Vote for Trump 2020
- Thread starter Optionpro007
- Start date
You lunatics are not even good at disinformation. Where do you come up with this crap. Nixon's rating was over 60% by election day 1972, and the polls, which only poll for popular vote and not the electoral college vote, were right on the money, just as they were in the 2016 election. Is it time for you to go back to your Junior High Civics Class and pay attention this time around? Jesus, you guys are dumb! Holly Shit!
Last edited:
By election day, since the 1948 election when the polling stopped prematurely with a couple weeks to go before the election, the polls, when taken in aggregate, have been correct with regard to picking the winner of the popular vote -- Amazingly accurate! They've called the winner of the popular vote correctly since 1948, including the 2016 election, with the exception of those elections too close to call. Of course they will make an erroneous call in some small fraction of the elections polled for. The margin of error quoted by the polling organizations is itself a statistic, and therefore by definition, like all statistics, is distributed.
Yes indeed!, presidential election polling since 1948 has been amazingly accurate. Only a fool would bet against the professional pollsters. I think we may have identified a few potential fools come election day 2020.
Last edited:
That and a sawbuck will get you 2 coffees.
I have to disagree with you on this. Polling put forward by nation-wide polls driven by news media have had very inaccurate results with Presidential election polling
However polling done by local polling firms at a state level have been very accurate in defining which Presidential candidate will take the electoral votes for the state.
Will vote for Trump if on ticket.
I have never seen a professional polling organizations claim such a thing in those words without qualification. They all know that they are polling for the popular vote and usually use words such as likely winner etc., which is correct. They might even go so far as saying "the likely winner of the electoral college vote" which would be unwise, though correct, because statistically the winner of the popular vote is the likely winner of the EC vote. But no respectable polling outfit will ever use words such as "will win the electoral college vote", unless perhaps the other party's candidate has died a few days before the election.
Now the media, that's different!
What you've done is to do what everyone does, statistically speaking. You've read into the prognostications of the professional polling firms words that are either not there or you have subconsciously omitted important qualifying words. Professional polling has been amazingly accurate ever since the mistake made in the 1948 polling. Sooner or later they will commit an important systematic error, but they haven't since 1948. The pollsters seem to have been able to adjust to the fading away of residential landlines. Only a fool would bet against the professional polls, in aggregate, unless they had much more granular polling results that could give them reliable insight into the EC vote. The Trump organization apparently had a very good plan for knowing where to go to grab enough EC votes to eek out a victory in the EC. I am convinced that despite the Trump organization's almost certain knowledge of Russian activity aimed at swaying public opinion, Donald Trump thought, because of the polls, he was going to lose the election . The best evidence of that is his steady insistence that the election was rigged. Would Trump claim that if he thought he would win?
Last edited:
fair enough. First, we have to know what you mean by "polls driven by news media", if you mean polls on CNN, Fox news, or Yahoo, etc, where they add up the number of call-in votes or clicks for this or that candidate, well of course we all agree those types of polls are entertaining but not reliable.
In my ET posts I am always referring to polls professionally designed to obtain statistically reliable results as carried out by expert polling organizations or companies. Can you name a few specific examples of very inaccurate, aggregate polling by these organizations, since 1948. Only the polls taken days before the election can be used for this of course. Ideally what we need to make your point is more than a couple examples of where the popular vote on election day was well outside the limits of error in the professional polls.
And if you find more than a couple examples, I don't think you'll find any, of where the average of the professional poll results got the winner in the popular vote wrong in any election that wasn't too close to call, I'll concede that polling by professional polling organizations is "very inaccurate" to use your words. If on the other hand you mean by "polls driven by news media" non-statistically designed junk polls then we are wasting our time. Of course such polls are inaccurate measures of overall sentiment in national elections, and even more inaccurate of sentiment among likely voters, which is what the professional pollsters try to sample for.
Last edited:
I have never seen a professional polling organizations claim such a thing in those words without qualification. They all know that they are polling for the popular vote and usually use words such as likely winner etc., which is correct. They might even go so far as saying "the likely winner of the electoral college vote" which would be unwise, though correct, because statistically the winner of the popular vote is the likely winner of the EC vote. But no respectable polling outfit will ever use words such as "will win the electoral college vote", unless perhaps the other party's candidate has died a few days before the election.
Now the media, that's different!
What you've done is to do what everyone does, statistically speaking. You've read into the prognostications of the professional polling firms words that are either not their or you have subconsciously omitted important qualifying words. Professional polling has been amazingly accurate ever since the mistake made in the 1948 polling. Sooner or later they will commit an important systematic error, but they haven't since 1948. The pollsters seem to have been able to adjust to the fading away of residential landlines. Only a fool would bet against the professional polls, in aggregate, unless they had much more granular polling results that could give them reliable insight into the EC vote. The Trump organization apparently had a very good plan for knowing where to go to grab enough EC votes to eek out a victory in the EC. I am convinced that despite the Trump organization's almost certain knowledge of Russian activity aimed at swaying public opinion, Donald Trump thought, because of the polls, he was going to lose the election . The best evidence of that is his steady insistence that the election was rigged. Would Trump claim that if he thought he would win?
Well you can go to 538 which tracks the accuracy of polling firms in elections and have your beliefs regarding polls either supported or not supported.
Here is their grading and ranking of polling firms - https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/