Debunking the national polls that COMPLETELY CONTRADICT state polling (AP, ABC, USA Today)

[AceRothstein]

Here's what people do not understand. The ONLY way Hillary wins is if she gets a BETTER D+ turnout than Obama did in 2008 and.... AND Republicans don't show up at the polls.(which isn't the case since the primaries reflect record turnout)

What no one is saying is that the pollsters are weighing the samples as if Clinton is going to have a "Obama turnout" at the polls. They are not weighting the polls to reflect that Republicans have turned out enmasse during the primaries and the Dem turnout dropped off. That is a critical mistake. Add to that the people that are afraid to say they support Trump, which is probably a very very large amount of people <<<these people will close the curtain and 'pull the lever' for Trump.

The media and Dems are going to be shocked come November 8.....they don't see it coming and haven't taken the time to dive into what they are doing with the polls.

Primary election turnout does not correlate to general election turnout. And polls don't weight by party, the good ones at least.

 

[cereal_killer]

Here's what people do not understand. The ONLY way Hillary wins is if she gets a BETTER D+ turnout than Obama did in 2008 and.... AND Republicans don't show up at the polls.(which isn't the case since the primaries reflect record turnout)

What no one is saying is that the pollsters are weighing the samples as if Clinton is going to have a "Obama turnout" at the polls. They are not weighting the polls to reflect that Republicans have turned out enmasse during the primaries and the Dem turnout dropped off. That is a critical mistake. Add to that the people that are afraid to say they support Trump, which is probably a very very large amount of people <<<these people will close the curtain and 'pull the lever' for Trump.

The media and Dems are going to be shocked come November 8.....they don't see it coming and haven't taken the time to dive into what they are doing with the polls.

Primary election turnout does not correlate to general election turnout. And polls don't weight by party, the good ones at least.

They most certainly do and they weigh/sample the polls accordingly. They did it with Obama in 2012 (rightfully so). Are you aware that a few polls have taken a R+1 sample and then changed it to Dem+8 and +4? Whats the reason for that? Explain why some polls that sample Dem+1 or 0 then sample more women or blacks or college educated or other?

These are things that are happening all the time. Can you explain why? Can you explain why every poll that's randomly taken has consistently more Dems or other demographics that favor Clinton? How can that be?

Imagine if a poll that came out sampled Republicans at +1 or greater. The internetz would explode with "What BS is this!!?" "BS poll!!!!" etc etc

 

[AceRothstein]

Here's what people do not understand. The ONLY way Hillary wins is if she gets a BETTER D+ turnout than Obama did in 2008 and.... AND Republicans don't show up at the polls.(which isn't the case since the primaries reflect record turnout)

What no one is saying is that the pollsters are weighing the samples as if Clinton is going to have a "Obama turnout" at the polls. They are not weighting the polls to reflect that Republicans have turned out enmasse during the primaries and the Dem turnout dropped off. That is a critical mistake. Add to that the people that are afraid to say they support Trump, which is probably a very very large amount of people <<<these people will close the curtain and 'pull the lever' for Trump.

The media and Dems are going to be shocked come November 8.....they don't see it coming and haven't taken the time to dive into what they are doing with the polls.

Primary election turnout does not correlate to general election turnout. And polls don't weight by party, the good ones at least.

They most certainly do and they weigh/sample the polls accordingly. They did it with Obama in 2012 (rightfully so). Are you aware that a few polls have taken a R+1 sample and then changed it to Dem+8 and +4? Whats the reason for that? Explain why some polls that sample Dem+1 or 0 then sample more women or blacks or college educated or other?

These are things that are happening all the time. Can you explain why? Can you explain why every poll that's randomly taken has consistently more Dems or other demographics that favor Clinton? How can that be?

Imagine if a poll that came out sampled Republicans at +1 or greater. The internetz would explode with "What BS is this!!?" "BS poll!!!!" etc etc

Because polls sample, and weight if necessary, by demographics such as sex, race and age. So if a poll has a R+1 sample but is weighted by other demographics to hit targeted voter turnout then you end up with the Dem +4 or Dem +8. The electorate has been trending less white for 30+ by a few percentage points every Presidential Election, there is no reason to think that won't continue this year.

 

[cereal_killer]

Here's what people do not understand. The ONLY way Hillary wins is if she gets a BETTER D+ turnout than Obama did in 2008 and.... AND Republicans don't show up at the polls.(which isn't the case since the primaries reflect record turnout)

What no one is saying is that the pollsters are weighing the samples as if Clinton is going to have a "Obama turnout" at the polls. They are not weighting the polls to reflect that Republicans have turned out enmasse during the primaries and the Dem turnout dropped off. That is a critical mistake. Add to that the people that are afraid to say they support Trump, which is probably a very very large amount of people <<<these people will close the curtain and 'pull the lever' for Trump.

The media and Dems are going to be shocked come November 8.....they don't see it coming and haven't taken the time to dive into what they are doing with the polls.

Primary election turnout does not correlate to general election turnout. And polls don't weight by party, the good ones at least.

They most certainly do and they weigh/sample the polls accordingly. They did it with Obama in 2012 (rightfully so). Are you aware that a few polls have taken a R+1 sample and then changed it to Dem+8 and +4? Whats the reason for that? Explain why some polls that sample Dem+1 or 0 then sample more women or blacks or college educated or other?

These are things that are happening all the time. Can you explain why? Can you explain why every poll that's randomly taken has consistently more Dems or other demographics that favor Clinton? How can that be?

Imagine if a poll that came out sampled Republicans at +1 or greater. The internetz would explode with "What BS is this!!?" "BS poll!!!!" etc etc

Because polls sample, and weight if necessary, by demographics such as sex, race and age. So if a poll has a R+1 sample but is weighted by other demographics to hit targeted voter turnout then you end up with the Dem +4 or Dem +8. The electorate has been trending less white for 30+ by a few percentage points every Presidential Election, there is no reason to think that won't continue this year.

You're making my point. They are using the 2012 Obama turnout which will turn out WAY higher than Clintons. Democrats aren't getting to the polls like they were. They are down by 4.5M people since 2008. Thats a 20% decrease. The tables have turned (Repubs getting out to vote at record numbers, while Dems cool off) and the pollsters aren't even taking this into account. Again, that is a critical mistake. You have to see and acknowledge that. It only makes sense.

Can you explain how the Washington Post can have her up by 12 points and 72 hours, yes HOURS, later she's only up by 6? I mean really Ace?. Don't you find that a little "weird"?

 

[AceRothstein]

Here's what people do not understand. The ONLY way Hillary wins is if she gets a BETTER D+ turnout than Obama did in 2008 and.... AND Republicans don't show up at the polls.(which isn't the case since the primaries reflect record turnout)

What no one is saying is that the pollsters are weighing the samples as if Clinton is going to have a "Obama turnout" at the polls. They are not weighting the polls to reflect that Republicans have turned out enmasse during the primaries and the Dem turnout dropped off. That is a critical mistake. Add to that the people that are afraid to say they support Trump, which is probably a very very large amount of people <<<these people will close the curtain and 'pull the lever' for Trump.

The media and Dems are going to be shocked come November 8.....they don't see it coming and haven't taken the time to dive into what they are doing with the polls.

Primary election turnout does not correlate to general election turnout. And polls don't weight by party, the good ones at least.

They most certainly do and they weigh/sample the polls accordingly. They did it with Obama in 2012 (rightfully so). Are you aware that a few polls have taken a R+1 sample and then changed it to Dem+8 and +4? Whats the reason for that? Explain Awhy some polls that sample Dem+1 or 0 then sample more women or blacks or college educated or other?

These are things that are happening all the time. Can you explain why? Can you explain why every poll that's randomly taken has consistently more Dems or other demographics that favor Clinton? How can that be?

Imagine if a poll that came out sampled Republicans at +1 or greater. The internetz would explode with "What BS is this!!?" "BS poll!!!!" etc etc

Because polls sample, and weight if necessary, by demographics such as sex, race and age. So if a poll has a R+1 sample but is weighted by other demographics to hit targeted voter turnout then you end up with the Dem +4 or Dem +8. The electorate has been trending less white for 30+ by a few percentage points every Presidential Election, there is no reason to think that won't continue this year.

You're making my point. They are using the 2012 Obama turnout which will turn out WAY higher than Clintons. Democrats aren't getting to the polls like they were. They are down by 4.5M people since 2008. Thats a 20% decrease. The tables have turned (Repubs getting out to vote at record numbers, while Dems cool off) and the pollsters aren't even taking this into account. Again, that is a critical mistake. You have to see and acknowledge that. It only makes sense.

Can you explain how the Washington Post can have her up by 12 points and 72 hours, yes HOURS, later she's only up by 6? I mean really Ace?. Don't you find that a little "weird"?

Again, primary turnout has no bearing on general election turnout. You're also making a huge assumption that all of the votes for the other Republican candidates are going to go to Trump.

Some polls are just bad, that's why they poll every few days. She was probably never actually up 12 which is why looking at aggregates is usually pretty smart as their are outliers on both sides of the spectrum. She's probably up somewhere in the 5-7 range right now which is enough to get her 330-350 EVs.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Trump is losing the election badly

 

[cereal_killer]

Here's what people do not understand. The ONLY way Hillary wins is if she gets a BETTER D+ turnout than Obama did in 2008 and.... AND Republicans don't show up at the polls.(which isn't the case since the primaries reflect record turnout)

What no one is saying is that the pollsters are weighing the samples as if Clinton is going to have a "Obama turnout" at the polls. They are not weighting the polls to reflect that Republicans have turned out enmasse during the primaries and the Dem turnout dropped off. That is a critical mistake. Add to that the people that are afraid to say they support Trump, which is probably a very very large amount of people <<<these people will close the curtain and 'pull the lever' for Trump.

The media and Dems are going to be shocked come November 8.....they don't see it coming and haven't taken the time to dive into what they are doing with the polls.

Primary election turnout does not correlate to general election turnout. And polls don't weight by party, the good ones at least.

They most certainly do and they weigh/sample the polls accordingly. They did it with Obama in 2012 (rightfully so). Are you aware that a few polls have taken a R+1 sample and then changed it to Dem+8 and +4? Whats the reason for that? Explain Awhy some polls that sample Dem+1 or 0 then sample more women or blacks or college educated or other?

These are things that are happening all the time. Can you explain why? Can you explain why every poll that's randomly taken has consistently more Dems or other demographics that favor Clinton? How can that be?

Imagine if a poll that came out sampled Republicans at +1 or greater. The internetz would explode with "What BS is this!!?" "BS poll!!!!" etc etc

Because polls sample, and weight if necessary, by demographics such as sex, race and age. So if a poll has a R+1 sample but is weighted by other demographics to hit targeted voter turnout then you end up with the Dem +4 or Dem +8. The electorate has been trending less white for 30+ by a few percentage points every Presidential Election, there is no reason to think that won't continue this year.

You're making my point. They are using the 2012 Obama turnout which will turn out WAY higher than Clintons. Democrats aren't getting to the polls like they were. They are down by 4.5M people since 2008. Thats a 20% decrease. The tables have turned (Repubs getting out to vote at record numbers, while Dems cool off) and the pollsters aren't even taking this into account. Again, that is a critical mistake. You have to see and acknowledge that. It only makes sense.

Can you explain how the Washington Post can have her up by 12 points and 72 hours, yes HOURS, later she's only up by 6? I mean really Ace?. Don't you find that a little "weird"?

Again, primary turnout has no bearing on general election turnout. You're also making a huge assumption that all of the votes for the other Republican candidates are going to go to Trump.

Some polls are just bad, that's why they poll every few days. She was probably never actually up 12 which is why looking at aggregates is usually pretty smart as their are outliers on both sides of the spectrum. She's probably up somewhere in the 5-7 range right now which is enough to get her 330-350 EVs.

If Primary turnout has no bearing on GE turnout why do they consistently use it for polling? It's a good gauge, thats why they use it.

So you're telling me the electorate is going to be Dem +8 this election? Really?

 

[HappyJoy]

Primary election turnout does not correlate to general election turnout. And polls don't weight by party, the good ones at least.

They most certainly do and they weigh/sample the polls accordingly. They did it with Obama in 2012 (rightfully so). Are you aware that a few polls have taken a R+1 sample and then changed it to Dem+8 and +4? Whats the reason for that? Explain Awhy some polls that sample Dem+1 or 0 then sample more women or blacks or college educated or other?

These are things that are happening all the time. Can you explain why? Can you explain why every poll that's randomly taken has consistently more Dems or other demographics that favor Clinton? How can that be?

Imagine if a poll that came out sampled Republicans at +1 or greater. The internetz would explode with "What BS is this!!?" "BS poll!!!!" etc etc

Because polls sample, and weight if necessary, by demographics such as sex, race and age. So if a poll has a R+1 sample but is weighted by other demographics to hit targeted voter turnout then you end up with the Dem +4 or Dem +8. The electorate has been trending less white for 30+ by a few percentage points every Presidential Election, there is no reason to think that won't continue this year.

You're making my point. They are using the 2012 Obama turnout which will turn out WAY higher than Clintons. Democrats aren't getting to the polls like they were. They are down by 4.5M people since 2008. Thats a 20% decrease. The tables have turned (Repubs getting out to vote at record numbers, while Dems cool off) and the pollsters aren't even taking this into account. Again, that is a critical mistake. You have to see and acknowledge that. It only makes sense.

Can you explain how the Washington Post can have her up by 12 points and 72 hours, yes HOURS, later she's only up by 6? I mean really Ace?. Don't you find that a little "weird"?

Again, primary turnout has no bearing on general election turnout. You're also making a huge assumption that all of the votes for the other Republican candidates are going to go to Trump.

Some polls are just bad, that's why they poll every few days. She was probably never actually up 12 which is why looking at aggregates is usually pretty smart as their are outliers on both sides of the spectrum. She's probably up somewhere in the 5-7 range right now which is enough to get her 330-350 EVs.

If Primary turnout has no bearing on GE turnout why do they consistently use it for polling? It's a good gauge, thats why they use it.

So you're telling me the electorate is going to be Dem +8 this election? Really?

Do they consistently use it for polling?

 

[cereal_killer]

They most certainly do and they weigh/sample the polls accordingly. They did it with Obama in 2012 (rightfully so). Are you aware that a few polls have taken a R+1 sample and then changed it to Dem+8 and +4? Whats the reason for that? Explain Awhy some polls that sample Dem+1 or 0 then sample more women or blacks or college educated or other?

These are things that are happening all the time. Can you explain why? Can you explain why every poll that's randomly taken has consistently more Dems or other demographics that favor Clinton? How can that be?

Imagine if a poll that came out sampled Republicans at +1 or greater. The internetz would explode with "What BS is this!!?" "BS poll!!!!" etc etc

Because polls sample, and weight if necessary, by demographics such as sex, race and age. So if a poll has a R+1 sample but is weighted by other demographics to hit targeted voter turnout then you end up with the Dem +4 or Dem +8. The electorate has been trending less white for 30+ by a few percentage points every Presidential Election, there is no reason to think that won't continue this year.

You're making my point. They are using the 2012 Obama turnout which will turn out WAY higher than Clintons. Democrats aren't getting to the polls like they were. They are down by 4.5M people since 2008. Thats a 20% decrease. The tables have turned (Repubs getting out to vote at record numbers, while Dems cool off) and the pollsters aren't even taking this into account. Again, that is a critical mistake. You have to see and acknowledge that. It only makes sense.

Can you explain how the Washington Post can have her up by 12 points and 72 hours, yes HOURS, later she's only up by 6? I mean really Ace?. Don't you find that a little "weird"?

Again, primary turnout has no bearing on general election turnout. You're also making a huge assumption that all of the votes for the other Republican candidates are going to go to Trump.

Some polls are just bad, that's why they poll every few days. She was probably never actually up 12 which is why looking at aggregates is usually pretty smart as their are outliers on both sides of the spectrum. She's probably up somewhere in the 5-7 range right now which is enough to get her 330-350 EVs.

If Primary turnout has no bearing on GE turnout why do they consistently use it for polling? It's a good gauge, thats why they use it.

So you're telling me the electorate is going to be Dem +8 this election? Really?

Do they consistently use it for polling?

Unless I misunderstood how they weigh the sample, yes. Currently they are using Obama's 2012 turnout for Hillary.

Not everyone is doing it thus the wildly differing poll numbers. Something is astray though

 

[AceRothstein]

Primary election turnout does not correlate to general election turnout. And polls don't weight by party, the good ones at least.

They most certainly do and they weigh/sample the polls accordingly. They did it with Obama in 2012 (rightfully so). Are you aware that a few polls have taken a R+1 sample and then changed it to Dem+8 and +4? Whats the reason for that? Explain Awhy some polls that sample Dem+1 or 0 then sample more women or blacks or college educated or other?

These are things that are happening all the time. Can you explain why? Can you explain why every poll that's randomly taken has consistently more Dems or other demographics that favor Clinton? How can that be?

Imagine if a poll that came out sampled Republicans at +1 or greater. The internetz would explode with "What BS is this!!?" "BS poll!!!!" etc etc

Because polls sample, and weight if necessary, by demographics such as sex, race and age. So if a poll has a R+1 sample but is weighted by other demographics to hit targeted voter turnout then you end up with the Dem +4 or Dem +8. The electorate has been trending less white for 30+ by a few percentage points every Presidential Election, there is no reason to think that won't continue this year.

You're making my point. They are using the 2012 Obama turnout which will turn out WAY higher than Clintons. Democrats aren't getting to the polls like they were. They are down by 4.5M people since 2008. Thats a 20% decrease. The tables have turned (Repubs getting out to vote at record numbers, while Dems cool off) and the pollsters aren't even taking this into account. Again, that is a critical mistake. You have to see and acknowledge that. It only makes sense.

Can you explain how the Washington Post can have her up by 12 points and 72 hours, yes HOURS, later she's only up by 6? I mean really Ace?. Don't you find that a little "weird"?

Again, primary turnout has no bearing on general election turnout. You're also making a huge assumption that all of the votes for the other Republican candidates are going to go to Trump.

Some polls are just bad, that's why they poll every few days. She was probably never actually up 12 which is why looking at aggregates is usually pretty smart as their are outliers on both sides of the spectrum. She's probably up somewhere in the 5-7 range right now which is enough to get her 330-350 EVs.

If Primary turnout has no bearing on GE turnout why do they consistently use it for polling? It's a good gauge, thats why they use it.

So you're telling me the electorate is going to be Dem +8 this election? Really?

I don't believe any polls use primary turnout for GE polls.

Again, they don't use Party ID when coming up with a sample or when weighting. If numerous pollsters are coming up with that then it can very well happen.

 

[cereal_killer]

They most certainly do and they weigh/sample the polls accordingly. They did it with Obama in 2012 (rightfully so). Are you aware that a few polls have taken a R+1 sample and then changed it to Dem+8 and +4? Whats the reason for that? Explain Awhy some polls that sample Dem+1 or 0 then sample more women or blacks or college educated or other?

These are things that are happening all the time. Can you explain why? Can you explain why every poll that's randomly taken has consistently more Dems or other demographics that favor Clinton? How can that be?

Imagine if a poll that came out sampled Republicans at +1 or greater. The internetz would explode with "What BS is this!!?" "BS poll!!!!" etc etc

Because polls sample, and weight if necessary, by demographics such as sex, race and age. So if a poll has a R+1 sample but is weighted by other demographics to hit targeted voter turnout then you end up with the Dem +4 or Dem +8. The electorate has been trending less white for 30+ by a few percentage points every Presidential Election, there is no reason to think that won't continue this year.

You're making my point. They are using the 2012 Obama turnout which will turn out WAY higher than Clintons. Democrats aren't getting to the polls like they were. They are down by 4.5M people since 2008. Thats a 20% decrease. The tables have turned (Repubs getting out to vote at record numbers, while Dems cool off) and the pollsters aren't even taking this into account. Again, that is a critical mistake. You have to see and acknowledge that. It only makes sense.

Can you explain how the Washington Post can have her up by 12 points and 72 hours, yes HOURS, later she's only up by 6? I mean really Ace?. Don't you find that a little "weird"?

Again, primary turnout has no bearing on general election turnout. You're also making a huge assumption that all of the votes for the other Republican candidates are going to go to Trump.

Some polls are just bad, that's why they poll every few days. She was probably never actually up 12 which is why looking at aggregates is usually pretty smart as their are outliers on both sides of the spectrum. She's probably up somewhere in the 5-7 range right now which is enough to get her 330-350 EVs.

If Primary turnout has no bearing on GE turnout why do they consistently use it for polling? It's a good gauge, thats why they use it.

So you're telling me the electorate is going to be Dem +8 this election? Really?

I don't believe any polls use primary turnout for GE polls.

Again, they don't use Party ID when coming up with a sample or when weighting. If numerous pollsters are coming up with that then it can very well happen.

Answer this......do you believe the electorate will be Dem +8 this election?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Independents are at least a third of any poll, and 'independent' means nothing as far as left or right or center goes.
You can have far left Independents or far right Independents.

You could have a poll that 'oversampled' Democrats on the one hand, but 'oversampled' rightwing Independents on the other hand.