JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,798
- 2,220
This is a good poll that publishes all their criteria, methodology and demographics used.
It has good break downs by age, race, etc, and then gives the information on how they got their numbers and then derived their percentages from it.
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
Now it shows the Presidential race tightening, as does this poll as well, but this will provoke another round of Democrat sponsored morale building polls that will show Hillary at a double digit leads and restack her stats on the RealClearPolitics running average, lol.
From the LA Times poll:
The USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll asks more than 400 people each day about their voting intentions. The poll is part of the Understanding America Study (UAS) at the University of Southern California's Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research.
Each day's poll respondents are a subset of the UAS election panel, roughly 3000 U.S. citizens who were randomly recruited from among all households in the United States. Respondents are asked three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that (1) you will vote in the presidential election? (2) you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else? and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win?
Results are weighted to match demographic characteristics, such as race and gender, from the U.S. Census Current Population Survey, and are aligned to the 2012 presidential election outcome using self-reported votes in that election.
These charts are updated daily (just after midnight) with an average of all of the prior week's responses.
Now the real key item to look at here are the methods they use to demographically 'balance' their results.
So they take the data they have and where there are more Republicans in it percentage wise than voted in 2012, they toss out a bunch of them till they have the numbers reflected in the 2012 turnout.
But which Republicans get tossed? Are they tossing out traditional conservatives that would vote for Trump or are they tossing Romney Republicans who would never vote Trump? We dont know that, but if you think that they dont care and it is just a random culling of over-represented GOP, then you need to put down the crack pipe and read up on these bastards a little more often.
All these polled people are broken down into detailed demographic analysis by zip code and they stack the deck to favor their own perception of what the reality is among voters out there, and this is heavily influenced by their own private lives and the opinions expressed among those they know. Since the media industry is heavily leftwing ideologically, we know what that perception is, dont we?
They have detailed zip code analysis of every zip code area of the country, and they know the demographics of these areas and whether they have peculiarities that differentiate them from other similar Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, or moderates, and this gives them more tools for 'sampling' to get the results that they want.
So if there are 156 Republicans out of 400 in the total sample, which is the 39% Pew shows people self identify as GOP, but this is more than the 32% that represented the GOP in the exit polls for the 2012 election, which would give us a target of 128 Republicans for the survey/poll. So 28 Republican polled samples are tossed, and who gets tossed is often determined by their zip code if other questions are asked in the survey and there usually are.
So to shore up the results of the other issue results to reflect what they think is more representative of the public, they toss out the poll samples of people from the "Crazy" more conservative zip codes and keep the more liberal ones. thus we get amazing polling numbers like 51% of people who attend Trump rallies are not going to vote for Trump, and 80% of Catholics support Abortion on Demand and similar nonsense.
Now the people running the polls are not thinking that they are trying to skewer the poll results usually, they think that they are correcting randomly bad samples using statistical methods to reflect society as they personally perceive it. And since they live around and among 99% libtard sheep skinned morons they think that they have to push the sampling further to the left every time.
This is why these polls are so unreliable and no longer really reflect the broad American public but only the liberal half of the spectrum that is left of Hillary Clinton.
Now there are also other factors that skewer polls to the left, such as people being too afraid or ashamed to express their real intentions. These poor folks know that if it gets out that they really plan to vote for Trump they will have huge arguments and lose respect among their friends and maybe even their own family and spouse or even lose their jobs if these people get wind of it. So when speaking over the phone to a pollster and a friend/family member is within ear shot, it is "Hell no! I would never vote for Trump!" to the pollster but when they eventually get in the booth and vote for Trump.
I saw a discussion of this effect whose name I cannot remember, and they sampled some voters with a show of hands as to how many planned to vote for Hillary or Trump and it was something along the lines of 50% for Hillary and 40% for Trump. Then at the end of the documentary and discussion (the discussion had nothing to do with politics, AIUI) they passed around a secret ballot and this time they got over 50% for Trump and low 40's for Hillary. This represents about a 5% slice of the public that is intimidated by the Democrat thuggery, but will still vote for Trump when they have a secret ballot.
Then there is the "Registered voter" vrs "Likely Voter" skewering of the samples. A large number of Trump supporters, about 10% of the broader vote, are first time voters and are not yet registered. So you get a huge shift toward Trump when you poll Likely voters instead of Registered voters. Normally Registered voters are far more likely to vote and "likely" voters are not really so likely to vote as they may think today. But with Trump they have been showing up to the polls and casting their votes in record numbers for the GOP.
So while in previous elections Registered voters gave a more reliable result, this year I think an average of the registered voters and the likely voters is more realistic. Both of the last two factors suggest that there is very likely anywhere from 5% to 15% of the vote for Trump support hidden from the LA Times polls and other polls, and thus when you see these polls, adding 5% to Trump and reducing Clinton's results by 5% is a reasonable adjustment to bad sampling adjustments by the polling companies.
Combining the bad polling with the trends for Trump overall, and I think this election is in the bag for Trump, if he can keep his team encouraged, motivated and effectively organized to get out the vote for him that is embedded in the public and ignored by the media.
But this LA Times poll is a great specific example of why the polls should not discourage any Trump supporters at this time. It certainly should not discourage Trump supporters from going out and voting.
It has good break downs by age, race, etc, and then gives the information on how they got their numbers and then derived their percentages from it.
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
Now it shows the Presidential race tightening, as does this poll as well, but this will provoke another round of Democrat sponsored morale building polls that will show Hillary at a double digit leads and restack her stats on the RealClearPolitics running average, lol.
From the LA Times poll:
The USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Presidential Election "Daybreak" Poll asks more than 400 people each day about their voting intentions. The poll is part of the Understanding America Study (UAS) at the University of Southern California's Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research.
Each day's poll respondents are a subset of the UAS election panel, roughly 3000 U.S. citizens who were randomly recruited from among all households in the United States. Respondents are asked three predictive questions: What is the percent chance that (1) you will vote in the presidential election? (2) you will vote for Clinton, Trump, or someone else? and (3) Clinton, Trump or someone else will win?
Results are weighted to match demographic characteristics, such as race and gender, from the U.S. Census Current Population Survey, and are aligned to the 2012 presidential election outcome using self-reported votes in that election.
These charts are updated daily (just after midnight) with an average of all of the prior week's responses.
Now the real key item to look at here are the methods they use to demographically 'balance' their results.
So they take the data they have and where there are more Republicans in it percentage wise than voted in 2012, they toss out a bunch of them till they have the numbers reflected in the 2012 turnout.
But which Republicans get tossed? Are they tossing out traditional conservatives that would vote for Trump or are they tossing Romney Republicans who would never vote Trump? We dont know that, but if you think that they dont care and it is just a random culling of over-represented GOP, then you need to put down the crack pipe and read up on these bastards a little more often.
All these polled people are broken down into detailed demographic analysis by zip code and they stack the deck to favor their own perception of what the reality is among voters out there, and this is heavily influenced by their own private lives and the opinions expressed among those they know. Since the media industry is heavily leftwing ideologically, we know what that perception is, dont we?
They have detailed zip code analysis of every zip code area of the country, and they know the demographics of these areas and whether they have peculiarities that differentiate them from other similar Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, or moderates, and this gives them more tools for 'sampling' to get the results that they want.
So if there are 156 Republicans out of 400 in the total sample, which is the 39% Pew shows people self identify as GOP, but this is more than the 32% that represented the GOP in the exit polls for the 2012 election, which would give us a target of 128 Republicans for the survey/poll. So 28 Republican polled samples are tossed, and who gets tossed is often determined by their zip code if other questions are asked in the survey and there usually are.
So to shore up the results of the other issue results to reflect what they think is more representative of the public, they toss out the poll samples of people from the "Crazy" more conservative zip codes and keep the more liberal ones. thus we get amazing polling numbers like 51% of people who attend Trump rallies are not going to vote for Trump, and 80% of Catholics support Abortion on Demand and similar nonsense.
Now the people running the polls are not thinking that they are trying to skewer the poll results usually, they think that they are correcting randomly bad samples using statistical methods to reflect society as they personally perceive it. And since they live around and among 99% libtard sheep skinned morons they think that they have to push the sampling further to the left every time.
This is why these polls are so unreliable and no longer really reflect the broad American public but only the liberal half of the spectrum that is left of Hillary Clinton.
Now there are also other factors that skewer polls to the left, such as people being too afraid or ashamed to express their real intentions. These poor folks know that if it gets out that they really plan to vote for Trump they will have huge arguments and lose respect among their friends and maybe even their own family and spouse or even lose their jobs if these people get wind of it. So when speaking over the phone to a pollster and a friend/family member is within ear shot, it is "Hell no! I would never vote for Trump!" to the pollster but when they eventually get in the booth and vote for Trump.
I saw a discussion of this effect whose name I cannot remember, and they sampled some voters with a show of hands as to how many planned to vote for Hillary or Trump and it was something along the lines of 50% for Hillary and 40% for Trump. Then at the end of the documentary and discussion (the discussion had nothing to do with politics, AIUI) they passed around a secret ballot and this time they got over 50% for Trump and low 40's for Hillary. This represents about a 5% slice of the public that is intimidated by the Democrat thuggery, but will still vote for Trump when they have a secret ballot.
Then there is the "Registered voter" vrs "Likely Voter" skewering of the samples. A large number of Trump supporters, about 10% of the broader vote, are first time voters and are not yet registered. So you get a huge shift toward Trump when you poll Likely voters instead of Registered voters. Normally Registered voters are far more likely to vote and "likely" voters are not really so likely to vote as they may think today. But with Trump they have been showing up to the polls and casting their votes in record numbers for the GOP.
So while in previous elections Registered voters gave a more reliable result, this year I think an average of the registered voters and the likely voters is more realistic. Both of the last two factors suggest that there is very likely anywhere from 5% to 15% of the vote for Trump support hidden from the LA Times polls and other polls, and thus when you see these polls, adding 5% to Trump and reducing Clinton's results by 5% is a reasonable adjustment to bad sampling adjustments by the polling companies.
Combining the bad polling with the trends for Trump overall, and I think this election is in the bag for Trump, if he can keep his team encouraged, motivated and effectively organized to get out the vote for him that is embedded in the public and ignored by the media.
But this LA Times poll is a great specific example of why the polls should not discourage any Trump supporters at this time. It certainly should not discourage Trump supporters from going out and voting.
Last edited:
