-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT10| Jill Stein Inflatable Love Doll
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Depends on whether it was 2012 demos or "X number of people claim they voted for Obama/Romney in 2012, let's reweigh that so it matches the 2012 results" like the stupid USC tracking poll
Although the exact methodology is unclear, their raw data has "2012 ballot" question that shows that they were asking who they voted for in 2012, which implies similar weighting as USC
User 463088
Banned
Emerson is also IVR which has shown greater support for Trump than live person polling. If they're not supplementing their sample with cell phones, that's going to skew heavily towards the GOP, I'd assume.
whyamihere
Banned
I'm sort of amused by this minority "outreach" my Trump. It won't work AND he's taking time away from his futile efforts to turn out more white voters.
God give me strength, I just spent 20 minutes reading twitter and it is mainly white people talking about the out reach, and those white people commend minorities for having superior intelligence for speaking out against Hillary.
Trump's retweet:
"@PMNOrlando: @realDonaldTrump I know of NO ONE voting for Crooked Hillary! Her rallies are held in (blank) & she still has room.
Actual tweet:
Patrick Nowlen ‏@PMNOrlando
@realDonaldTrump I know of NO ONE voting for Crooked Hillary! Her rallies are held in port-o-potties & she still has room. She Smells!
"@PMNOrlando: @realDonaldTrump I know of NO ONE voting for Crooked Hillary! Her rallies are held in (blank) & she still has room.
Actual tweet:
Patrick Nowlen ‏@PMNOrlando
@realDonaldTrump I know of NO ONE voting for Crooked Hillary! Her rallies are held in port-o-potties & she still has room. She Smells!
Veritigo_X
Member
Is Trump aware of the retweet button?
We're so close to my dream of seeing Trump call Hillary a doodie-head.. I know he has it in him.
metalslimer
Member
Yeah we really don't need to start waving away almost every poll.
balladofwindfishes
Member
There's a difference between pointing out why a poll might be inaccurate and straight up changing it to suite a narrative using a loose understanding of demographics or statistics.
For example, when Nate "adjusts" polls, it's not the same as unskewing them, because there's a methodology to it.
Roland_Gunner
Member
I don't believe in unskewing but landline only polls are really bad methodology because some groups are disproportionately affected by it.
Fragamemnon
Member
oh my god this dude is bananas. He talks like Hank Hill but sounds like a grand wizard of the kkk. I wish he's say "I sell hate and hate accessories" on the call.
edit: norm ornstein is about to go ham on this guy.
RustyNails
Member
DJ Khaled has come out in support of Hillary and against Trump.
bangbang i'm a timpani
Banned
dude loves his keys
User 463088
Banned
Number one, these aren't bad polls.
Number two, taking note of methodology is not unskewing anything. I accept this as valid sample for what poll they're running. However, I can go into a poll and point out if things seem a little wonky. Unskewing would be me saying "There should be 30% more white people, because reasons!
For example, they weighted results based on who people claimed to have voted for in 2012. Nate wrote a thing about this a few days ago. That's silly for a number of reasons. People don't remember that correctly. In the Emerson poll, the people in my congressional district said they voted 61/37 for Obama. The actual result was 54/43....for Romney. Any pollster that is using this type of metric as a baseline is going to have iffy results.
Nor is it unskewing to look at the demographic breakdown for Pennsylvania, and see that the expect a more white electorate than in 2012. They show that AA turnout will be down to its lowest level since, shit, 1992? Not only that, but Emerson is saying there will be essentially equal numbers of Hispanic voters and Hawaiian voters. In Pennsylvania. (Hint, that ain't gonna happen, nor will the Hispanic vote be only 2% of the PA electorate).
Also pointing out that Trump does better in English only IVRs of landlines is not unskewing. It's, you know, pointing out a fact that makes sense when you consider each candidates' strengths and weaknesses.
Thanks.
Arizona might be a problem, but Illinois? I don't think Russian hackers can win against Chicago politicians to be honest
It's just tiring that every poll that doesn't fit a preconceived Hillary lead is combed through for reasons why but anything but the biggest outliers on the plus side get a pass.
I don't really care, but there are like 500 polls, reading excuses every day is boring
NYCmetsfan
Banned
You guys do unskew not matter how nice you make it sound. Just let a poll go.
You literally dig around to find some narrative, not always that hillary is winning or has a bigger lead but that its "not as bad as it sounds"
You literally dig around to find some narrative, not always that hillary is winning or has a bigger lead but that its "not as bad as it sounds"
whyamihere
Banned
Yeah, I mean, we shouldn't take the methodology of every pollster as gospel. That's why Nate (maybe somewhat arbitrarily) tries to rate pollsters in the first place and user those ratings as a means of weighing polls in their model.
The average between bad data and good data isn't necessaeily great data. That doesn't mean that these Emerson polls are wrong or that they need to be "unskewed". Scrutinizing cross tabs and methodology is exactly what we should be doing!
Glorious Leader Putin defeats Joe Arpaio for Sheriff of Maricopa County 87% to 12%
User 463088
Banned
Exactly. The same should be done for polls that show Hillary ahead by weird amounts too. (Although, I don't consider any of the Emerson polls to be weird. If she's ahead by high single digits in PA and MI and ahead by 3-4 points in Ohio, this is exactly what we'd expect).
The demographic breakdown for Ohio and Michigan, for example, look really good. Looks like 2012, which is a safe assumption for a pollster to make. PAs is off, but, again, that's probably a methodology issue more than a "this is what it's going to look like." And, anyway, even great pollsters can get a sample wrong from time to time. (Survey USA in NC anyone?)
The main thing, though, is that there is no reason a pollster is using IVR/Landilne only in 2016. In the same way that these polls would over inflate Hillary's numbers in the primary, they'd do the same to Trump's now. Supplement it with a cell sample and you'd probably get better results.
Basileus777
Member
Except it's usually not that and people are actually careful with their wording to avoid going into unskewing territory. It's tiresome to hear this whenever any discussion of methodology happens.
So, the discussion yesterday about Gore and Iraq made me kind of "nostalgic" for the Bush years, so I found and read the lovely oral history of the Bush White House by Vanity Fair.
It was a kind of surreal trip down memory lane. 8 years of Obama has put some distance between the horror show of the Bush years, but god damn those were some dark years. To be honest I had mostly forgotten about the US Attorney scandal, I guess because there was just such a wealth of disasters Bush lurched between from year to year.
I think one unfortunate side effect of this election cycle is the softening of attitudes towards the Bush administration. After all, they may have been a bunch of vindictive war criminals, but at least they weren't openly racist lunatics like Trump! Even from the left, the eagerness with which the "both are the same" card was played this election has the side effect of masking exactly how fucking degenerate the Bush White House was.
The idea that Jeb could be seen with his brother in public, even in a south Carolina primary, is a damn shame, because GWB really ought to be too much of a pariah to show his face in public under any circumstances. Although I do take some solace in knowing that Trump trashed W during the debates and was seemingly rewarded for it.
Anyway, if you're feeling masochistic, give the oral history a read. It's a good article. But I never want to live in a word where GWB's approval is over 30% regardless of how bad the GOP is or how long he has been out of office. I guess the pure strangeness of Trump makes that worth keeping in mind. Even "normal" republicans were monsters. They've spent 16 years demonstrating that the rot goes to the core, from the war criminals who were in the executive branch, to the legislative saboteurs of the Obama years, to the awful base who looked and Trump and said "looks good to me."
It was a kind of surreal trip down memory lane. 8 years of Obama has put some distance between the horror show of the Bush years, but god damn those were some dark years. To be honest I had mostly forgotten about the US Attorney scandal, I guess because there was just such a wealth of disasters Bush lurched between from year to year.
I think one unfortunate side effect of this election cycle is the softening of attitudes towards the Bush administration. After all, they may have been a bunch of vindictive war criminals, but at least they weren't openly racist lunatics like Trump! Even from the left, the eagerness with which the "both are the same" card was played this election has the side effect of masking exactly how fucking degenerate the Bush White House was.
The idea that Jeb could be seen with his brother in public, even in a south Carolina primary, is a damn shame, because GWB really ought to be too much of a pariah to show his face in public under any circumstances. Although I do take some solace in knowing that Trump trashed W during the debates and was seemingly rewarded for it.
Anyway, if you're feeling masochistic, give the oral history a read. It's a good article. But I never want to live in a word where GWB's approval is over 30% regardless of how bad the GOP is or how long he has been out of office. I guess the pure strangeness of Trump makes that worth keeping in mind. Even "normal" republicans were monsters. They've spent 16 years demonstrating that the rot goes to the core, from the war criminals who were in the executive branch, to the legislative saboteurs of the Obama years, to the awful base who looked and Trump and said "looks good to me."
Just read some of Trumps tweets. Seems he's getting desperate. I get he's not really trying to get the minority vote. But his wording is reaching dangerous territory.
"How long will it take for AA's and Latino's to vote Trump?"
Like come on. The implications in that tweet alone are crazy.
"How long will it take for AA's and Latino's to vote Trump?"
Like come on. The implications in that tweet alone are crazy.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
Many people are saying he's just saying this shit as a participation medal so other white people feel comfortable supporting him ("well at least he tried")
This rhetoric is still dangerous for the country as a whole, but let him. Let him get more and more desperate and lose even more AA, Latinos and white women.
I want single digit Latino support for him.
User 463088
Banned
Is it possible that he gets a negative percentage of the Latino and African American vote? Is that too much to ask for?
That Morning Joe Amnesty Don thing cracked me up.
That Morning Joe Amnesty Don thing cracked me up.
RustyNails
Member
I'd only allow pigeon and black mamba to unskew polls. They did an amazing job in 2012.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Further confirmation of my belief that Bush wasn't very smart, but was a decent human being who surrounded himself with some very evil people.
Amazingly he kept saying the people on panel did not know anything about alt-right.. And then goes on to prove their points and beyond. Felt like taking a shower after listening to this...
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
The "Unskewed polls" guy from 2012 was using weights from 2008.
I 'unskewed' a poll on here a couple weeks ago that gave Hillary too large of a lead, the historical demographics were a bit off.
User 463088
Banned
Question for the straight guys
You think I got a shot with Joy Reid?
You think I got a shot with Joy Reid?
IIRC the big problem was that he was using party weights, which failed to consider the fact that Republicans took a strong preferences towards calling themselves Independents over this time frame. Using demographic weights won't be perfect, but it's not Chambers level miserable.
IggyChooChoo
Member
Good points. Jeb and Rubio were still neocons who'd pass the Ryan budget, privatize Social Security, shred the safety nets, and nominate Scalia clones.
whyamihere
Banned
Good for her.
RustyNails
Member
Actually he was doing way more than that. He was also increasing the R participation rate arbitrarily. All the gopers were in this bubble where Obamacare is hitler and people are going to come out in historic numbers to repudiate the president.
It's for the best. I hope things go as well as they can.
RustyNails
Member
GOOD GOD THANK YOU.
I would crawl through x, y and z etc etc to marry Huma. She is a total politics waifu. Weiner had it so good he doesnt have a fuckin clue. Seriously Weiner had to be more hated than Trump in New York right now. What a loser.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
If there was a poll using cell phones only, I'd call it out the same as a poll using landlines only. Anything that restricts access to possible voters is just a bad idea. Which is why I don't understand this rush to online only polling.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Good for her
Good. Weiner should be ashamed of himself. Fucking piece of crap.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked