CDZ Fox random poll sampling is not random.

[MarathonMike]

There is a fundamental problem with polls such the "Impeachment" poll by Fox News. We saw hard evidence of sampling problems in 2016 when all the genius pollsters ended up eating crow or bugs when they were proved wrong. And not just wrong but WAAAAY wrong. What happened? Apparently when you randomly call people on the phone there is one political group all too happy to pick up the phone and chirp out their opinions. And there is another political group who is most likely to ignore the unknown caller. But maybe everything changed since 2016. I tend to think not.

Fox News Poll Methodology Statement

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Apparently when you randomly call people on the phone there is one political group all too happy to pick up the phone and chirp out their opinions. And there is another political group who is most likely to ignore the unknown caller

False. That’s a right wing conspiracy theory with no evidence whatsoever to back it up

 

[Kilroy2]

Even with random sampling you can control what states or cities that you will be calling

Unless you ask what is there political preference then it really is random

Still if you do enough polls you are bound to get one that is proven right

whereas the rest of them may be proven wrong but all we will hear about is the one time they were right

 

[MarathonMike]

Apparently when you randomly call people on the phone there is one political group all too happy to pick up the phone and chirp out their opinions. And there is another political group who is most likely to ignore the unknown caller

False. That’s a right wing conspiracy theory with no evidence whatsoever to back it up

My "evidence" is the clearly flawed polling process that resulted in the complete failure to predict the 2016 election. Nothing in polling methods has changed, so why would they be any better than they were in 2016? The only time you can prove the validity of a poll is after an election. I'm always open to a good argument, tell me why the polls are now more accurate.

 

[cnm]

My "evidence" is the clearly flawed polling process that resulted in the complete failure to predict the 2016 election.

But it wasn't a complete failure. You are blaming polls for your lack of statistical savvy.

 

[MisterBeale]

Apparently when you randomly call people on the phone there is one political group all too happy to pick up the phone and chirp out their opinions. And there is another political group who is most likely to ignore the unknown caller

False. That’s a right wing conspiracy theory with no evidence whatsoever to back it up

Sure, b/c all demographics use land lines or cell phones with registered providers.

What an accurate sampling. And all sampled will voluntarily participate.

Polling is garbage.

The only type of polling that even comes close to being accurate, is exit polling. They quit doing that after the 2000 and the 2004 election when it started to reveal real corruption in the process.

 

[MarathonMike]

My "evidence" is the clearly flawed polling process that resulted in the complete failure to predict the 2016 election.

But it wasn't a complete failure. You are blaming polls for your lack of statistical savvy.

That doesn't make sense. Now If statistics excite you then 15% of Republicans trust the Media vs 69% of Democrats. No I won't post a link, it's easy to google.

Personally, if I see a call from anything with "poll" or "vote" or "election" in the id I don't answer because I assume it is the Media. I don't care whether it's Fox or Other.

 

[Ringel05]

Apparently when you randomly call people on the phone there is one political group all too happy to pick up the phone and chirp out their opinions. And there is another political group who is most likely to ignore the unknown caller

False. That’s a right wing conspiracy theory with no evidence whatsoever to back it up

Actually Pew acknowledged as much. They think two things happened, well three actually, first a sizable chunk of the electorate avoid polls, does't respond to them (I'm one of those who don't respond), second they think a substantial number of educated and moneyed voters lied about who they would vote for, this most likely has to do with fear of criticism by not supporting the "more socially acceptable" candidate. People will outright lie in face to face or even phone polling if they feel vulnerable due to their true choice (see the Bradley Effect and apply it in a social, non-racial format).
Thirdly has to do with prediction models designed to tell who will and will not vote, what the electorate will look like on election day. These are notoriously difficult to put together and they definitely got that on wrong in 2016.

 

[EvMetro]

Lefties were completely BLINDSIDED when Trump kicked Hillary's ass, 306 to her lousy 232. If lefties are not questioning polls after being blindsided like that, they probably won't win 2020 either. Think about the word "blindsided" lefties, this IS what happened to you in 2016, right? Your media and polling are to blame for this, right? Do you still believe in them after the blindsided you?

 

[cnm]

That doesn't make sense.

Sorry. I'll try to be clearer. You don't understand polling statistics.

Give an example of a poll you think failed.

 

[cnm]

Thirdly has to do with prediction models designed to tell who will and will not vote, what the electorate will look like on election day.

Not really a polling failure.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Apparently when you randomly call people on the phone there is one political group all too happy to pick up the phone and chirp out their opinions. And there is another political group who is most likely to ignore the unknown caller

False. That’s a right wing conspiracy theory with no evidence whatsoever to back it up

I'll give you one! I got a polling call asking me if supported Nancy Pelosi's attempt to override the 2nd Amendment. I told them I supported her 100%, knowing I had just fucked up their poll!

 

[Ringel05]

Thirdly has to do with prediction models designed to tell who will and will not vote, what the electorate will look like on election day.

Not really a polling failure.

Never said it was, they did.

 

[Dekster]

There is a fundamental problem with polls such the "Impeachment" poll by Fox News. We saw hard evidence of sampling problems in 2016 when all the genius pollsters ended up eating crow or bugs when they were proved wrong. And not just wrong but WAAAAY wrong. What happened? Apparently when you randomly call people on the phone there is one political group all too happy to pick up the phone and chirp out their opinions. And there is another political group who is most likely to ignore the unknown caller. But maybe everything changed since 2016. I tend to think not.

Fox News Poll Methodology Statement

I am not going to go looking for the list of states but I have seen a list where democrats under performed polling by pretty large skews and the speculation was that young people are more likely to answer their cellphones and are more likely to overreport how likely they are to vote. My state--Virginia--was one of them. Now, that said, in 2012 when we were considered a swing state that year, we were inundated with so many robo calls, push polls, snap polls, and traditional broad survey polling that we just cut the landline telephone off and blocked every number that came up on the cells that we didn't recognize.

 

[Jitss617]

David Shaw the rino that does the poll of Fox News Hates trump donated to Hillary,

anti trumpets use polls to try to sway public opinion.. won’t work

 

[Toro]

Apparently when you randomly call people on the phone there is one political group all too happy to pick up the phone and chirp out their opinions. And there is another political group who is most likely to ignore the unknown caller

False. That’s a right wing conspiracy theory with no evidence whatsoever to back it up

They just don't understand math.

Remember when these people were saying the exact same thing about "unskewed polls?"

The Whole Romney Ticket Believed in Unskewed Polls?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

My "evidence" is the clearly flawed polling process that resulted in the complete failure to predict the 2016 election. Nothing in polling methods has changed, so why would they be any better than they were in 2016?

Why do you all conveniently ignore the perfectly flawless polling of the midterm elections that nailed it right on the nose?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The only type of polling that even comes close to being accurate, is exit polling. They quit doing that after the 2000 and the 2004 election when it started to reveal real corruption in the process.

No, they didn't and no it didn't. That's more of your wacko kook conspiracy nonsense.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Actually Pew acknowledged as much. They think two things happened, well three actually, first a sizable chunk of the electorate avoid polls, does't respond to them (I'm one of those who don't respond)

I was referring specifically to the conspiracy theory among the right that conservatives don't allegedly respond to polls and liberals do. That's what he was eluding. There is no evidence of that at all, but they repeat it year after year to explain why they trail in polling, whether they end up winning or losing.

 

[Jitss617]

My "evidence" is the clearly flawed polling process that resulted in the complete failure to predict the 2016 election. Nothing in polling methods has changed, so why would they be any better than they were in 2016?

Why do you all conveniently ignore the perfectly flawless polling of the midterm elections that nailed it right on the nose?

Dems lost over 1,000 seat since 2012 , all pollls had them winning ,, you lost all ..go away