Great report!
Thanks for that informative post.
I think Trump will win if he backs off this Kahn guy and let him—not Donald—step in it. This applies for all other “bait” the democrats use to lure him with, at least until November.
Bump
I love me some Larry.
To take it a step further, how do you know anyone is even being polled at all? Because someone in the liberal cabal says so? We rejected so-callled “climate science” yet we accept any and every poll as if it were gospel.
For all we know they could simply be making stuff up.
What is your take on the USC/LA Times daybreak poll?
but the crooks cook the books so it looks like the witch will win, that way no one will point to vote rigging and fraud...
Pat Caddell, liberal, professional pollster, thinks Reuters is full of it...
Currently Trump is ahead in the poll by about 4 points.
They ask questions to assess the likelihood that the participant will vote and balance their results based on fixed demographic and voting pattern factors.
It's as fair a scheme as I have found at least at this point in time. By the nature of the methodology, changes to the polling results happen very slowly. You don't see the volatility that you see in phony polls like Reuters and NBC/WSJ. Voters change their minds but they don't do it overnight.
There are also many adults who never have voted and did so in the primaries because they are inspired by Trump (who understands them—blue collars).
This concern over the “youngest person” question is silly.
POLLSTERS DON’T GET ENOUGH YOUNG PEOPLE TO RESPOND SO THEY’RE TRYING HARDER.
The CNN/ORC poll omits the 18-34 age group in their internals because they didn’t get enough respondents to meet an 8.5% MOE:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/08/01/2016.post-dem.convention.pdf
Gallup got of the polling business because its shady.
Today, polling is done to push an agenda rather than give us a true reading of where the electorate happens to be.
Hillary is probably leading. But by 11 points? Doubtful.
We won’t know the true state of the race until after the debates and when pollsters began sampling likely as opposed to registered voters.
In the meantime, expect the polls to be inaccurate because the MSM is using them to sell a narrative not to advance the truth.
Remember that the media gets its orders from the DNC.
This is good reading I need to sit down with it later. Love what I read so far.
Lots of good materials
Well done LS
Insert “the only poll that matters” trope here.
But you know, it’s true.
DAMN THE TORPEDOES!
When a poll is cited as having a ±3% MOE, it means nothing more than that you can say with 95% confidence that the mean answer for the sample population falls within ±%3 of the entire population of that cohort -- IF the sampling mehtodology is truly random. That is all it means.
It has no mathematically rigorous predictive ability, despite its being labelled "scientific" because it is nothing more than an indication of how that cohort would vote if they were voting today. It is of little practical predictive ability because the cohorts: adults ≠ registered voters ≠ likely voters ≠ people who will vote on election day ≠ people who will vote on election day and honestly answer the question of how they voted.
This is why Gallup has dropped out of the presidential polling business: in order to be useful, your model must be able to turn your target population into the actual voting population, and there is no mathematically, statistically, or even psychologically sound methodology for doing that. "Likely" generally "seems" better, but even that varies with the quality of a pollster's special sauce. The degree to which "likely" is properly modelled to extrapolate to voters-on-the-first-Tuesday-of-November is entirely a crap shoot which no polling organization has mastered for more than two elections in a row.
Nice clear assessment. It would be interesting to track non-respondents for all these polls.
One other thought, this is an election where both candidates have significant negatives. Which polls or polling methods work best under such conditions.
Do the math. Just the women and minority vote puts Hillary close to 45%. Hopefully that’s her ceiling.
Agree with your post, and would add that there’s WAY too much that can happen between now and November to put any faith in polls at all. Wikileaked emails, terrorist attacks, social media kerfuffles, etc. At best, they are a sign of trends.
Official Pile On/Eating Macaca Thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2125687/posts
Nov 5, 2008
"Two weeks ago, if I had told you that deep red precincts would turn out at record levels, you would have thought that John McCain would not only win, but that he might win by a comfortable margin.
Well, didn't happen.
The "turnout model" of politics is officially dead---the one that says if you get "your people" to the polls, you win. The trouble is, they have to really be "your people."
I went downtown to count votes at 7:00. Our whole team thought not only had we won Dayton, but OH, and probably---with turnout rates like that---indicated McCain would do very well. I can't tell you how excited they were based on the turnout. In Miamisburg, two very Republican precincts had voted out 75% by 5:00 in the evening.
We got a report from a Trotwood Republican precinct that had voted at an 80% clip. Darke County called in saying they were at near-record 80%.
Finally---and I know I don't have credibility here (Freeper Captain Kirk was dead on)---the national numbers suggest that there was a "reverse Bradley," a guilt vote. This could account for some of the R defections.
I'm eating macaca. So pile on.
But you can trust me on this: we all have a lot more to worry about now than who was the best political prognosticator. God save our once-great nation."