Another fake Democrat poll exposed

[artichoke]

Polls?

Exactly. They're all unscientific bullshit. So why do Democrats depend on them so heavily to misinform people? If your ideas can compete on a level playing field, why resort to such gutter trash nonsense all the time?

[artichoke]

Quinipiac's OWN METHODOLGY/DEMOGRAPHICS reveal the BIAS. READ THE LINK, LIAR.


PARTY IDENTIFICATION Republican 26% Democrat 36 Independent 31 Other/DK/NA 7




MAKEUP SOME MORE BULLSHIT.

[artichoke]

This survey uses statistical weighting procedures to account for deviations in the survey sample from known population characteristics, which helps correct for differential survey participation and random variation in samples. The overall adult sample is weighted to recent Census data using a sample balancing procedure to match the demographic makeup of the population by region, gender, age, education and race.When including thedesign effect, the margin of sampling error for this study of registered voters is +/-3.3percentage points.

So, they assure us that their wildly biased sampling in favor of Democrats has nothing to do with the wildly disproportionate results, which never end up matching reality?

nyt hillary election.jpg

How comforting.

[artichoke]

LOL, the sample is the sample. The breakdown is very likely correct. The margin of error is very small on the poll. It's like saying they oversampled people that don't like Trump. No, there are just lots of people that don't like Trump.

Hence the results never matching reality. Like all the profound excitement we're supposed to believe exists for a child-molesting racist crook and Alzheimer's patient like Biden. The left has already proven itself to have zero enthusiasm for Biden and to be willing to take unprecedented steps to frame, sabotage, lie about, and overthrow Trump at any cost. Why would their notoriously wrong polling be the one thing they suddenly decide to have an iota of integrity about?

[artichoke]

MSM and their think tanks are direct branches of the DNC ministry of propaganda and need to be regulated as in kind campaign contributors.

Election 2016 removed all doubt about that.

[BRUTALITOPS]

So, they assure us that their wildly biased sampling in favor of Democrats has nothing to do with the wildly disproportionate results, which never end up matching reality?

nyt hillary election.jpg

How comforting.

it's important to note that that 92-8 number (which was wrong) was not a poll, it was an extrapolation of data.

[Walt]

it's important to note that that 92-8 number (which was wrong) was not a poll, it was an extrapolation of data.

Was it wrong? Things that have an 8% chance of happening happen once out of every 12 times.

I am not saying it was right, but there is no evidence it was wrong.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Was it wrong? Things that have an 8% chance of happening happen once out of every 12 times.

I am not saying it was right, but there is no evidence it was wrong.

I would say it was wrong because it vastly overestimated clintons chances, most metrics never had her anywhere near that high. silver had her only at like 68%

to say someone is 92% to win when they are predicated to have a +2 margin nationally is just totally foolish

[christiefan915]

Exactly. They're all unscientific bullshit. So why do Democrats depend on them so heavily to misinform people? If your ideas can compete on a level playing field, why resort to such gutter trash nonsense all the time?

Why do you think only Democrats follow polls? Go back and read the posts here where righties are saying trump has his highest ratings ever, according to the polls (that they want to believe.)

[Concart]

Was it wrong? Things that have an 8% chance of happening happen once out of every 12 times.

I am not saying it was right, but there is no evidence it was wrong.

I think 538 had more reasonable odds (74% Clinton). You have hit on the stupidity of the argument being made about polling in 2016, In fact, the final polls were fairly accurate, predicting a Clinton win by 3.3%. She actually won the popular vote by 2.1%. So when a member of the cult uses some four year old pundit predictions to cast doubt on all polling, it makes me laugh over the abject stupidity of the argument.

[artichoke]

it's important to note that that 92-8 number (which was wrong) was not a poll, it was an extrapolation of data.

Call it what you want. Everything these "experts" told us about that election was HILARIOUSLY wrong, as usual. And now you want to act like the same kind of condescending douche bag that turned this country against the elitist snobs of the left, assuring us that these discredited frauds really do know what they're talking about...as they insist a dementia-suffering racist pedophile is running away with the election so we can return to the garbage Obama economy that no one wants back.

Do you peddle astrology too?

[Phantasmal]

I always check 538 for poll ratings

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

[artichoke]

Why do you think only Democrats follow polls?

Because only Democrats blindly trust authority (because they never comprehend human nature or learn from history), hence them relentlessly mocking and smearing conservatives for YEARS for questioning the FBI's obviously phony bullshit against Flynn, only to now be THEMSELVES humiliated by the facts...and by their own refusal to think for themselves.

Go back and read the posts here where righties are saying trump has his highest ratings ever, according to the polls.

Why? Noting that even wildly biased left-wing polls show support for Trump in no way contradicts their argument. You literally just aren't smart enough to comprehend it.

[artichoke]

I always check 538 for poll ratings

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

The guy who discredited himself in 2016 by claiming Trump had a 29% chance of winning? See what I mean? Democrats are utterly incapable of learning from history or comprehending reality.

[Phantasmal]

You know Trump is in trouble when Rasmussen has him at 42% approval

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/