Independents Only- Trump: 51% (+12) Harris: 39% Someone Else: 3% Not Sure: 7%
Independents Only- Trump: 51% (+12) Harris: 39% Someone Else: 3% Not Sure: 7%
tgull lost (TDS..) lmao..
https://twitter.com/YahooNews/status/1834944938691219501
Originally Posted by garrett
You gov come on man that’s like touting Rasmussen those two are super biased
win or lose i think we can all agree that its finally obvious why vance's mom traded him for some percs.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
https://twitter.com/atlas_intel/status/1835070367310004405
From the most accurate pollster in 2020.
They called the race as Biden +4.7, final margin was Biden +4.5. The average error in all of their polls for any race in the cycle was around 2 points, which is what made them the most accurate. Prior to the few fake, partisan polls released to influence public perception after the debate, the RCP average was +1.1 Harris. In 2020 this ended at +8 Biden. Kamala's team admitted again two days ago to CNN that her internals are horrible.
Are we seeing a polling error similar to 2020 confirmed by the pollsters who spend the money on extra effort to reach hidden Trump voters? Or are the most accurate pollsters like Siena and AtlasIntel off with their Trump +2 and +2.8 methodology? If these Trump polls are anywhere close to accurate he will win every swing state and be extremely competitive in Minnesota and probably even more so in Virginia.
And people keep shitting on Rasmussen, they called the race exactly in 2016 and were top 5 on accuracy in 2020. They stick out by being one of the few whose errors trend Republican. The difference is their errors are not as egregious as the 20 other pollsters who all skew Democrat. Their latest national poll has Trump at +2. Their daily survey has averaged to around Trump +3 for the past couple weeks.
Not going to waste time posting it, but it appears the Taylor Swift endorsement is completely backfiring.
A week before the 2020 election ABC-Washington Post had Biden up 17 points in Wisconsin. Yes 17 points. He won by .07, less than a percentage point. It's really why I am sticking to Nate Sliver this go around. He is about as left as left can get but is a straight shooter when it comes to inputting the data in his model, which is why the left is now attacking him. Even he is like WTF? They literally are smearing him for saying Trump is ahead in the EC.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
https://twitter.com/onpointpolitics/status/1835097672669446658
It's much easier, cheaper, and likely to get the results wanted for Dem partisan pollsters than it is to put in the work to get accurate results.
If the November election was held today, public polling would drastically underestimate Trump’s performance and, to a lesser extent, the Republican Party’s as a whole.
I’m not a poll truther. On the contrary, I’m a Republican campaign consultant and pollster who has consumed thousands of pages of data. My biggest takeaway? The survey environment is plagued by a large response bias problem that low-budget public surveys refuse to fix.
The basic science behind a poll is simple: if we interview 800 Pennsylvania voters, each answer should be within three points of the whole universe 95 percent of the time. For example, if a survey of 800 Pennsylvania voters showed Trump at 48%, then his actual support could be as low as 45% or as high as 51%.
But this foundation assumes every respondent is equally likely to take a given survey, which is false. Pollsters have two tools to help them adjust for this reality.
The first is quotas. Pollsters dictate how many individuals of a certain group they want in their survey. I want X percent men and Y% women. I want X percent white people and Y% Black. Nearly every pollster uses quotas for geography, age, and race. The major debate is about setting quotas for things like education level and, most controversially, political party affiliation.
The argument in favor of quotas relies on historical voter turnout to model future turnout. Opponents of restrictive quotas argue that a poll may miss changes in group dynamics or the collapse of a particular group. This debate was less of an issue 20 years ago when everyone had landlines and response rates across all groups were fairly high. Today, with extremely low response rates, the response bias has become very pronounced.
For example, in a recent internal statewide survey in a large state, people with a graduate degree were five and half times more likely to answer the survey than those without a degree, while people with a bachelor’s degree were three times more likely.
This doesn’t take into account a fascinating response bias developing around population density. Pollsters often divide geography into urban, suburban, and rural segments by population density. In recent surveys, there has been a pronounced drop-off in rural, white, working-class responses, with some of the quotas being filled in by suburban and urban white working-class voters who are much more likely to be Democratic in orientation.
Requiring quotas on education helped to fix the polling challenges that arose in 2016 and made public polls more reliable. But Kamala Harris’s appointment to the Democratic nomination has supercharged a key group of voters that can have a big impact on polling: wealthy, educated, white Democratic voters. These voters are crawling across broken glass to respond to political surveys.
In the past, top-level quotas set for the whole survey might help to mitigate this problem but many public pollsters cannot afford to set stratification quotas for all the necessary subgroups. For example, top-level quotas will produce a survey group with 43% Democrats and 40% with a college degree, but you really need to set quotas for how many college-educated people are in the Democratic subgroup or you will not fix the response bias problem. This sort of nuanced stratification is very expensive and most public pollsters aren’t willing or able to pony up.
With Kamala Harris as the nominee, politically engaged, wealthy, educated, white voters are taking up too many spots in the Democratic quotas, pushing out downscale, lower-turnout Democrats who are much more likely to be undecided or Trump voters. Whereas a college-educated Democrat might be 95% for Harris, a non-college one might be 88%. That seven-point gap matters and is not reflected in public polling.
Don’t take just my word for it. POLITICO reported that even Democratic pollsters are admitting their internal (read expensive) surveys are much less optimistic than public polling, and they are also worried about this blue mirage.
Fixing this problem is not easy or cheap, but one possible solution is to look at vote history. Looking at prior high-turnout elections, we can estimate how much of the electorate will be made up of reliable voters who have voted in 100 percent of the last four general elections. For example, in Pennsylvania, we might expect 52 percent of the electorate to be composed of these voters, but polling samples following the Biden-Harris switcheroo show an electorate with 60 percent-plus of these high-frequency voters.
This matters because of an oddity in party and vote history. Right now, support for Harris has a slight correlation to prior vote history where high-turnout Democrats have a higher incidence rate of support for her than low-turnout Democrats. Conversely, the correlation on the GOP side for Trump support is somewhat flat if not the inverse. Very reliable and consistent voters (who tend to be more educated Republicans) are less likely to support Trump while less reliable voters are more likely.
This trend existed previously, but it was supercharged after Joe Biden dropped out and Kamala Harris assumed the Democratic mantle. The result is a blue polling mirage that is more Democratic than Election Day will be.
This brings us to the second tool pollsters use, which is weighting a survey. When you weight a survey you treat interviews unequally to make the data more representative of the expected electorate. For example, if the survey electorate contains only 40 percent of people without a college degree but you expect likely turnout at 51%, you can increase the value of the non-college responses and decrease the value of the college responses to accommodate the disparity.
While weighting can be useful on the margins, it has significant limitations because you are using a very small group to extrapolate to a larger group. The classic example of this is Black voters. African Americans tend to be underrepresented in Pennsylvania statewide surveys if quotas are not used. If you weight 50 Black interviews with a margin of error of 13.5 percent to equal 80 interviews, you end up with a lot of risk and an unreliable result.
Many public polls right now are likely oversampling highly educated Democrats, and very high likelihood to turnout voters. They are not capturing the full electorate and while this may fix itself with rising response rates throughout the fall as we approach the election, it is a real problem for the polling industry to address.
So as the fall progresses, keep an eye on the public polling because it is likely once again to significantly understate the support for President Trump and Republicans.
https://coldspark.com/public-polling...l-wrong-again/
hey vaughn? calm down nerd theres like 15 california plates a day i see on the 10 east going home shout out Ahwatukee foothiils these faggots are flooding in here its awful he loses arizona
Rasmussen now +6 for Harris
Yeah…they are great, 12 point swing in a few days
That's not their official poll. It's a daily survey meant to show trends.
https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1835504861217185983
nate silver has trump at 65% to win the ec
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
He could be 100% right though? I mean he’s completely opposite every market, every good bookmaker in the world, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
If you think the election and polling errors are similar to 2016 and 2020, his estimates are realistic.
But atlas and Trafalgar and all those polls were so far off during the mid terms, having Herschel Walker up 4 and other laughable results, that it becomes about has abortion ruling changed the playing field permanently or is Trump a unique thing on Election Day.
Thiel spent millions over a personal grudge with Hulk Hogan. If he gave me $50 million to lie I’d take it. So it’s possible he’s getting so rich lying that he no longer cares about credibility or will change it drastically at last minute?
Or he can be right?
I feel like we truly aren’t going to know until the actual election.
The whole burn him at the cross because he’s saying shit we don’t like part is going to look really dumb if he’s right. I hope he’s getting really mega paid by Thiel if he’s wrong though, because if he sticks with those numbers, they’ll set the narrative for the it got stolen crowd and all kinds of bad shit
Or he’ll be the only liberal who was telling the truth about the probabilities and expectations and a hero.
One of the more interesting stories going on.
He could be 100% right though? I mean he’s completely opposite every market, every good bookmaker in the world, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
If you think the election and polling errors are similar to 2016 and 2020, his estimates are realistic.
But atlas and Trafalgar and all those polls were so far off during the mid terms, having Herschel Walker up 4 and other laughable results, that it becomes about has abortion ruling changed the playing field permanently or is Trump a unique thing on Election Day.
Thiel spent millions over a personal grudge with Hulk Hogan. If he gave me $50 million to lie I’d take it. So it’s possible he’s getting so rich lying that he no longer cares about credibility or will change it drastically at last minute?
Or he can be right?
I feel like we truly aren’t going to know until the actual election.
The whole burn him at the cross because he’s saying shit we don’t like part is going to look really dumb if he’s right. I hope he’s getting really mega paid by Thiel if he’s wrong though, because if he sticks with those numbers, they’ll set the narrative for the it got stolen crowd and all kinds of bad shit
Or he’ll be the only liberal who was telling the truth about the probabilities and expectations and a hero.
One of the more interesting stories going on.
america electing a black woman to be president seems borderline impossible against any stable normal white republican male. factor in trump's darkly comedic failings and kamala at 35% seems realistic tbh.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote