Polling aint 100%.  Its a good guess.  I've won many things off a 25% chance.  But that doesn't mean it has a higher chance....

You missed the point entirely.

Polling aint 100%. Its a good guess. I've won many things off a 25% chance.  But that doesn't mean it has a higher chance....

They weren't a "good guess" in the 2016 presidential election. All but two were completely wrong, most asserting a Clinton landslide was imminent, including the N. Y. Times claiming Clinton's chance of election was 97% the day before the election.

Polling aint 100%.  Its a good guess.  I've won many things off a 25% chance.  But that doesn't mean it has a higher chance....

your experience is not a good statistical sample

Polling aint 100%.  Its a good guess.  I've won many things off a 25% chance.  But that doesn't mean it has a higher chance....

I realize you're in your 20s and know more than those of us over 40.  However, there is one TRUTH you seem to have not learned yet.  Let me help you out (take notes) ...


Polls are not intended to measure public opinion.

Polls are intended to shape public opinion.


Human psychology teaches that people are basically followers.  Seeing a poll saying Candidate A is way ahead in the polls will convince many voters to vote for Candidate A. 

One reason is those voters may think, "Well, I haven't paid attention to the campaign ads or debates.  If he/she is that far ahead, I'll trust the people answering the polls to know more than me."

Another reason is there is a strong motivation for individuals to feel good about the results of their vote.  Voters don't want to experience the agony of defeat, so they tend to vote for "the winner."  Look at how the Clinton voters (and media accomplices) felt after she lost.  Unhinged, deranged, crying, screaming .... it was too much to even try to conceal.  I bet if the polls showed Trump ahead, many Clinton voters would have switched just to feel good about being on the winning side.  I know for a fact my mother loved to brag to her friends that she voted for whoever won.

Regardless of their rationalizations, the polls as a matter of fact influence voters' opinions.

Polls are not intended to measure public opinion.

Polls are intended to shape public opinion.

Just a note. Polls that are most specifically (based upon the overall bias/funding source, specific question selection and terminology. and characteristics of selected polled persons, etc.) intended to shape public opinion are called "push polls". Some are more push polls than others, but I suspect it would be difficult to find a poll that had no bias of any sort whatsoever. Matter of degree.

Just a note. Polls that are most specifically (based upon the overall bias/funding source, specific question selection and terminology. and characteristics of selected polled persons, etc.) intended to shape public opinion are called "push polls". Some are more push polls than others, but I suspect it would be difficult to find a poll that had no bias of any sort whatsoever. Matter of degree.

No matter the terminology, it has always been apparent that the people funding the polls tend to get the results they paid for.

If not, the poll never sees the light of day unless the opposing side funds the poll themselves.

Polls are notoriously manipulated in order to influence opinion, but judging by Trump rallies compared with the nose-holding support for Harris/Biden and the general level of derangement and delusion I have seem coming from leftward circles my guess is we are headed for another four years with a pretty substantial blowout. It would not surprise me if he takes Hawaii this time. People are angry about having their lives destroyed, and I doubt it will translate into action the way the destroyers intended.

Polling aint 100%.  Its a good guess.  I've won many things off a 25% chance.  But that doesn't mean it has a higher chance....

what?
you've won many elections when polls said you had a 25% chance?
was this at the well known private school?

what?
you've won many elections when polls said you had a 25% chance?
was this at the well known private school?

Did I say polls? I won many times 25% was the odds. Slow your roll Joe.


Also i doubt all the conspiracy theorists here.  Polls just take what people say and put it in a graph. There's no hidden agenda in most.   If there was then polls wouldnt be accurate. Defeat the whole purpose.

Did I say polls? I won many times 25% was the odds. Slow your roll Joe.


Also i doubt all the conspiracy theorists here.  Polls just take what people say and put it in a graph. There's no hidden agenda in most.   If there was then polls wouldnt be accurate. Defeat the whole purpose.

When pollsters like Gallop take a poll of, say, "Likely voters who are registered and living in the USA," and then report it as "Americans", you can't get much more dishonest in reporting the poll results.

There's a big difference in the actual demographic polled and a term that all but states "All Americans."

Specifically:

Americans' confidence in the economy has become less rosy this month as Gallup's Economic
Confidence Index fell to +17 from August's +24 reading, marking the lowest level since the
government shutdown ended in January.

At the same time, the public is evenly divided over the likelihood of a recession in the next year.
The current expectation of a recession is nine points higher than it was in October 2007, just two
months before the Great Recession began but slightly below a February 2001 reading, one month
before that eight-month-long recession.

So, "Americans" and "the public" have pretty common connotations.  Yet, the reality is much different.

If you go to the PDF linked at the end of the report, you see this in the very first paragraph:

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted September 3-15, 2019 with a random sample
of –1,525—adults, ages 18+, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based
on this sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points at the 95%
confidence level.

So, somehow they extrapolated "about 1525 18+ yr old adults and residents of the 50 states + DC" as "Americans?"  "The public?"

Technically, the pool consisted of "Americans", but I doubt their findings can be applied to a population of 328 million Americans from a sample size of 1525 people.

I've taken statistics courses, and the ability to assign results to a large population is mostly dependent on the demographics of the respondents and how closely their answers are to others in the same demographics.  Then they can extrapolate those results with the SAME demographics who did not participate.

"Americans" is not a proper demo group.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/266960/economic-confidence-drops-lowest-level-shutdown.aspx

This is NOT a "Conspiracy Theory."  It's documented FACT.  I almost put noun after that, like moron, idiot or a**hole, but I'm too mature (old) for that.   

No bias in polls eh? Sigh...

Yeah, ideally one would think polls are simply getting feedback from the public. But to say polls aren’t biased is just pretty naive at best.

Did I say polls? I won many times 25% was the odds. Slow your roll Joe.

focus
your first sentence was "Polling aint 100%."
and then you talked about odds
no one here is talking about odds...
the topic was polls

but I doubt their findings can be applied to a population of 328 million Americans from a sample size of 1525 people.

Damn straight, considering those that answered the phone were those polled.   

Might think after the humiliation the fake news suffered in 2016, they might be a bit more cautious, their brand being so soiled.

As a dedicated defender of 2a, one should be aware of bias in polls.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228242263_'Sorry_Wrong_Number'_Why_Media_Polls_on_Gun_Control_are_So_Often_Unreliable

Poll at a strip club attendees who are male and ask how many "prefer" pussy. 99% will day they do. 1% will say they "prefer" cock. That's the gay guy there with his female friends.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Also i doubt all the conspiracy theorists here.  Polls just take what people say and put it in a graph. There's no hidden agenda in most.   If there was then polls wouldnt be accurate. Defeat the whole purpose.

Currently the estimate is Biden voters are being oversampled somewhere between 10 and 15%
2016 was a long time ago though, so I can understand how you might have forgotten the way the polls got it totally wrong back then. It was really fun to watch the reactions of people who trusted those polls

Historically, 3rd party candidates tend to appeal more to one party's voters versus the other.  They wind up reducing the votes for either the Dem or GOP candidate, giving the other party an easier win.

Ross Perot was the 3rd party candidate with the greatest chance of winning.  What happened is he and HW Busk split the Republican vote and likely garnered a lot of independent voters.  Clinton won without getting a plurality of the votes.  Had Perot not entered the race, Bush may have defeated Clinton, and history would likely have taken a significantly different path.

Perot grabbed up almost 19% of the votes, or almost 20M.  While he didn't win a single state, his votes combined with Bush's 39M (59M total) would have been far above Clinton's almost 45M.  I don't have the breakout by state, but I imagine that big a difference would have given Bush the electoral win.  Instead, Clinton took 370 electorals to Bush's 168.

Perot was called the spoiler in that race.  Of course, there's no way to tell what % of Perot voters might have voted for Clinton, or not even voted at all.  I believe there was a record turnout, mostly because Perot lit a fire under the people who really wanted someone in the Oval office with real business experience and who was less of the same old politician from the two main parties.

Part of that is that the system is stacked against 3rd parties. It keeps them from getting a foothold and both the democrats and republicans like that. I think ranked choice voting is a needed reform and will allow for a more fair footing for 3rd party candidates to succeed or fail on their own merits.

Part of that is that the system is stacked against 3rd parties. It keeps them from getting a foothold and both the democrats and republicans like that. I think ranked choice voting is a needed reform and will allow for a more fair footing for 3rd party candidates to succeed or fail on their own merits.

Ranked choice won't resolve anything.  People have a hard enough time deciding on their #1 choice.  The remainders will be ranked randomly, with the advantage given to the order they are listed.

That's how most people will see it -- my #1 is all I care about.  The #2, #3 and #4 don't matter if my #1 wins.

People can't seem to figure out how to properly stuff return mail-in ballots or punch chads so they count.  You think they can figure out which candidates they would prefer in order?

 

It might be feasible for state and local elections, but for President and VP, RCV would just confuse people. 

If the third party organizations worked at winning the lower level races first, then put well known party winners in the higher level races along with their records, people would be more apt to vote for them.  Johnson had a good start being he NM governor, but he had no PR before the  Presidential race, and he picked the year Obama ran for reelection and again the year Hillary was assumed to be the winner from the start.  Not a good way to raise campaign funds -- when you're destined to lose no matter what.

Ranked choice won't resolve anything.  People have a hard enough time deciding on their #1 choice.  The remainders will be ranked randomly, with the advantage given to the order they are listed.

Ranked choice voting will deal with a lot of the issues of our voting system. It changes the dynamic of who candidates have to pay attention to. People don't have to worry that their vote won't count if they don't vote only for the leader. So I can vote 3rd party and then if they don't get enough votes my vote moves to republican. It overcomes the false dichotomy.