No. If I assume the worst about pollsters, I will assume that they value activism over methodology in the same way many journalists have recently demonstrated.
The lifter in me believes that the practitioner of the proven methodology is responsible for the bad results.
If I assume activism is the priority, manipulating the methodology to paint a picture of an 86 percent chance of Trump defeat doesn’t seem so far-fetched. In other words, leveraging the good reputation of poll results to manipulate public opinion.
Root this further in the arrogance of believing Clinton’s victory to be inevitable, and a bad-faith actor could rest soundly in the belief that subverting the methodology in the name of activism would become a self fulfilling prophecy.
But none of that happened. The methodology failed for some reason. Trump won in a landslide.
If you think the popular vote matters, share your sob story with the 1960 New York Yankees.
I responded to this very poll. I am better off today than four ago because Trump is nearly out of office rather than being at the outset of his ineptitude.
I shared it because it reflected that it was more accurate than in 2012.
By the side convinced that everything is bad faith actors that has anything to do with Trump. Fake news is quoting the President. It’s showing a video of him saying something after he insisted he didn’t say it and then thinking that’s unfair.
It can’t be Trump outperformed the polls. This happens and here’s why statistically. It has to be Trump outperformed the polls which were deliberately falsified against him.
He sure has convinced his supporters that everyone in the world is working against him at all times.
Thank you. Yes, I am a scientist hence the clever rhetoric. The polls last time gave Trump about a 1 in 3 chance to win the electoral vote. It was not that far off. Trump did not win any states he was trailing by more than 3% points in.
It is far different this time. He is trailing far more, Biden does not have the negative backlash of HRC, and Trump, for all us that suspected incompetence in 2016, has shown he is far worse than we could have imagined. The voter turnout is strong. Trump is losing big time. Don’t let the lawn signs in rural Oklahoma fool you - this will be blow out.
Gallup had Romney with a 7 point lead with a month left until election. Obama won 332 electoral votes. Gallup falsified this information. It’s the only logical conclusion.
I’m not saying I’m certain of anything here, aside from the fact that most media are now lining up to be state-run media for the Democrats. Pollsters swim in the same waters.
We now have Pravda, USA style. Is WeChat next? I hope it is all worth it if the #resistance gets their man Biden in.
I see this from the opposite side. If the media or pollsters want a certain candidate to win - like Clinton in 2016 - they shouldn’t project or strongly predict this would be the outcome. That hurt her for sure, because if your “team” is up by 3 touchdowns in the fourth quarter you lose interest and don’t vote. If your team is the underdog that you feel is not given the proper respect, you sure as hell are going to wait in line to vote. IMO, the media (yes, the evil, skewed MSM) won the election for Trump in 2016. I think this was inadvertent, though.
There’s that angle too, but it sure seems like the message at the time was a resounding Clinton win under even the most dire predictions.
Does that keep more Trump voters at home or fire more up? What about Hillary voters?
I’m not sure, but somebody was pissing in the pot.
Internet sources suggest Russian operatives, working in tandem with a nationwide network of white supremacists, could possibly be responsible, according to a draft document submitted by a Trump nominee with ties to the Crystal Pepsi marketing campaign.
Just to be clear I’m not either. I just think it’s fairly easy to look at polling in 2016 and explain how the results went the way they did. It would be far harder for me to say the polls have been more accurate in years past and since they were off in 2016 that tells me something nefarious was at play.
I’m always the simplest solution makes the most sense. And that is that a lot of uncertainty existed going into 2016 and Trump performed better than expected in battleground states where even a small difference would put polls within the MOE. Combine that with already close battleground states historically and you get 2016.
I play poker. If I’m a 70% favorite I can’t be shocked when you win 3 out of 10 and think the game is rigged.
Ita hard to tell hyperbole or sarcasm but just in case, that’s still a better option than not realising you are building a wall or are the president.
Not that I think Joe has dementia or the early signs of it (I wouldn’t rule out a different condition though) but I am saying that dementia is pretty fucked up and almost always the worst scenario.
I read the other day that the higher the turnout, the more accurate the polls. We’re seeing incredible turnout so far - and if that rule holds, no surprises in the votes. Biden by a bunch.
My Grandma had dementia and it sucks. She was really worked up one day and locked everything up and finally let me in. She told me someone had been breaking in and stealing peanut butter each night.
That didn’t make much sense to me. Probably makes more sense than someone saying Mexico will pay for the wall, coronavirus will disappear, everyone will get healthcare coverage for cheaper, and defaulting on the national debt doesn’t matter.
I’m not saying Trump has dementia but we are talking about a President who used “he will listen to the scientists” as an attack on his opponent. In the middle of a public health crisis. Might not be dementia but it’s clearly someone not making any fucking sense.
Man I saw this and thought it was a nothing slip but now Joe’s defence (the media) has gone into protection mode and are saying he is referring to the interviewer George Lopez which makes fuck all sense and is probably worse. This now makes me think something is up… lol
The correct response is “Who gives a fuck?” not whatever this is…
I don’t even believe it myself. Surely there’s some way to check for these things using frequency devices or whatever tech that I don’t know exists.
I agree, but I’m also pretty sure he’s highly medically “enhanced” during the debates like @punnyguy was saying. Probably legal prescriptions so no reason to cry “foul”.
Zero risk, stakes are as big as they get. Kids take shit for their admittance interview in college. I would be shocked if all these people don’t take something.
Personally, I’d go in coked up and ready to rumble.