11
11
0
Election 2016
Republicans
Democrats
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
4
4
0
I have seen these comparisons of Hillary's vs Donald's rallies on many sources and wondered, how are the polls showing Hillary ahead? It simply doesn't make sense, does it?
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
SPC James Harsh
I'd more attribute the North Korea style of propping up Hillary's campaign to look legitimate with the daily barrage of liberal bias. Democrats don't seem to mind that they are far left on the spectrum or do Democrats even see it because I can see how one might defend their party affiliation
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Crowds at rallies mean nothing in terms of numbers of voters or overall support. Scientifically designed polls are way better at predicting election outcomes. The reasons are obvious to anyone who takes a few minutes to learn how polls work. But some of the most obvious ones is that a well designed poll randomly contacts a broad range of likely voters. Rally attendance self selects for those who have the time off work to go to a rally or can afford to miss work; those who live in the vicinity of where a rally is held and have transportation readily available; and those who consider attending a rally as an entertainment event.
Anyone that believes crowd size is a better predictor than polls will be in for a surprise when the election comes. No matter who wins, the margin of victory will be much closer to the best polls numbers than any percentage based on crowd ratios. Funny, though how Trump loves to quote polls when they show him ahead, but denigrates them when they show him losing.
Anyone that believes crowd size is a better predictor than polls will be in for a surprise when the election comes. No matter who wins, the margin of victory will be much closer to the best polls numbers than any percentage based on crowd ratios. Funny, though how Trump loves to quote polls when they show him ahead, but denigrates them when they show him losing.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SPC Randy Semanko - hardly. Here's the facts about polling for Reagan v. Carter. A thing to remember about polls, though, is that they are not a prediction of what will happen in the future, but rather a snapshot of what the public feels at a point in time. So it is quite possible that things can happen over the months prior to an election that cause people to change their mind. For example, in 1980 it was the Iranian hostage crisis dragging on, and in 2008 it was the economy tanking and McCain picking an idiot as his VP that changed things.
So while the public's collective mind may change, maybe due to some revelation from leaked emails, or Trump losing two more debates, to say that polls are a joke is misguided, unless you are referring to online snap polls like Trump used to boast about winning the debate. Those actually are garbage. But the major scientific polls are much more accurate than that, particularly when you look at the aggregate averages.
http://themonkeycage.org/2012/08/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/
So while the public's collective mind may change, maybe due to some revelation from leaked emails, or Trump losing two more debates, to say that polls are a joke is misguided, unless you are referring to online snap polls like Trump used to boast about winning the debate. Those actually are garbage. But the major scientific polls are much more accurate than that, particularly when you look at the aggregate averages.
http://themonkeycage.org/2012/08/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/
What Really Happened in the 1980 Presidential Campaign - The Monkey Cage
Bryon York reports: Romney aides believe strongly that this race will play out like the 1980 campaign, in which President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan for much of the race until Reagan broke through just before the election. As Jonathan Chait noted, 1980 is a poor comparison with 2012 for many reasons. One is simply …
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google