Why should we trust LA Times poll over other alternatives

Go home CTR snake

This leaf gets it
You either poll right or not at all
For instance in Massachusetts we have 30% dems 15% republicans and 55% indies. If they poll that, then its fine since its different from the national average of
30 -dems 29- repub 41 - indie

But the pollsters and the media never take any of thisinto effect, poll 50% dems, then wonder why Trump is winning.

>But the pollsters and the media never take any of thisinto effect, poll 50% dems, then wonder why Trump is winning.
You actually think professional polling firms are literally pants on head retarded, and that this very obvious fact - that you can describe in one sentence, and which everyone can find by going to Wikipedia - is ignored by them.

You think that. And you also believe you're qualified to judge who'd be qualified to lead the Free World.

LA times does weird methodology.

To start, instead of giving a single "Trump/Clinton" choice, you pick each based on a scale from 0-100. So, if you only sampled two people, and you had a Clinton supporter who was 90% sure they would vote for her, and a Trump supporter who was 100% sure, then it would look like Trump was winning by 10%.

To make it more strange, it surveys the exact same 3000 people over and over again, it doesn't pick a random sample.

Then, it weighs people's opinion based on how they claim to have voted in 2012, so people who switch parties don't count as much.

The end result is a poll that has been between 6-8% more Pro-Trump this entire election than the average of all other polls.

‘Bernie Sold Out To The Devil’ Hillary

breitbart.com/video/2016/09/29/trump-bernie-sold-devil-hillary/

10 Years Ago Today, Hillary Voted For A Massive Border Fence

dailycaller.com/2016/09/29/flashback-10-years-ago-today-hillary-voted-for-a-massive-border-fence/

Hillary’s Favorite World Leader – Angela Merkel

youtube.com/watch?v=Nr04tpzsNTU&feature=youtu.be

>sage

Reason for it is that they do not use a random sample group but rather they question the same sample group over and over again. Basically it means their poll is skewed towards Trump because currently their sample group has more Trump supporters. It's a model that's better suited for measuring overall enthusiasm to a candidate over a longer period of time.

When you take into account other polls having more dems counted in double digits you find when you average it out +6 Trump is likely

These numbers line up with the snap polling following the debate.

MSM polls can't be trusted at this point.

>that this very obvious fact - that you can describe in one sentence, and which everyone can find by going to Wikipedia - is ignored by them.
Yes because 99% of people looking at a poll just look at the result. Everyone assumes that the methodology is fair even if this is not the case.

What makes the LA times poll special is that it tracks the same large group of people's opinion every single day that goes by. It may or may not be accurate but I trust that it accurately shows who is trending up or down. The exact percentages may vary but it's useful to see which candidate is gaining or losing support. Other polls grab people and do sketchy shit behind the scenes, oversampling dems every time etc. With LA times it's the same group of people over and over.

You really think basically every polling firm is staffed by utter idiots who're completely incompetent at the one thing they have, polling.

(Yet they somehow managed to correctly call election after election.)

And why would they do that? Statisticians and pollsters depend on accurate results for their livelihood, they have nothing to gain from intentionally rigging the polls.

This isn't actually true, but is a popular rumor. There are no major polls that specifically sample a specific number of Democrats or a specific number of Republicans.

Nearly all of them pick people at random and call them/talk to them in person.

If it turns out that the group they sampled have more democrats than the statewide average, then they means one of two things:

First, Trump is unpopular enough that tons of people changed party affiliation since 2012 (unlikely).

Or second: Republicans don't respond to surveys (likely). This doesn't bias it much, because people who don't vote in surveys tend not to vote at all.

Look, pollsters do this for a living, and have been doing it for decades, and their reputation, their job, and their livelihood depends entirely on being accurate. They aren't going to throw away everything they've ever done and will do to "oversample democrats" and pretend one candidate in one election a slight advantage.

I think he's implying they're just extremely stupid.

Why did you have to post that? Now everyone's going to call me a shill because we used the same word at the same time.

Fuck my life.

You, him and I are actually all the same Muslim Jew paid by Shillary to shitpost on, of all places, Cred Forums.

Yes, this makes sense. Trump Pence 2016, MAGA.

>Multiple sources of information are always better than a single source of information.

This is a fallacy. Multiple sources didn't predict the financial crash of 2008, but a few individuals did. There are many times where the majority is wrong.

I'm really curious what the reaction here will be if Hillary wins the election.

Yeah they do, if they are getting paid, controlled from within, or even threatened.

The goal of poll rigging is to demoralize the other side's voters into believing there's no hope so voter turnout is shit.

If you think politicians and their special interests are above stooping that low I have a bridge in Brooklyn I could sell you for a good price

It's not really a fallacy, just not worded correctly. When it comes to statistics, more sources are better than few.

>if

Go build the wall paco

Except multiple sources did predict the financial crash... The difference here is it's not economics, it's polling data. Not only that, it's a large majority of polling data that all lead to the same conclusion.

Newsflash: don't trust any polls, they're all bullshit.

Look at Trump's rallies vs. Hillary's rallies if you want to see actual voter enthusiasm.

Scares the Mexicans here maybe?

Oh yes, because rally size is a good aggregate to decide who's winning. I mean, Bernie Sanders had much bigger rallies.

This is ridiculous, you know how many polling organisations there are? How many people are working on the polls within those organisations?

Even if someone were to try rigging the polls to create the illusion of someone winning, they'd have to do it with all of them to see an actual effect. And if they did it with all of them, it's nigh impossible for nobody in those organisations to blab about it. Nevermind the fact that they publish their methodology and independant people regularly check if their results are accurate using the same methodology.

And of course there's the whole "if this comes out everyone involved is fucked and we're taking this huge risk so a candidate appears to be two points more ahead than they are and really we're fucking stupid this risk is not worth the reward" thing.

>LA Times is a respected poll because it shows my guy winning
>The rest are garbage liars

HMM...

You shouldnt trust just one poll and ignore others.
Predictive markets seem to be much more accurate than polls in predicting actual election results...... and they favor Clinton by a pretty wide margin - 70/30

Polls are not conducted to report on public opinion but to shape it.

...

Follow the money trail and you will know who they all work for

>You really think basically every polling firm is staffed by utter idiots who're completely incompetent at the one thing they have, polling.

I never said they were stupid. What they are doing is intentional. I know you aren't from US but if you think everyone is completely unbiased and just wants to give Trump a fair shake you are incredibly naive.

This.

Almost all of the major polling organizations are cooking the books deliberately. It's not a rabbit hole. It's a spiderweb of corruption.

Don't believe me? Look how Trump was treated at the debate by the moderator vs Hillary. She got softball questions and he was asked almost exclusively about why he's a piece of shit. Lester Holt asked him about being a racist, and Hillary got out of answering a god damn thing about Benghazi, her email scandal, or her money laundering operation known as the Clinton Foundation.

>Statisticians and pollsters depend on accurate results for their livelihood, they have nothing to gain from intentionally rigging the polls.
Money? Influence/favors owed under a Clinton presidency?
Not everyone has to be in on the deception. It's not low level statisticians doing this. I might just be 1 or 2 people at the top.

Of course this is all baseless conjecture. But a better question is for what possible legitimate reason would a polling methodology over-sample a certain group by double digits compared to their national average?

Yeah because he had more popular support.
Clinton stole the race. The DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign to stop Bernie from winning.

>Bernie Sanders had much bigger rallies

Oh yeah you mean Bernie, the guy who literally had his nomination stolen from him by Hillary Clinton's cheating?

Bernie should be up there against Trump if they were actually playing fair, but the democratic party is now corrupt beyond belief.

This pic is from the LA Times

Lmao, is this supposed to be a bad thing?

>This is a fallacy. Multiple sources didn't predict the financial crash of 2008, but a few individuals did. There are many times where the majority is wrong.
I didn't say "the proper course of action is to count the number of yesses and the numbers of nos, and go with whatever you have more of".

But your problem is that you would have to a priori establish which individuals are the ones that will turn out to be correct. It's easy in retrospective. It will require combining multiple sources of information to do it prospectively.

>Even if someone were to try rigging the polls to create the illusion of someone winning, they'd have to do it with all of them to see an actual effect.
Or the race is close enough that Reuters massively oversampling Democrats and undersampling Independents would skew the average.
Or all the polling outfits have the same partisan leaning (90% of the media identifies as Democrat or Democrat-leaning).
>And if they did it with all of them, it's nigh impossible for nobody in those organisations to blab about it.
Even if that happened, they'd simply deny and discredit by calling it a conspiracy theory.

Go back to Morocco.

LA is 1000s of miles from the Jewish capital of America, New York, so logically it's going to be less affected by Jewish, globalist bias

Read the method -- a weighted average of support rated from 0 - 100.

The MSM narrative -- that there are more Clinton voters, but they are less intense in their support -- could generate this same graph if asked the same question.

The people making it did the 2012 RAND poll, which accurately showed Obama over Romney consistently at the end.

Expect a landslide victory

We're in the midst of a triple paradigm shift. The whole country is steadily getting red-pilled about everything.

Explain your pic.

A few anons were dissecting the Reuters polls earlier today. Look it up in the archive.

It's a compiled list of all the post-debate polls. Along with sample size.

>note than CNN is the only outlier

>correctly call election after election
Top kek hans

>online polls

New levels of pathetic

but they have been caught oversampling already. I remember one pollster massively oversampling the 75+ age bracket that is known to go for Hillary

Leftists hate anything that is strong or successful. They want to make everybody as weak and helpless as they are so they can feel better about themselves.

>And of course there's the whole "if this comes out everyone involved is fucked and we're taking this huge risk so a candidate appears to be two points more ahead than they are and really we're fucking stupid this risk is not worth the reward" thing.

You seem to imlpy that this would result in a huge scandal, putting them out of work. Rather unlikely