New Polls show Trump is regainning to Hillary by few votes. Leaks affect?

[AngryCanadian]

There are new polls today showing regaining some of his lost polls over the trump tapes, now it seems the Wikileaks are having an effect on Hillary.

[Zippyjuan]

These polls? http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politi...dential-polls/

Clinton leads Trump, two new polls show

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump nationally among likely voters -- but two new polls diverge on the size of her lead.

Clinton is 11 percentage points ahead of Trump, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll out Sunday.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll, meanwhile, pegs her lead at 4 points.

In the NBC poll, Clinton has 48% support compared to 37% for Trump, 7% for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 2% for the Green Party's Jill Stein. In a two-way race, Clinton leads 51% to 41%.

[AngryCanadian]

In the NBC poll, Clinton has 48% support compared to 37% for Trump, 7% for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 2% for the Green Party's Jill Stein. In a two-way race, Clinton leads 51% to 41%.

An ABC News

Ah yes lefty ABC and NBC in their polls they always over sample the dems then the Republicans.

[Zippyjuan]

If the results are properly weighted, it does not matter if one group is over-represented in the sampling (with random sampling at least one group will likely be "over-sampled" in any poll).

[P3ter_Griffin]

If the results are properly weighted, it does not matter if one group is over-represented in the sampling (with random sampling at least one group will likely be "over-sampled" in any poll).

How well do you think current polling methodology could handle a large voting bloc of people who do not typically vote?

[Zippyjuan]

Example scenario? Polls usually ask if they intend to vote and who they are likely to vote for (though some do leave off the "likely to vote" portion most do have it).

[P3ter_Griffin]

Example scenario? Polls usually ask if they intend to vote and who they are likely to vote for (though some do leave off the "likely to vote" portion most do have it).

Maybe it is my confusion but I thought that the individuals who were polled were somehow "weighted" to see how often they vote. So someone who didn't participate (vote) in 2014,2012,2010, for instance, may not be included in their polling. Do they use voter registration as the way the find the people to poll?

[Zippyjuan]

"Weighting" refers to demographics. If say one third of voters are registered Democrats and one third are Republican and one third independent or non- affiliated, they weight the poll results to those percentages. They take the responses of say people who claimed to be registered Democrats and count it as one third of their final figures- even if they for example got 40% of Democrats among the people they polled. Instead of being 40% of the final figures, they are only given one third of it just like their share of the population.

This reduces the "bias" from reaching a higher number of Democrats than the overall population. (they do it even more detailed than that- also weighting other demographic factors like sex, race, religion, etc).

They don't care if or for whom you might have voted for in the past- only if you intend to vote now and for whom. Usually phone numbers are randomly selected. Some are now using online contacts too though in the past, online polls have been less reliable.

[P3ter_Griffin]

"Weighting" refers to demographics. If say one third of voters are registered Democrats and one third are Republican and one third independent or non- affiliated, they weight the poll results to those percentages. They take the responses of say people who claimed to be registered Democrats and count it as one third of their final figures- even if they for example got 40% of Democrats among the people they polled. Instead of being 40% of the final figures, they are only given one third of it just like their share of the population.

This reduces the "bias" from reaching a higher number of Democrats than the overall population. (they do it even more detailed than that- also weighting other demographic factors like sex, race, religion, etc).

Yeah I can dig/understand that. I guess I just don't know how random their polling is, to the actual people they reach. Meaning that, if I may refer to Trump's base as the TV watchers, his base would not be being reached out to/receiving the phone calls in the first place because essentially reaching out to them by the polling companies would be looked at as inefficient use of time, because they don't vote. IDK though.

[P3ter_Griffin]

ahhh.. Maybe what I am talking about would be seen by under representation of the 'non-affiliated' compared to the actual make up of the voters of any given election.

[openfire]

"Weighting" refers to demographics. If say one third of voters are registered Democrats and one third are Republican and one third independent or non- affiliated, they weight the poll results to those percentages. They take the responses of say people who claimed to be registered Democrats and count it as one third of their final figures- even if they for example got 40% of Democrats among the people they polled. Instead of being 40% of the final figures, they are only given one third of it just like their share of the population.

This reduces the "bias" from reaching a higher number of Democrats than the overall population. (they do it even more detailed than that- also weighting other demographic factors like sex, race, religion, etc).

They don't care if or for whom you might have voted for in the past- only if you intend to vote now and for whom. Usually phone numbers are randomly selected. Some are now using online contacts too though in the past, online polls have been less reliable.

In reality, the polling firms adjust their methodology in favor of their desired outcome; In this case, to give the appearance that Hillary Clinton is doing better than she really is.

How Reuters "Tweaked" Its Latest Poll (Again) To Show A Clinton Lead

Reuters has taken some heat in recent months for "tweaking" their polling methodology seemingly every time the data reveals "inconvenient" results for Hillary (see our previous posts on the topic here and here). But the latest Reuters/Ipsos polling "tweak" is truly amazing. Having run out of options for slyly "tweaking" questions and categories to sway respondents in their preferred direction, Reuters has apparnetly resorted to blatant poll tampering by altering their polling samples to include a disproportionate number of democrats.

In their latest poll, released just two days ago, Reuters found Hillary to have a 6 point lead in a head-to-head contest with Trump. But, when you dig a little deeper you find that Reuters' polling sample included 44% democrats and only 33% republicans. Which would be fine, of course, if it had any basis in reality. But, as The Pew Research Center points out very clearly (see table below), registered democrats represent about 33% of the electorate while republicans are 29%...a modest 4 point gap versus the 11 point advantage in the Reuters sample.

Of course, this is significant because, as any reasonable person would expect, democrats swing toward Hillary by an overwhelming margin of 84% and, vice-versa, 78% of republicans swing toward Trump.

Now, using Reuters' data, Hillary supposedly has a 6-point lead over Trump. However, if we alter the sample data to reflect what Pew says is the real distribution of democrats versus republicans (i.e. 33% vs. 29%, respectively) and apply the same support levels by party affiliation it results in an 8.5% swing toward Trump who would have a 2.5% lead....very inconvenient.

And just to confirm, here is how The Pew Research Center says that the distribution of party affiliation has trended over time. At least since 1992, democrats have never enjoyed an 11 point registration gap that Reuters decided to include in its poll.

Finally, we also checked the polling data of the latest McClatchy-Marist Poll to make sure we weren't missing something. And sure enough, their sample includes just a 5 point advantage for democrats...slightly larger than the 4 point gap measured by Pew but no where near the 11 point Reuters gap.

And that's how you rig some polling data...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...w-clinton-lead

CNN Goes "Full Reuters" - Attempts To Rig VP Debate Poll With Too Many Dems In Sample

Last week we pointed out that Reuters "tweaked" its polling data by including 11% more democrats in its sample than republicans. Of course, we thoroughly proved that while their may be slightly more registered democrats than republicans it is no where near an 11-point spread. Needless to say, however, Reuters achieved in their "goal-seeking" mission to show a 6-point national "lead" for Hillary.

Now, just 1 week later, CNN is apparently also convinced that democrats hold an 11-point registration advantage versus republicans. Last night after the VP debate, CNN released a Poll that, like Reuters, included 11% more democrats than republicans. Unfortunately for CNN, even the bogus 11-point spread wasn't enough to tilt the results toward interrupting Kaine.

Here are a couple of the key takeaways from the CNN VP Debate Poll:

The CNN polling sample included 41% democrats versus only 30% republicans.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...-won-vp-debate

"Too Many Whites" - MSNBC 'Tweaks' CNN Poll To Show Hillary Back In The Lead

Just over a month ago, Donald Trump shocked the establishment and took the lead in national polls.



Reuters jumped into action and 'tweaked' its polling methodology.

In a presidential campaign notable for its negativity, the option of “Neither” candidate appears to be an appealing alternative, at least to participants in the Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll.

Many voters on both sides have been ambivalent in their support for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, complicating the task of the pollsters trying to track the race.

That sentiment may help explain an apparent skew that recently emerged in the Reuters/Ipsos poll results. Given the choice, a relatively large group of voters opted for “Neither/Other” candidate compared with other major polls, leading to an underreporting of several percentage points for one or other of the two major contenders at times in the race.

As a result, Reuters/Ipsos is amending the wording of the choice and eliminating the word “Neither,” bringing the option in line with other polls.

And order was restored with Hillary surging into the lead:



Today, however, a CNN national poll showed Trump regaining the lead (by 2 pts):

Donald Trump has a two-point edge over Hillary Clinton in the latest CNN/ORC national survey of likely voters out Tuesday, as the Democratic nominee's post-convention lead has largely evaporated.

Among those likely to vote in two months, Trump took 45 percent to Clinton's 43 percent, while Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson earned 7 percent and Green Party nominee Jill Stein had 2 percent. But among all registered voters surveyed, Clinton leads by 3 points, 44 percent to 41 percent, while Johnson took 9 percent and Stein 3 percent.

The Republican nominee has a slightly higher favorability rating than Clinton among likely voters, although both are still underwater. Trump is seen favorably by 45 percent and unfavorably by 55 percent, while Clinton is at 42 percent to 56 percent. The disparity between the two candidates is lessened among registered voters.

And so, as Politico reports, MSNBC decided another tweak was required:

MSNBC 'unskewed' a CNN national poll on Tuesday that showed Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton by two points, re-weighting the results to match the 2012 electorate and showing a four-point lead for the former secretary of state.

The poll of likely voters, released Tuesday by CNN/ORC, showed Trump ahead of Clinton nationwide in a four-way contest, 45 percent to 43 percent. But MSNBC host Chuck Todd explained that the poll, in his network’s estimation, may have oversampled white voters without a college degree, one of Trump’s strongest groups.

“Whites without a college degree appear to make up nearly half of their sample. In 2012, by the way, whites without a college degree was slightly more than a third of all voters,” Todd said.

“The point is, your numbers may not be wrong but your weighting may be, your assumptions. So the CNN folks assumed an electorate that is not an impossible scenario for Trump, but it would be an historic shift if it occurred.”

With the numbers adjusted to reflect how the electorate shook out four years ago, Clinton’s two-point deficit shifted to a four-point lead, 46 percent to 42 percent.

Mission accomplished.



To this latest, and most entertaining, "non-GAAP" poll adjustment, we have one question: just how stupid do 'they' think the American people really are?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...lead-not-trump

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. All seem to be geared towards helping Hillary - But that should be obvious by now to all but the most MSM brainwashed of the bunch, and of course the Hillary shills.

[familydog]

Impossible. The media's polls tell me he is losing. I think we can say with confidence that those with known biases against Trump can produce fair and balanced polls.

[AngryCanadian]

Impossible. The media's polls tell me he is losing. I think we can say with confidence that those with known biases against Trump can produce fair and balanced polls.

The same ABC and NBC who are supporting Hillary right?

[Created4]

Friday, October 14, 2016

At the close of a week that began with him trailing by seven points, Donald Trump still holds a slight lead over Hillary Clinton in today’s White House Watch survey despite a flurry of news reports alleging a history of sexual harassment on his part.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows Trump with 43% support to Clinton’s 41%. That’s unchanged from yesterday. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson picks up six percent (6%) of vote, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein has two percent (2%) backing. Four percent (4%) like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Clinton held a seven-point lead on Monday – 45% to 38% - following the airing of an 11-year-old video showing Trump making graphic sexual remarks about women. But as voters began responding to Sunday night’s debate, her lead dropped to five points on Tuesday and four points on Wednesday. Trump edged ahead yesterday.

Full Article.

Not sure this is any more reliable, but I have a healthy distrust for network news polls that are obviously scripted to destroy Trump.

[r3volution 3.0]

This smacks of the "vote flipping" allegations back in '12: i.e. delusional nonsense by desperate people.

...course, one could at least sympathize with those people in '12, unlike with the people here now rootting for (R) Satan over (D) Satan.

[openfire]

I have a healthy distrust for network news polls that are obviously scripted to destroy Trump.

And I might add, who's polls are run by firms headed by people who work directly for Hillary Clinton, as is the case with the NBC/WSJ polls, run by Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies, who's president, Geoff Garin is “a strategic adviser for Priorities USA in support of Hillary Clinton’s election“:



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...utter-nonsense

Can't make this stuff up, folks.

[P3ter_Griffin]

And I might add, who's polls are run by firms headed by people who work directly for Hillary Clinton, as is the case with the NBC/WSJ polls, run by Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies, who's president, Geoff Garin is “a strategic adviser for Priorities USA in support of Hillary Clinton’s election“:



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...utter-nonsense

Can't make this stuff up, folks.

It would make zero sense to falsify polls to show your candidate in the lead. That is demotivational to the base, on top of that in this case Hillary being demotivational to the base too. That would be a way to lose the election IMO.

[Zippyjuan]

Today, however, a CNN national poll showed Trump regaining the lead (by 2 pts):

Donald Trump has a two-point edge over Hillary Clinton in the latest CNN/ORC national survey of likely voters out Tuesday, as the Democratic nominee's post-convention lead has largely evaporated.

Among those likely to vote in two months, Trump took 45 percent to Clinton's 43 percent, while Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson earned 7 percent and Green Party nominee Jill Stein had 2 percent. But among all registered voters surveyed, Clinton leads by 3 points, 44 percent to 41 percent, while Johnson took 9 percent and Stein 3 percent.

The Republican nominee has a slightly higher favorability rating than Clinton among likely voters, although both are still underwater. Trump is seen favorably by 45 percent and unfavorably by 55 percent, while Clinton is at 42 percent to 56 percent. The disparity between the two candidates is lessened among registered voters..

Poll out today? Latest CNN/ ORC shows Clinton 47%, Trump 42%, Johnson 7% and Stein 2%. (image at link is flash- go to link to see)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politi...dential-polls/

But then again, your article was from September 7th.

The "tweaking" that Reuters made was to remove the "neither" option since no such option will exist on a real ballot.

In a presidential campaign notable for its negativity, the option of “Neither” candidate appears to be an appealing alternative, at least to participants in the Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll.

Many voters on both sides have been ambivalent in their support for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, complicating the task of the pollsters trying to track the race.

That sentiment may help explain an apparent skew that recently emerged in the Reuters/Ipsos poll results. Given the choice, a relatively large group of voters opted for “Neither/Other” candidate compared with other major polls, leading to an underreporting of several percentage points for one or other of the two major contenders at times in the race.

As a result, Reuters/Ipsos is amending the wording of the choice and eliminating the word “Neither,” bringing the option in line with other polls.

[openfire]

This smacks of the "vote flipping" allegations back in '12: i.e. delusional nonsense by desperate people.

Well, when the exit polls don't match the "counted" votes to the point of near statistical impossibility (as was the case in many recent Dem primaries and caucuses), and ALL of those discrepancies favor one candidate, who's more delusional?

And then there's this: "Smartmatic" - the Soros connected voting machine firm that has a history of fraud in countries like Brazil, The Philippines and Mexico, as well as other contested elections and landslide victories for dictators in banana republics - will be providing the voting machines and processes for the November election in the following states:

Arizona

California

Colorado

District of Columbia

Florida

Illinois

Louisiana

Michigan

Missouri

New Jersey

Nevada

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

^ Lots of important states in that list.

Ron Paul never stood a chance.

[Zippyjuan]

It is still the same debate- polls suck when your guy is not leading them.

Rasmussen (about the only poll showing Trump leading right now) also said Romney would beat Obama by four points.

[r3volution 3.0]

who's more delusional?

Any "libertarian" who's supporting Trumpllary is already entirely delusional.

Rejecting all the polls (now that they show him losing...), is just delusional icing on the delusional cake.

[Zippyjuan]

[openfire]

Any "libertarian" who's supporting Trumpllary is already entirely delusional.

Then I guess you think Peter Schiff is also entirely delusional. He said that if he thinks that Connecticut (his home state) is going to be close, that he will vote for TRUMP!

@41:50

[Zippyjuan]

Trump in primary season: "We are winning. Just look at those polls. They are awesome!"

Trump in General Election; "The polls are all rigged!"

[Zippyjuan]

Then I guess you think Peter Schiff is also entirely delusional. He said that if he thinks that Connecticut (his home state) is going to be close, that he will vote for TRUMP!

@41:50

Schiff has also been promising $5000 an ounce gold and hyperinflation as soon as 2010.

if he thinks that Connecticut (his home state) is going to be close, that he will vote for TRUMP!

If he thinks it won't be close does that mean he will be voting Clinton? Or not voting?

[openfire]

If he thinks it won't be close does that mean he will be voting Clinton? Or not voting?

If he thinks it'll be close, he'll vote Trump, if not, he will vote Libertarian.

^ That's also what I've been advocating since Rand dropped, but was told it was against forum rules to discuss this strategy.

[Zippyjuan]

Johnson it is then. Latest poll from there is a month ago but it showed Clinton up by 15 points. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5720.html

[r3volution 3.0]

Then I guess you think Peter Schiff is also entirely delusional. He said that if he thinks that Connecticut (his home state) is going to be close, that he will vote for TRUMP!

Yes, if he's supporting Trump, he's entirely delusional.

[openfire]

Johnson it is then. Latest poll from there is a month ago but it showed Clinton up by 15 points. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5720.html

If he believes the polls.

[AngryCanadian]

Caveat to Hillary/Trump enthusiasm numbers:
Very Enthusiastic • HRC: 43% • DJT: 47% Somewhat • HRC: 40% • DJT: 32%

Trump still leads enthusiasm numbers.