• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pro Trump poll results hidden by liberal news media for 2 months

OrphanSlug said:
I'm still unsure if the media was lying to us or lying to themselves (or both.) Just about all the polling was wrong, and it produced aggregates that were no where near accurate either.

CNN said it best on election night, "If Trump wins this then polling organizations are out of business."

Of course an argument can be made that MSM pushed one thing, it turned out to not be that accurate, and had to backtrack on live coverage of the results. No matter how they got to the statement, it is still true that 2016 pretty much confirmed that election polling is effectively worthless.
Click to expand...

That's actually not true. The final national average was about Clinton +3. She's going to win by 1.5-2 when the counting is done. This will be about half the difference of 2012. State polling nailed Virginia, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, and New Hampshire.

The only area where it could be argued the polling really missed are the Rust Belt and Midwest. And if you look at that polling you'll notice they didn't overestimate Clinton at all. They underestimated Trump but had tons of undecideds. In those areas the evidence points to the fact that many white working class voters who had voted Democratic they're whole life voted for Trump. Those are exactly the type of people you'd expect to be undecided until the end. And that weekend internal polling in those areas saw Trump's support dramatically rise. There's a very plausible argument that polling didn't even miss these places.

All in all, polling did a pretty good job.
 
WCH said:
Of course it was buried. They did the poll before the election.

What I posted wouldn't help Clinton at all.
Click to expand...

Mac77 said:
It was hidden for two months until after the election.

It benefited trump by refuting the narrative that trump was going to lose because his immigrstion policies were unpopular when in fact it was just the opposite.
Click to expand...

So they deliberately buried a poll in which Clinton outperformed Trump on the topics of economy and jobs, healthcare, environment, "fixing our broken system," being genuine, "caring about people like me" and appearing presidential. In fact, of those nine questions, Trump only outperformed Clinton on two.. But they buried the poll to help Clinton.

Fascinating.
 
Mac77 said:
But its still on the bright side of the moon where it can be seen from earth

So you failed to suppress it enough
Click to expand...

Would you have preferred that it end up in the Basement or the Archives?
 
Cardinal said:
I'm not rehashing this debate.

You know perfectly well why the source wasn't acceptable for the msm breaking news section.

Don't pretend you only joined the Debate Politics forum yesterday.
Click to expand...

Stuff like this is always a judgement call

Anyway you failed to get the story killed

and now that I think about it one topic area is as good as another
 
Cardinal said:
Would you have preferred that it end up in the Basement or the Archives?
Click to expand...

No

At first I was pissed

But now that I think about it what difference does it make where the story is posted?
 
Cardinal said:
So they deliberately buried a poll in which Clinton outperformed Trump on the topics of economy and jobs, healthcare, environment, "fixing our broken system," being genuine, "caring about people like me" and appearing presidential. In fact, of those nine questions, Trump only outperformed Clinton on two..

But they buried the poll to help Clinton.



Fascinating.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Maybe because she needed the hispanic vote and this poll would be bad for her
 
Mac77 said:
No

At first I was pissed

But now that I think about it what difference does it make where the story is posted?
Click to expand...

Attaboy, that's the spirit. Just remember for the future that Breaking News MSM is for more respectable news sources and you should be fine.

Mac77 said:
Yes.

Maybe because she needed the hispanic vote and this poll would be bad for her
Click to expand...

Okay, so immigration is your pet issue. That's fine, but she still outperformed Trump in seven out of nine topics, so keeping in mind that other people care about other things as well, your conspiracy theory doesn't hold up. Now, if Trump outperformed her in the same way she outperformed him, you might have something.
 
Anagram said:
That's actually not true. The final national average was about Clinton +3. She's going to win by 1.5-2 when the counting is done. This will be about half the difference of 2012. State polling nailed Virginia, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, and New Hampshire.

The only area where it could be argued the polling really missed are the Rust Belt and Midwest. And if you look at that polling you'll notice they didn't overestimate Clinton at all. They underestimated Trump but had tons of undecideds. In those areas the evidence points to the fact that many white working class voters who had voted Democratic they're whole life voted for Trump. Those are exactly the type of people you'd expect to be undecided until the end. And that weekend internal polling in those areas saw Trump's support dramatically rise. There's a very plausible argument that polling didn't even miss these places.

All in all, polling did a pretty good job.
Click to expand...

But they failed to project whom the winner would be.

Most all of MSM was looking at the polling (and the aggregates of them all) and then suggesting Hillary would be somewhere in the 280 to 310 range, she ended up with something like 232. They were all saying something like that as low as Hillary +3 would mean millions of votes in her favor, it ended up being somewhere in the 700K - 800K range.

No one started election day coverage at 7pm thinking at 11pm they would be talking about Wisconsin and Michigan. Perhaps we are just splitting hairs here, but before about 9pm ('ish) only FoxNews had champagne on the ready. By 10pm ABC, CNN, NBC all looked so sad as if they were about to commit ritualistic suicide.

I think CNN was being honest for a change, polling got it wrong.
 
Cardinal said:
Attaboy, that's the spirit. Just remember for the future that Breaking News MSM is for more respectable news sources and you should be fine.



Okay, so immigration is your pet issue. That's fine, but she still outperformed Trump in seven out of nine topics, so keeping in mind that other people care about other things as well, your conspiracy theory doesn't hold up. Now, if Trump outperformed her in the same way she outperformed him, you might have something.
Click to expand...

Apparently, those results sucked.
 
OrphanSlug said:
But they failed to project whom the winner would be.

Most all of MSM was looking at the polling (and the aggregates of them all) and then suggesting Hillary would be somewhere in the 280 to 310 range, she ended up with something like 232. They were all saying something like that as low as Hillary +3 would mean millions of votes in her favor, it ended up being somewhere in the 700K - 800K range.

No one started election day coverage at 7pm thinking at 11pm they would be talking about Wisconsin and Michigan. Perhaps we are just splitting hairs here, but before about 9pm ('ish) only FoxNews had champagne on the ready. By 10pm ABC, CNN, NBC all looked so sad as if they were about to commit ritualistic suicide.

I think CNN was being honest for a change, polling got it wrong.
Click to expand...

The interpretation of the polls were wrong. If you were a regular listener of 538 you would have been more "spiritually prepared" for Clinton's loss. They covered the percentages as risk, margins of errors and the depressed turnout factor extensively.
 
OrphanSlug said:
But they failed to project whom the winner would be.

Most all of MSM was looking at the polling (and the aggregates of them all) and then suggesting Hillary would be somewhere in the 280 to 310 range, she ended up with something like 232. They were all saying something like that as low as Hillary +3 would mean millions of votes in her favor, it ended up being somewhere in the 700K - 800K range.

No one started election day coverage at 7pm thinking at 11pm they would be talking about Wisconsin and Michigan. Perhaps we are just splitting hairs here, but before about 9pm ('ish) only FoxNews had champagne on the ready. By 10pm ABC, CNN, NBC all looked so sad as if they were about to commit ritualistic suicide.

I think CNN was being honest for a change, polling got it wrong.
Click to expand...

And in 2012 Fox and Karl Rove was having a melt-down when it was apparent that Romney wasn't going to win. Even though leading up to election night many polls had him winning, or coming damn close to winning.

No one likes to be wrong. Even the media. Many had it wrong in 2012, and many had it wrong in 2016. And in 2020, they'll probably swing and miss a few times again.

I'm not an expert but the wildcard in all this seems to be turnout. No one can predict that.
 
Mac77 said:
Uu

As a non American living in a foreign country you are not qualified to tell us what news sources Americans should listen to

So I will ignore any further posts from you on this thread
Click to expand...



even still crap is crap
 
OrphanSlug said:
But they failed to project whom the winner would be.

Most all of MSM was looking at the polling (and the aggregates of them all) and then suggesting Hillary would be somewhere in the 280 to 310 range, she ended up with something like 232. They were all saying something like that as low as Hillary +3 would mean millions of votes in her favor, it ended up being somewhere in the 700K - 800K range.

No one started election day coverage at 7pm thinking at 11pm they would be talking about Wisconsin and Michigan. Perhaps we are just splitting hairs here, but before about 9pm ('ish) only FoxNews had champagne on the ready. By 10pm ABC, CNN, NBC all looked so sad as if they were about to commit ritualistic suicide.

I think CNN was being honest for a change, polling got it wrong.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. For one thing she's current up by 1.7 million and will probably be between 2-3 when the counting is done.

Secondly while people were predicting 300+ EVs for her for most of the campaign, that had changed by the election and the polling began to show her slightly behind on average in North Carolina and Florida.

Thirdly people fell into the trap of looking at the margins in the rust belt states and ignoring the large amount of undecideds. Even there though late internal polling bore out the closeness of those states. Clinton, after ignoring those states for most of the campaign suddenly went to and sent her top surrogates to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

And fourthly you say that the polls didn't predict the winner. That's true, although I'll argue they showed an accurate state of the race. You have to remember how close this election was though. A 1.2% shift in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida is the difference between Trump getting 300 EVs and Clinton getting 300 EVs.

Polls were very good this cycle.
 
Anagram said:
I have to disagree. For one thing she's current up by 1.7 million and will probably be between 2-3 when the counting is done.

Secondly while people were predicting 300+ EVs for her for most of the campaign, that had changed by the election and the polling began to show her slightly behind on average in North Carolina and Florida.

Thirdly people fell into the trap of looking at the margins in the rust belt states and ignoring the large amount of undecideds. Even there though late internal polling bore out the closeness of those states. Clinton, after ignoring those states for most of the campaign suddenly went to and sent her top surrogates to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

And fourthly you say that the polls didn't predict the winner. That's true, although I'll argue they showed an accurate state of the race. You have to remember how close this election was though. A 1.2% shift in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida is the difference between Trump getting 300 EVs and Clinton getting 300 EVs.

Polls were very good this cycle.
Click to expand...

Something Nate Silver was continually having to deal with was how people emotionally respond to percentages.

Non-mathematicians don't really understand odds or risk. When somebody like Silver calculates the aggregate of the polls and says "There is a 30% percent chance that Trump will win the election," people who don't understand math hear that and interpret it to mean "Trump will not win the election." However, what it really means is that "Three out of ten times, Trump will win the election." Which makes a lot more sense when you realize that this election was simply one of those three times out of ten.

Another moment that was enlightening was when one member of 538 said, "70% chance that Clinton will win? I think I feel pretty good about that!" and Nate Silver immediately responded, "Uh, I'm going to have to seriously disagree with you there. If I said there was a 30% chance that you would get served a bad cup of coffee, those are odds you could live with. But if I said there was a 30% chance that a meteor was going to hit the earth you would say, 'Holy ****, that number needs to be a lot lower!!'"
 
I didn't think there was any way Trump could win, BUT on the morning of election day I came home after voting and said to my wife, Trump might win. And here's why:

This is only MY personal experience, and it's NY, so in the grand scheme of things it means nothing. But to ME, it is a little telling.

Every election for 20+ year I go to the same polling place, and at about the same time, 7:30am to 8:30am. In 2008 and 2012 this polling place was MOBBED, the line was out the door. Obama won both times. This year? The place was almost empty. I got right in, voted, got out in a few minutes. THAT'S why when i got home I said to the wife(she gets up later so she votes later) that Trump might win because the turn-out was nothing like it was 4 and 8 years ago.

Again, it's NY and Trump wasn't going to win here, ever. He's hated here. Even though I never, ever thought Trump could win, just seeing the low turn-out put a doubt in my mind.
 
Cardinal said:
Attaboy, that's the spirit. Just remember for the future that Breaking News MSM is for more respectable news sources and you should be fine.
Click to expand...

If you are not a mod I am not going to discuss the rules with you



Okay, so immigration is your pet issue.

That's fine, but she still outperformed Trump in seven out of nine topics, so keeping in mind that other people care about other things as well, your conspiracy theory doesn't hold up. Now, if Trump outperformed her in the same way she outperformed him, you might have something.
Click to expand...

Immigration, trade, national securiry.

And lets not forget ramming a rod up the ass of the republican establishment

Which might not work with liberal democrats since they might enjoy it

The immigration poll results outweighed the other issues because hilly knew the black vote for her was soft and she was hopping to make up for it with a big hispanic turnout
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
So they deliberately buried a poll in which Clinton outperformed Trump on the topics of economy and jobs, healthcare, environment, "fixing our broken system," being genuine, "caring about people like me" and appearing presidential. In fact, of those nine questions, Trump only outperformed Clinton on two.. But they buried the poll to help Clinton.

Fascinating.
Click to expand...

All the polls in september were favorable to clinton so one more telling us she was going to win in a landslide was not needed

But hiding the truth about immigrstion was needed
 
Cardinal said:
Take it to "Bias in the Media" where we can debate what constitutes a valid news source until the sun explodes.
Click to expand...
No need to debate it. Its very clear what it 'is'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom