South Carolina as a "competitive" state??? Unbelievable !!

[JimH52]

I'm not a fan of any poll much less one that can't even list the demographics in the results.

Here, to "ease" your fears.....From PPP's own website regarding demographics ..

..
Weighting

Accurate polling requires the demographic breakdown of a survey to closely resemble the same breakdown for the population you are trying to measure. By beginning their surveys by asking for the “second oldest woman in the household” or some other criteria, traditional pollsters can manipulate their respondents during a poll in order to reach quotas for demographic groups like gender, race, age, etc. IVR polling does not allow PPP to set quotas beforehand, instead we have to work with the data after our survey. To achieve relatively accurate demographic breakdowns we employ weighting schemes.

Our first step in weighting is to survey more than enough people. This allows us to then be able to randomly reject individual surveys from demographics that are overrepresented. For example, in our polling more women answer relative to men, and not enough African-Americans answer our surveys. Our random selection eliminates any potential bias from the rejections, plus it functions like a quota, only after the fact.

PPP also employs a mathematical weighting scheme that assigns a weight based on each demographic. For example, if a survey is 82% white and 13% black, but needs to be 77% white and 17% black, the weighting formula can fix the imbalance mathematically. We always try to get our numbers as accurate as possible, and our end results are available for all to see and scrutinize. Read more about PPP's track record.

If you are interested in hiring Public Policy Polling or would like a price quote, please contact us by email or by calling 888-621-6988.

Hard to tell how it was "weighted" since they don't give the demos.....which any reputable poll will. Save it moron, this poll is junk

It shouldn't be close. But Comrade Donnie is a GIFT!

 

[jknowgood]

I live in south Carolina and I don't see the support for Hillary. Just not there.

It depends on where you live in SC, sir. The urban areas vote much differently than the hollers and backwater swamps.

Oh I live near Greenville, one of the best city's in the united states. Don't see the support for Hillary.

You're damn near in the Appalachians, Mr. NoGood. Like I said, the urban areas are where her support is.

I see you have never been here. Over 61,000 live in that little ole town.

 

[nat4900]

I find it strange of all the people we know few of them support Hillary.

"True"......Trump stated the same after polling his family and campaign manager.

 

[nat4900]

You know, folks...In the O/P the PPP poll did NOT state that SC is for Hillary and I do not believe that in Nov. democrats will win that state...All that the thread implied is that Trump is such a terrible candidate that even in a state such as SC, voters are turned off by the orange clown's demagoguery.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

I never said that, toad. My point is any poll can achieve any desired result (and if you did indeed attend college they teach you that and how it is done) when I see a poll that is paid for by democrats and there is no demographics, you have to email for them, it's dubious at best.

Here's some homework for you, Sassy......

Access PPP's website and check their "testimonials"....most of them are from CONSERVATIVE campaign staffers or politicians, praising PPP's methodology.

So, if PPP polls states such as TX, AL, KS, etc. and shows Trump ahead by a wide margin, we should NOT believe those polls either???

I don't care fool, we are talking about THIS poll, no demos and paid for by dems...what could possibly be raising flags? You idiot

You can't respond to the facts pointed out to you, Miss Lass. All of them are hogwash by you. So going forward we'll call you out if we should see you praising any particular poll between now and November.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

I'm not a fan of any poll much less one that can't even list the demographics in the results.

Here, to "ease" your fears.....From PPP's own website regarding demographics ..

..
Weighting

Accurate polling requires the demographic breakdown of a survey to closely resemble the same breakdown for the population you are trying to measure. By beginning their surveys by asking for the “second oldest woman in the household” or some other criteria, traditional pollsters can manipulate their respondents during a poll in order to reach quotas for demographic groups like gender, race, age, etc. IVR polling does not allow PPP to set quotas beforehand, instead we have to work with the data after our survey. To achieve relatively accurate demographic breakdowns we employ weighting schemes.

Our first step in weighting is to survey more than enough people. This allows us to then be able to randomly reject individual surveys from demographics that are overrepresented. For example, in our polling more women answer relative to men, and not enough African-Americans answer our surveys. Our random selection eliminates any potential bias from the rejections, plus it functions like a quota, only after the fact.

PPP also employs a mathematical weighting scheme that assigns a weight based on each demographic. For example, if a survey is 82% white and 13% black, but needs to be 77% white and 17% black, the weighting formula can fix the imbalance mathematically. We always try to get our numbers as accurate as possible, and our end results are available for all to see and scrutinize. Read more about PPP's track record.

If you are interested in hiring Public Policy Polling or would like a price quote, please contact us by email or by calling 888-621-6988.

Hard to tell how it was "weighted" since they don't give the demos.....which any reputable poll will. Save it moron, this poll is junk

Go to their FAQ page instead of whining the same thing over and over.

 

[whitehall]

An interesting part of the poll indicates that Trump has 77% support of registered republicans while Hillary has 84% support among democrats. That's only a 7% difference. With all the hate speech and the unrelenting left wing propaganda by democrats and their minions in the liberal media you would have assumed that Trump has less than half of republican party's support. It goes to show you how well organized the left wing propaganda network is.

 

[nat4900]

An interesting part of the poll indicates that Trump has 77% support of registered republicans while Hillary has 84% support among democrats. That's only a 7% difference. With all the hate speech and the unrelenting left wing propaganda by democrats and their minions in the liberal media you would have assumed that Trump has less than half of republican party's support. It goes to show you how well organized the left wing propaganda network is.

Well, the "it goes to show" is really only applicable to ultra partisans....like you.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Hard to tell how it was "weighted" since they don't give the demos.....which any reputable poll will. Save it moron, this poll is junk

Fine, Sassy.....believe what you want.....but check your clock...it may be time for your nap.

Again you resort to your middle school BS....so predictable old man

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Objectively, the RNC should tacitly abandon the financial backing of Trump, and utilize its resources toward safeguarding their House and Senate seat

When the thugs who bought Hillary's favors upon her winning find out she loses are going to expect to be refunded their money.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Nate Silver: Public Policy Polling "the biggest herders in the business"

Take a look at this exchange, for example, between The New York Times’ Nate Cohn13 and PPP’s Tom Jensen. Cohn discovered that in 2012, the racial composition of PPP’s polls was correlated in an unusual way with President Obama’s performance among white voters in their surveys. If Obama was performing especially poorly among whites in one PPP poll, it tended to have a higher share of nonwhite voters, which boosted Obama’s result. And if Obama was doing relatively well among whites, PPP projected less nonwhite turnout, keeping his lead in check. As a result, PPP’s polls tended to show an unusually steady race between Obama and Mitt Romney.

According to ole Nate, PPP is absolute bullshit. I mean he is doing that well against democrats in south Carolina....since they polled just democrats....hahah

 

[JimH52]

Nate Silver: Public Policy Polling "the biggest herders in the business"

Take a look at this exchange, for example, between The New York Times’ Nate Cohn13 and PPP’s Tom Jensen. Cohn discovered that in 2012, the racial composition of PPP’s polls was correlated in an unusual way with President Obama’s performance among white voters in their surveys. If Obama was performing especially poorly among whites in one PPP poll, it tended to have a higher share of nonwhite voters, which boosted Obama’s result. And if Obama was doing relatively well among whites, PPP projected less nonwhite turnout, keeping his lead in check. As a result, PPP’s polls tended to show an unusually steady race between Obama and Mitt Romney.

According to ole Nate, PPP is absolute bullshit. I mean he is doing that well against democrats in south Carolina....since they polled just democrats....hahah

Yup, according old Nate Comrade Trump has a 12.2% of winning. Close one, huh?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Nate Silver: Public Policy Polling "the biggest herders in the business"

Take a look at this exchange, for example, between The New York Times’ Nate Cohn13 and PPP’s Tom Jensen. Cohn discovered that in 2012, the racial composition of PPP’s polls was correlated in an unusual way with President Obama’s performance among white voters in their surveys. If Obama was performing especially poorly among whites in one PPP poll, it tended to have a higher share of nonwhite voters, which boosted Obama’s result. And if Obama was doing relatively well among whites, PPP projected less nonwhite turnout, keeping his lead in check. As a result, PPP’s polls tended to show an unusually steady race between Obama and Mitt Romney.

According to ole Nate, PPP is absolute bullshit. I mean he is doing that well against democrats in south Carolina....since they polled just democrats....hahah

Yup, according old Nate Comrade Trump has a 12.2% of winning. Close one, huh?

Nice hijack....we were talking about your bullshit poll

 

[JimH52]

Nate Silver: Public Policy Polling "the biggest herders in the business"

Take a look at this exchange, for example, between The New York Times’ Nate Cohn13 and PPP’s Tom Jensen. Cohn discovered that in 2012, the racial composition of PPP’s polls was correlated in an unusual way with President Obama’s performance among white voters in their surveys. If Obama was performing especially poorly among whites in one PPP poll, it tended to have a higher share of nonwhite voters, which boosted Obama’s result. And if Obama was doing relatively well among whites, PPP projected less nonwhite turnout, keeping his lead in check. As a result, PPP’s polls tended to show an unusually steady race between Obama and Mitt Romney.

According to ole Nate, PPP is absolute bullshit. I mean he is doing that well against democrats in south Carolina....since they polled just democrats....hahah

Yup, according old Nate Comrade Trump has a 12.2% of winning. Close one, huh?

Nice hijack....we were talking about your bullshit poll

Who cares about SC. Comrade Trump is losing the National EV badly. Kind of depressing, huh?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Nate Silver: Public Policy Polling "the biggest herders in the business"

Take a look at this exchange, for example, between The New York Times’ Nate Cohn13 and PPP’s Tom Jensen. Cohn discovered that in 2012, the racial composition of PPP’s polls was correlated in an unusual way with President Obama’s performance among white voters in their surveys. If Obama was performing especially poorly among whites in one PPP poll, it tended to have a higher share of nonwhite voters, which boosted Obama’s result. And if Obama was doing relatively well among whites, PPP projected less nonwhite turnout, keeping his lead in check. As a result, PPP’s polls tended to show an unusually steady race between Obama and Mitt Romney.

According to ole Nate, PPP is absolute bullshit. I mean he is doing that well against democrats in south Carolina....since they polled just democrats....hahah

Yup, according old Nate Comrade Trump has a 12.2% of winning. Close one, huh?

Nice hijack....we were talking about your bullshit poll

Who cares about SC. Comrade Trump is losing the National EV badly. Kind of depressing, huh?

Well start a.thread on.it....this one is.about South Carolina, you can read right?

 

[nat4900]

Who cares about SC. Comrade Trump is losing the National EV badly. Kind of depressing, huh?

My humble prediction is that our "beloved" Trump will NOT reach 200 EV.

 

[JimH52]

Nate Silver: Public Policy Polling "the biggest herders in the business"

Take a look at this exchange, for example, between The New York Times’ Nate Cohn13 and PPP’s Tom Jensen. Cohn discovered that in 2012, the racial composition of PPP’s polls was correlated in an unusual way with President Obama’s performance among white voters in their surveys. If Obama was performing especially poorly among whites in one PPP poll, it tended to have a higher share of nonwhite voters, which boosted Obama’s result. And if Obama was doing relatively well among whites, PPP projected less nonwhite turnout, keeping his lead in check. As a result, PPP’s polls tended to show an unusually steady race between Obama and Mitt Romney.

According to ole Nate, PPP is absolute bullshit. I mean he is doing that well against democrats in south Carolina....since they polled just democrats....hahah

Yup, according old Nate Comrade Trump has a 12.2% of winning. Close one, huh?

Nice hijack....we were talking about your bullshit poll

Who cares about SC. Comrade Trump is losing the National EV badly. Kind of depressing, huh?

Well start a.thread on.it....this one is.about South Carolina, you can read right?

Whatever helps you sleep at nights...

 

[JimH52]

Who cares about SC. Comrade Trump is losing the National EV badly. Kind of depressing, huh?

My humble prediction is that our "beloved" Trump will NOT reach 200 EV.

Maybe he can be President of South Carolina?

 

[nat4900]

Maybe he can be President of South Carolina?

....but only if the state agrees to change that palmetto tree in its flag with the Trump logo.

 

[SmokeALib]

Colorado is gone, Virginia is gone, the window is closing for Trump.

Jeez. Both are forgone conclusions. Colorado being nothing but government-run national parks and doped up sheep; VA gets 4/5tv's of its voting base from the government leeches in the northern tier surrounding DC.
No way pantsuit takes Texas imo.
The 2 states that will determine this election are Ohio and Florida. If Trump can't take both, he loses. If he wins both, then he's President Trump. IMHO.
I hate the way we elect POTUS.