LA Times USC Tracking Finally Catching Up In The Polls(?): Gettysburg Addresses Not Yet. . Scored?

[mascale]

Ever since time began.. .in the 2016 elections. . .The DonaldSaurus in fact has been winning in the LA Times USC Tracking Panel--not exactly a poll. Mostly, apparently even pre-history, November 8, had decided Clinton would win. That gap too, is still growing in favor of Clinton. Still, LA Times USC tracking had apparently found the New Republican base. That new concept--the New Republican Party--in fact is becoming the new commentary attention. With just two weeks to go, even the enthusiasm gap is starting to favor Clinton. Trump support is even declining in the LA Times USC Seven Day Panel. But still there is a declining enthusiasm, being shown even in that base. Clinton is ahead nearly 2 points. The last weekend events are not yet entirely well-reflected in the daily report.

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

It is elsewhere noted that Trump has promised to make sex scandals priority One, starting with the lawsuits likely in the first 100 days. How will Gloria Allred respond(?)! "He wants to be a part of it.. . ."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(For A Good Time, Call Trump Tower, RNC!)

 

[NYcarbineer]

The LA/USC poll uses the same people from when the poll started. If they got the wrong mix to begin with, that mistake continues to skew their poll as long as it's taken.

It's like having a thermometer or a scales wrongly calibrated.

 

[Norman]

The LA/USC poll uses the same people from when the poll started. If they got the wrong mix to begin with, that mistake continues to skew their poll as long as it's taken.

It's like having a thermometer or a scales wrongly calibrated.

Compared to the other polls, which actually have the "thermometer" wrong calibrated.

 

[OldLady]

The LA/USC poll uses the same people from when the poll started. If they got the wrong mix to begin with, that mistake continues to skew their poll as long as it's taken.

It's like having a thermometer or a scales wrongly calibrated.

They've gone from Trump up 11 to Clinton up 2. Same people, if I'm not mistaken. And it's only been a few weeks since the slide began.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The LA/USC poll uses the same people from when the poll started. If they got the wrong mix to begin with, that mistake continues to skew their poll as long as it's taken.

It's like having a thermometer or a scales wrongly calibrated.

Compared to the other polls, which actually have the "thermometer" wrong calibrated.

How do you know? What's your proof?

 

[Norman]

The LA/USC poll uses the same people from when the poll started. If they got the wrong mix to begin with, that mistake continues to skew their poll as long as it's taken.

It's like having a thermometer or a scales wrongly calibrated.

Compared to the other polls, which actually have the "thermometer" wrong calibrated.

How do you know? What's your proof?

Because the polls say right on the open that they over-sample democrats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The LA/USC poll uses the same people from when the poll started. If they got the wrong mix to begin with, that mistake continues to skew their poll as long as it's taken.

It's like having a thermometer or a scales wrongly calibrated.

They've gone from Trump up 11 to Clinton up 2. Same people, if I'm not mistaken. And it's only been a few weeks since the slide began.

Oh, they move WITH the other polls, it's just that their baseline appears to be skewed towards Trump.

Of course, they could be now skewing their own polls to try to get in line with the averages, so they don't look completely foolish on election day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The LA/USC poll uses the same people from when the poll started. If they got the wrong mix to begin with, that mistake continues to skew their poll as long as it's taken.

It's like having a thermometer or a scales wrongly calibrated.

Compared to the other polls, which actually have the "thermometer" wrong calibrated.

How do you know? What's your proof?

Because the polls say right on the open that they over-sample democrats.

An over sample would be an incorrect sample. You have to know the correct amount to sample to determine an oversample.

What's the correct percentage of Democrats that should be in a poll?

 

[LaDexter]

What's the correct percentage of Democrats that should be in a poll?

Just count the percent of Americans receiving welfare checks, because that's the Dem base....

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's the correct percentage of Democrats that should be in a poll?

Just count the percent of Americans receiving welfare checks, because that's the Dem base....

See? Just one more example of some RWnut who thinks the polls are oversampling Democrats,

and yet he has no idea what that correct sample is.

 

[Norman]

The LA/USC poll uses the same people from when the poll started. If they got the wrong mix to begin with, that mistake continues to skew their poll as long as it's taken.

It's like having a thermometer or a scales wrongly calibrated.

Compared to the other polls, which actually have the "thermometer" wrong calibrated.

How do you know? What's your proof?

Because the polls say right on the open that they over-sample democrats.

An over sample would be an incorrect sample. You have to know the correct amount to sample to determine an oversample.

What's the correct percentage of Democrats that should be in a poll?

Sure isn't +12%.

 

[Norman]

Nor very surprising:

New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples" | Zero Hedge

They cheat wherever they can.

 

[LaDexter]

See? Just one more example of some RWnut who thinks the polls are oversampling Democrats

LOL!!!


How many welfare addicts are Republicans??


LOL!!!


If you are ON THE DOLE, you vote Dem....

If you care about the US, you never vote Dem....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nor very surprising:

New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples" | Zero Hedge

They cheat wherever they can.

Show us the poll he was referring to.

 

[Rustic]

If it's a progressive newspaper they are using 100% Dem oversampling... fact

 

[Norman]

Nor very surprising:

New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples" | Zero Hedge

They cheat wherever they can.

Show us the poll he was referring to.

They used ABC / WaPo poll as an example, can you even read?

 

[toxicmedia]

Nor very surprising:

New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples" | Zero Hedge

They cheat wherever they can.

Show us the poll he was referring to.

Have any you taken the time to read the hilarious criteria that LA Times Tracking poll uses?

I'm not going deep to dig that out again, but part of the language included adjustments because people "fib about their choices"

There was a lot of other outrageously unscientific stuff

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nor very surprising:

New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples" | Zero Hedge

They cheat wherever they can.

Show us the poll he was referring to.

Have any you taken the time to read the hilarious criteria that LA Times Tracking poll uses?

I'm not going deep to dig that out again, but part of the language included adjustments because people "fib about their choices"

There was a lot of other outrageously unscientific stuff

Yes I have. I think they learned math and statistics at Trump University.

 

[Norman]

Nor very surprising:

New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples" | Zero Hedge

They cheat wherever they can.

Show us the poll he was referring to.

Have any you taken the time to read the hilarious criteria that LA Times Tracking poll uses?

I'm not going deep to dig that out again, but part of the language included adjustments because people "fib about their choices"

There was a lot of other outrageously unscientific stuff

Yes I have. I think they learned math and statistics at Trump University.

This means a lot coming from an idiot who never bothered to learn statistics or especially math.

 

[mascale]

LA Times USC acknowledged early on that the way they constructed the panel may inadvertently have tapped in Trump's base of support. Lesser educated white males with no history of voting in elections--even the Republicans missed that vote in their own primaries. Shortly thereafter, maybe LA Times USC poll noticed something else that may now be happening all over again. To the extent the Trump base thinks the voting is rigged, then the continued campaigning on the basis that the voting is rigged--may keep the Trump base at home, like in elections before.

Humans have never been too up on arithmetic. Moses would report the first alleged suggestions, "Be Fruitful, Multiply, fill all the earth, subdue it(!). Genesis 1:28. Then later on, "If you are in fact Jewish, then screw everyone who is different, goy or foreign(!)," Deuteronomy : 23-19-20. The problem with fixed percentage usury, in fact, would actually be described in Matthew 25:14-30, and possibly wherein the Pythagorean Theorem gets applied--The foreign Greek Religion of the Pythagoreans. Other five Talents, and Other Two talents can be drawn in as horizontal lines perpendicular to the vertical scale from 0 to 5. The Square root of five squared, plus the square root of five squared, is about 7, the length of the hypoteneus, before there was a decimal point, (1000 years later). The household should have been enriched eight talents, but was only enriched seven. The one talent was clearly not going to be able to keep up, so that got buried, creating zero new talents. Robbers wouldn't take it away, is all.

It didn't work then. It didn't much help avoid the Great Depression. It didn't much help avoid the Great Recession. The Rich get richer, the poor don't get enough. Possibly only in hindsight is Washington, D. C. distressed that the old Jewish House of Lehman Brothers: Itself came crashing on down(?)!

Alternatively, many think Deuteronomy 23:19-20, created the basis of 20th century Holocaust. Jews become the loan sharks of Europe--century after century--and the Seraphs of the Middle East. Mohammed, Adam Smith, Karl Marx and Keynes would take no notice of the New Testament lesson.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Famous even outside Santa Monica, 60's radical, Tom Hayden is deceased--locally famous for often times denying that what was reported in public, he actually never said at all. . . .and who may have tried to become a Real Estate billionaire(?)!)