Links to election polls besides major media

[ivwshane]

The OP's post highlights a serious issue with the right, they actually seek out places to confirm their bias and they wish to live in a bubble. They might better know them as "safe spaces".

The question I have is; have people always done this and has it always been this widespread or is the right wing echo chamber a new phenomenon? Is this how religions/cults get started?

 

[nickqt]

It's gonna be a Trumpslide just like it was a Rmoneyslide in 2012!

If you live in conservative delusional reality.

 

[linthat22]

One thing I will say, anandtech's political forum is like la-la land compared to reality. I swear this board has to have a ton of paid trolls to push backwards agendas.

 

[gorobei]

How so? Polling averages had 'leave' winning for most of the month before the vote. The final average was 'remain', but only by half a point and in the middle of volatile polling in the wake of that MP's assassination. That was basically the polls saying they didn't know, as half a point is within the margin of error even for polling averages.

there was an audit of the brexit polling, the failings and circumstances. one of the major flaws being the predictive formulas/estimates for turnout. they were on average in some areas but way off in others. the polling models failed when turnout was greater than predicted.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Seek and ye shall find!

Texashiker needs to talk to Karl Rove, I heard that he's really good at math!

I was going to post this. Great timing by TH, the resident dumbass. On the same day, Breibart conducts their own poll to rebuke MSM Surveys and what do they get? Clinton leading!!!

 

[MongGrel]

It's fun to watch at any rate.

Trump screws up so much the forums would be flooded ever time he steps on his crank lately if a new thread was made every time.

 

[fskimospy]

there was an audit of the brexit polling, the failings and circumstances. one of the major flaws being the predictive formulas/estimates for turnout. they were on average in some areas but way off in others. the polling models failed when turnout was greater than predicted.

Regardless of whatever problems the polls might have had the polling averages indicated that a leave vote was a strong possibility. I just don't see the Brexit vote as a sign of a particular problem with the polling.

And anyways in that case we were talking a very close vote with polling that was nowhere near as refined as to its subject matter. US presidential polling has been very good historically. The polling averages in this case are most likely correct.

 

[gorobei]

Regardless of whatever problems the polls might have had the polling averages indicated that a leave vote was a strong possibility. I just don't see the Brexit vote as a sign of a particular problem with the polling.

And anyways in that case we were talking a very close vote with polling that was nowhere near as refined as to its subject matter. US presidential polling has been very good historically. The polling averages in this case are most likely correct.

im not saying they are way off, some are more accurate than other and some are near prescient. my main point is that each pollster has its own formula and weightings for various factors. so when we see variations in predictions, it isnt just sampling derived margin of error, it is a human being making an assessment and using a value judgement. there is one university pollster who had an even better record than nate silver back in 2012. there is a touch of art to this mostly bit of science/math.

 

[zinfamous]

The thread could have been locked after the first response. This has to be trolling. No one can really be so stupid as to think random online polls about the Presidential election have any validity whatsoever.

You know how Trump himself has always favored the Time online poll?

 

[fskimospy]

im not saying they are way off, some are more accurate than other and some are near prescient. my main point is that each pollster has its own formula and weightings for various factors. so when we see variations in predictions, it isnt just sampling derived margin of error, it is a human being making an assessment and using a value judgement. there is one university pollster who had an even better record than nate silver back in 2012. there is a touch of art to this mostly bit of science/math.

Ah that makes sense, I totally agree. This is one area where polling averages are at their most helpful as they tend to smooth the bias or errors in judgment from any one pollster.

 

[retrospooty]

The OP's post highlights a serious issue with the right, they actually seek out places to confirm their bias and they wish to live in a bubble. They might better know them as "safe spaces".

Yup... This is why they cant understand why their candidate does so well in the primaries and so badly when the independents and dems vote in the national elections... Hello, it's not the same voter pool. I know that seems simple, but we aren't dealing with the "best and brightest" here. We are dealing with people that actually think "President Donald Trump" would be a good thing for America.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I do wish TexasHiker would return to this thread and psychoanalyze himself for us. I really do wish to understand how one explains his own desire to pull the wool over their own eyes and live in an alternate reality in the face over overwhelming evidence that they are living a lie. It could be forgiven if you are new to politics this cycle, and hop right into fox news preaching all the mainstream media bullshit about skewed polls and such and start to believe it. Anyone is prone to misinformation if they have a narrow selection of information sources, particularly those on the right that actively discourage you from venturing out of their information bubble. What I just cant wrap my head around is how those like the OP that believed the same arguments about skewed polls in 2012, only to be bitch slapped by reality on election night, are prone to repeat the same mistakes?? It's no fun to get gut punched by events that are completely unforeseeable. I'm trying to imagine how I would feel going to bed on election night knowing Hillary
had a comfortable double digit lead, only to wake up to a president Trump. You could bet your ass I would question everything I thought I knew so I could avoid ever experiencing such a thing again.

PLEASE OP. EXPLAIN THIS TO ME!!

 

[nakedfrog]

The thread could have been locked after the first response. This has to be trolling. No one can really be so stupid as to think random online polls about the Presidential election have any validity whatsoever.

It's just more proof of how rigged the system is!

 

[nakedfrog]

One thing I will say, anandtech's political forum is like la-la land compared to reality. I swear this board has to have a ton of paid trolls to push backwards agendas.

This isn't even as bad as some other political sub-forums on other sites...

 

[zinfamous]

I do wish TexasHiker would return to this thread and psychoanalyze himself for us. I really do wish to understand how one explains his own desire to pull the wool over their own eyes and live in an alternate reality in the face over overwhelming evidence that they are living a lie.

This can't be your first TH thread, can it? It is the same concept over and over, and no: he will never explain the goings-on in his mind. (I'm not sure if he is even honest with/understands himself enough to properly explain that to anyone)

 

[zinfamous]

Good news for TexasHiker, his favorite (actually sciencey) polls now show a steady and consistent trend in the campaign:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-lead-is-clear-and-steady/

I mean, it probably isn't the the reality that he wants to see, but his trusted rasmussen and survey monkey poll is at least using actual data, with at least some math behind it.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Good news for TexasHiker, his favorite (actually sciencey) polls now show a steady and consistent trend in the campaign:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-lead-is-clear-and-steady/

I mean, it probably isn't the the reality that he wants to see, but his trusted rasmussen and survey monkey poll is at least using actual data, with at least some math behind it.

But is doesn't reflect what I want to see as the results! So it's gotta be biased!! /th rant

 

[vi edit]

The bastion of unbiased press, Breitbart did it's own poll...
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...-hillary-clinton-leads-donald-trump-42-to-37/

Hillary 42...Trump 37.

Whoops.

 

[alien42]

TH, keeping stupid alive and kicking.

but stay in that bubble of ignorance champ, it's only going to get worse for you year by year.