[Arm_Bears]

I don’t trust anything the media—print, electronic, or otherwise—says.

[wastoute]

When a guy with a rain making machine predicts rain you better take yer umbrella...

[equaviator]

I need only one reason: Because I know that the Democrats INTEND to win by any means necessary, and I didn’t have to be told by any “journalist”.

[spintreebob]

Polls are based on scientific modeling... the same scientific modeling that predicts Climate Change and predicts how often a computer system will encounter a bug, get hacked, or go down.

All we have to do is find the perfect Skynet computer and then we won’t need polls...or elections as the scientific model in the Skynet computer will know all the answers.

Relax, sit back, enjoy the ride. ;)

[I want the USA back]

They are not highly scientific. They pretend to predict outcome, based on faulty premises. The parties live and die by the polls - this makes the polls more important than they really are.

[upchuck]

Last sentence of the article:

File most poll results under “entertainment.”

Amen!

[A Navy Vet]

There are two very simple reasons why polls are slanted:
1. Many are taken during the day when conservatives are at work and the "gimmedats" are home enjoying their freebies;
2. Many conservatives, like me, refuse to answer.

As we've seen here and on many boards, the polls are over-weighted by democrats who like to mouth off their opinions, where republicans just go about their lives working and dealing with their families and other obligations. No big surprise.

[pepsi_junkie]

Polls are not scientific. They are surveys dressed up with some statistical analysis BUT it’s not simply taking averages and calculating standard deviations. No, first they “weigh” the data (which in engineering schools we would call “fudging”) based on some secret sauce. Then they do the math. The weighing at best is an educated guess and at worst is as far from science as fortune telling. The weighing determines the outcome as much or more than the actual survey answers.

[TalBlack]

The media are dihonest and will lie but in the recent presidential race past they had nothing to lie about via polls. Today they do. People bought hope and change. There was a wave that the media simply reported. Not this time...in 2016.

[Larry381]

There’s no doubt (imo) that some Trump supporters are extremely hesitant to reveal that they support him especially to a stranger on a phone. Considering what has happened to a few Trump supporters around the country, who can blame them if they lie about supporting him just to play it safe.

[RoseofTexas]

Wait one cotton pickin minute here! Weren’t we told a few weeks ago the race was over? The mediapukes especially the Washington comPOST and the rest of the toilet paper organizations were screaming at the top of their lungs that Donald Trump shoot concede the election before the vote had even taken place because Hillary was so way ahead in polls! ! They were relentlessly vicious day in and day out 24/7!bloody hell!!... So to that I say Karma baby karma! Now let’s get’er done and WIN!! drive a stake through the queen rat’s heart while she wounded!!!!! To God be the glory!!!

[norwaypinesavage]

Even an honest pollster can be wrong. Say, for example, there are a hundred million voters. For comparison, put 50 million red marbles and 50 million blue marbles in a drum, and mix them up thoroughly. Now draw out a sample of marbles from the drum. The sample, very likely will not have exactly half red and half blue marbles. The "Margin of Error," MOE, estimates how far off you might be. If you take this sample 20 times, your measurement will likely be within the MOE 19 times, and outside the MOE once. That's right, one time out of 20, your sample will lie outside the MOE.

Now, let's put some reality into your stirring of the drum. Some regions of the drum will have more blue than it has red marbles or vise versa. Cities, states, zip codes, land lines, area codes, time of day, internet providers, caller ID, etc., and more, can all alter the mix within the drum. It is very easy to either intentionally or inadvertently focus your sample on one or the other of these "hot spots". You can even do this without the people actually taking the samples knowing. You can do it without even knowing it yourself. Some pollsters might do this intentionally.

[mmichaels1970]

Trump by four. I wanna get it here on this thread a week out. We’ll see how well my “dartboard” approach comports with the final result and if I can do a better job predicting than the polls.

[goldstategop]

Reliable polls are a thing of the past.

Every one has their agenda.

I bet none of them really match demographics in a way considered ideal.

That will become even more clear after the election next week.

[qam1]

1 - One reason to trust the polls. Everyone said the same thing about oversampling, being fixed, landlines, rally attendance, etc in 2008 & 2012

[onevoter]

And let’s remember that polls had Hillary beating Bernie in Michigan - when it was put to the test, the result was a surprise for both Hillary and those of us who believed whatever the polls tell us. The polls often tell us exactly what the pollsters want them to. Can’t help but wonder if the polls “tightening” is a complete lie. My guess is that the polls were never as pro-Hillary as the pollsters told us they were and now that the election is just around the corner, they are trying to save face. By next Wednesday, we will be talking about President Trump!