I read every word, why else would I be mentioning the notion of repealing Obama Care? Its the first thing that water head wants to do.

Seriously, Scott Rasmussen left ffs

And here they are still churning out fresh garbage, nowhere close to the mark. Plenty of people will buy something for the name and just keep on producing a shitty product. Somehow Zogby still is still releasing polls all these years later, and it's still garbage too.

I understand why Republican campaigns will pay McLaughlin or some other shitty firms for their polling, they want to be lied to and they don't give a shit if they have a history of shitty numbers because most of them are sitting in gerrymandered districts anyway, but for the life of me I have no idea why on earth a client would pay for Rasmisses to conduct a survey. Firms will share access in order to get behind their paywall for the express purpose of being able to laugh at their numbers because they're that fucking bad year in, year out.



I cracked the fuck up, who are you calling the gold standard of polls?

that's your boy nate silver's bronze's words, not mine.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-2016/


not so funny now mr. funnyman?

Oh I see, you were referring to Quinnipiac's Clinton +2 survey, not Rasmussen's Trump +4 howler. Quinnipiac is definitely nowhere near the bottom rung of the ladder that Rasmussen occupies (alone), but Nate Silver is showing the real flaw in only using 3 weeks worth of data in his database by calling Quinnipiac the "gold standard" of anything. They' had one great cycle (2010) where they were essentially the best-overall firm, but have gotten worse and worse each year in succession. Some of their state polling, in particular CO/IA/FL/OH/PA, is absolutely atrocious. I don't know if they've gotten better this year. They can't get much worse.

Haha well one poll that's pretty good says trump is only losing a little lol what now libtards

It's one reason why I've always suggested people ignore individual surveys, almost no matter who they're from, and only look at polling in the aggregate. Huffington Post has the best aggregate by far, the aptly-named "HuffPo Pollster," and it's totally customizable where people can remove certain firms: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

It's pretty handy. Public polling doesn't really come close to private polling but this is probably the best Clinton/Trump numbers that are publicly-available if you configure it right. I suggest immediately removing the shitty online firms (if you want to keep one then probably Survey Monkey, at least it has the most data) as well as Rasmussen (obviously), ARG (slightly less awful), and Gravis (fraudulent). I'd remove Fox/Pulse/POS too because they inexplicably still struggle with a question problem in 2016, but they aren't as problematic as the previous three. There's also the RealClearPolitics aggregate which does all the work for you because it isn't customizable, but I'm not a fan for several reasons: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

If you compare the primary popular vote to the proportion of people polled in nearly all of the surveys, you find that the polling population percentages from each political bent are not consistent. Do you have any explanation for that?

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Jul 1 2016 08:46pm

wow that was less than a year ago

posting my results for fun

I think the science issues was vaccinations