Reply With Quote
And the other two were #1 and #3 most accurate pollsters of 2020. He's just scrounging around grasping for hopium wherever he can find it. Poor fella has taken a beating the last few days in here and he's clearly wounded.
According to Nate Silver in 2010, automated polling methods like Rasmussen's have been found to be more favorable towards Republicans when compared to polls conducted with traditional methods involving live interviewers.
And the other two were #1 and #3 most accurate pollsters of 2020. He's just scrounging around grasping for hopium wherever he can find it. Poor fella has taken a beating the last few days in here and he's clearly wounded.
lol 2010
Here
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/rc...ter-scorecard/
You can focus on '22 if you like but most polls erred to the right then. I'm not arguing Trump has it in the bag...it's a coinflip imo.
This doesn't seem like a possible thing.
https://x.com/SwannMarcus89/status/1848774659950424571
Agree it will be close in swing states.
But because of right leaning polls, I expect the felon will say, “I was ahead in polls; I lost because they cheated.”
muh Trafalgar!!!!
With other pollsters, the voter contact pool is often of a dynamic size and may change depending on the response patterns observed, as discussed in the example constructed at the beginning of the article. For Trafalgar, however, the voter contact pool is usually fixed, and they repeatedly ping voters from that specially-selected pool until they obtain the desired sample, and then divide the sample size by the contact pool size (75,000 in this case) to calculate response rate.
https://split-ticket.org/2022/09/19/...falgars-polls/
muh right wing polls
The keepers of the averages insist that the impact is very minimal. Outfits like FiveThirtyEight; Split Ticket, the Times’ in-house polling tracker; and Nate Silver’s forecast all take methodological steps ostensibly to ensure that “garbage-in” polls don’t lead to “garbage-out” results. These include downgrading the “weight” of polls thought to be systematically biased so they have less influence on the averages than high-quality polls do. (FiveThirtyEight has detailed criteria for determining whether pollsters are high quality, including empirical accuracy and methodological transparency.) Another step is adjusting for a particular pollster’s “house effects” to downplay biases.
Is all this working? The keepers of the averages say yes. G. Elliott Morris, who runs FiveThirtyEight, recently calculated that if the averages only include high-quality polls—and not GOP-aligned ones—the results are in some states less than one-half a point different. The Times’ Cohn, who recently acknowledged that we’re seeing a “deluge of polls from Republican-leaning firms” in the averages, ran a similar calculation and found the results moving only imperceptibly.
We see no reason to doubt the accuracy of those calculations. If news consumers are going to trust the curation of high-quality polls that outlets like FiveThirtyEight conduct, then it’s also understandable if they give some weight to these reassurances. And given the larger context here—that is, how inexact a science even high-quality polling tends to be—one can see why aggregators would suggest that tiny shifts in the averages, even ones seeded by GOP polls, don’t warrant too much concern.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1874...averages-trump
September had 1090 respondents.
October had 1084 respondents.
How can the percentages be exactly the same?
Are they going to be exactly the same for every single poll then?
You should reach out to them and ask them and then report back here with your findings.
No. I'm asking you, poll guy.
September had 1090 respondents.
October had 1084 respondents.
How can the percentages be exactly the same?
Are they going to be exactly the same for every single poll then?
I guess the answer is yes?
Is the sitting VP going to contest the election if she "loses" and calls fraud? Not certify the election? Yes or no?
Don't know and don't care. They are accurate pollsters.
"Ultimately, Cahaly points to his results. “Remember the error rate”, he says, “and none of the other firms can compare”
Accurate for what -- their last poll taken right before the election?
Your polling results this year [2022] were a lot less accurate than they were in 2020. You consistently overestimated Republican support by quite a bit — an average of 7.5 percent in the Senate races. In Michigan, you had Tudor Dixon beating Gretchen Whitmer by one percent, and she ended up losing by 12. You had Washington senator Patty Murray up by one, and she ended up winning by 15. And so forth.
Oof.
Should the VP assemble fake electors for Texas and call it a blue state? That'd be okay, Trump did it with impunity and shouldn't even be prosecuted, amiright, red team?
Biden needs to set them up as an official act.
Add Decision Desk to Trump leading all swing states
oof
No matter, Republicans are fraudsters and won't win any swing state in reality. Then, she'll refuse to certify the election like Mike Pence should have. Cons utional Republicanism in the most pure vein at work, brother.
Absolutely. He's protecting our Cons utional Republic. There can be no act more official.Biden needs to set them up as an official act.
Right, you would be all over looking into it if it were the other way around, crying conspiracy. That's how you operate.
There is not point for me looking further in to it. It doesn't matter if Trafalgar leans right, every person that runs a reputable polling aggregate said "red poll flooding" is insignificant to their polling aggregates. I do look into left leaning polls that you all post and laugh at their absurd D+5 sampling but I don't call it a conspiracy, I simply laugh at the hopium they try and feed you guys.
muh Hitler
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
