Conservatives continue to worship pollster who predicted Romney would beat Obama

[Redfish]

[
The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). .

No, they don't claim that.

Bullshit, that's exactly how they justify using such tiny samples.

 

[Redfish]

Yep...everything is wonderfignorant,only Obama the Great could rule forever.

But I'm curious......how many votes did you cast for Scrub (or any other Supply Side Charlatan) before you discovered your inner "Libertarian/Anarchist"?

There is little difference between schrub and big ears. Both are welfare warfare progressive statists, who regularly spit on the Constitution.

It is telling that so many Americans are so ignorant they can't see this irrefutable truth.

I guess you can't see the Irony of taking your handle from a guy who tripled the Federal Debt....

Obama has added 10 trillion to the national debt. How much did Reagan add?

lol

answer the question. how many dollars did Reagan and Obama add to the national debt during their 8 years? Which president added the most to the debt? Which one added more than all of his predecessors, combined?

 

[airplanemechanic]

Wow, major deflection going on. Rasmussen sucks, it's documented. And as pointed out, Gallup sucked in 2012 as well. Nobody who looked at ALL the polls in 2012 thought Romney was going to win.

Memories...


And you numb nuts are doing it again.

Just like most liberals, selective memory

 

[saveliberty]

Rasmussen is the polling equivalent of Fox media. When they call you to survey, they ask three questions before proceeding. The first question: is the earth flat, next they ask if you have ever been taken up in an alien spaceship, and finally they ask if you have seen Bigfoot recently? If you don't answer 'yes' to all three questions they skip over you as you are too bright for a Rasmussen poll. Rasmussen is pure junk, that anyone follows them is a clear indicator of partisan insanity syndrome.

The Rasmussen Problem

Note about Rasmussen

Pollster.com - Political Surveys and Election Polls, Trends, Charts and Analysis

.

Talk about a partisan hack...layoff the koolaid midcan5.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). That is simply not possible. There are many more than 1000 different demographics in the USA, so even using one from each demographic would not be statistically meaningful.

Its a game, play it if you like, but you would be better off at the roulette wheel.

Why then do the polls get almost elections within a few points or less?

I already explained that. the polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it. they are part of the propaganda machine that you fools are taken in by.

lol, sheer nonsense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But I'm curious......how many votes did you cast for Scrub (or any other Supply Side Charlatan) before you discovered your inner "Libertarian/Anarchist"?

There is little difference between schrub and big ears. Both are welfare warfare progressive statists, who regularly spit on the Constitution.

It is telling that so many Americans are so ignorant they can't see this irrefutable truth.

I guess you can't see the Irony of taking your handle from a guy who tripled the Federal Debt....

Obama has added 10 trillion to the national debt. How much did Reagan add?

lol

answer the question. how many dollars did Reagan and Obama add to the national debt during their 8 years? Which president added the most to the debt? Which one added more than all of his predecessors, combined?

Presidents don't 'add debt'.

 

[HappyJoy]

All polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it.

Pay me to do a poll, tell me what result you want and I will find a "random sample" to support that result.

Its a game, people. wake up.

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). That is simply not possible. There are many more than 1000 different demographics in the USA, so even using one from each demographic would not be statistically meaningful.

Its a game, play it if you like, but you would be better off at the roulette wheel.

Yeah, you're a statistics guru who thinks 330,000,000 million Americans vote, let alone are eligible to. Nate Silver got it right in 2012 where as you apparently just threw up your arms and said "who knows? Not I."

 

[Kosh]

There is little difference between schrub and big ears. Both are welfare warfare progressive statists, who regularly spit on the Constitution.

It is telling that so many Americans are so ignorant they can't see this irrefutable truth.

I guess you can't see the Irony of taking your handle from a guy who tripled the Federal Debt....

Obama has added 10 trillion to the national debt. How much did Reagan add?

lol

answer the question. how many dollars did Reagan and Obama add to the national debt during their 8 years? Which president added the most to the debt? Which one added more than all of his predecessors, combined?

Presidents don't 'add debt'.

Silly far left drone!

Every time they sign a spending bill, yes they do!

Another far left done proving they do not understand the Constitution..

 

[HappyJoy]

Wow, major deflection going on. Rasmussen sucks, it's documented. And as pointed out, Gallup sucked in 2012 as well. Nobody who looked at ALL the polls in 2012 thought Romney was going to win.

Memories...


And you numb nuts are doing it again.

Just like most liberals, selective memory

Yeah, and? I almost posted that video as well. Dick "the dick" Morris decided to ignore what the polls were saying and skewed up his own results. Most Reputable pollsters right, pudgy toe-sucking wingnut wrong.

 

[auditor0007]

It is so cute to watch the far left drones actually believe they get a choice in their nominations..

Well, it is true that we only have two choices this time around, but the truth is that those two choices are both far superior to anything from the other side. I mean seriously, it looks like your choice is going to be "The Donald".

 

[Redfish]

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). That is simply not possible. There are many more than 1000 different demographics in the USA, so even using one from each demographic would not be statistically meaningful.

Its a game, play it if you like, but you would be better off at the roulette wheel.

Why then do the polls get almost elections within a few points or less?

I already explained that. the polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it. they are part of the propaganda machine that you fools are taken in by.

lol, sheer nonsense.

no, its fact. ignore at your peril

 

[Redfish]

All polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it.

Pay me to do a poll, tell me what result you want and I will find a "random sample" to support that result.

Its a game, people. wake up.

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). That is simply not possible. There are many more than 1000 different demographics in the USA, so even using one from each demographic would not be statistically meaningful.

Its a game, play it if you like, but you would be better off at the roulette wheel.

Yeah, you're a statistics guru who thinks 330,000,000 million Americans vote, let alone are eligible to. Nate Silver got it right in 2012 where as you apparently just threw up your arms and said "who knows? Not I."

I never said that the pollsters don't sometimes get it right. I just said that the polls are statistical bullshit. Believe them if you want. I really don't care what you believe.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). That is simply not possible. There are many more than 1000 different demographics in the USA, so even using one from each demographic would not be statistically meaningful.

Its a game, play it if you like, but you would be better off at the roulette wheel.

Why then do the polls get almost elections within a few points or less?

I already explained that. the polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it. they are part of the propaganda machine that you fools are taken in by.

lol, sheer nonsense.

no, its fact. ignore at your peril

Then tell us in detail who or what Rasmussen is trying to influence with the poll results they are currently putting out.

 

[Redfish]

There is little difference between schrub and big ears. Both are welfare warfare progressive statists, who regularly spit on the Constitution.

It is telling that so many Americans are so ignorant they can't see this irrefutable truth.

I guess you can't see the Irony of taking your handle from a guy who tripled the Federal Debt....

Obama has added 10 trillion to the national debt. How much did Reagan add?

lol

answer the question. how many dollars did Reagan and Obama add to the national debt during their 8 years? Which president added the most to the debt? Which one added more than all of his predecessors, combined?

Presidents don't 'add debt'.

If its added during their terms, they get the credit or blame. That's the way it works.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). That is simply not possible. There are many more than 1000 different demographics in the USA, so even using one from each demographic would not be statistically meaningful.

Its a game, play it if you like, but you would be better off at the roulette wheel.

Yeah, you're a statistics guru who thinks 330,000,000 million Americans vote, let alone are eligible to. Nate Silver got it right in 2012 where as you apparently just threw up your arms and said "who knows? Not I."

I never said that the pollsters don't sometimes get it right. I just said that the polls are statistical bullshit. Believe them if you want. I really don't care what you believe.

You know less about polls than you do about Muslims.

 

[Redfish]

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). That is simply not possible. There are many more than 1000 different demographics in the USA, so even using one from each demographic would not be statistically meaningful.

Its a game, play it if you like, but you would be better off at the roulette wheel.

Why then do the polls get almost elections within a few points or less?

I already explained that. the polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it. they are part of the propaganda machine that you fools are taken in by.

lol, sheer nonsense.

no, its fact. ignore at your peril

Then tell us in detail who or what Rasmussen is trying to influence with the poll results they are currently putting out.

are you really so naïve that you have to ask that? Do you think they are trying to get republicans to vote for Bush in the primaries? WTF do you think they are trying to do?

Damn you libs are dumb.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I guess you can't see the Irony of taking your handle from a guy who tripled the Federal Debt....

Obama has added 10 trillion to the national debt. How much did Reagan add?

lol

answer the question. how many dollars did Reagan and Obama add to the national debt during their 8 years? Which president added the most to the debt? Which one added more than all of his predecessors, combined?

Presidents don't 'add debt'.

If its added during their terms, they get the credit or blame. That's the way it works.

They wrongly get the credit or blame.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why then do the polls get almost elections within a few points or less?

I already explained that. the polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it. they are part of the propaganda machine that you fools are taken in by.

lol, sheer nonsense.

no, its fact. ignore at your peril

Then tell us in detail who or what Rasmussen is trying to influence with the poll results they are currently putting out.

are you really so naïve that you have to ask that? Do you think they are trying to get republicans to vote for Bush in the primaries? WTF do you think they are trying to do?

Damn you libs are dumb.

So, as usual, you can't answer the question. You have NOTHING to support your claim.

 

[Redfish]

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). That is simply not possible. There are many more than 1000 different demographics in the USA, so even using one from each demographic would not be statistically meaningful.

Its a game, play it if you like, but you would be better off at the roulette wheel.

Yeah, you're a statistics guru who thinks 330,000,000 million Americans vote, let alone are eligible to. Nate Silver got it right in 2012 where as you apparently just threw up your arms and said "who knows? Not I."

I never said that the pollsters don't sometimes get it right. I just said that the polls are statistical bullshit. Believe them if you want. I really don't care what you believe.

You know less about polls than you do about Muslims.

LOL, I know vastly more about both of those topics than you ever will. You are a puppet of your left wing handlers, you are an unthinking sheep.

 

[HappyJoy]

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

That would be very wrong. I am quite sure that I understand the math of statistics much better than you do.

Go to your local library and check out a stat 101 textbook and look up representative sampling.

The pollsters are scamming you with their bullshit that their tiny samples proportionally represent every demographic in the USA.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

The pollsters claim that their 1000 sample proportionally represents every demographic in America (330,000,000 people). That is simply not possible. There are many more than 1000 different demographics in the USA, so even using one from each demographic would not be statistically meaningful.

Its a game, play it if you like, but you would be better off at the roulette wheel.

Yeah, you're a statistics guru who thinks 330,000,000 million Americans vote, let alone are eligible to. Nate Silver got it right in 2012 where as you apparently just threw up your arms and said "who knows? Not I."

I never said that the pollsters don't sometimes get it right. I just said that the polls are statistical bullshit. Believe them if you want. I really don't care what you believe.

Sometimes? Some polls get it mostly right, others don't. Some polls (like the WND one in another thread) are designed to influence opinion. You have to follow their past performance and there are quite a few who get it right often.

And why would anyone care what you believe? You've closed yourself off of the only valuable statistical resource for who is leading in any given race.