Trump’s black support goes from around 8% to 5.2%. However, I kind of disagree with the NYTimes main point that 19 year old was showing Trump’s Black support at some artificially elevated amount. Yes, Trump’s support amongst Blacks could be 5.2% nationally. But 8% sounds more reasonable. Bush got 11% of the Black vote in 2004. I think Trump is more likely to get 8% of the Black vote instead of 5.2% -rendering the NYTimes main analysis as WRONG.
I’m expecting Trump to regain the lead in the USC/La Times poll over the next couple of days.
Got a robo poll from the lamestream media last night.
I “was” a 20 something black woman who was voting for trump, favored leaving gun laws as they are, and medical use only for weed.
Bet that made a liberal head or two go migraine!
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.