The one political poll that matters

[rightwinger]

Take every democrat wannabe rally together and the attendance might equal one Trump rally.

I don't doubt most of the people that answer the so called polls don't give an actual accurate answer for fear of reprisal.

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Another conservative who has no perception of Statistical Sampling Theory

 

[Flopper]

Take every democrat wannabe rally together and the attendance might equal one Trump rally.

I don't doubt most of the people that answer the so called polls don't give an actual accurate answer for fear of reprisal.

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

The accuracy of polls depends on the algorithm used to select the sample. A study done at Yale of polls for all elections choosing national leaders from 1945 to 2010 found polls have an accuracy of about 80%. Scientific polls have proven the most reliable method of predicting election results, far better than counting bumper stickers, the height of the candidate, the deepness of his voice, the amount political contributions, etc..

People tend to disregard the stated poll accuracy witch is typically plus or minus 3%. Many polls taken very close to an election will claim a 2% polling error. Although polling error is always in small print, it is very important to the forecaster.

Let's say a poll result show candidate A is beating candidate B, 52% to 49%. A 3% polling error could reverse those results; that is candidate B actually gets 52% and candidate A gets 49%. The poll itself remains statistically correct because the results are within it's polling error. It is up to forecaster to determine the winner by looking at the probability of the polling results being far enough off to cause a reversal.

The real value of polls is not predicting election results but rather determining how people feel about various issues and what they are looking for in a leader. This not only helps candidates build their campaign but it also influences public policy.

The accuracy of a polling sample is determined by looking at larger and smaller size samples. 1000 seems to be the magic number in most polls. This is tested by mathematically looking at smaller and larger samples to determine when results become consistent. For some issues for example the death penalty polling, 1000 is not a large enough same. Typically the poll size needs to be at least 4000.

Polling is still the best predictor of election results, according to a new study

 

[Flopper]

Take every democrat wannabe rally together and the attendance might equal one Trump rally.

I don't doubt most of the people that answer the so called polls don't give an actual accurate answer for fear of reprisal.

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Take every democrat wannabe rally together and the attendance might equal one Trump rally.

I don't doubt most of the people that answer the so called polls don't give an actual accurate answer for fear of reprisal.

/——-/ Yup.

 

[Maxdeath]

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

So we should be able to determine everything by polling then. It will make shopping so much easier as we can poll everyone to see what they want to buy, what car to sell, what dishwashing soap to stock, what beer to sell. Imagine just how handy it will be to know in advance who the governor will be, who will be police chief.

 

[Flopper]

Take every democrat wannabe rally together and the attendance might equal one Trump rally.

I don't doubt most of the people that answer the so called polls don't give an actual accurate answer for fear of reprisal.

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

What these crowds at Trump rallies tell us is that Trump has a very strong, vocal base that is not going to vote for anyone but Trump. However, keep in mind these rallies represent only a small sliver of the 155 million registered voters.

 

[Flopper]

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

So we should be able to determine everything by polling then. It will make shopping so much easier as we can poll everyone to see what they want to buy, what car to sell, what dishwashing soap to stock, what beer to sell. Imagine just how handy it will be to know in advance who the governor will be, who will be police chief.

Polling services do exactly that. They tell manufactures the kind of product the consumer wants, marketing the kind of advertising most likely to produce results, and policy makers what the public wants from government. However, polls are not the only forecasting tools used by businesses and government.

 

[rightwinger]

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

They also poll a 1000 sample week after week after week. If the results of those samples swing wildly, the sample size is too small. But if your weekly poll is consistent in its conclusions, then you can have more confidence in its accuracy

 

[Maxdeath]

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

So we should be able to determine everything by polling then. It will make shopping so much easier as we can poll everyone to see what they want to buy, what car to sell, what dishwashing soap to stock, what beer to sell. Imagine just how handy it will be to know in advance who the governor will be, who will be police chief.

Polling services do exactly that. They tell manufactures the kind of product the consumer wants, marketing the kind of advertising most likely to produce results, and policy makers what the public wants from government. However, polls are not the only forecasting tools used by businesses and government.

Ah sarcasm eludes you. If polls were able to predict so well there would only need to be one car built, one beer offered for sale, no need for people to vote. The problem is science wants to believe it understands how humans think and act, therefore it can predict everything about them.
The problem is it is very far from even coming close.

 

[Redfish]

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

What these crowds at Trump rallies tell us is that Trump has a very strong, vocal base that is not going to vote for anyone but Trump. However, keep in mind these rallies represent only a small sliver of the 155 million registered voters.

If you include the voters watching on TV you have a clear majority of american voters. If one of the dem clowns could equal trump's rally crowds you might have a point, but they cannot.

 

[Redfish]

While the ability to generate big crowds is certainly nice and it may signal enthusiasm among highly engaged voters or produce favorable media coverage, however any candidate, surrogate or media outlet that tells you that large crowd sizes mean that the polls are underestimating a candidate’s support is nonsense. It’s just spin; polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates. This is because 90% of voters do not attend any political rally or speech.

Although I am not a Trump supporter, I have been to one his rallies in 2016 and will probably do so again in 2020 because they are interesting. Trump is an entertainer and showman. Even the crowd is interesting to watch.

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

horseshit, please go buy a stat 101 textbook and stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[Redfish]

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

They also poll a 1000 sample week after week after week. If the results of those samples swing wildly, the sample size is too small. But if your weekly poll is consistent in its conclusions, then you can have more confidence in its accuracy

tell us, oh great prognosticator, were the polls correct about hillary winning in 2016? Were they correct when they said that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes?

they lied to you then and they are lying to you now, wake up.

 

[Redfish]

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

So we should be able to determine everything by polling then. It will make shopping so much easier as we can poll everyone to see what they want to buy, what car to sell, what dishwashing soap to stock, what beer to sell. Imagine just how handy it will be to know in advance who the governor will be, who will be police chief.

Polling services do exactly that. They tell manufactures the kind of product the consumer wants, marketing the kind of advertising most likely to produce results, and policy makers what the public wants from government. However, polls are not the only forecasting tools used by businesses and government.

LOL, and the results of the poll depend on who is paying the pollster. the naivete on this subject is amazing.

 

[rightwinger]

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

horseshit, please go buy a stat 101 textbook and stop making a fool of yourself.

Any basic statistic textbook will show you have no idea what you are babbling about

 

[rightwinger]

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

They also poll a 1000 sample week after week after week. If the results of those samples swing wildly, the sample size is too small. But if your weekly poll is consistent in its conclusions, then you can have more confidence in its accuracy

tell us, oh great prognosticator, were the polls correct about hillary winning in 2016? Were they correct when they said that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes?

they lied to you then and they are lying to you now, wake up.

What the polls in 2016 showed was Hillary holding a six point lead a month before the election. FBI Director Comey released his unfounded accusations two weeks before the election and Hillary’s lead dropped to three points. Hillary won the popular vote by two percent

Polls can only predict what is known at the time the poll is taken. It cannot predict future events

 

[Flopper]

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

So we should be able to determine everything by polling then. It will make shopping so much easier as we can poll everyone to see what they want to buy, what car to sell, what dishwashing soap to stock, what beer to sell. Imagine just how handy it will be to know in advance who the governor will be, who will be police chief.

Polling services do exactly that. They tell manufactures the kind of product the consumer wants, marketing the kind of advertising most likely to produce results, and policy makers what the public wants from government. However, polls are not the only forecasting tools used by businesses and government.

Ah sarcasm eludes you. If polls were able to predict so well there would only need to be one car built, one beer offered for sale, no need for people to vote. The problem is science wants to believe it understands how humans think and act, therefore it can predict everything about them.
The problem is it is very far from even coming close.

Polls don't tell us whether a car, a beer, or politician candidate is good or bad. They only tell us what people think.

Polls are only accurate when people have strong opinions or preferences. For example if a poll was done to determine the best table sale, it would be worthless because there is little difference in taste and most people don't have any opinion. Politician polls are much more accurate because most people have strong opinions and preferences in regard to candidates and issues. Studies have shown that political polls are among the most accurate, about 80%. Polls on the death penalty vary greatly because people vacillate. I have never seen a poll on beer, however you can bet that people who market and advertise the products have.

In politics, government, and business polling is extremely important because it tells us what people think about issues, political candidates, consumer products, and public policy. Governments, politician candidates, and business spend billions of dollars on research studies and polls to determine public opinion. If it was worthless, they would not be spending that kind of money on it.

 

[Flopper]

You are correct that there are a large amount of voters that will vote for anyone which has the proper designation by their name, it appears democrat being the largest number.
There are also those that actually believe that polls foretell the winner so they either vote for whom they believe will be the winner or they stay home thinking that there is no need to vote.

When you look around the country and you see one candidate's signs and bumper stickers more often then another's that tends to point to winners and losers.

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

What these crowds at Trump rallies tell us is that Trump has a very strong, vocal base that is not going to vote for anyone but Trump. However, keep in mind these rallies represent only a small sliver of the 155 million registered voters.

If you include the voters watching on TV you have a clear majority of american voters. If one of the dem clowns could equal trump's rally crowds you might have a point, but they cannot.

I have never seen a political rally on TV, not democrat or republican. I've heard Fox does televises some of the larger ones. I've seen clips on the news but not whole rally or even a speech from them.

In 2015-16, there were about 200 Trump rallies. The total estimated attendance was approximately 900,000 out of 155 million registered voters. That's about .5% of the registered voters and that assumes all attendees are registered voters which they certainly aren't. As I said,the rallies are great to fire up the base, not to have a direct major impact on the vote.

The major value of rallies, whistle stops, town halls, community meetings, and interviews is to produce clips, for TV and the internet and provide taking points for supporting voices in the media. Secondly, candidates need to be seen before the public with crowds cheering. This tends to establish the candidate as man of the people who connects with the people and truly concerned with their problems.

Trump with his rallies which focus on his base, and democrat candidates each trying to prove they are more progressive than their opponents are courting a very slender thread of the American public. The typical voter who changes the channel when he or she hears a political speech, never attends any political meetings is really being left out.

List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign - Wikipedia

 

[Redfish]

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

horseshit, please go buy a stat 101 textbook and stop making a fool of yourself.

Any basic statistic textbook will show you have no idea what you are babbling about

I am quite sure that I know a lot more about statistical math than you will ever know. A sample of 1000 (or 5000) out of a population of 330,000,000 is totally meaningless.

 

[Redfish]

I guess, you might be able to count bumper stickers and signs in your community, but certainly not nationwide.

Most people seem to think the primary purpose of polling is to pick the winner of the presidential race. That's not how they make their money. They are paid to conduct polls for candidates, political organizations, and large donors. They conduct polls on public policy, new products, advertising etc. Some of these polls are private and some are included in their subscriptions.

Another misconception is the polling organization predicts winning presidential candidate. The polling organization reports expected percentage of votes for each candidate plus or minus the polling error, usually 3%. It is the news media and political organization that analyses the data and predicts the the winner of presidential race.

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

What these crowds at Trump rallies tell us is that Trump has a very strong, vocal base that is not going to vote for anyone but Trump. However, keep in mind these rallies represent only a small sliver of the 155 million registered voters.

If you include the voters watching on TV you have a clear majority of american voters. If one of the dem clowns could equal trump's rally crowds you might have a point, but they cannot.

I have never seen a political rally on TV, not democrat or republican. I've heard Fox does televises some of the larger ones. I've seen clips on the news but not whole rally or even a speech from them.

In 2015-16, there were about 200 Trump rallies. The total estimated attendance was approximately 900,000 out of 155 million registered voters. That's about .5% of the registered voters and that assumes all attendees are registered voters which they certainly aren't. As I said,the rallies are great to fire up the base, not to have a direct major impact on the vote.

The major value of rallies, whistle stops, town halls, community meetings, and interviews is to produce clips, for TV and the internet and provide taking points for supporting voices in the media. Secondly, candidates need to be seen before the public with crowds cheering. This tends to establish the candidate as man of the people who connects with the people and truly concerned with their problems.

Trump with his rallies which focus on his base, and democrat candidates each trying to prove they are more progressive than their opponents are courting a very slender thread of the American public. The typical voter who changes the channel when he or she hears a political speech, never attends any political meetings is really being left out.

List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign - Wikipedia

nice rhetoric but the fact remains that none of the dem clowns can generate crowds anywhere close to Trump's crowds-------------and that is significant in predicting the next election outcome. Wait and see, I am right about this

 

[Redfish]

all true, but what you left out is the statistical failing of all of the polls, There is no way that a sample of 1000 can ever be representative of a population of 330,000,000, no matter how carefully you select the sample.

its not polling, its propaganda.

Exactly. A thousand or even more gives no real indication. Especially if it is even slightly skewed toward democrats, big city, those that have time to spend on taking polls, etc.

If your results from the poll is the same for 5,000 sample as it is for 1,000, then why poll 5,000. Polling organization use different samples sizes to determine the optimum number in a sample.

They also poll a 1000 sample week after week after week. If the results of those samples swing wildly, the sample size is too small. But if your weekly poll is consistent in its conclusions, then you can have more confidence in its accuracy

tell us, oh great prognosticator, were the polls correct about hillary winning in 2016? Were they correct when they said that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes?

they lied to you then and they are lying to you now, wake up.

What the polls in 2016 showed was Hillary holding a six point lead a month before the election. FBI Director Comey released his unfounded accusations two weeks before the election and Hillary’s lead dropped to three points. Hillary won the popular vote by two percent

Polls can only predict what is known at the time the poll is taken. It cannot predict future events

more horseshit, there were polls the day before the election claiming that hillary would win and that Trump had no path to 270 EC votes. They were either wrong or lying, you choose which.