The online polls say Trump CRUSHED Hillary in the debate.
Not. Even. Close.
Trump fucking destroyed Hillary...
1.75 MILLION votes!!!
Think about that number for just one second: 1.75 MILLION votes.
And how many people do the official traditional "legacy" polling methodology survey?
...20? ...100? ...1000, maybe, on a good day???
Seriously.
Yeah, contrary to what MSM claims, scientifically speaking, the only polls that can be trusted today are online polls. The sheer magnitude of number of respondents alone makes them astronomically more accurate than the "legacy" polling methodology. As I explained in my comment the other day:
MSM polls today are pure fabrication to support their false narrative.
There is a reason that you haven't seen a single presidential poll from Gallup, the most respected trustworthy pollster in the business, and it's because they refuse to be party to the charade.
The only polls that can be trusted today are online polls, and that is based upon the objective "scientific" facts:
#1) Freeping is no longer an issue because (a) the shear number of respondents is so high, like in the hundreds of thousands, and due to cookies, the number of users who have the tools to spoof the cookie is nominal (ie: within the statistical margin of error), and (b) both sides are freeping, so it is a wash anyway, and
#2) the internet is ubiquitous, so the sample set is an accurate cross section of the general population, by and large.
#3) MSM "Official" polling, which uses Landlines, Cell Phones, and Focus groups, is (a) highly prone to bias, and (b) only interviews a very VERY limited sample size, compared to the internet today, so that methodology is far less accurate.
And in case you missed it:
Joe Scarborough: NBC Poll Showing Donald Trump Losing Badly Was ‘Cooked’
MSNBC Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough was less than impressed with a Monday NBC/WSJ poll showing Donald Trump losing to Hillary Clinton by double digits, accusing the poll of being “cooked” to get the result.
Scarborough’s problem was the timing of the polling, which began after Trump’s “grab ’em by the pussy” comments were uncovered Friday but ended before Sunday’s debate. “This NBC/Wall Street Journal poll– we work here and love working here,” Scarborough began (MSNBC is a subsidiary of NBC Universal). “They take the poll the second the crisis starts and they stop it just before the debate.”
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO5k5VgIYYw]
They are obviously attempting to promote a media narrative to support a rigged general election, just like they did prior to rigging the primary election.
…The Battle Really is For Your Mind
- Friday NBC/Universal releases the controversial Trump tape done by Billy Bush for Access Hollywood.
- Saturday and Sunday the same NBC/Universal coordinate with Hart Research and Associates for a poll/survey.
- Hart Research President, Geoff Garin, works for (and is paid by) Hillary Clinton’s Super-PAC.
- Monday, Hart Research, release the “cooked poll”, and NBC/WSJ begin promoting, while other media pile on to support.
Even a modest political follower can spot the narrative construction in timeline, against the backdrop of the relationships involved in the entire matter.
- This was a timed, strategic, and fully coordinated, media political hit between NBC/Universal and Priorities USA – All the entities involved are Team Clinton.
Do not mentally allow the MSNBC Team (Joe Scarborough), professionals at gas lighting, to head obtusely toward the exits as if this is some jaw-agape shock to them. It’s not.
This was a timed, strategic, and fully coordinated, media political hit between NBC/Universal and Priorities USA – All the entities involved are Team Clinton.
PS...
I posted the above essay as a comment in response to this most excellent essay: Donald Trump's Takedown of Hillary Clinton ...and received a very kind and thoughtful response:
Thanks for such a well-cited summary.
Thu, 10/13/2016 - 12:11am — Pluto's RepublicYour comments always deliver. It's a lot of work to compose a detailed summary. I re-learned a couple of things from this one:
1. I have not paid as much attention as I should to the timing of polls. It's a great way to manipulate the outcome, yet even polling employees can't readily see it.
2. Sample size. "1.75 MILLION votes." I haven't given as much weight to this metric as I should. We've seen online polls gain credibility quite recently, and it makes a lot of sense. But social sampling is evolving rapidly, and sample size is clearly the next frontier.
The counter-intelligence strategies of Joe Scarborough (elaborate gaslighting) was also a nice find. They've stepped up the propaganda game used against the American people and they are so very reckless about it. As if they have nothing to lose. As if we can't see what they are doing.
Thank you, Pluto!
Yup. Sample Size in online polls is the game changer. The legacy methodologies for polling (Phone-Landline/Cell, Robocalls-vs-Live, Focus Groups, Interviews, Mail-in) cannot compete, once the freeping bias was neutralized, which it now has been, and once the internet became ubiquitous, which it now is.... scientifically, there is no comparison:
The Importance and Effect of Sample Size
A narrower margin of error requires a larger sample size. ... A higher confidence level requires a larger sample size. Power – This is the probability that we find statistically significant evidence of a difference between the groups, given that there is a difference in the population.
The legacy polling methodology is arcane, extremely costly, and fast becoming ineffective and obsolete due to its gross inaccuracies and susceptibility to polling bias. Online polling is the future, and I say that purely based upon a scientific analysis of the statistical metrics.
Confidence and Margin of Error
The size of our sample dictates the amount of information we have and therefore, in part, determines our precision or level of confidence that we have in our sample estimates. An estimate always has an associated level of uncertainty, which depends upon the underlying variability of the data as well as the sample size. The more variable the population, the greater the uncertainty in our estimate. Similarly, the larger the sample size the more information we have and so our uncertainty reduces.
Let's repeat that:
The larger the sample size
the more information we have
and so our uncertainty reduces.
In other words... scientifically, the larger the sample size, the more accurate the poll.
In other words...
Trump fucking destroyed Hillary in the debate.
Duh.
As if we needed polls to tell us that. lol
Comments
Psych Ops
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_(United_States)
Been thinking increasing psych ops an indication of the fear Clintons, their sycophants, all corporate controlled MSM, have of losing what ever status, power, and financial support they may still have. Laughing when I hear anyone complain about Trump being "dictatorial" when we listen to the President of the United States condemn a candidate for the same office. Want to say to both Michelle and Barack Obama, Biden, all elected individuals "Have you no decency..." When Bernie Sanders has the gall to tell us "not to waste" our votes on a "protest" candidate, and then goes on to praise Her Heinous, want to ask him for my money back.
Still think Trump will beat Her Heinous. Also think Green Party will pass the 5% mark.
Only path to change still left to us. Know the Clintons will manipulate the general election the same way they did the primaries, maybe, just maybe, we can prove it this time.
For every pro-Clinton bumper sticker I see, I see five
"Clinton for Prison" bumper stickers. I don't put much credence on such a small sampling but, for what it's worth, is what I am seeing in a competitive state.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I see a lot of Trump swag here in Colorado,
but not much HRC stuff- I'd say it is about a 3-to-1 ratio in favor of Trump. Of course, a lot of this is probably due to the kind of supporters Trump has attracted in these parts, who by and large wouldn't think twice about keying, spraypainting, or otherwise trashing a car that was flying the wrong colors. I'd hate to be a Colorado Springs resident with a nice car and an HRC bumper sticker.
Even so, I value my 150,000 mile old 1997 Rav 4 too much to expose it to those hassles- and putting up a Stein bumper sticker would pretty well guarantee an unpleasant outcome. So I'm a very quiet supporter.
I have absolutely no ability to believe the MSM polls that show Stein at ~2%. It is my belief that the MSM is doing a great job of artificially suppressing her numbers in the so-called polling that they are conducting. This accomplishes the dual goals of actively discouraging people from voting for her, as well as providing cover for the theft of any of her votes that might accrue beyond that 2%-or-so level to which everyone's expectations have been set. Since there will be no exit polling, we'll never know how many votes she actually got prior to any hypothetical theft. So they are covered there as well. Clever!
And please don't tell me that that is tinfoil-hat territory. I used to be a Democrat, participated as a Sanders delegate in our caucuses, and saw that theft play out first hand- thus, my #DemExit. I no longer would put any damned thing past either party: they are both going to be going at this, with all the hacker guns blazing.
I'm voting for Stein anyway, of course, in the hopes that the Greens will make it over 5% despite that. To quote Heinlein's Lazarus Long character: "Certainly the game is rigged. But don't let that stop you: if you don't bet, you can't win...". Fuck the major parties, the MSM, and the horses they collectively rode in on.
I suspect that when the vote flipping occurs
team Hillary will be going after the Stein votes. Like you, I have a difficult time believing Stein's support is only 2%. It doesn't even seem realistically possible that it is that low. But, it won't surprise me in the least if that's the finally number come election day. The rest of Stein's votes will be recorded for Clinton. Disgusting!
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
George W. Bush
I have seen some online polls that have Stein beating Trump
Plus, see the essay immediately above this one, Jimmy Dore thinks Trump's campaign is DOA. In any case, vote your choice of conscience. And if you can, sneak a photo of your marked ballot out with you for documentation.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Jill should be beating them
Jill should be beating them both, hands down, (and hopefully with no police bullet-holes resulting) - Indies are by far the largest voting group, and a number of Dems and Repubs know enough to not actually vote for either evil, or the TPP-supporting and decidedly uniformed Libertarian. This election must be the most bizarre nightmare ever envisioned... I really don't see how it could be made any worse, although I'm sure that the Clinton campaign and funders will find a way to manage it yet.
Edited to add a space between two words. I think we have defective coffee today...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Here in semi rural Oregon
I see Trump signs on cars and houses -NO Clinton signs at all. The last Clinton sign I saw was in Portland and it caught my eye because I realised I had not seen any previously.
It would be a turn up for the books if Clinton loses. The best I can expect out of this election is that third parties get the numbers they need to give the voters any choice at all in the next elections ( if there are any). Bad sad times. Still, Dylan won the Nobel prize -cannot be all bad times.... Who woulda thunk that would happen.
Here too, in Florida, I never see Hillary stickers or signs.
I see a few Trump ones. Is it because Trump is leading or because Hillary supporters are afraid of the damage the Trumpers will do to their cars?
I don't know. It's a mystery to me that someone would vote for either.
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams
There's a few in Alachua County.
But nothing like it was in 2004, 2008, or even 2012.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Is this because readers of
Breitbart
Fox News
Drudge Report
are all representative of the general populace?
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams
Sure, sure...
Variety and Time are conservative rags, too, amirite?
We've virtually all been
We've virtually all been reduced to reading these right-wing rags to keep up on Hill's emails and anything else the rest of the corporate (and much once-decent alternative) media won't carry. So yeah, now, absolutely representative of the general population with internet access and enough sense to not vote for a rapidly fatal evil to befall them and their nearest and dearest.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Online polls can say anything you want.
And I'll tell you this one more time: There were no winners in this debate. There were no winners in the first one. There will be no winners in the third. Neither of them give a shit about actual issues and from what I can see, neither do you, especially since you just wanna see Trumpy Boy 'lock up' Billary. Fat chance, pal.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
Hillary must be stopped.
No ifs, ands or buts. If it takes the execrable Donald Trump to stop her, that's a price we must pay in order to safeguard the future of our nation.
Trump does not have the record of using American resources
internationally to benefit the 1%. He has not been in the position to subvert governments and thwart democracy like Clinton has been in and done.
Maybe he's as capable of being an international mass murderer or maybe not. That can't be said of Hillary "No Maybes" Clinton.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Indeed. One candidate...
has the death of tens of thousands of Libyan civilians on her hands and contributed to the death of untold thousands in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. The other candidate has no blood on his hands.
Not sure if serious.
1.75 million votes from right-wing news sites saying that Herr Drumpf beat Our Lady of Goldman Sachs? Say it ain't so.
I'm sorry . . .
. . .but you don't know what you're talking about. In The Importance and Effect of
Sample Size you leave out the most critical point:
You need to select an unbiased random sample. All of the statistics associated with polling assume a random sample. Statistics such as margin of error only work because, with a random sample, you can assume a normal distribution.
Online polls don't produce ANY sample. They are an aggregation of self-chosen participants. They are a measure of intensity. They don't mean what you think they mean.
In your link Ms. Marley is explaining accurately and clearly what happens when you increase the size of a sample that is unbiased and representative of the population. Sample sizes are usually small because it is expensive to produce unbiased random samples. Also, you reach a point of diminishing returns on the shrinkage of the margin of error quite quickly.
There is no reason to believe the people who completed the online polls are representative of anyone but themselves. Assuming they only voted once, and I think removing cookies is easier than you do, have you wondered how many people responded to exactly one online poll? You can't aggregate the responses.
I find Trump disgusting and Clinton terrifying. I'm voting for Stein. There is a lot of evidence that a large portion of the media is in the tank for Hillary. It's entirely possible that the so called scientific polls were cooked. A former president of the American Statistical Association demonstrated conclusively that fraud occurred in the primaries. So why can't they lie about scientific polls? But your argument about online polls does nothing to prove it.
Finally,
The Gallup organization has produced its usual series of polls. Gallop's polls are used by those who pay for them. In fact, Gallup just released the results of its poll on the second debate. They found Hillary won among debate watchers 53% to 35%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/196304/viewers-say-clinton-wins-second-debate....
Normally, I'd agree with you,
Normally, I'd agree with you, but I saw what CNN did to their online poll and comment section in the first Dem nomination debate, and I believe nothing regarding corporate media claims of Hillary winning populist voters over anyone at all.
The most 'intense' group is the group most likely to vote - or to try very hard to, at any rate.
The same sort of arguments regarding admittedly self-selecting (in that people online, reading the topic and interested in the subject will very likely vote their preference) online polls were used by Hillary supporters at TOP - but Bernie actually won the Dem nomination the world was cheated of. And I suspect that Jill has a much better chance than either evil of accumulating the most actual voters, even just with Indies - the largest voting group.
We need to stop listening to and repeating the messages of TPTB in their massive propaganda efforts to keep us trapped in the 'lesser-evil' two-party trade-off scam box they've been herding us into for so long.
Not that I'm suggesting that you've fallen for it, as you obviously haven't; just saying that more than one factor can be involved, and intensity - even in voting against a known-to-be-deadly evil like Hillary - can be a major one and needs to also be taken into account.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
We may agree.
The media is in the tank. Bernie did get cheated. I have no idea whether the cheating was large enough to turn the result or HRC would have won anyway. It doesn't matter. Cheating is wrong.
My point was a technical one. I want people to understand the difference between a scientific poll and an online poll. A properly done scientific poll uses a carefully created non-biased, sample. Generated the sample and getting the people selected to respond are the hard parts. If you haven't done polling you have no idea how difficult the latter is. If a substantial number of those selected do not participate, you have a problem. That people who choose not to participate or people you can't reach are a random portion of your total sample is extremely unlikely. So your sample is no longer random. You can't trust the results. And statistics like margin of error won't work without a random unbiased sample.
Participants in an online poll aren't members of any selected sample. They are self-chosen participants. Their value primarily is in bragging rights. That's why campaigns encourage their strongest supporters to vote early and, when possible, often.
Scientific polls can be corrupted. Outright corruption carries a considerable risk since pollsters rely on their reputations. Scientific polls can also be shaped. Choice of words can have easily predicted results. More often the media create false impressions. Part of this is inevitable. The factors that professionals take into account when evaluating polls are too complicated to present in a news story. If you want the details you should always go to the site of the organization that produced the poll and read everything you can find.
Then there is the case where polls are presented in ways calculated to produce false conclusions. Take the poll the author of the original post referenced. It began after the Trump clip about grabbing and kissing. It stopped before the second debate. I imagine the pollster wanted to know the effect of the clip itself. They would need to stop before the next major event because that event would contaminate the result they wanted to study. It appears many in the media used that result to exaggerate the change in support toward Hillary Clinton. I do remember media reports after the 2nd debates that Trump had done well enough to stop the hemorrhaging.
There are infinitely many problems the limiting accuracy of even the best scientific polls. First, it's important to remember that every poll is a snapshot. It appears that polls in 1980 understated Reagan's support in part because there really was a surge in support for Reagan in the last few days. (Among other things the anniversary of the taking of American hostages by Iran came up.) The polls likely were much closer to the reality that existed when they were taken.
In 2008 the $64,000 question was turnout of young voters. Young voters clearly favored Obama by substantial margins and were especially enthusiastic. But young voters are infamous for not turning out. Pollsters tried hard to determine the turnout of young voters. They asked the "Do you intend to vote?" question. They asked them to rate their enthusiasm on scales. But they still had historical turnout numbers. Many of the differences in scientific polls in 2008 are explained by different weights placed on young voters.
Also, it takes several days to conduct a scientific poll. You need to reach the selected sample. I find scientifically selected focus groups more reliable than scientific samples because the people gather together to watch a debate, then answer questions before they hear what anyone outside the focus group has to say. Bernie did substantially better in these focus groups than scientific polls. I think a substantial part of the difference is explained by changes in opinions of people watching commentary on the debate overwhelmingly asserting that Hillary won.
Focus groups have their own limitations. Generally you need to pay people to give up an evening. There is a potential bias toward people who need the money. That problem generally is manageable. Another problem is more difficult. People running focus groups know that the opinions of other members can be shaped by group members with the strongest opinions, positively if they are articulate, negatively if they come across as bullies.
My advice to people who are interested in polls is to pick a couple of reputable pollsters and follow their most basic question about who people plan to vote for over time. Use their own websites and read the commentary. They will not have identical results. But if they ask exactly the same question each time and select and weight the sample the same way, the trends should show you something. Reputable polls with different totals should still trend the same way and the change tells you something interesting. When trends move in different directions in these scientific polls people involved want to know why.
I'm sorry to be so long winded. This is probably way more than you wanted to read.