Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How come whenever the polls show someone leading, people automatically think that that front-runner's lead is inflated somehow, and that the underdog must actually be doing better than the polls show?! I mean, WHAT is that based on?! Don't people realize that polling margin of error goes BOTH ways!?
What I'm saying is....people think that Hillary's lead is inflated and that Trump is actually doing better than the polls show. But there's just as much of a possibility that Hillary is doing even BETTER than the polls show! So why do people always assume that the underdog is under-polling reality and the front-runner is over-polling compared to reality?!
I don't think that they always do. This election season is like none other. I think people, with the birth of the internet, don't really need polls to tell them how a candidate is doing.
I don't think that they always do. This election season is like none other. I think people, with the birth of the internet, don't really need polls to tell them how a candidate is doing.
Meh. The way I see it....all the polling dynamics this year are the same as it was in 2012, more or less. And Romney totally lost, even though he and his supporters thought the polls were wrong. As I was watching the election with my dad, who voted for Romney (I voted for Obama), he was PISSED when they announced that Obama won Virginia and Ohio. He knew the writing was on the wall. His explanation was, "the country has changed."
Meh. The way I see it....all the polling dynamics this year are the same as it was in 2012, more or less. And Romney totally lost, even though he and his supporters thought the polls were wrong. As I was watching the election with my dad, who voted for Romney (I voted for Obama), he was PISSED when they announced that Obama won Virginia and Ohio. He knew the writing was on the wall. His explanation was, "the country has changed."
Have you watched the polls and the methodology? It is quite interesting. The first POTUS that I voted for was McGovern and started following elections with Johnson.
Many things have changed over the last year. I don't think there has ever been so many changing their political affiliations either. I wouldn't do any heavy betting based on the polls results you see. Dig deeper for the truth.
Because they have nothing else I imagine. It's difficult for a lot of supporters to come to terms why their candidate is losing. They will usually cherry pick good polls for them, try to unskew the polls because of bias, and try to claim that there is hidden support out there. I see a similar trend that I saw with Sanders supporters. "Everyone I know is voting for Trump!" That is exactly the same line that I heard 6 months ago about Bernie. Trumps base is very enthusiastic about him, but they seem to have a hard to understanding why everyone else doesn't feel the same.
How come whenever the polls show someone leading, people automatically think that that front-runner's lead is inflated somehow, and that the underdog must actually be doing better than the polls show?! I mean, WHAT is that based on?! Don't people realize that polling margin of error goes BOTH ways!?
What I'm saying is....people think that Hillary's lead is inflated and that Trump is actually doing better than the polls show. But there's just as much of a possibility that Hillary is doing even BETTER than the polls show! So why do people always assume that the underdog is under-polling reality and the front-runner is over-polling compared to reality?!
Any excuse at all that they can embrace in order to disregard news they find unpleasant.
"But this time it's different! This time all the polls... well, except for the ones we like... really are wrong!"
Uh huh...
Also, the fact that polling is mostly undertaken by media services and colleges/universities - two boogeymen for the party whose candidate is getting his ass kicked in the polls right now - only accentuates the tendency toward willful disbelief this time around.
Have you watched the polls and the methodology? It is quite interesting. The first POTUS that I voted for was McGovern and started following elections with Johnson.
Many things have changed over the last year. I don't think there has ever been so many changing their political affiliations either. I wouldn't do any heavy betting based on the polls results you see. Dig deeper for the truth.
Yes, but polling frequency prior to the year 2000 was VERY low. Nowadays, we have 10-20 times the amount of polls being conducted. It seems like there's a new poll every day now. Prior to 2000, there were only a few polls conducted prior to an election at best. So, with the high frequency and consistency of polling these days, the margins of error are effectively diminished and it's safe to say that Hillary has a 100% chance of winning this thing.
I don't think that they always do. This election season is like none other. I think people, with the birth of the internet, don't really need polls to tell them how a candidate is doing.
Feels over reals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
