As you will see in our book ‘How Trump Won,’ due out in e-form from Regnery on Jan 9, Cankles relied HEAVILY on the public polling (which we know was lying) and had very little (if ANY!) “internal” polling.
So this is a great example of how lies come back to bite you.
Michigan didn’t even matter! LOL
Is this the only election that had some polls that were wrong?! I’m sick of hearing about it. She wasn’t campaigning heavily.
“Because Nate Silver can’t be wrong. It’s science!”
I read her AI turnout model, Ada, simply blew out due to GIGO.
I’ve been of the opinion for most of this election cycle that most polls were not making any real attempt to use statistical methods to determine the preferences of the electorate, but rather had become instruments by which the elite media and political class could influence the preferences of voters. Subtle propaganda, if you will.
Except for one: USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Poll. Better called a “survey”, the methodolog was completely differnt from even other tracking polls and in the end, was one of the few that predicted the outcome accurately.
I say this will become the model for future polling/surveying, replacing the flawed and easily-manipulated conventional polls. Your thoughts?
I wonder if a parallel could be drawn between the follies of believing anthropogenic climate change models and DNC polling.
What arrogance.
I thought every serious campaign had internal polling ... how else can they see how far off their “independent” polling for public consumption is?
A BOOK? Geez! Don’t give it away like that! Some liberals might take their heads out of their asses long enough to take note!
If DJT hadn’t trounced Hillary, she would have still pulled it out. Fact is, he had literally overwhelming numbers so that even her fraud couldn’t help her.