Posted on 08/19/2016 11:33:03 PM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
ELDER PATRIOT – There's a strange and growing dichotomy emerging between the polls conducted by the mainstream media and those using newer and more sophisticated analytical techniques.
The most recent poll reveals Trump is trouncing Hillary by 28 points nationwideaccording to unbiased responses from 100,000 respondents. By comparison, the average number of respondents to the last six polls cited on the Real Clear Politics website was only 2,858.
The poll uses social media through an app called Zip Question and Answer and it allows users to both ask and answer questions with instant results from a cross-section of demographics and geography.
Developer and co-founder the San Diego based company Crazy Raccoons, Ric Militi said this question was posed to users:
"New polls suggest Trump is getting crushed by Clinton. Do they reflect how you are going to vote?"
Considering the biased nature in the way the question was framed the response was shocking: 64% told Zip they would vote for Trump and only 36% responded that their choice was Clinton.
It should also be noted that social media is mostly used by younger voters who would be expected to support Mrs. Clinton indicating Trump would be even further ahead when older voters are added in.
Of course the mainstream media immediately attacked Zip Question and Answer'smethodology when the results didn't support Hillary Clinton.
USA Today reported:
“"ouglas Rivers, a Stanford University political science professor and chief scientist for YouGov, which conducts online polls with such partners as CBS and the Economist, disagrees. 'What do they know about these people?' Rivers says. 'We worry a lot about who we're talking to.'"
'We worry a lot about who we're talking to." No shit. This explains why the polls conducted by the mainstream media consistently oversample registered Democrats by as much as 15% in order to get the results that satisfies their narrative that Americans are embracing the progressive agenda so strongly that they're willing to elect the a candidate they consider totally corrupt, dishonest and untrustworthy.
One such poll conducted by mainstream media member Reuters was "re-worked" to obscure a 17-point swing towards Trump in order to bring it into line with the rest of the mainstream media's "cooked" polls.
They arrogantly did this after they had released the poll's true findings that showed Trump winning. This called attention to the rampant corruption that has engulfed the old guard polling industry by shining a bright light on their collective efforts to tilt the election towards Hillary Clinton.
Pat Caddell, a respected, longtime Democratic pollster and political consultant had this to say after reviewing the differing methodologies that Reuters used to interpret the same data set, "This comes as close as I have ever seen to cooking the results. "I suppose you can get away with it in polling because there are no laws. But, if this was accounting, they would put them in jail."
http://powderedwigsociety.com/credible-water/
Someone ELSE who has (can) put their Christianity in their back pocket and go into the temple SWINGIN' !
This election has revealed a LOT to me.
There IS a time and a place for mercy.
This ain’t it.
AYYYY - MEN !
Off with the bitch’s head ala Chaucescu ...
I like what you say and I opine that we are not alone in wanting this to happen.
Any new polling method like this should regularly also ask,,,
,,, “Who did you vote for in 2012?” so that today’s preferences can be judged if they are weighted correctly.
Considering the biased nature in the way the question was framed the response was shocking: 64% told Zip they would vote for Trump and only 36% responded that their choice was Clinton.
Figure out WHO these respondents actually are and you may have something. The election may tell us...
Just rough numbers but the GOP has known since Nixon that they had to win by 5% to overwhelm Rat fraud. This time, with the assistance of real time technology, it will probably be closer to 10%. Not that they can’t manage it technologically but once fraud gets into the 25% range it becomes so obvious it can’t even be denied. So a 28% gap is about what it will take for Trump to win by 5% or so, which is actually encouraging.
If there is truth to this, then the other msm polls will begin to swing in a couple weeks or they will all be out of business forever. Even the Democrats won’t use them. So while they can use the polls to influence up to about Labor Day, after that it will be about the ones who “foresaw” the results.
Easier to cherry-pick with a smaller sampling - depends on the integrity/agenda of the pollsters.
“........tracking polls showing a dead heat at this time are probably the most accurate.”.......
Believing in polls is like believing there is an Easter Bunny. It will be what it will be.
“The most recent poll reveals Trump is trouncing Hillary by 28 points nationwideaccording to unbiased responses from 100,000 respondents.”.....
See my previous post.
The margin of error has to do with the quality of your sampling — when all else is equal, and not all polls share the same margin of error.
Today it’s about profiling voters, and they’re just going to get better and better at it.
The difference is in the selection and the reporting. The online poll doesn’t throw out a portion of the replies on some idea of “fairness.”
Sorry, but if it’s not a scientific poll it’s basically worthless no matter how many respondents there are. Even with 100,000 people, there is no way to know if they are in any way representative of the electorate as a whole.
I am also suspect of the polls being fed to us by the media, but placing your faith in something like this is worse.
The problem is that poll results are presented as one figure instead of a x% confidence interval. Better polls have a higher percentage and smaller interval. By using one number the media is dishonest and seeks to sway people, rather than present truth. They can do this because most people don’t understand statistics and sampling.
“The 97,000 extra respondents don’t make all that much of a difference”
Silly wabbit, of course it does. It’s a difference of about 95,000.
You site the margins of error from supposed “crooked” polls and believe it is accurate.
The only reason for so called “scientific” polls is so that the polling company can contact as few people as possible, read expenses/money. That’s it!
A random poll of so few people could never be accurate. but a random (which this poll is not completely random) of a YUGE cross section of voters is more accurate because of the sheer numbers. The good, the bad, and the ugly all mixed together averages itself out.
A poll of 100,000 various voters over 1,000 cherry picked voters gets my vote any day, by a HUNDRED to ONE!
Ecclesiastes, Chapter 3
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.