No, you wanted to depress GOP support votes!
1 posted on
09/10/2018 2:04:57 PM PDT by
SMGFan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
To: SMGFan
I lie to every pollster whose ever called.
2 posted on
09/10/2018 2:08:09 PM PDT by
PGR88
To: SMGFan
Is this why Reuters changed their polling methodology once Trump took the lead, in order to put Clinton back on top?
-PJ
3 posted on
09/10/2018 2:08:35 PM PDT by
Political Junkie Too
(The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
To: SMGFan
5 posted on
09/10/2018 2:12:04 PM PDT by
Lexington Green
(Sun Tzu Trumps Saul Alinsky)
To: SMGFan
They keep pulling off the same stupid tricks they did in 2016.
None of their polls will be anywhere near the actual result.
6 posted on
09/10/2018 2:12:50 PM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: SMGFan
Thwarted election theft made the cover-story polls look out of sync.
To: SMGFan
INTENTIONALLY BIASED polling would be a more accurate description. Faulty implies incompetence or an honest mistake. I don’t think that’s the case.
8 posted on
09/10/2018 2:17:05 PM PDT by
Signalman
To: SMGFan
Hmmm. Faulty “scientific-sounding probabilistic models”. Those folks either came from, or have a future with the climate change wackos.
11 posted on
09/10/2018 2:20:42 PM PDT by
vajimbo
To: SMGFan
12 posted on
09/10/2018 2:20:45 PM PDT by
max americana
(Fired libtard employees 9 consecutive times at every election since 08'. I hope all liberals die.)
To: SMGFan
13 posted on
09/10/2018 2:30:46 PM PDT by
GOP Poet
To: SMGFan
Accurate regarding national polls.... Who cares? The election win is based on the Electoral College numbers.
15 posted on
09/10/2018 2:34:45 PM PDT by
Freee-dame
(Best election ever!)
To: SMGFan
17 posted on
09/10/2018 2:38:49 PM PDT by
Raycpa
To: SMGFan
No, you wanted to depress GOP support votes! Finally, "we" figured out this deception.
Quick story.
Waaayyy back in (IIRC) 1988, I received a call from a polling agency (the Field Poll). This was when GHWB was running, and I was eager to take part in a major poll.
The young woman who read the questions and took my responses tried to guide me away from certain answers that she did not like (like voting for George Bush instead of Michael Dukakis.)
And, her attempts at steering my responses were not subtle.
And, the questions seemed framed to guide responses as well (but I have forgotten the precise details of a call 30 years ago.)
(As an aside, nobody should take part in such polls today, as they might be scammers.)
20 posted on
09/10/2018 2:42:23 PM PDT by
Seaplaner
(Never give in-never, never,never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. Winston Churchill)
To: SMGFan
Correct. It was not faulty polling. It was pure dishonesty, far and wide. They thought that if we were told often enough that Hillary would be POTUS, it would come true due to Trump voters staying home.
21 posted on
09/10/2018 2:43:07 PM PDT by
NEMDF
To: SMGFan
“In Minnesota for example, the most recent poll before the election was eleven days old ... and those state polls are very tricky anyhow because it's a smaller sample, and small differences in turnout between big cities and rural areas could make a big difference," Newport said. "Those models sounded scientific, but they were relying on inferior polling at the state level in these difficult to poll states that are toss-up states.” So the pollsters know Minnesota is a difficult state to poll AND the polls were days old AND the polls were inferior.
They allegedly knew this and still reported the polls presuming they were accurate?
This article is a big CYA.
To: SMGFan
But will we change our methodology ?
Hell No !
24 posted on
09/10/2018 2:48:02 PM PDT by
tomkat
To: SMGFan
Mistakes were made... corrections have been made... honest mistakes...yada yada yada...coincidinks... move along...
To: SMGFan
The guys who did the best just called one thousand people per state.
That is the best way to get an honest outcome.
No data models, no special sauce, no leading questions.
Just one thousand people, chosen at random across the state are you a registered voter and who are you voting for.
26 posted on
09/10/2018 2:51:22 PM PDT by
Harmless Teddy Bear
(Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, and somewhere else the tea is getting cold.)
To: SMGFan
27 posted on
09/10/2018 2:56:19 PM PDT by
Lee25
To: SMGFan
“Faulty polling led to inaccurate 2016 data models”
that’s good to know ... i’d hate to think that non-faulty polling could lead to inaccurate 2016 data models ...
36 posted on
09/10/2018 3:49:46 PM PDT by
catnipman
((Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!))
To: SMGFan
Inaccurate due to flat out lying, he means.
Psycho-social manipulation via pseudo-demographics.
Lie hard and steady enough, and the public will fall into line.
There was no accident in what was done.
37 posted on
09/10/2018 3:59:57 PM PDT by
Grimmy
(equivocation is but the first step along the road to capitulation)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson