First Poll since Trump Admitted Sexually Assaulting Women... Hillary up 11 pts!

Now, come on. Mr Nick used to "do polling", and his butt tells him that party ID should be equal. Who are you to counter that with actual data?

 

They sample more people....

I think the NBC/WSJ poll samples like 10,000+ but even then that is just too small.... I don't know what their target is tho.

 

Delusion is all right wingers have left at this point. I'm surprised I had to scroll down as far as I did before finding an apologist.

Under exactly what scenario do you see Trump winning?

 

Polling is all about the questions asked...

We may have a 2 party system but few people really identify as "registered democrat" or "registered republican"..... Most people are "independent" in which they can agree with both sides on certain issues......

I don't think you get it......

Hillary doesn't have enough supporters to win this election.....

 

...AND...

The sun rises in the west...

Water is dry...

Black is white...

Got it.

 

So trump is going to win all these blue states without winning democrat votes? Otherwise it won't matter if they polled a few more democrats.

 

There's going to be a lot of seriously butt-hurt Trump fans in November....

 

Delusion is even promoting a poll that sampled 1,000 people - that is delusion.....

If you look at these polls they almost seem to poll until they can give Hillary an advantage then stop....

But to answer your second question.....

First off - you called me a "republican" which goes to show you really don't understand one concept I have hit on here..... You're still on the whole "republican vs democrat" paradigm - so if that is how you look at politics I'm really not shocked that you don't understand how Hillary is going to be destroyed...

Now to answer your question about why I KNOW Trump is going to win - it's simple. First, lets just disregard the fact that a large portion of voters hate Hillary and want to see her in prison, but beyond that - Trump is owning the independents - in the real world he has support from people what wouldn't have otherwise even bothered to vote and don't vote, he has support from blue collar families and even labor unions - Trump has taken demographics that democrats traditionally relied on to win..... Basically in short - Trump has supporters, and a lot of supporters and Hillary doesn't have many people that support her - she's relying on people that may cast a vote for her because they hate Trump..... Of course that is where Johnson and Stein come in - many people who hate both Trump and Hillary will either stay at home or vote for Johnson or Hillary.. Johnson isn't even really a libertarian and the more he shows this the more people that wanted to vote for him will now vote for Trump and Stein is just a crazy hippy lady that likes to spray paint green crap on private property so shes not going to steal votes...

Basically Trump has way more grassroots support than Hillary which is why Trump will win...... It's the silent majority that's going to make it an easy win for Trump tho.

 

But there is nothing in their methodology that reflect the type of bias you are referring to.

In other words, if too many Republicans, too many whites, or too many men are in the 3,000 person pool, they are weighted downward to reflect the actual voting electorate and the U.S. Census.

 

And what a shocker, the LAT poll is done differently than all the other polls. They poll the same 3000 people the entire time. It is not some random sampling, it's more meant to show the changes within the same sample over the period of the election. So if that random 3000 people from the start lean Trump, it will be the same Trump supporters being polled the entire time.

 

They're assuming turnout and party ID will match 2012. That's a huge assumption. I would, for instance, expect Republican party ID to be lower in 2016 than in 2012, because of Trump. So if LAT is going by 2012, it will be oversampling Republicans.

But you seem to be missing the point. It is highly unlikely that the LAT poll is accurate, and everybody else is wrong. It is far more likely that the LAT poll is an outlier, and the polling average is closer to the truth.

 

Trump supporter math, lmao!!!

 

Yep.

Now, that could be a strength rather than a weakness -- an explanation for why the LAT poll might be more accurate than the others.

But that's unlikely. And given that their adjusting their sample to match 2012, I think the possibility of sample error is high.

 

My math is fine..... Using your logic for every person polled they're representing 30,000 voters.

Don't you see a problem with that? but not only that but to give Hillary a 7 point lead on top of that via bias...... C'mon.

The math you use isn't even math - it's nothing - it defies basic logic.

Hillary was basically fronted a 7-10 point lead in most of these polls due to their bias and their targeting to push Hillary and you're defending it???

Hillary is absolutely done..... She cant win this election - it's not possible. These polls are basically cheerleaders for Hillary.

 

I consider the face value of the LAT times poll as the best Trump can do, and 6% less as the worst he can do, only because most other polls are much more favorable to Hillary; but I don't consider that to be a substantive reason; because polls from media outlets like CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS can easily all be singing the same song, a song for Hillary.

Look at how the same USC methodology fared in 2012:

Concerning party turnout, do you really think Dems will turn out for Hillary as much as they did for Obama? I don't think so. So that would counteract most if not all of any slack in party turnout for Trump.

 

Again. You claim to have "done polling" -- but you have zero understanding of how poll sampling works, from a statistical sense.

And even after this fact -- and the math -- is pointed out to you, you STILL keep claiming that a sample size of 1,000 is too small.

IN THE SAME THREAD. WHERE EVERYONE READING IT CAN SEE THAT YOUR CLAIM HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE NONSENSE.

 

Trump is doing very will with independents and the minority vote and you know what? Trump only needs 15% of the minority vote to turn a state like Illinois red.

I think there is a very good chance that Hillary could lose any "blue" state.....

Trump isn't a republican, he's a mix of republican, democrat and classical liberal ideologies so he appeals to everyone in some way...... Yeah, progressives aren't going to vote for Trump but SJW's are pretty much moot when it comes to this election because there aren't many of them and half of the SJW base isn't even old enough to vote...

Trump is addressing issues that most politicians wouldn't even address that a lot of people care about and what is Hillary doing? oh yeah spewing typical status quo nonsense.... Intelligent people know that Hillary's policies are Obama's policies and they're tired of it - they don't work and on top of that Hillary is an elitist criminal that belongs in prison which is why she's not getting much support.....

This election isn't about Hillary and who likes her because not many do. It has to do with who agrees with Trump and who hates Trump and as it stands today Trump has more supporters than Hillary.

Polls are stupid - few are even scientific. Oh and I will tell you right now if a scientific poll is done Trump beats Hillary handedly.

 

Lmao. Trump supporter math!!

 

lol How much you wanna bet MrNick will be screaming voter fraud after Trump gets smashed next month?

 

He does not seem to understand the very basics of the science of polling

- - - Updated - - -

Oh we know that is coming. LOL

 

One year does not prove anything. There was a time when Rasmussen was most accurate. Those days are long gone.

Meanwhile, the FiveThirtyEight final prediction -- based on the polling averages, and thus not dependent on the accuracy of any one poll -- was for a 2.5% margin:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/fivethirtyeights-2012-forecast/

Not bad in a year when all the polls underestimated Obama's final margin, and avoids all the pitfalls of overreliance on a single poll.

There will always be a handful of polls in any given cycle that turn out to be more accurate than the average -- that's just the way result distribution works. But there's no obvious way to pick those. The average will -- on average -- be more accurate than any given poll.

 

Yes I have done polling hence I realize that a polling agency can manufacture the outcome they want by framing questions in a certain way or just by targeting....

This is why I find polls asinine...

If you knew how polling works you wouldn't respect polls either. But like I said I didn't only do political polls I have done polls for products and even then it's generally the typical outcome. It comes down to how you phrase a question..... I mean I could ask you the same question but phrase it differently and you would give me two different answers depending how I phrased my question.

I did market research too and it's all useless data.... The sample size is all that matters if you want good data....... Look I could flip a coin 10 times and it wouldn't be unusual to have 8 heads and 2 tails, but we all know if I flipped that coin 1 million times it would be pretty close to 50/50.....

 

I'll say for the record that no polling company has ever reached out to me for my views on any polls in any election.

 

Your math is so ridiculously dumb, lmao. There is absolutely no rule that says the country is 50% democrat/50% republican... lol. Please don't vote.

 

You live in a deep-blue state that gets polled very infrequently, never mind the small chance that any given poll will call you.

Minnesota is more bluish-purple these days, and I live in a swing district. I've been polled a few times -- including once by Rasmussen. Most of them, though, have been small-sample polls from local party organizations -- my county Democratic Party, for instance, or the county Republican Party. Or by one or another campaign. I think I've been polled twice by pollsters working for Erik Paulsen.