PDA

View Full Version : Q pac discredited




itshappening
08-10-2010, 06:53 PM
their poll is now completely discredited, they showed Schiff at 14%

clearly they're going to come out of this the biggest loser of all

klamath
08-10-2010, 06:55 PM
They weren't that far off when you figure how many were still undecided when the poll was taken.

low preference guy
08-10-2010, 06:59 PM
their poll is now completely discredited, they showed Schiff at 14%

clearly they're going to come out of this the biggest loser of all

Yes, and you also have to consider that the Q pac poll discouraged potential Schiff voters. So they were even more wrong than the numbers appear to show. They were effectively an arm of the Republican establishment.

MozoVote
08-10-2010, 06:59 PM
This is perhaps one of the first examples of how old fashioned polling is losing it's accuracy. Schiff is largely an Internet phenominon. People without land lines will be voting for him in large numbers over the other two.

someperson
08-10-2010, 07:07 PM
Yes, and you also have to consider that the Q pac poll discouraged potential Schiff voters. So they were even more wrong than the numbers appear to show. They were effectively an arm of the Republican establishment.
+1 This is what polling is all about... manipulating "public opinion." By "revealing" which horse is nearest to the finish line while wagers are still inexplicably being accepted, individuals are encouraged to drop their choice, if they had one, and switch over to the leader in order to "win."

Krtek
08-10-2010, 07:12 PM
"Are you a Republican?" Schiff called out to one voter before he was even get out of his car. Dressed in khaki pants and a long-sleeved shirt, Schiff didn't seem to mind the humid day, as he successfully persuaded one voter after another to support him.
Carl Niedmann, a 72-year-old insurance broker, arrived planning to vote for McMahon, because, as he put it, "she's got the money and she's winning in the polls." But his heart wasn't in it and after a few minutes chatting with Schiff, he'd changed his mind. "Maybe it's throwing my vote away, but at least I'm being honest," Niedmann said.


There were many people like this that voted for Simmons because the polls told them he was the only one with a chance to beat Mcmahon. Then there were many people that voted for Mcmahon because they felt she was the only one that could beat Blumenthal. I was not suprised to see a giant surge by Linda against Blumenthal just one day before the election .... nice timing.

libertybrewcity
08-10-2010, 07:37 PM
undecideds and margin of error. also, only about 30 something percent of the precincts are in. You are right though, polling companies are increasingly becoming discredited because the demographics are constantly changing and turnout is hard to model.

tpreitzel
08-10-2010, 07:42 PM
Peter's currently receiving 7% higher than their most recent poll.... The integrity of their polls does seem somewhat questionable even considering a rather large margin of error.

crazyfacedjenkins
08-10-2010, 07:51 PM
"Are you a Republican?" Schiff called out to one voter before he was even get out of his car. Dressed in khaki pants and a long-sleeved shirt, Schiff didn't seem to mind the humid day, as he successfully persuaded one voter after another to support him.
Carl Niedmann, a 72-year-old insurance broker, arrived planning to vote for McMahon, because, as he put it, "she's got the money and she's winning in the polls." But his heart wasn't in it and after a few minutes chatting with Schiff, he'd changed his mind. "Maybe it's throwing my vote away, but at least I'm being honest," Niedmann said.


There were many people like this that voted for Simmons because the polls told them he was the only one with a chance to beat Mcmahon. Then there were many people that voted for Mcmahon because they felt she was the only one that could beat Blumenthal. I was not suprised to see a giant surge by Linda against Blumenthal just one day before the election .... nice timing.

If that's the case, why vote???? Jesus this country is fucked. Bring back the poll tax, it will stop morons like this from fucking up everything.

MozoVote
08-10-2010, 08:01 PM
Only in New London county, Rob Simmons' back yard, did Peter get 14%.

Q-Pac *FAIL*

libertybrewcity
08-10-2010, 08:23 PM
If that's the case, why vote???? Jesus this country is fucked. Bring back the poll tax, it will stop morons like this from fucking up everything.

I would pay a poll tax to vote for Schiff:)

Specter
08-10-2010, 09:23 PM
They were off by 50% for Schiff. That is abysmal. The only polls I trust are Rassmussen.

tpreitzel
08-11-2010, 01:36 AM
Peter's currently receiving 7% higher than their most recent poll.... The integrity of their polls does seem somewhat questionable even considering a rather large margin of error.

With 95% of the vote recorded, it's 8% higher versus 7% earlier so these pollsters have some explaining to do ...

SilentBull
08-11-2010, 02:13 AM
With 95% of the vote recorded, it's 8% higher versus 7% earlier so these pollsters have some explaining to do ...

Actually, didn't the poll say 7% remained undecided? This means all the undecideds decided to vote for Schiff on election day. Seems pretty accurate if you look at it that way.

SilentBull
08-11-2010, 02:17 AM
There were many people like this that voted for Simmons because the polls told them he was the only one with a chance to beat Mcmahon. Then there were many people that voted for Mcmahon because they felt she was the only one that could beat Blumenthal.

Exactly. Although the poll was accurate, they tend to make their results come true. It makes me wonder what would happen if polls were not allowed at all. Why do people need to know how other people are voting? People should go in not knowing anything about the polls.

crazyfacedjenkins
08-11-2010, 03:36 AM
I would pay a poll tax to vote for Schiff:)

Same here. That's why at the straw polls Ron Paul always wins. When you have to pay for something, you put more thought in your decision.

SamuraisWisdom
08-11-2010, 07:22 AM
Exactly. Although the poll was accurate, they tend to make their results come true. It makes me wonder what would happen if polls were not allowed at all. Why do people need to know how other people are voting? People should go in not knowing anything about the polls.

Because unfortunately it goes against freedom of the press. I know that some countries in Europe they've banned polls for the exact reasons you've mentioned, but here there's nothing we can do about it.

I had to talk a few people out of voting for McMahon because they thought she was the best chance to beat Simmons even though they all felt Schiff was the best candidate by far. It's really frustrating to be honest. The second you give up your principle to vote for the lesser evil is the second that politics wins. Nothing will ever get done this way.

SilentBull
08-11-2010, 07:30 AM
Because unfortunately it goes against freedom of the press. I know that some countries in Europe they've banned polls for the exact reasons you've mentioned, but here there's nothing we can do about it.

Yeah, I can obviously see that side of the argument. But think about this: we don't allow billionaires to donate more than a certain amount to a candidate. Who are we to tell them how they should spend their money? Should we allow billionaires to control elections by donating millions to neo-cons?

S.Shorland
08-11-2010, 07:58 AM
Penn & Teller expose pollsters
YouTube - ‪Penn and Teller Defend Ron Paul vs. Luntz and Fox News‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4)

itshappening
08-11-2010, 08:00 AM
undecideds and margin of error. also, only about 30 something percent of the precincts are in. You are right though, polling companies are increasingly becoming discredited because the demographics are constantly changing and turnout is hard to model.

Not all pollsters are as off as QPAC, it's a shame SUSA didnt do some polling, QPAC has a monopoly on CT races and are clearly biased and now discredited

I actually welcome their folly because hopefully now the better pollsters will start doing CT and make them irrelevant.

tpreitzel
08-11-2010, 10:21 AM
Actually, didn't the poll say 7% remained undecided? This means all the undecideds decided to vote for Schiff on election day. Seems pretty accurate if you look at it that way.

I don't have the actual percentage of "undecided" votes for their latest poll at hand. I find it highly strange that the vast majority of their "undecided" votes went to Peter Schiff on the actual day of the election.