Posted on 08/22/2015 12:24:48 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
I was wondering why a polling outfit (CNN/ORC) is now all of a sudden trusted by conservatives? If not, then say so. If it is all of a sudden now trusted by conservatives...I thought that CNN is a liberal outfit and not to be trusted?
Limbaugh seems to be going after CNN for their Morten Downey Jr. documentary on TV as somehow being used to juxtapose against Trump, and for their interviews of Trump supporters, and wondering if they are going to hand-pick the worst of the worst in those interviews to somehow paint all Trump supporters in a negative light. But are CNN polls now simultaneously trustworthy simultaneously alongside the aforementioned?
If we stick to an unmoving set of principles, based upon conservative belief that liberals are not to be trusted, why then should we trust CNN? Were they liberal back in 2007/2008 and 2011/2012 in those presidential election cycles, but are now conservative polling outfits all of a sudden? Did they try to pick the GOP nominee back then in each of those presidential election cycles? If so, has CNN then changed its spots for 2015/2016?
How about Rasmussen? Just because Scott Rasmussen is (as has been said here at FR) no longer running the show there, is Rasmussen no longer to be trusted?
In a recent thread here, Rasmussen was panned by more than one person as being no longer trustworthy in their eyes when Donald Trump didn't do so well in the second-to-last poll from them, but in Rasmussen's most recent poll, Trump seemed to do a little better - and so Rasmussen was praised. How did that come about?
Let me see if I get this straight: those polling outfits (CNN/ORC, ABC News/WaPo and NBC News/WSJ) - that conservatives once did not trust - are now trustworthy. But Rasmussen is trustworthy if it procures the desired result for Trump?
And I thought that WSJ is now considered to be an establishment outfit. Why then trust any NBC News/WSJ poll? Just wondering...
What happened to the Washington Post being called the Washington Compost?
If it is still and always has been the Washington Compost, should their polls be trusted?
The problem is that ALL the pollsters are having trouble adapting to a world where people don’t automatically answer their phones, and phone technology has changed.
Following their bad performance in the 2014 midterms, Nate Silver wrote that pollsters are going to have to develop new methods.
I have no faith in any of them anymore. I can also see that our political system is worthless and no election will change much of anything.
We are no better than the Israelites, who after seeing the great works of God, turned their backs on Him and continued to go their own way. Like them, we are going to learn the hard way.
Polls which produce results that harsh my narrative are not to be trusted until they agree with me, then they are reliable. However, when most polls are pointing in the same direction, like a weather vane, rather than double down in denial if they don’t agree with me, I begrudgingly deign they might have a case.
If you take into consideration the timing of the poll, demographic info, the sample size, the manner in which the questions are phrased, who's sponsored the poll, etc. its possible to glean some truth from anything.
ALL polls should be taken with a mountain of salt.
There is a reason that professionals ask to see the internals. How was the question asked? What methodology was used to determine margin of error? How and when was the poll conducted?
I’ve always said: “Give me control of the questions and the polling sample and I’ll have 60% of Americans voting for Hitler.”
I don’t trust ANY poll that doesn’t post/show the QUESTION along with the answer
This is Free Republic, where Scott Brown for President was once written, and Karl Rove was a magnificent Bastard. It’s where GWB was cheered, the Republican Congress was anticipated, and Obama was going to lose to Romney.
Which way does the wind blow?
Yes. I trust them as much as I trust the IRS to fairly evaluate applications by `non-profit organizations’ for exempt status.
As much as I trust: Fox news to handle a debate, Brian Williams’ war stories, Hillary’s excuses, etc.
Precisely. It was the German Conservative Party that put Hitler in office and has given conservatives a bad name since
E) None of the above.
There is only one poll that counts.
Not sure about CNN/ORC but I really am suspicious of Reuters and PPP.
One thing, at least one thing, to watch for is the mix of Republicans and Independents “leaning Republican” in the poll. That mix can make a huge change in the results. And many polls utilize Independents in both Republican and Democrat polling.
Personally I would like to see them poll “Republican Primary Voters” exclusively.
This is not a popularity contest in the conventional sense. We are trying to predict the winners and losers in the upcoming Primaries. Do Independents get to vote in the Republican Primary? I doubt it but I don’t really know. But if they don’t then what are they doing in the poll?
Like a weather vain, the news media is pro Obama. So you would deign that they might have a case??
CNN/ORC: Liberal back in 2007,2008 and 2011 and 2012 - but trustworthy now!!! Horray for Trump!
Fox News poll at the top: I thought that Fox News was full of nothing but anti-Trump shills? How then is the Fox News poll suddenly trustworthy alongside all of that rhetoric?
And Rasmussen? I thought for some time now that it was nothing more than an arm of the RNC and the GOP establishment?
Do you now trust their polls on Trump?
Opinion poll are like climate science. The results are what whoever is paying for it wants.
But Trump recently lauded PPP.
Polls are always right when they say my guy is winning. Otherwise they’re crap.
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.