CDZ Fox random poll sampling is not random.

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Dems lost over 1,000 seat since 2012 , all pollls had them winning

No they didn't.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

Pew didn't come right out and say it but they alluded to the strong possibility that those who didn't respond, refused to answer questions tend to vote conservative. True there's no conclusive evidence but there is some evidence which is probably why the right keeps up their hyperboled claims. It is politics after all, hyperbole, generalities, stereotypes, etc is the norm rather than the exception.

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

Oh yeah?

Tell me about it. And all about your experience in statistical analysis.

 

[Kilroy2]

A poll when they predict what you believe then they are a badge of honor but when they fail to predict what you believe then no one remembers it

 

[MarathonMike]

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?

That is a good point, the mid-term polls were much more accurate than the Presidential election polls of 2016. I would say that did not really reflect an "improvement" in polling methods but the fact that Congressional districts are far easier to poll and predict than national polls such as the Presidential election or Impeachment polls.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Leo123]

2016 pretty much proved that polls cannot be relied upon to reliably predict a Presidential election anymore. Many don't participate and those that do may or may not be lying. Also, one has to consider the demographic polled, the questions asked, etc. and that data is generally not readily available to the consumer.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

FOX still uses the exit polls from 2012 to 'normalize' their samplings.

The Oligarchs want their pound of flesh and they have been cooking the books to slander their enemies and put a halo on their useful cocksuckers for centuries now.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Remember when these people were saying the exact same thing about "unskewed polls?"
The Whole Romney Ticket Believed in Unskewed Polls?

Romney the Vulture Capitalist was not popular with normal rank and file GOP activists, and h e had a losers view of the electorate too.

He captured the gOP nomination in 2012 because his network of Mormon pirates were cooperating with Log Cabin Republicans and government health care advocates to rig everything in the GOP.

I thought it was outrageous that Romney was able to brand Newt Gingrich as a liberal, roflmao.

But that was serial liar Romney at his best bullshit. I despise that man and McCain with all my heart and always will.