ACTUARIAL REVIEW: Analysis of Recent Polls Shows Trump Win and Possible Landslide

The Gateway Pundit ^ | October 18, 2016 | Jim Hoft

[bobsunshine]

Ann Coulter warned in her book Slander in 2003 that the far left main stream media always uses polls to push their agenda. Polls can be skewed by selecting an unreasonable sample size, by asking lead up questions or by selecting more of a sample population of one side of an issue to achieve a desired result.

Main stream media skews polls to discourage potential voters from voting and has done it for years.

A good example of the media trying to shape a vote was in 1980. In a Gallup poll released on October 26th in 1980, two weeks before the election, Jimmy Carter was leading Ronald Reagan 47 – 39. Two weeks later Reagan won in such a landslide that Carter conceded before California was closed.

[cowboyusa]

Meant correct.

[EDINVA]

All they are left with now is to make him as unpopular as Hillary! THey are appealing to weak-kneed Republicans to cast a 3rd party vote (oh, no, I’m not asking you to vote for Hillary!) Anything and everything they can do to suppress the Trump vote. I hope they fail miserably. Lord hear our prayer!!

[Intolerant in NJ]

...but juicing the poll with the college educated/non college voter using 40-50% college voters when the truth is that only 25-30% of voters have a college degree...and when that doesn't work they spike it with significantly more females than males - lots of ways to shade their results.....

[Intolerant in NJ]

When you do a “random” sampling (polling of likely voters) of a population (all potential likely voters), then later find out your sample was actually biased (lots more dems than pubs), you must throw the results out...but the pollsters try to rationalize the imbalance by making it part of the "science" of what they do - saw a guy who helps do their polls on Fox last night - says he gets questions about the imbalance all the time - claims it's part of what might be called the dynamic party identification process - claims that party identification actually fluctuates with the fortunes of various candidates, so if pollsters get many more dems in a random sample than would be expected by normal patterns it's justified to use the sample because it just shows dems are doing particularly well at that time with the voters - in addition to the folly of the circular reasoning involved (we got more dems so dems must be doing better so we can include more dems because dems are doing better), his argument comes off the rails because he admits that most people's party identification doesn't change that much (lots of people say they're voting a certain way because their parents voted that way) but says there are "weak-identifiers" whose identification is fluid and that justifies changing the mix of dems/reps without referring to a fixed universe like voting patterns. But it's unreasonable to think this happens much at all in those they select to include in their polls since they insist they're using "likely voters" who could be expected to be much more consistent and committed to one point of view and party ID in their voting patterns. In any event - these pollsters should be kicked out of the office....

[BroJoeK]

"My understanding is that the final Reagan-Carter poll taken, on Monday before the election, showing Reagan with a tiny lead, which was the very first time they showed him leading, was not released to the public until after the election."

I don't remember hearing forecasts that Reagan would win, much less by a landslide.
But years later some wise-guys claimed, oh yeah, they knew all along.

Whatever... I just admire the skills of those who helped run his campaign, they got it just right.

I hope Trump & company are as good at it as they were.

[BroJoeK]

"Keeping fingers crossed."

;-)

[Clintonfatigued]

In the words of Paul McCartney, “Let it be!”

[Persevero]

Enumerated make your plan now how to live and live well whether we win or lose. The success has of your life does not depend upon this election.

[enumerated]

You’re right. But hopefully it won’t come to that. It seems like sch a no brainer. She’s demonstrated she won’t level with the American people - she’s sold us out as SOS and would do so as POTUS.

Trump meanwhile, has proven he will tell it like it is.

How can anyone vote for her?

[fortes fortuna juvat]

If Trump loses the election, I’m praying that he will take two gigantic steps: (1) establish a major news network, and (2) lead his millions of die-hard supporters in the formation of a new political party that will relegate the GOP to a distant and weak third place in American political life.

[fortes fortuna juvat]

In my neck of the woods, in a farm field alongside I-68, there is a 50-foot semi-trailer with a huge Vote for Trump sign covering the entire side of it. And for every Clinton yard sign around here there are literally dozens of Trump signs, and many of them are those 5ft x 7ft monsters.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

Not according to that cuck Goldberg wailing on FNC. Saying DT is losing and he’s screaming about vote fraud to depress turnout. Buying completely into the Democrat narrative.

Goldberg's claim to 'fame' was his mother's involvement with the semen-stained blue dress.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

I just turned off Fox (Neil Cavuto) as he was spreading “the bad news” of Trump doing badly in polls.

Cavuto and O'Reilly rely heavily on the Fox News Poll...maybe the most inaccurate poll going. I watch Lou Dobbs on Fox Business, Sean Hannity on Fox News. The others can all go to some really warm dark place.

Trump will win, with enough votes to 'invalidate' voter fraud. If he does good in the debate tonight (I expect he will), he will win in a landslide.

He is God's chosen for such a time as this!

Make it happen! VOTE TRUMP!