Why did the LA Times consistently show Trump ahead, but all of the other "mainstream" news sources show Hillary ahead...

Why did the LA Times consistently show Trump ahead, but all of the other "mainstream" news sources show Hillary ahead? What does the LA Times mean by this?

>realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Other urls found in this thread:

peoplespunditdaily.com/news/elections/2016/10/02/defense-la-times-poll/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It's almost as if polls mean nothing and are biased towards the poll-givers political views

They mean nothing, just go out and vote.

That's something Hilary's basement dwelling cunts aren't going to do.

Either

1) they are pro-trump

2) pretending, so 1 day they'll make him behind and say see? We were fair and balanced, he's actually losing.

La Times is a deplorable news outlet that supports literally hitler

LA Times wants clickbait

Fpbp
Spbp

Close the thread.

They're probably scaring Latinos in LA

Pretty sure they use different methodology.

Don't they track the same people over a longer time-frame or something?

different poll methodology. they don't ask you who you're gonna vote for, they ask on a scale 1-100 your likelihood of voting for each candidate. they also keep a rolling vote count of people instead of just one single sample, or something like that

you can read about their methodology on their website, but i know you dorks like to get spoonfed. also they have at the bottom a separate poll of "who do you *think* will win?" where shitlery is winning, and they claim that is more accurate predictor of election results

Wasn't the LA Times a huge supporter of Nixon? I don't know too much about it but maybe they are Trump supporters.

peoplespunditdaily.com/news/elections/2016/10/02/defense-la-times-poll/

LA times uses the USC/Dornsife poll right? that is a tracking poll of the same 2400 people, tracking their support.

PPP put out a poll where 2% said they were voting for Evan McMullin, the fake "true conservative" candidate whose campaign exists only so that the failed cuckservative consultants who were supporting Rubio etc. can still rake in some donor money this season, and delay having to get real jobs for another six months. This nobody polls below 1% -- which is what PPP says is Jill Stein's support level, when in reality it is more like 2-3%.

Fox News put out a poll where only 18% are Independents, and the wording did not group Democrat with "Democrat leaning Indies" and Republican with "Republican leaning Indies," which is the only way to get that low a share of Independents. Since Trump wins Indies in every poll, this one under-sampled a key support group of his.

Reuters did a little better, as they should given their superior track record from the 2012 general election. Their daily poll shows Trump improving after the debate, not a bump for Hillary like the other two. After the debate, Clinton leads by 3-4 points (4-way vs. heads-up), about what the Fox and PPP polls showed.

However, Reuters surgically altered their methodology in the middle of the election season in order to move soft Trump supporters from "Trump" into one of the other / neither / unsure categories. The result was an overnight 6-point boost for Hillary. Using their original methodology (which is what their high track record from 2012 is based on), they show Trump up by 2-3 points.

>deplorable
>supports hitler
Pick one

That estimate is closer to what the USC poll has said for the post-debate period, which is 4-5 points for Trump. The Reuters and USC polls are also similar in their directions after the debate -- Trump doing better, although that improvement had already been under way for several days, and was therefore not a response to the debate. That is, the debate appears not to have mattered, judging from USC and Reuters.

So who's gonna win,Hans?

Trump

Don't trust PPP polls. They lean heavily towards Democrats and one of their major funders is George Soros