Posted on 11/18/2024 9:45:35 AM PST by EnderWiggin1970
John McIntyre couldn’t believe it. The publisher of the Real Clear Polling National Average, America’s first presidential poll aggregator, woke on October 31st to see his product denounced in the New York Times. Launched in 2002 and long a mainstay of campaign writers and news consumers alike, the RCP average, he learned, was part of a “torrent” of partisan rubbish being “weaponized” to “deflate Democrats’ enthusiasm” and “undermine faith in the entire system.”
“They actually wrote that our problem was we didn’t weight results,” says an incredulous McIntyre. “That we didn’t put a thumb on the scale.”
The Times ended its screed against RCP’s “scarlet-dominated” electoral map projection by quoting John Anzalone, Joe Biden’s former chief pollster, who said: “There’s a ton of garbage polls out there.” But being called “garbage” in America’s paper of record was nothing compared to what happened to RCP at Wikipedia.
Six months ago, when former Wikipedia chief Katherine Maher became CEO of NPR, video emerged of her talking about strategies at Wikipedia. She said the company eventually abandoned its “free and open” mantra when she realized “this radical openness… did not end up living into the intentionality of what openness can be.” Free and open “recapitulated” too many of the same “power structures,” resulting in too much emphasis on the “Western canon,” the “written tradition,” and “this white male, Westernized construct around who matters.”
(Excerpt) Read more at racket.news ...
NYT denounces the truth if it hurts.
Down with the NYT.
The irony is that the RCP average only had Trump up 0.1% on election day. He was actually up 2%. The RCP Average was skewed in a pro-Harris/anti-Trump direction, just not enough to satisfy the media censors.
Free and open “recapitulated” too many of the same “power structures,” resulting in too much emphasis on the “Western canon,” the “written tradition,” and “this white male, Westernized construct around who matters.”
— It’s been noted before that, given enough time, every organization becomes Leftist unless it actively and constantly resists it. I think that’s because once any Leftist or crypto-Leftist gets a position of authority, they only hire like-thinking people, and hound everyone else out.
RCP misses pro-DEM by 1.5 pts. This is insufficient loyalty.
Disney is neck deep in this subterfuge
Who talks like that?
Interesting how Katherine Maher took less than six months to prostitute her position and fall in line with all of the other members of the MSM. I used to donate to Wikipedia...not any more.
Um…Kamala?
It’s very simple. Most polling agencies don’t do ‘free’ polls unless they are a come-on to some other group wanting more detailed information. They also don’t like to do polls that end up being one-off’s (polls showing dead certain data about winning or losing, depending on the client).
Repeat and continuing business - ergo, the intentionally blurred data.
RCP is to be ignored. This guy is the best.
https://rumble.com/user/PeoplesPundit
Rich Baris. Nerdy guy but he nailed it.
“former Wikipedia chief Katherine Maher became CEO of NPR”
*********
Good opportunity for DOGE to recommend defunding of NPR.
Low lying fruit.
“Who talks like that?”
************
Kamala Harris for one.
Ivy League-educated liberal women and gay men. They learn it in snobbery and condescension 101 and I believe it's prerequisite for all Women's studies degrees (and leaf-blowing).
Google “Operation Mongoose”
It doesn’t take long to whip them in line
As with his succint, “We have the greatest voter fraud organization in history,” Joe Biden nailed this issue in a few words when he said the Democrats favor “truth” over facts. [Quotes added].
>>
The irony is that the RCP average only had Trump up 0.1% on election day. He was actually up 2%. The RCP Average was skewed in a pro-Harris/anti-Trump direction, just not enough to satisfy the media censors.
>>
This is not skew. This is pretty much superb accuracy. Well within the the collective MOEs of the underlying surveys, which sometimes were even wider MOE.
Any poll you find that was closer to actual than another estimate within the MOE of actual IS NOT CLOSER. MOE is MOE. They were both equally accurate within the vagaries of random chance.
It is the bizarre ones declaring Harris +5 and outside MOE that were inaccurate. Or those declaring Trump +6.
Polling was quite good this year. Understand MOE.
As for weighting, we saw why weighting must be in accordance with a reasonable turnout model. That Iowa last minute declaration of Harris winning the state is an example of what happens if you sample only a given type of respondent.
Maybe all blacks, maybe all living in an urban area, maybe all Democrats. You must have a turnout model and weight to it or you have no chance.
“We’re gonna lose. Let’s fill our pockets on the way out. Frankie, bury that new poll!”
BTTT
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.