How do you know all the polls showing Trump leading weren’t bogus?
Well, the size of the crowds that Trump draws versus the other candidates is a pretty good indicator that the polls showing him in the lead are correct. Indeed, I think they understate his lead, if anything.
I don’t. I like Carson as much as Trump. I am voting for neither. It is the media and the GOP establishment and the pollsters I don’t trust. Everyone has been out to get Trump. This is just a new way to do it. I have seen the abuse of polling too many times before. Take the homo marriage issue. Most of the states were polling like the amendments would not pass only they did pass. Then after they passed the media kept polling and saying opinions have changed and now people favor homo marriage. It was all manipulation.
You see the same thing during every election cycle. They also manipulate on the day of elections — like when they called Florida for Gore when the polls in the Florida panhandle hadn’t closed yet. Of course the panhandle is a conservative area and telling them Bush had already lost was a way to tell them they didn’t need to vote.
IDK, lets ask jeb bush.
It's very simple.
Polls that show results you like are accurate, and polls that don't are garbage.
At least with Trump he was in/on the news all the time, releasing policy papers, doing interviews, had name recognition etc...you could understand where his numbers came from.
What news about Carson is there except for his poll standings? Nothing. This poll bounce is based on....nothing.
The crowds at the Trump venues were actually there for Carson.
The polls showing Trump as frontrunner were mostly bogus because all polls are bogus.
Polls are propaganda mostly used by the dinosaur media to ‘shape public opinion’. They are still used by those who fancy themselves as kingmakers.
Many polls are designed to be scientific using a statistical sampling plan that is acceptable to those with knowledge of statistical theory. But most scientific polls are conducted using cells and landlines which ruin the ‘science’, why? Because most people hangup, screen out or are otherwise not available. These are called statistical ‘nonresponses’. The nonresponse rate today is enormous, typically averaging about 90%.
With nonresponse rates as high as they are, the accuracy of today’s political polls has a true margin of error on the order of about 50% to 60%, yet polls report typically 3% to 5%, why? It’s due to computing standard deviations on the responses only, and ignoring the nonresponses. But it sounds good which to the legacy media is all that matters.
Trump touts his lead in the polls because it allows him to promote himself as electable and solid. He’s using it to his advantages. Although the polls are bogus, it does not hurt to promote a bogus positive. Any positive is welcome.
The only saving graces for polls these days are two that come to mind:
1) Many of the ‘major’ more ‘respected’ polls are fortunately somewhat INDEPENDENT of each other; with emphasis on ‘somewhat’. This means they are hard to bribe or arrange so that they all report the same thing. For example, say a WSJ poll comes out with 44% favorability (bogus) for Trump and 32% favorability (bogus) for Carson, CNN pollster workerbees can be ‘managed’ to come up with something a little more ‘negative’ on Trump but not so far out of whack that it looks suspicious. So for example, they may be told to call and call landlines inside the Beltway where many residents are pro-government and Trump-hating. They call and call until they get desired bogus results like Trump favorability of 38% (not 44%) and Carson favorability of 35% (not 32%), and then they report it as neck-and-neck. The quasi-independence of polling groups results in some pollsters cheating on the sampling plan but not too much. So this ‘independence’ keeps the cheaters a little less dishonest.
2) A downward trend in the polls to a prolonged single digit state is a reliable indicator that the candidate is done, finished, gone. This is reliable for several reasons, a couple of which are the quasi-independence of polls described above, and the fact that funding dries up for nonperforming candidates as measured by declining prolonged poll results.
Knowing that all polls are bogus, I worried that Donald would face poll manipulation on the part of CNN, ABC, NBC, WAPO, and all the rest. But the propaganda has had its effect. To get Donald in an unfavorable light now, one need only call Beltway regions and other known liberal and establishment pockets of anti-Trump persons. The polling workers who are at the phone banks learn over time which areas have certain views that do not change. When that knowledge is fed back to polling managers, it becomes easy to violate the sampling plan (which is useless anyway because of the enormous nonresponse rates) and concentrate the calling intensity in areas that give the desired results.
But hopefully, the quasi-independence of polling organizations will hold up and deny cheaters an opportunity to manipulate public perception.
At best, polls are good propaganda for one’s favored candidate, whoever that is and are a death-knell for candidates that can’t climb out of single digits, especially those that have fallen into single digits and stay there (e.g. Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, etc.).
Today, there are other indicators that are more reliable than phone polls. They are not scientific, but they measure a depth of commitment or an unbiased snapshot.
1. The first most reliable non-scientific indicator are the number of persons that show up at rallies. It takes energy to get up, get dressed and prepared, put all other plans aside, travel and stand in line to see a candidate. Such people can be considered as assured votes, the same as if it was election day. Contrast this depth of commitment with the small amount of energy it takes to answer a phone and respond to a few questions, or contrast with the zero energy of what 9 out of 10 persons do when they hear a poll on a phone or an email; they hang up or they never answer (and are marked as a nonresponse in either case and ignored in the analysis).
2) Barbershops and beauty salons are neutral venues where people relax and openly express views on their favored candidates. A scenario has a pollster sitting in a wait-area while feigning to read a newspaper or magazine and overhear conversations of clients. This would be more reliable than polls because the clients are relaxed and more open, and they randomly come through the door. To be scientific would require pollsters embedded in hundreds of barbershops and salons in various regions and economic zones of the country and analyzed as weighted by population of the region where data is collected. Such a poll would be much more accurate than what passes for a poll today. But it would very expensive which raises another issue that most polls are cheaply done and we know that one gets what one pays for. In other words, we are reminded most every poll today is bogus.
Because of this:
Shows the huge crowds and what the MDSM does not show.
Trump: ..."Pan the d@mn cameras" See...they don't do it
Crowd boos the camera operators.
How do you know all the polls showing Trump leading werent bogus?
Bean counters can spill the beans in a dozen different ways, but nothing beats seeing something with your own eyes.
LOOK AT TRUMPS RALLYS.
By looking at the tens of thousand at his rallys, his numbers are justified and verified!
You think the thousands attending his rallies are bogus too?
You think the thousands attending his rallies are bogus too?
I guess the thousands attending Trump’s rallies must also be bogus.