The rat ground game has one advantage -- their base is concentrated in urban areas and they bus in... logistically much simpler. Look at the county by county map ... rats win relatively few counties but they are all high density urban areas.
Posted on 10/01/2016 8:26:40 PM PDT by 1-Eagle
As I warned you prior to the 1st Debate, there was good reason to be cautious about putting any trust in the polls. Herman Cain has been hammering this topic very efficiently, whereas Sean Hannity actually said he trusts the polls.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 'SCIENTIFIC POLL'. The average student having done well in any college level Statistics Class can tell you that. The 'margins of error' were blown out of the water so badly in 1996, they they can no longer be said to have any value. Who determines the margin of error? By what means do they calculate it? And why did 99% of polls in 1996 not only miss the mark but were completely outside their margins of error? A poll of even 20,000 people cannot be said to be accurate in a country of over 300 MILLION.
In my last post I warned you that the goal post would be lowered for Hillary, and with the excuse of any kind of win, albeit a purely debate win by scoring the most "points", or however, that this would unleash the skewed poll results.
But first we have to be properly brainwashed so as to accept this odd result, and so Hillary had to unleash what was apparently a pre-meditated crime of character assassination on Trump (ie: the gangster gal who was insulted) and having the moderator set up to be a "fact checker" to pummel Trump in the 2nd half of the debate to put him on the defensive. I'm sure Crowley must have been impressed. Here in America, Free Speech no longer exists on College Campuses or in Political Debates.
By the numbers, it went sort of like this:
1) Clinton Camp sets the stage with "War on Women" narrative. It never made any sense until now.
2) Clinton Camp sets stage by baiting Trump with Kelly's tough questions in line with "war on women"
3) Clinton Camp publicizes request for moderator to become a "fact checker"
4) Clinton sends signal for "fact checker moderator" to activate "OK, Fact Checker get ready to work on this one!" Afterwards, moderator starts hammering Trump.
5) Hillary sets off the "insulted woman" narrative with a last minute mention, followed by planned articles to activate the smear (character assassination) of Trump.
6) As days go by, we start getting articles like this one in the New York Times (click NYT link for the article).
All this just to make it seem reasonable for Hillarys numbers to go up when she is clearly not exciting anybody and she was just photographed weeks ago going into convulsions on the street. Something drastic had to happen, some shock and awe, some October surprise, something really big to get the bad news off the Front Page.
By all means: Forewarned is Forearmed. You have been warned. The Clintons have used skewed polls as propaganda before (vs Bob Dole), and the polls were so skewed that legislation was passed to force them to publish demographics etc, as a way to keep them from being so much of an influence on the election.
THanks for passing that along about Ohio. Theres another case of propaganda at work... red herrings and etc. I refused to believe they would just let Ohio go, and now you tell us she’s still spending there. We can’t trust the media for anything, we just need to go vote.
I earned there would be push polling and gas lighting after the debate to support the narrative that they had which would be Hillary won thr debate and now has momentum.
It’s garbage of course but predictable.
When you have several polls showing trump getting undecideds 3 to 1 to 7 to 1 after the debate it’s insane to think Hillary gained on the polls.
Ohio is lost, FL is lost and NC is lost. But she’s got momentum?
NYT doesn’t need to write article claiming OH is no longer a bellweather if she has momentum.
Expect the establishment and left to go completely Ape poop insane with everything you can imagine trying to hold onto power between now and Nov8
yes indeed! Was just reading where the dead are registering to vote in Virginia already! We knew that by the time early voting opened up there had to be some media shock and awe and poll propaganda. Hillary isn’t exciting to anybody so they gotta stir things up.
A "scientific poll" assumes that you select from the full population a RANDOM sample. Once you have a RANDOM sample of sufficient sample size, you can predict the makeup of the entire population within some margin of error usually 95% (your will be within the margin of error 95% of the time). The problem is getting a random sample. It is not like drawing red or blue marbles out of a well mixed bag.
Some of the marbles will not come out of the bag and tell you their color, red marbles are more likely to say I ain't talking.
Some marbles are not in the bag, red marbles are more likely to be at work.
Some marbles change their color once picked, due to wanting to appear to have the "right" color. Red marbles are more likely to be thrown on the floor for being red.
Some of the selectors can feel the difference between a red and blue marble and will only pick blue marbles.
Any of these will lead to a flawed sample which makes the margin of error very large and thus the "poll" meaningless.
Just to remind: democrats have the ground game. Obama handed over his computerized voter info that tells them everything about everybody. If you have a facebook page and you said you like cats, they will knock on your door and ask you about cats and by the way can you please vote for Hillary. They have the ground game and tons of $$$$$$. Its going to be close and we all have to vote no matter what the media is saying or what the polls are lying to us.
Still have a land line as well as a cell. Getting a lot of calls from pollsters on the land line. Always say I’m voting for Trump. Everything else is up for grabs. I know how I answer so that’s why I don’t trust polls.
Dusting off my BS in mathematics to answer this question.
Margin of Error is a very misunderstood term. It does NOT represent the total amount a poll may be off. It ONLY represents how far it is likely to be off based on the size of the sample. It does not take into account the kind of people making up the sample.
For example if your sample is 1000 Democrats, the Margin of Error would be the same as if it were 1000 voters of a more realistic distribution. But obviously the poll would be way off at predicting the outcome, far beyond the Margin of Error.
Specifically a "Margin of Error" is a calculation that assumes a perfectly representative sample (right number of each demographic etc). This is never a safe assumption. But given this assumption the MoE will be the possible range that a "perfect" sample of that size would fall in a certain percentage of the time. I think it usually is calculated as 95% of the time.
In this year's elections, nobody has a good idea how to get a good sampling...and indeed some pollsters seem to be intentionally getting some that are over optimistic for the Democrats.
As much as I would like to believe the polls are wrong, 2012 showed us we were wrong for believing the polls were wrong.
If the famous Rat ground game is relying on the people showing up at her rallies Hillary has a big problem.
So "margins of error" were proven to be nothing but figments of the pollsters imaginations in 1996. And so the polls that showed Dole would lose to Clinton by 20% or 18% had so much egg on their faces when he lost by around 8%. A British journalist observing all this wrote that if the polls and media had not been so skewed and slanted against him, Dole/Kemp might have had a chance.
No, 2012 the polls were right. They did not account for the fraud. Here in VA there were serious problems. Even the people that ran the election admit it. We had to stand in line four a couple hours because “there was something wrong with the computers”. I have voted at the same building for twenty years. That never happened before. In our precinct there were fewer than half the 0bama bumper stickers yet IN THIS PRECINCT Zero got MORE VOTES than in 2008. Bullshit.
Agree totally. I hope we will all be sure we get the word out about how polls are “just another tool in the propagandists toolbox” so none of our family friends neighbors etc are fooled by them. Its so important to make up our minds just to vote no matter how long the line, or what the polls or media are saying.
“The only person that answers a landline these days is a poor person. How can any phone poll be accurate?”
No, they all got Obamaphones. Just look at the taxes on your cell bill.
The rat ground game has one advantage -- their base is concentrated in urban areas and they bus in... logistically much simpler. Look at the county by county map ... rats win relatively few counties but they are all high density urban areas.
I think you may be right as the dozen “bellwether counties” are not being reported. I wish I knew what the current sentiments are in Vigo County, IN and Hamilton County, OH. If they are currently leaning red, I would think in this atmosphere that they would be less likely to be reported.
That is funny! I'm in same situation as you, I always answer that I am voting for 'Illery.... That is why I don't trust polls, ha ha!
Ah, but that is why Trump’s black support is key. Think about it. If he really peels 20 or 30% of blacks from the Rats they won’t be able to play games in those precincts. And these are people who will have CHANGED PARTIES. Not likely to be lackadaisical. Probably not real interested in allowing the chicanery that they know goes 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.