• 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!

How fake news like CNN uses polls to engineer results.

How is this web site doing this? It publishes financial stuff mostly, and some other topics. I've not seen a single neo-Nazi ting on it yet. So how's the web site doing that then?

I don't know. I'm not a regular consumer of the site. I only know that if you hit ctrl-F and type Jew or Zionist (or variations thereof), you always find an antisemite. That's extremely specific.
 
ZeroHedge has been pretty good. I don't think that I'd categorize it as just like every anonymous blog.

Do you disparage and discredit every source that you don't agree with?

The blogger was banned for insider trading. Hardly a recommendation for honsety and truth.
 
How is this web site doing this? It publishes financial stuff mostly, and some other topics. I've not seen a single neo-Nazi ting on it yet. So how's the web site doing that then?



The author does not the quality of the information make, at least not solely. What is published there seems to stand on it's own pretty well, more often than not.

Well, I'll never know. Write it, sign it, I'll look at it. Write it, refuse to own it, I'll pass.
 
I don't know. I'm not a regular consumer of the site. I only know that if you hit ctrl-F and type Jew or Zionist (or variations thereof), you always find an antisemite. That's extremely specific.
Yes, that is odd, but still, a web site author can't help those who visit his site, the same way that a candidate can't help those that claim to support him.
The blogger was banned for insider trading. Hardly a recommendation for honsety and truth.

That's new information and yes, a strike against that particular author / blogger. Got a name?
 
Yes, that is odd, but still, a web site author can't help those who visit his site, the same way that a candidate can't help those that claim to support him.

It's odd, and if it were me I would be extremely concerned if the news I wanted to share on a debate forum was frequented specifically by Scientologists, Nazis or Stalinist communists.
 
It's odd, and if it were me I would be extremely concerned if the news I wanted to share on a debate forum was frequented specifically by Scientologists, Nazis or Stalinist communists.

Again, the people that frequent the site are a separate entity from the content of the site. The insider trading crimes from someone who posts financial analysis, that is a worry.
 
Again, the people that frequent the site are a separate entity from the content of the site. The insider trading crimes from someone who posts financial analysis, that is a worry.

I don't see them as entirely separate. A specific kind of message always finds a specific kind of audience. Somehow, Zero Hedge is communicating something, and Nazis like what that is.
 
To copy from my post in the other thread on this Zero Hedge piece:

"This is all fairly wrong. The polls this year were actually extremely accurate. More accurate in fact, than any presidential year before. They were great at both the state and national level, with the possible exception of the rust belt. But even there they didnt overestimate Clinton's actual percentage. They underestimated Trump's while showing high undecideds. And it those people who had voted Democrat their whole lives before voting for Trump that were most likely to be undecided until the end. So there's a very plausible reason why the polls missed the margin in those states.

Of course, this has gone largely unnoticed as people declared the death of the polls immediately after Trump won, before the counting was finished. The LA Times poll got a ton of positive mainstream media press for "seeing" what other polls didn't, even though when all was said and done it was literally the most inaccurate national poll.

Now for the other point Zero Hedge makes. Good pollsters don't weight by Party ID. For one its a fluid demographic that changes depending on how people are feeling. In that poll for example, there are probably many Trump supporters and anti-Trump conservatives who answered as independent, neither wanting to associate themselves with the other by answering Republican. The other reason is that even if Party ID were a static statistic we could trust people's answers for, many states don't keep track and we don't have good national numbers for Republican and Democrats."
 
They did it all the way through the election. They already flushed their credibility so I see no reason they would stop.

Polling outlets generally got it right, so I don't think many of them really flushed their credibility.

It was NBC/WaPo that was dragged over the coals for the 11 point lead they gave to Clinton 21 days out of the election.

They did have a weird Clinton spike on October 22 that lasted for two days. But both before and after that, they consistently had Clinton's margin lower than the polling average. I don't see anything nefarious there. It's a tracking poll. They probably got an unusual sample one day. It happens, and it's part of polling.

Then they did it again just before the election if I remember right.

You misremember. Over the last week and a half they didn't have anything more than Clinton +4.

It came to light that the pollster is actually a Clinton operative and donor. The poll was weighted the same as this poll. They magically revised their numbers down 6 or 7 points in three days after being called on it. It was Zerohedge that first brought that debacle to light.

I can't find anything about Gary Langer being a Clinton operative or donor, but that doesn't mean it's not true. But considering both before and after the Clinton +12 they had they consistently found a close race, I don't see a partisan operation here.
 
Fake news from zero hedge. Whoda thunkit?

You mean the site that was called out by the WaPo for being fake but then they had to retract it? Hmmmm....
 
Polling outlets generally got it right, so I don't think many of them really flushed their credibility.

Hillary did not win in a record breaking electoral college sweep. No, the polling outlets did not generally get it right. The article discredits itself not even halfway into the first sentence of the first paragraph.

Hillary Clinton's election is a done deal...
It's all over but the voting.


Barring a historic failure of polling


Hillary Clinton is going to win as has always been the case from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
Hillary did not win in a record breaking electoral college sweep. No, the polling outlets did not generally get it right. The article discredits itself not even halfway into the first sentence of the first paragraph.

Hillary Clinton's election is a done deal...



Hillary Clinton is going to win as has always been the case from the beginning.

Firstly, these are commentary rather than polls. One of them presents no argument whatsoever, including not even mentioning polling. The other is from almost two weeks before.

Secondly, in addition to the massive polling error your article allows for the possibility of "an epic game-changing, deus ex machina event." Perhaps something such as a letter claiming one candidate or the other was under federal investigation.

And thirdly, the polls were empirically very accurate. Here:

National-
RCP Average: Clinton +3.2
Actual result: Clinton +2.1 (Only 4 of 13 polls off more than 2%. 2 in Trump's favor, 2 in Clinton's)

Arizona-
RCP: Trump +4
Actual: Trump +3.5

Colorado-
RCP: Clinton +2.9
Actual: Clinton +4.9

Florida-
RCP: Trump +.2
Actual: Trump +1.1

Georgia
RCP: Trump +4.8
Actual: Trump +5.1

Nevada-
RCP: Trump +.8
Actual: Clinton +2.4

New Hampshire-
RCP: Clinton +.6
Actual: Clinton +.3

North Carolina
RCP: Trump +1
Actual: Trump +3.7

Virginia-
RCP: Clinton +5
Actual: Clinton +5.4

All very close to the eventual result. And the misses were about equally in Clinton and Trump's direction, so there certainly doesn't seem to be any wild biases here.

The only places the pollsters "missed" were the Upper Midwest/Rust Belt. But there, they didn't overestimate Clinton, they underestimated Trump while showing many undecideds. And these ancestrally Democratic places were the places you'd expect to find late deciding voters. And the closer the polls were to election day, the closer they showed Trump getting. There were no polls taken in these states over the final weekend.

Iowa-
(Only one poll here by a scientific polling firm in the last week. It had Trump 46-39. He won 51-41)

Michigan-
RCP: Clinton- 45.2 Trump-42
Actual: Clinton- 47 Trump- 47.2

Ohio-
RCP: Clinton- 42.3 Trump- 45.8
Actual: Clintion- 43.2 Trump- 51.3

Pennsylvania-
RCP: Clinton- 46.2 Trump- 44.3
Actual: Clinton- 47.5 Trump- 48.2 (The final poll here, the only one beginning and ending within a week of the election, was exactly right.)
 
The blogger was banned for insider trading. Hardly a recommendation for honsety and truth.

Hmm. OK. Found a name, and, infact, a Wiki page for ZeroHedge.

Zero Hedge was established in 2009.[6] According to the Boston Business Journal, the website "publishes financial news and opinion, aggregated and original" from a number of writers "who purportedly hail from within the financial industry."[6] Posts on the website are signed "Tyler Durden," a character in the Chuck Palahniuk book and movie Fight Club.[6][5]

In 2009, shortly after the blog was founded, news reports identified Daniel Ivandjiiski, a Bulgarian-born former hedge-fund analyst who was barred from the industry for insider trading by FINRA in 2008, as the founder of the site, and reported that "Durden" was a pseudonym for Ivandjiiski.[5][7][8][1] One contributor, who spoke to New York magazine after an interview was arranged by Ivandjiiski, said that "up to 40" people were permitted to post under the "Durden" name.[5] The website is registered in Bulgaria at the same address as that of Strogo Sekretno, a site run by Ivandjiiski's father, Krassimir Ivandjiiski.[9] Zero Hedge is registered under the name Georgi Georgiev, a business partner of Krassimir Ivandjiiski.[10]

In April 2016, the authors writing as "Durden" on the website were reported by Bloomberg News to be Ivandjiiski, Tim Backshall (a credit derivatives strategist), and Colin Lokey. Lokey, the newest member revealed himself and the other two when he left the site.[1] Ivandjiiski confirmed that the three men "had been the only Tyler Durdens on the payroll" since Lokey joined the site in 2015.[1] Former Zero Hedge writer Colin Lokey said that he was pressured to frame issues in a way he felt was "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft."[1] Zero Hedge founder Daniel Ivandjiiski, in response, said that Lokey could write "anything and everything he wanted directly without anyone writing over it."[1] On leaving, Lokey said: "I can't be a 24-hour cheerleader for Hezbollah, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and Trump anymore. It's wrong. Period. I know it gets you views now, but it will kill your brand over the long run. This isn't a revolution. It's a joke."[1]

The New York Times described Zero Hedge in 2011 as "a well-read and controversial financial blog."[11] The site was described by CNNMoney as offering a "deeply conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic view of the world."[3] Financial journalists Felix Salmon and Justin Fox have characterized the site as conspiratorial.[12][7] Fox described Ivandjiiski as "a wonderfully persistent investigative reporter" and credited him for successfully turning high-frequency trading "into a big political issue," but also termed most of the writing on the website as "half-baked hooey," albeit with some "truth to be gleaned from it."[7] Tim Worstall described the site as a source of hysteria and occasionally misleading information.[4] Bloomberg Markets noted in 2016 that since its founding in the middle of the financial crisis, "Zero Hedge has grown from a blog to an Internet powerhouse. Often distrustful of the 'establishment' and almost always bearish, it's known for a pessimistic world view. Posts entitled 'Stocks Are In a Far More Precarious State Than Was Ever Truly Believed Possible' and 'America's Entitled (And Doomed) Upper Middle Class' are not uncommon."[1]

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman describes Zero Hedge as a scaremongering outlet that promotes fears of hyperinflation and an "obviously ridiculous" form of "monetary permahawkery."[13] Krugman notes that Bill McBride of Calculated Risk, an economics blog, has treated Zero Hedge with "appropriate contempt."[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

So many different authors on that site. Some respected financial news sources don't condemn the site.
 
I don't see them as entirely separate. A specific kind of message always finds a specific kind of audience. Somehow, Zero Hedge is communicating something, and Nazis like what that is.

Maybe it's a Bulgarian thing. I dunno. But since the site doesn't traffic in that sort of trash, I see no need to ignore the entire site. Caveat Emptor, of course.
 
Trump will void CNN just wait.
 
My first child had a period where she would put on wild tantrums. What worked the best was just to stand there and watch her, not saying a word.
After about 5 minutes, she would tire and stop.

It's been like 5 weeks.

This isn't going to be anything like it is with dealing with a child. These people get paid good money to do this kind of crap.
 
No, but if the author won't put his name on his work I won't read it because I have no reason to believe it. Why is this different from any other anonymous blog? If the writer won't put his name on it, why do you think you can trust it?

The obvious answer is you shouldn't trust anything from any news source. Verify the facts and know the bias, then it makes no difference who writes it.
 
I came across this article elsewhere on the web, and thought I better post it here.

New ABC / WaPo Poll Shows Drop In Trump Favorability Courtesy Of Aggressive "Oversamples" | Zero Hedge
It talks about how fake news sources like CNN have engineered results, and how they still are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

Zero Hedge is an English-language financial blog that aggregates news and presents editorial opinions from original and outside sources. The news portion of the site is written by a group of editors who collectively write under the Pseudonym "Tyler Durden" (a character from the novel and film Fight Club).

Critics assert that Zero Hedge's content is Conspiratorial, Anti-establishment, and Economically pessimistic,[3] and has been criticized for presenting Extreme and sometimes pro-Russian views.[1][4][5]
[......]
In 2009, shortly after the blog was founded, news reports identified Daniel Ivandjiiski, a Bulgarian-born former hedge-fund analyst who was Barred from the industry for Insider Trading by FINRA in 2008, as the Founder of the site, and reported that "Durden" was a Pseudonym for Ivandjiisk..."

More in link.
slash/trash
 
Last edited:
Polling outlets generally got it right, so I don't think many of them really flushed their credibility.
They did have a weird Clinton spike on October 22 that lasted for two days. But both before and after that, they consistently had Clinton's margin lower than the polling average. I don't see anything nefarious there. It's a tracking poll. They probably got an unusual sample one day. It happens, and it's part of polling.
I got some of backwards. It was the ABC/WaPo poll I was referring to, not the NBC/WaPo poll that had their numbers wrong. The pollster was still the same guy/company however.

On 23 Oct There was an ABC WaPo poll that released that had Clinton with a 12 point lead.
http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1184a12016ElectionTrackingNo1.pdf
On 24 Oct ABC.WaPo came out with another poll that showed Clinton up by 8 points, 4 points less than the day before.
Stressed About the Election? If So, You've Got Company (POLL) - ABC News
On 26 Oct ABC/Wapo released a poll that showed Clinton ahead by 4.
Clinton's Lead Narrows to 4 Points, Wider Majority Expects Her to Win (POLL) - ABC News
on 30 Oct they show Trump ahead by 1.
Clinton, Trump All but Tied as Enthusiasm Dips for Democratic Candidate - ABC News

In one week the NBC/WaPo polls showed a 13 point drop. No other poll had a 13 point swing. You might not see anything nefarious but I would disagree. Either somebody really screwed up or someone was trying to use the poll as a tool and had to adjust the accuracy because they were inside the 21 day window that 538 uses to grade accuracy.

You misremember. Over the last week and a half they didn't have anything more than Clinton +4.

I can't find anything about Gary Langer being a Clinton operative or donor, but that doesn't mean it's not true. But considering both before and after the Clinton +12 they had they consistently found a close race, I don't see a partisan operation here.

I did disremember. The Clinton operative I was talking about was the pollster for NBC/WSJ, Geoff Garin, Heart Research Associate President. They released a poll on 10 Oct that showed Clinton 11 points ahead.

From Hart Research:
In 2008, he helped direct the strategy team for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign during its final two months, and in 2012 he served as the pollster and strategic advisor to Priorities USA, the super PAC supporting President Obama’s reelection. He currently is playing a similar role for Priorities USA in support of Hillary Clinton’s election.
Geoff Garin : Hart
 
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

Zero Hedge is an English-language financial blog that aggregates news and presents editorial opinions from original and outside sources. The news portion of the site is written by a group of editors who collectively write under the Pseudonym "Tyler Durden" (a character from the novel and film Fight Club).

Critics assert that Zero Hedge's content is Conspiratorial, Anti-establishment, and Economically pessimistic,[3] and has been criticized for presenting Extreme and sometimes pro-Russian views.[1][4][5]
[......]
In 2009, shortly after the blog was founded, news reports identified Daniel Ivandjiiski, a Bulgarian-born former hedge-fund analyst who was Barred from the industry for Insider Trading by FINRA in 2008, as the Founder of the site, and reported that "Durden" was a Pseudonym for Ivandjiisk..."

More in link.
slash/trash

Why are you posting this? Do think that if you can discredit the link that I posted that it will be less true? Instead of looking to discredit the link, why not go straight to the story itself and show what is not true?
 
I came across this article elsewhere on the web, and thought I better post it here.

New ABC / WaPo Poll Shows Drop In Trump Favorability Courtesy Of Aggressive "Oversamples" | Zero Hedge

It talks about how fake news sources like CNN have engineered results, and how they still are.

Oh yes, but we should trust a news site that often spouts conspiracy theories and uses a fake author name for all of it's writers huh? The analysis wasn't even good. They just linked to their own links and said see Trump was right!
 
Why are you posting this? Do think that if you can discredit the link that I posted that it will be less true? Instead of looking to discredit the link, why not go straight to the story itself and show what is not true?

perhaps because everything on the site is bunk?
 
Oh yes, but we should trust a news site that often spouts conspiracy theories and uses a fake author name for all of it's writers huh? The analysis wasn't even good. They just linked to their own links and said see Trump was right!

It is as foolish to have faith in a news source as it is to dismiss it. We cannot know the real truth of our political landscape, and we are limited to triangulating the "most likely truth" from as news sources with as many partisan perspectives as possible. Consume them all, but believe none. Dismissing the content of an article, propaganda piece, or news story based purely on the fact that the source does not satisfy your confirmation bias is downright ignorant. I do not have faith in the Daily Kos or Salon, but I certainly do not dismiss any of their media simply because of where it came from. I readily consume Dailty Kos and Salon material, and then compare it to what I know from consuming Brietbart, Drudge, Info Wars, Chris Mathews, Rachael Maddow, and more. Consume them all, but believe none. Form your own opinion, but your opinion will be an ignorant one if you limit your media menu to what the lefty media presents. I am floored that you would dismiss the article in the OP, simply because it comes from a source that does not suit your confirmation bias. This kind of ignorance is why the lefty ship is sinking so fast.
 
I came across this article elsewhere on the web, and thought I better post it here.

New ABC / WaPo Poll Shows Drop In Trump Favorability Courtesy Of Aggressive "Oversamples" | Zero Hedge

It talks about how fake news sources like CNN have engineered results, and how they still are.
Your source is total bull****, and their own embedded graph is evidence! :lamo


2017.01.17%20-%20Wapo%20-%20Polling%20Stats_0.JPG




4-6-2015_01.jpg


"39% call themselves independents, 32% identify as Democrats and 23% as Republicans, based on aggregated data from 2014."

Source: Pew Research: Party affiliation
 
Back
Top Bottom