Posted on 08/21/2019 5:49:11 AM PDT by Kaslin
While the moniker “fake news” is typically reserved for cable news and some of the more prominent newspapers in America, the term could also be applied to presidential polls. How many pollsters predicted Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election by a landslide up to and including the day of the actual election?
The “paper of record,” the New York Times, told readers on election day, Nov. 8, 2016, that Hillary Clinton had an 85 percent chance of winning the election. Their prediction was updated on 10:20 PM ET, oblivious to the evening smiles on cable news shows that were curdling into frowns and outright hysteria.
Screen shot from the New York Times web site on Nov. 8, 2016 // Fair Use
Not only were they wrong, but they were also in abject denial over events unfolding before them in real time. The NY Times was in good company as most pollsters got it wrong in 2016, with Rasmussen arguably the most accurate of the bunch.
Have pollsters learned from their mistakes? Or are they about to step in it again in 2020? Judging by some recent polling news, it appears that history may be repeating itself. As the old proverb says, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Several days ago, this headline ran, much to the delight of CNN and MSNBC anchors, “Fox News poll shows Trump losing to Biden, Warren, Sanders and Harris.” That’s it, then, the race is over. The message to Trump supporters is to give up in despair and leave those MAGA hats in the closet.
The fact that this is a Fox News poll should throw cold water on the narrative of Fox being in the tank for President Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
How do you accurately poll with cell phones and caller ID.
Apparently not
You can’t and it is a serious delusion to think you can. Even if you could get a Trump voter on the phone in today’s climate they probably won’t be truthful.
The polls are used to drive conservatives and moderates away from the polls. “not gonna win anyhow, why bother to go?”
depress the vote
Democrat campaign staff have admitted that even if internal polling shows they will be blown out in an election they’ll never admit it and keep spouting numbers saying “neck and neck” or “certain victory”.
Oversample 8% Dem and you come up with 10% Dem victory.
Pollsters (and especially the ones who hire them) may lie - but I also think people now lie to pollsters. I know I do.
Anything, repeat anything, can happen in 15 months. It’s insane to put any stock in polls.
Having said that, it’s great that conservatives tell pollsters what they want to hear, and then laugh at the dumbfounded talking heads after the results are tabulated.
The value of a poll is directly related to the size and randomness of the sample.
The results of the Fox poll represent views of the sample. The argument against the value of the Fox poll are arguments against the sample.
No pollsters present the geographical breakdown of their sample so it can not be analyzed. A sample that is analyzed or over analyzed is by definition invalid.
Samples largely taken from the northeast will yield Democrat bias
Most pollsters are politically biased and “analyze” data to please the people paying them. Even those that attempt to poll honestly have inherent difficulties. They hire low paid workers to make the calls and collect data. How many decent people will take an unsolicited call these days and answer personal questions about their politics and themselves to a stranger? It should also be noted that the integrity of the Wall Street Journal was damaged when they partnered with the hopelessly biased left wing NBC and generated predictably inaccurate polls.
Polls are used to shape opinion, not accurately report it.
Hey, we’ve spent 4 years calling you a Nazi, KKK, white supremacist, and a fascist.....would you mind taking a poll to tell us whom you will be voting for next year?
*click*
...hello?
Actually the last election, 2018, the pollsters got almost precisely right. Nate Silver said Dems would gain 39 House seats. Cook Political Report said they’d gain 30-40. In the event the Dems gained 40 seats from Republicans, mostly in moderate suburban districts.
There are two kinds of polls. The genuine statistical data gathering type, and the goal oriented affirmation sample type.
The former is very rare. You’ll see them in scientific journals occasionally. The later are pervasive. Almost everyone who has a poll has a subjective purpose for doing so.
Bias isn’t just a conscious conspiracy. It’s also an underlying fault.
As long as political parties, PACs, networks, newspapers etc. keep hiring them to take thes polls, they don't have to.
Pollsters don't really care about accuracy, they only care about giving their clients whatever it is they want so that they get that next contract.
They learned they didn’t push their agenda hard enough last time.
This doomed prevarication dies in the first sentence.
We were calling many of the newspapers and television news shows fake news in the Sixties, at least in the Tulsa area.
[I picked that up from a poster on another mb]
ff
PS I wonder if "fake news" will be a cliche' still in widespread use 50 years from now (IE will it become a timeless cliche')?
‘News’ polls have always been little more than propaganda.
He who commissions the poll commissions the desired results.
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.