most accurate poll in 2012 shows trump leading

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I did not mean to put words in your mouth. You believe the polls are incorrect due to an over-sampling of Democrats and that this over-sampling is intentional in order to make Clinton look more favored than she actually is. If that is in fact true, then I think the polling is rigged.

Your exact words on the FBI and DOJ were "the doj and fbi were rigged & hellary evaded prosecution." So you did say it and all I asked was whether or not you have any proof that their decisions were somehow rigged?

As for the other "conspiracies", let's just say you have your opinion and I have mine as to whether or not they truly exist.

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, there you go again

You state things not in evidence and at the same time say you do not mean to put words in my mouth

And yes I typed that about the doj and fib but it was in the context of what trump might think leading him to view the election as rigged, please review

My sole point was, hellary's campaign wanted over sampling and it happened, you can take it from there, and I guess you did

This is getting tedious

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I would agree that the results of this poll are definitely suspect. But like I've said before, the polls on popular vote are interesting but meaningless in that electoral vote is what matters and Clinton has an almost insurmountable lead in that category. Again, though, this is based on polls.

I would say that the results of this poll are more than suspect. You asked for proof that any of the polls were over sampling Democrats. When presented with this proof, you pivot and dismiss the polls on the popular vote. Why cant you acknowledge that this poll over sampled Democrats?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html

Above is a link to the 2012 polls by RealClearPolitics which compiles all polls and averages them together. The polls point out what I've been pointing out for months. The popular vote was very close in the polls, with the average saying Obama as 3.9 percentage points ahead. Final results had Obama winning by 3.9% (51.1 to 47.2). But Obama had almost 62% of the electoral vote. In 2016 Clinton is ahead in the popular vote in polls by quite a bit more than 3.9%. A couple of polls have favored Trump consistently (Rasmussen, IBD/TIpp have them in a tie, and the LA Times/USC Tracking poll, which has had Trump leading forever, has now put Clinton in the lead) but Clinton leads in all other polls, some by double digits. And as 2012 shows, the electoral vote skews to Clinton much more than the popular vote.

+1


No way will Trump flip the Blue states to Red that he needs to get to 270. He has no shot in getting Penn, Virginia, Michigan or Wisconsin.

[Yssup Rider]

And judging by the dead people flooding the Texas EV locations, HRC could tip the whole damned thing with a shocker in the Loan Shark state!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

I would say that the results of this poll are more than suspect. You asked for proof that any of the polls were over sampling Democrats. When presented with this proof, you pivot and dismiss the polls on the popular vote. Why cant you acknowledge that this poll over sampled Democrats?

The poll seems to have over sampled Democrats.

However:

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-exist/505211/

If a campaign is particularly interested in how Hispanics will vote in Arizona, it might interview a bunch more than a random chance alone would offer, just to make sure the sample is large enough to reasonably draw conclusions about how the entire community feels. Hispanics, after all, are still a minority in the Grand Canyon State; a random sample of 1,000 people might only net 300 or so.

Perhaps they’ll aim to interview 500 instead. But once the pollster shifts back to looking at the entire state, they will dial back the proportion of Hispanics in the survey to mirror the actual demographics of Arizona.


Oversampling is, in other words, a completely valid statistical practice that everyone uses, including Republicans pollsters and probably Trump’s own campaign. If the polls are overestimating Clinton’s lead, and Trump is headed for an upset win, it’s not because of pollsters using oversampling to get more accurate results for demographic subgroups.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-rigged-polls/

Trump is wrong that Wikileaks shows Podesta rigging the polls against him. He’s referring to an email obtained by the hacker group from Clinton’s 2008 (not 2016) campaign on what appears to be internal polling (not public ones published by media organizations). And oversampling in this instance means polling more people in a specific demographic group for analysis -- not ignoring Republican voters to suppress their votes.


In short, oversampling is a common polling technique and not, as Trump says, one of "voter suppression."

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Polls in several states show a tightening of the race. Trump +4 in Ohio. 2 polls in Florida have Trump +2 and Clinton +3. Pennsylvania has Clinton +3, much closer than it has been. Colorado Clinton +2. Nevada Trump +3. Arizona Trump +1. 2 polls in NC have Trump +3 and Clinton +7.

Could be a race after all.

[Austin Ellen]

It ain't over till it's over and if Trump loses - then the election was rigged.

[NiceGuy53]

Double post. Mods please delete this post.

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The poll seems to have over sampled Democrats.

However:

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-exist/505211/

If a campaign is particularly interested in how Hispanics will vote in Arizona, it might interview a bunch more than a random chance alone would offer, just to make sure the sample is large enough to reasonably draw conclusions about how the entire community feels. Hispanics, after all, are still a minority in the Grand Canyon State; a random sample of 1,000 people might only net 300 or so.

Perhaps they’ll aim to interview 500 instead. But once the pollster shifts back to looking at the entire state, they will dial back the proportion of Hispanics in the survey to mirror the actual demographics of Arizona.


Oversampling is, in other words, a completely valid statistical practice that everyone uses, including Republicans pollsters and probably Trump’s own campaign. If the polls are overestimating Clinton’s lead, and Trump is headed for an upset win, it’s not because of pollsters using oversampling to get more accurate results for demographic subgroups.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-rigged-polls/

Trump is wrong that Wikileaks shows Podesta rigging the polls against him. He’s referring to an email obtained by the hacker group from Clinton’s 2008 (not 2016) campaign on what appears to be internal polling (not public ones published by media organizations). And oversampling in this instance means polling more people in a specific demographic group for analysis -- not ignoring Republican voters to suppress their votes.


In short, oversampling is a common polling technique and not, as Trump says, one of "voter suppression."

You go from initially denying that there is oversampling of democrats to now claiming that oversampling is a common practice by citing some article from the liberal Atlantic. Again you are pivoting.

What you don't point out is that good pollsters will weigh and adjust their surveys to more accurately reflect the voter demographics of the electorate. In other words, they want to ensure their poll represents a good cross section of likely voters based on age, sex, race, party affiliation, etc.

The article you cite has a link which shows that 4 different respected pollsters were given the same polling data and came up with 4 different results based on how they weighed the voter demographics. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...lks-about.html

The ABC News Poll, when they came up with an oversampling of Democrats, apparently did not weigh their poll to more accurately represent the overall voter demographics. I'm not claiming that this was some big conspiracy on their part. One can only guess what their motivations might have been. But common sense should tell you that any poll that shows Clinton with a 12% lead was flawed. And in this case it was flawed because of an oversampling of Democrats.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

You go from denying that there is oversampling of democrats to now claiming that oversampling is a common practice by citing some article from the liberal Atlantic Monthly. .

yeah he did want me to PROVE it

those sort of things, i. e. oversampling, change science to art, and objectivity to subjectivity

he also wanted proof the doj under obama is partisan and politically corrupt, now thats a hoot

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

yeah he did want me to PROVE it

those sort of things, i. e. oversampling, change science to art, and objectivity to subjectivity

he also wanted proof the doj under obama is partisan and politically corrupt, now thats a hoot

I did edit my post to state that he initially denied there was oversampling of democrats. He now says that it seems there was an oversampling in the ABC News Poll. It's funny how he seems to have done a 180 on this, when he now claims oversampling is a common practice.

I do agree with you about the Obama DOJ being partisan and corrupt. Both of his AGs have been nothing but lapdogs for the Obama administration. Only a partisan Democrat would deny this.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

You go from initially denying that there is oversampling of democrats to now claiming that oversampling is a common practice by citing some article from the liberal Atlantic. Again you are pivoting.

What you don't point out is that good pollsters will weigh and adjust their surveys to more accurately reflect the voter demographics of the electorate. In other words, they want to ensure their poll represents a good cross section of likely voters based on age, sex, race, party affiliation, etc.

The article you cite has a link which shows that 4 different respected pollsters were given the same polling data and came up with 4 different results based on how they weighed the voter demographics. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...lks-about.html

The ABC News Poll, when they came up with an oversampling of Democrats, apparently did not weigh their poll to more accurately represent the overall voter demographics. I'm not claiming that this was some big conspiracy on their part. One can only guess what their motivations might have been. But common sense should tell you that any poll that shows Clinton with a 12% lead was flawed. And in this case it was flawed because of an oversampling of Democrats.

Here is my original statement: "Can you prove that Democrats were over-sampled in any of the national polls?" If you can find ANYWHERE where I said that oversampling was NOT done in the survey in question, please do so. Biased or otherwise. To be honest, many years ago I ran surveys for my company but oversampling was not used and until this week it is a term I was unfamiliar with. Now I have some familiarity with the technique and when done correctly there is no problem with doing it.

I asked for proof that the polls were oversampling and it was provided and I agreed with the proof.

I presented 2 viewpoints that oversampling is commonly done in surveys. I certainly agree what you say about good pollsters, and I think most follow accepted polling practices. Even if you perfectly follow correct polling practices, it is statistically possible that at times the results will be skewed one way or the other. The average of the polls have Clinton ahead by about 5-6 points but some polls have Trump ahead by 1 (LA Times), a difference of 6-7 points.

Was oversampling of Democrats done in the ABC News Poll? The article cited below specifically addresses the ABC News Poll and says no, certainly not intentionally. But I certainly agree that when a poll comes out with Clinton ahead by 10 or Trump ahead by 5, it raises eyebrows

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politi...ing-democrats/

[Luke_Wyatt]

The fact of the matter is that Trump's path to 270 is near impossible- he has to flip some blue states red and flat out win about 6 of the toss up states. Trump's other factor is that not only is he obviously running against Clinton, but Sanders, Obama both Barrack and Michelle and Biden and Gore have been campaigning for her, but Obama's campaigning will hurt Trump because he's still very popular and he will convince the majority of people who voted for him to go to the polls and vote for Hillary. I challenge anyone of you to wager that Trump will not get 10 percent of the Black vote- there's been some links stating he could get up to 25 percent of the black vote- I wager with anyone of you that he gets under 10 percent.
What other Republican is campaiging for Trump?????

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

Trump's other factor is that not only is he obviously running against Clinton, but Sanders, Obama both Barrack and Michelle and Biden and Gore have been campaigning for her...

Thanks, LubedAss... you just gave everyone 5 MORE reasons not to vote for hildebeest!