Doctoring Polls: How the Liberal Media Wants You To Believe Hillary Is Alive And Well
Identifying likely voters by asking them how likely they are to vote shifts the electorate from the demographic composition observed in recent presidential elections towards a whiter, older electorate. While it is always possible that the electorate will be older and whiter in 2016 than it was in 2012 and 2008 — we will not know what the electorate in 2016 looks like until Election Day — given the demographic stability evident in past presidential elections we are reluctant to rely on screens that shift the composition of the electorate too far away from the composition of recent elections. Given historical patterns and the relative stability of presidential voting, our working assumption is that the electorate in 2016 is more likely than not to resemble the 2012 electorate; we trust the stable patterns in the data more than self-reported responses. (emphases mine)
I had to read it twice, because I could not believe that even NBC could be so brazen.
What they are saying is this:
“we are well noticing that we are seeing an increase in White and older voters among Likely Voters only six weeks away from the vote. Clearly, there is change afoot. However, this is very bad news for Crooked Hillary’s fans. Therefore, we prefer to adjust the reality we are seeing to something pretty similar to what we have seen in 2012. Because you see, in 2012 we had far less Whites and far more Blacks voting than it seems likely this year. Therefore, we will make Crooked Hillary look better and give her apathetic supporters some much- needed morale boost”.
2012? With Mulatto President running and mobilising (racist) Blacks all over the Country; and his flip-flopper, Mormon antagonist clearly unable to do the same with his core electorate?
2012? Without the Most Hated Bitch Alive running? The woman almost destroyed by an underfunded Socialist ostracised by his own party machine? The woman embroiled in scandals concerning her behaviou rin government, her behaviour out of government, her “pay to play” tricks, her health, and her chronic inability to tell the truth even by mistake?
2012? Did Romney pulverise Gay Mulatto for public attendance at his rallies in 2012? Can we really not see that things appear to be different in 2016? Is this not a matter of simple observation of facts?
What is a poll worth, if the pollster decide they are going to ignore the reality they see in front of them, a reality they openly admit to you they are seeing and measuring, and give you the manipulation of the data they see “safer” (read: not a disaster for Hillary) instead?
Then there is this other pearl:
Our respondents are selected from the nearly 3 million people who take surveys on the SurveyMonkey platform each day. To do so, for a random sample of those taking a survey, SurveyMonkey displays a map of past election results colored in gradations of red, blue and purple and they ask those individuals to “help us predict the 2016 elections.” Because individuals choose whether or not they want to help predict the election, those individuals choosing to participate are arguably more likely to be politically interested and likely to vote [ and younger, and more urban] than respondents who see the same invitation and decline to participate. (red and emphasis mine).
Are they telling us that their data are taken exclusively from a sample of people who are Internet-savvy enough to a) participate to online surveys and b) tell the pollster they want to be counted? Seriously?
Does it take a genius to understand that among a sample of real likely voters out there, those who will vote for Trump but are not interested in these Internet plays will easily exceed those Hillary fans who do the same? Trump’s voters are more likely to be Midwest welders and motorbike mechanics. Crooked Hillary’s voters are more likely to be students, internet-savvy young employees, or Starbucks failures spending a lot of time on their laptops.
I understand it when a pollster tells me that he has adjusted the data in order to make the, say, 3,000 respondents better match the reality out there. But it is very different from a pollster saying that he sees a clear reality out there, and he adjusts it because he can’t ( = does not want to) believe what’s really happening.
This reminds me of Brexit. Tweeters from all over the Country reported long lines in “deep England” full of old-ish people and people who had not voted for a long time, whilst the BBC & assorted faggots kept explaining to us how their statistical models returned a clear victory for “Remain”.
I am not saying this is in the bag. What I am saying is that even the polls which try to explain to us why Hillary is not sinking like she is the Titanic fail to persuade.
Can’t wait for a) the TV debates, and b) the leaks, and c) the next fit of cough, or d) fainting caused by (what was that? Oh, another lie…) “dehydration”.