Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
For anyone who thinks Polling is anywhere near fair and accurate
Bendintheriver
Member Posts: 5,290
in Tug Tavern
I posted on this before but this article is well defined and full of many more examples of where the liberal media does its polling part to help democrats win.
There are three different polling companies: 1) Companies that get paid by industry to be accurate and wouldn't be in business very long if their data and results sucked. 2) Independent polling companies that will give you whatever result you want if you pay the right amount. 3) Big media and university polling who are in the business to shape opinion through skewed data and seriously flawed models.
As you read the article, realize just how nasty these rats are. They pay polling companies to tank Republicans. Data shows that if a candidate is deemed down and out, the money goes elsewhere. So Rats pay polling companies for faulty data, publish it, advertise on it and shazam, a Republican candidates financial support dries up.
This shit has been going on for years. 2016 and 2020 is when the rats took off the cloak. They skewed the numbers so bad that people like me who are into this shit are completely distrusting and disillusioned in any polling paid for by rats.
When it comes to cheating, these rats are good.
https://www.realclearpublicaffairs.com/articles/2022/09/19/polling_errors_threaten_public_confidence_in_elections_854351.html
Polling Errors Threaten Public Confidence in Elections
The polling industry has faced criticism for underestimating Republicans through several cycles. Pollster Nate Cohn recently wrote that the 2022 polls could do it again. These continued misjudgments can undermine public faith in how the media covers elections. Worse still, they can affect the result of close races.
Many 2020 Senate polls underestimated Republicans. In Maine, all polls taken during 2020 showed Republican Sen. Susan Collins losing. The last poll before the election had Collins down by six points; she won by 8.6 points. Similarly, the last poll for Montana’s Senate race showed Republican Sen. Steve Daines losing by one point. Daines won by 10 points. South Carolina faced a similar problem, and Iowa, though not as dramatically, also dealt with inaccurate polling. Finally, polls in North Carolina showed Republican Thom Tillis losing. Tillis won.
Bad polls can affect a race in various ways. One of the most important concerns campaign spending. In 2020, GOP donors spent millions in races propping up incumbents who they thought were in trouble.
Conversely, donors may have abandoned candidates who they believed were too far behind. Many wrote off Collins. In Arizona, polls during the final week showed Republican incumbent Sen. Martha McSally down by as much as 10 points, but she lost by only about two. A Fox News poll from two months before the election had McSally down by 17 points. When that poll was released, much of the media counted McSally out. While it’s possible that the polls tightened, it seems more likely that she was never really down by 17 points.
In Michigan, polls showed businessman and Republican Senate candidate John James down by an average of five points. James ultimately lost by less than two points. The results were so close that it took a few days to call the election.
Moreover, polls earlier in the 2020 cycle affected media coverage. In Alaska, liberals crowdfunded for Public Policy Polling to conduct a poll of the state’s Senate race. The poll showed the Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan at 39 percent, up only five points over Democrat Al Gross. This led to the viral campaign “don’t sleep on Gross” and millions being spent on the race. Yet Gross lost by more than 12 points and underperformed President Biden in Alaska, which calls into question that early poll.
Voter enthusiasm will differ in a race that is within a point or two versus one that has a five-point spread. New Mexico and Minnesota’s Senate races ended up closer than those in South Carolina, Montana, and Maine, but polling outlets were far less active in New Mexico and Minnesota than in those other states. Had these two states received more polling, their races might have attracted more money and voter enthusiasm.
And polling errors are not limited to Senate races. Polls in the last week of 2020 showed Donald Trump losing Wisconsin by as much as 11 points; Trump lost by less than a point. In 2021’s New Jersey gubernatorial election, none of the nonpartisan polls gave the Republican candidate, Jack Ciattarelli, a chance at winning, yet the race was decided by just three points.
As Cohn noted, the past might repeat itself. Yet several of the same outlets are making projections for November based on polls with less-than-stellar recent track records. These kinds of mistakes could affect the results this November and further diminish public trust in the organizations that conduct and publish these polls
There are three different polling companies: 1) Companies that get paid by industry to be accurate and wouldn't be in business very long if their data and results sucked. 2) Independent polling companies that will give you whatever result you want if you pay the right amount. 3) Big media and university polling who are in the business to shape opinion through skewed data and seriously flawed models.
As you read the article, realize just how nasty these rats are. They pay polling companies to tank Republicans. Data shows that if a candidate is deemed down and out, the money goes elsewhere. So Rats pay polling companies for faulty data, publish it, advertise on it and shazam, a Republican candidates financial support dries up.
This shit has been going on for years. 2016 and 2020 is when the rats took off the cloak. They skewed the numbers so bad that people like me who are into this shit are completely distrusting and disillusioned in any polling paid for by rats.
When it comes to cheating, these rats are good.
https://www.realclearpublicaffairs.com/articles/2022/09/19/polling_errors_threaten_public_confidence_in_elections_854351.html
Polling Errors Threaten Public Confidence in Elections
The polling industry has faced criticism for underestimating Republicans through several cycles. Pollster Nate Cohn recently wrote that the 2022 polls could do it again. These continued misjudgments can undermine public faith in how the media covers elections. Worse still, they can affect the result of close races.
Many 2020 Senate polls underestimated Republicans. In Maine, all polls taken during 2020 showed Republican Sen. Susan Collins losing. The last poll before the election had Collins down by six points; she won by 8.6 points. Similarly, the last poll for Montana’s Senate race showed Republican Sen. Steve Daines losing by one point. Daines won by 10 points. South Carolina faced a similar problem, and Iowa, though not as dramatically, also dealt with inaccurate polling. Finally, polls in North Carolina showed Republican Thom Tillis losing. Tillis won.
Bad polls can affect a race in various ways. One of the most important concerns campaign spending. In 2020, GOP donors spent millions in races propping up incumbents who they thought were in trouble.
Conversely, donors may have abandoned candidates who they believed were too far behind. Many wrote off Collins. In Arizona, polls during the final week showed Republican incumbent Sen. Martha McSally down by as much as 10 points, but she lost by only about two. A Fox News poll from two months before the election had McSally down by 17 points. When that poll was released, much of the media counted McSally out. While it’s possible that the polls tightened, it seems more likely that she was never really down by 17 points.
In Michigan, polls showed businessman and Republican Senate candidate John James down by an average of five points. James ultimately lost by less than two points. The results were so close that it took a few days to call the election.
Moreover, polls earlier in the 2020 cycle affected media coverage. In Alaska, liberals crowdfunded for Public Policy Polling to conduct a poll of the state’s Senate race. The poll showed the Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan at 39 percent, up only five points over Democrat Al Gross. This led to the viral campaign “don’t sleep on Gross” and millions being spent on the race. Yet Gross lost by more than 12 points and underperformed President Biden in Alaska, which calls into question that early poll.
Voter enthusiasm will differ in a race that is within a point or two versus one that has a five-point spread. New Mexico and Minnesota’s Senate races ended up closer than those in South Carolina, Montana, and Maine, but polling outlets were far less active in New Mexico and Minnesota than in those other states. Had these two states received more polling, their races might have attracted more money and voter enthusiasm.
And polling errors are not limited to Senate races. Polls in the last week of 2020 showed Donald Trump losing Wisconsin by as much as 11 points; Trump lost by less than a point. In 2021’s New Jersey gubernatorial election, none of the nonpartisan polls gave the Republican candidate, Jack Ciattarelli, a chance at winning, yet the race was decided by just three points.
As Cohn noted, the past might repeat itself. Yet several of the same outlets are making projections for November based on polls with less-than-stellar recent track records. These kinds of mistakes could affect the results this November and further diminish public trust in the organizations that conduct and publish these polls
Comments
Clearly.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/09/trafalgar-polls-minnesota.php
TRAFALGAR POLLS MINNESOTA
Polls conducted by Robert Cahaly’s Trafalgar Group are the ones to which I pay most attention. While other polls have become a recurring joke, Trafalgar’s have established an impressive record in recent years. Trafalgar, for example, was one of the only pollsters to predict President Trump’s 2016 victory and was the second most accurate pollster in 2020.
While other polls in Minnesota and elsewhere have given Democrats heart this summer, Trafalgar’s current polls show Republican Senate candidates doing well in difficult races around the country. What gives?
Cahaly has found those of us who think unapproved thoughts difficult to reach and to poll. This year he speculates on the phenomenon of “submerged voters.” He thinks that other polls are missing them. You can follow Cahaly on Twitter here.
Alpha News (on whose board I sit) commissioned Trafalgar Group to conduct a comprehensive Minnesota survey on the upcoming election. The results include all four statewide races and the top issues for Minnesota voters. Alpha News editor Anthony Gockowski reports the results this morning in “EXCLUSIVE: Jensen surges, Schultz leads in new Alpha News/Trafalgar Group poll.”
The poll shows Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen within three points of DFL Governor Tim Walz. According to Trafalgar, the Republican candidate is at the least running neck and neck with his DFL opponent. The poll shows Republican candidate Jim Schultz is actually leading Keith Ellison in the race for Attorney General outside the margin of error. No Republican has won the office of Attorney General in Minnesota since Doug Head in 1966. It has become a Democratic preserve.
Crime, the economy, and abortion are the top issues for Minnesota voters, in that order, but crime comes in first by a long shot at 41.5 percent. If you have followed Power Line over the past few years, this shouldn’t come as a shock.
Rats are spending millions on these type of predetermined outcome polls. It isn't against the law but it isn't right either. No self respecting news organization or polling provider should ever take this kind of money for shoddy research and data collection, not to mention no organization worth its salt as a professional outfit would ever lend their name to this kind of manipulation.
In short, no one should ever trust MSM polling data. Ever.