Most polls ask respondents about Trump vs. Clinton, and then ask the same question again "with Libertarian Gary Johnson added to the mix" like it's an afterthought.

But if you want to be as close to accurate as possible, Johnson should be included in all polls given he'll be on the ballot in all 50 states. There will be no case where your choice is either Trump or Clinton only.

And if Jill Stein gets on most or all ballots, she should be included as well. Where Johnson is pulling equally from R's and D's, Stein's presence could be damaging to Hillary as she'll pull almost exclusively from D's and Bernouts, even if it's just a few percentage points.

I've given up even paying attention to polls. Its a five point swing every 3 days anymore.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...ouse_watch

How'd those Brexit polls work out?

(06-30-2016 08:36 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  How'd those Brexit polls work out?

Pretty good since they said it was pretty much 50/50.. and it ended up being 52-48..

(06-30-2016 09:06 AM)Greenroom Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 08:36 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  How'd those Brexit polls work out?

Pretty good since they said it was pretty much 50/50.. and it ended up being 52-48..

No they didn't. They were massively skewed towards Remain.

The Brexit polls completely missed the mark in Labour heavy NE England as well as Wales and also way overestimated the margin in Northern Ireland. The polls had Brexit only taking Southern England and Cornwall.

(06-30-2016 09:08 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 09:06 AM)Greenroom Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 08:36 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  How'd those Brexit polls work out?

Pretty good since they said it was pretty much 50/50.. and it ended up being 52-48..

No they didn't. They were massively skewed towards Remain.

hmm. not so fast.. However the betting was as you said towards Remain.. but the polls were not as off as you think.

"The polls consistently indicated that there was a very real chance that Britain would vote to leave. Polling averages even showed “Leave” with a lead for most of the last month; over all, 17 of the 35 surveys conducted in June showed the Leave side with the edge, while just 15 showed Remain ahead."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/upshot....html?_r=0

(06-30-2016 09:32 AM)Greenroom Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 09:08 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 09:06 AM)Greenroom Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 08:36 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  How'd those Brexit polls work out?

Pretty good since they said it was pretty much 50/50.. and it ended up being 52-48..

No they didn't. They were massively skewed towards Remain.

hmm. not so fast.. However the betting was as you said towards Remain.. but the polls were not as off as you think.

"The polls consistently indicated that there was a very real chance that Britain would vote to leave. Polling averages even showed “Leave” with a lead for most of the last month; over all, 17 of the 35 surveys conducted in June showed the Leave side with the edge, while just 15 showed Remain ahead."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/upshot....html?_r=0

Yes, but the polls at the end all showed the late deciders breaking toward remain and remain winning. Some election day and election eve polls had remain winning by as many as 11%.

(06-30-2016 10:00 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 09:32 AM)Greenroom Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 09:08 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 09:06 AM)Greenroom Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 08:36 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  How'd those Brexit polls work out?

Pretty good since they said it was pretty much 50/50.. and it ended up being 52-48..

No they didn't. They were massively skewed towards Remain.

hmm. not so fast.. However the betting was as you said towards Remain.. but the polls were not as off as you think.

"The polls consistently indicated that there was a very real chance that Britain would vote to leave. Polling averages even showed “Leave” with a lead for most of the last month; over all, 17 of the 35 surveys conducted in June showed the Leave side with the edge, while just 15 showed Remain ahead."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/upshot....html?_r=0

Yes, but the polls at the end all showed the late deciders breaking toward remain and remain winning. Some election day and election eve polls had remain winning by as many as 11%.

those dipshites will argue a drought after an H20 deluge....

(06-30-2016 07:00 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Hillary crushing Trump by 14 in Florida and PA

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/b...index.html

Washington (CNN)

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump across the board in a new poll of battleground states.
According to Ballotpedia's battleground poll, Clinton leads Trump:

51% to 37% in Florida
45% to 41% in Iowa
50% to 33% in Michigan
48% to 38% in North Carolina
46% to 37% in Ohio
49% to 35% in Pennsylvania
45% to 38% in Virginia

Real Clear Politics isn't showing these results yet. I'm wondering why. I don't see any way Clinton could have a 10% lead in North Carolina. I guess if the margin of error is 4 and it is off on both ends 44-42 that would be more likely.

(06-30-2016 10:36 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 07:00 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Hillary crushing Trump by 14 in Florida and PA

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/b...index.html

Washington (CNN)

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump across the board in a new poll of battleground states.
According to Ballotpedia's battleground poll, Clinton leads Trump:

51% to 37% in Florida
45% to 41% in Iowa
50% to 33% in Michigan
48% to 38% in North Carolina
46% to 37% in Ohio
49% to 35% in Pennsylvania
45% to 38% in Virginia

Real Clear Politics isn't showing these results yet. I'm wondering why. I don't see any way Clinton could have a 10% lead in North Carolina. I guess if the margin of error is 4 and it is off on both ends 44-42 that would be more likely.

Quote:Ballotpedia partnered with Evolving Strategies and surveyed voters across seven states (June 10 – 22) regarding their vote preference.

What is Evolving Stategies?

Evolving Strategies is a clinical data science firm. We use experiments and artificial intelligence to modify (not just predict) human behavior — we get more people to do what you need them to do.

http://www.evolving-strategies.com/

SAD

(06-30-2016 10:49 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 10:36 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 07:00 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Hillary crushing Trump by 14 in Florida and PA

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/b...index.html

Washington (CNN)

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump across the board in a new poll of battleground states.
According to Ballotpedia's battleground poll, Clinton leads Trump:

51% to 37% in Florida
45% to 41% in Iowa
50% to 33% in Michigan
48% to 38% in North Carolina
46% to 37% in Ohio
49% to 35% in Pennsylvania
45% to 38% in Virginia

Real Clear Politics isn't showing these results yet. I'm wondering why. I don't see any way Clinton could have a 10% lead in North Carolina. I guess if the margin of error is 4 and it is off on both ends 44-42 that would be more likely.

Quote:Ballotpedia partnered with Evolving Strategies and surveyed voters across seven states (June 10 – 22) regarding their vote preference.

What is Evolving Stategies?

Evolving Strategies is a clinical data science firm. We use experiments and artificial intelligence to modify (not just predict) human behavior — we get more people to do what you need them to do.

http://www.evolving-strategies.com/

SAD

So it looks like this isn't what we would generally accept as a legitimate poll. I think this might be one that we should toss off to the side. Answer their call and they might have you hip mo ties ed before you hang up!

(06-30-2016 11:01 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 10:49 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 10:36 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 07:00 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Hillary crushing Trump by 14 in Florida and PA

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/b...index.html

Washington (CNN)

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump across the board in a new poll of battleground states.
According to Ballotpedia's battleground poll, Clinton leads Trump:

51% to 37% in Florida
45% to 41% in Iowa
50% to 33% in Michigan
48% to 38% in North Carolina
46% to 37% in Ohio
49% to 35% in Pennsylvania
45% to 38% in Virginia

Real Clear Politics isn't showing these results yet. I'm wondering why. I don't see any way Clinton could have a 10% lead in North Carolina. I guess if the margin of error is 4 and it is off on both ends 44-42 that would be more likely.

Quote:Ballotpedia partnered with Evolving Strategies and surveyed voters across seven states (June 10 – 22) regarding their vote preference.

What is Evolving Stategies?

Evolving Strategies is a clinical data science firm. We use experiments and artificial intelligence to modify (not just predict) human behavior — we get more people to do what you need them to do.

http://www.evolving-strategies.com/

SAD

So it looks like this isn't what we would generally accept as a legitimate poll. I think this might be one that we should toss off to the side. Answer their call and they might have you hip mo ties ed before you hang up!

Never heard of ballotpedia. That was my thought. Not a professional poll.

But then really, even this year, until Labor Day, nothing is that significant.

Nate Silver and his team on Twitter say they see no reason to discount the poll. In particular, Nate says that in a 7%-Clinton lead environment these polls aren't even outliers with the Margin of Error. Another person on his team said that other swing state polls have had long response times and no one objected, probably because the results were a tight race. Furthermore, they believe the polling firm is a perfectly fine organization.

Realclearpolitics is a right wing organization.

(06-30-2016 12:34 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Nate Silver and his team on Twitter say they see no reason to discount the poll. In particular, Nate says that in a 7%-Clinton lead environment these polls aren't even outliers with the Margin of Error. Another person on his team said that other swing state polls have had long response times and no one objected, probably because the results were a tight race. Furthermore, they believe the polling firm is a perfectly fine organization.

Realclearpolitics is a right wing organization.

all you do is run your twat with that clapper.....your avAtar says it all...your weakness in prose says more...

you never explain a position of matter....

you're a simple 12 yr old w/o a clue

well done....it must be long enough to reach both bung-holies-holes....we call that the 'gag effect'....

disclaimer: poll thread does deserve op-ed....however, that's why the real gay folks create poll threads....

(06-30-2016 12:34 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Nate Silver and his team on Twitter say

Silver said for a long time that Trump had no chance of winning the primary; that was mostly a case of Silver not believing what the polls were telling him
-- slate

so says the guy paid the big bucks to nail predictions ...

SEE THROUGH ROSE-COLORED GLASSES

(06-30-2016 12:44 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 12:34 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Nate Silver and his team on Twitter say they see no reason to discount the poll. In particular, Nate says that in a 7%-Clinton lead environment these polls aren't even outliers with the Margin of Error. Another person on his team said that other swing state polls have had long response times and no one objected, probably because the results were a tight race. Furthermore, they believe the polling firm is a perfectly fine organization.

Realclearpolitics is a right wing organization.

all you do is run your twat with that clapper.....your avAtar says it all...your weakness in prose says more...

you never explain a position of matter....

you're a simple 12 yr old w/o a clue

well done....it must be long enough to reach both bung-holies-holes....we call that the 'gag effect'....

disclaimer: poll thread does deserve op-ed....however, that's why the real gay folks create poll threads....

Stinky you aren't playing nice today. Pause for a smoke break.

(06-30-2016 12:34 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Nate Silver and his team on Twitter say they see no reason to discount the poll. In particular, Nate says that in a 7%-Clinton lead environment these polls aren't even outliers with the Margin of Error. Another person on his team said that other swing state polls have had long response times and no one objected, probably because the results were a tight race. Furthermore, they believe the polling firm is a perfectly fine organization.

Realclearpolitics is a right wing organization.

You must be a Crooked Hillary supporter with your lies about everything that doesn't support your views 100% being a "vast right wing" conspiracy.

Calling realclearpoltics a right wing organization is either a lie on your part or an effort to win the award for the most ridiculous post of the month.

They are balanced. Its hard to find an article without one with the opposite point of view also on there.

(06-30-2016 01:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 12:34 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Nate Silver and his team on Twitter say they see no reason to discount the poll. In particular, Nate says that in a 7%-Clinton lead environment these polls aren't even outliers with the Margin of Error. Another person on his team said that other swing state polls have had long response times and no one objected, probably because the results were a tight race. Furthermore, they believe the polling firm is a perfectly fine organization.

Realclearpolitics is a right wing organization.

You must be a Crooked Hillary supporter with your lies about everything that doesn't support your views 100% being a "vast right wing" conspiracy.

Calling realclearpoltics a right wing organization is either a lie on your part or an effort to win the award for the most ridiculous post of the month.

They are balanced. Its hard to find an article without one with the opposite point of view also on there.

Uh the founders of the site ******* admit it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics

Philosophy[edit]
In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, McIntyre said, "We're trying to pull together the best political stories, op-eds, news analyses, editorials out there. The proliferation of content is enormous. Part of what we're trying to do is distill it in a clear, simple way for people who don't have hours to spend searching the Net".[13] He told the Chicago Sun-Times that RealClearPolitics strives to feature "serious intellectual pieces" and that they're "not looking for the over-the-top, vitriolic, red-meat craziness on either side".[14]

Patrick Stack of Time magazine has described the site's commentary section as "right-leaning".[15] The site has been described as being run by conservatives, and containing "opinion pieces from multiple media sources".[16] In 2009 RealClearPolitics was described as a weblog "in the conservative pantheon" by Richard Davis (OF OXFORD).[17][18]

In an interview with the conservative magazine Human Events, (SITE FOUNDER) McIntyre described the philosophy behind the Web site as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values". Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions". He further stated, "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives".[3]

In a 2001 article for Princeton Alumni Weekly, which noted that "The articles selected invariably demonstrate McIntyre and Bevan's political bent, about which they are unabashedly forthcoming." McIntyre said, "I'm not really a die-hard Republican because my interests are less on social issues, more on taxing and spending...But I definitely don't want the government telling me what to do with my property...Nevertheless, any political junkie—even a liberal—would enjoy our site because the topics we choose are current."[19]

RealClearPolitics was listed among conservative political weblogs in a 2005 conference paper on mapping the political blogosphere by Robert Ackland of the Australian Centre for Social Research.[20]

(06-30-2016 01:24 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 12:34 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Nate Silver and his team on Twitter say they see no reason to discount the poll. In particular, Nate says that in a 7%-Clinton lead environment these polls aren't even outliers with the Margin of Error. Another person on his team said that other swing state polls have had long response times and no one objected, probably because the results were a tight race. Furthermore, they believe the polling firm is a perfectly fine organization.

Realclearpolitics is a right wing organization.

You must be a Crooked Hillary supporter with your lies about everything that doesn't support your views 100% being a "vast right wing" conspiracy.

Calling realclearpoltics a right wing organization is either a lie on your part or an effort to win the award for the most ridiculous post of the month.

They are balanced. Its hard to find an article without one with the opposite point of view also on there.

Uh the founders of the site ******* admit it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics

Philosophy[edit]
In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, McIntyre said, "We're trying to pull together the best political stories, op-eds, news analyses, editorials out there. The proliferation of content is enormous. Part of what we're trying to do is distill it in a clear, simple way for people who don't have hours to spend searching the Net".[13] He told the Chicago Sun-Times that RealClearPolitics strives to feature "serious intellectual pieces" and that they're "not looking for the over-the-top, vitriolic, red-meat craziness on either side".[14]

Patrick Stack of Time magazine has described the site's commentary section as "right-leaning".[15] The site has been described as being run by conservatives, and containing "opinion pieces from multiple media sources".[16] In 2009 RealClearPolitics was described as a weblog "in the conservative pantheon" by Richard Davis (OF OXFORD).[17][18]

In an interview with the conservative magazine Human Events, (SITE FOUNDER) McIntyre described the philosophy behind the Web site as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values". Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions". He further stated, "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives".[3]

In a 2001 article for Princeton Alumni Weekly, which noted that "The articles selected invariably demonstrate McIntyre and Bevan's political bent, about which they are unabashedly forthcoming." McIntyre said, "I'm not really a die-hard Republican because my interests are less on social issues, more on taxing and spending...But I definitely don't want the government telling me what to do with my property...Nevertheless, any political junkie—even a liberal—would enjoy our site because the topics we choose are current."[19]

RealClearPolitics was listed among conservative political weblogs in a 2005 conference paper on mapping the political blogosphere by Robert Ackland of the Australian Centre for Social Research.[20]

This doesn't make it bias. It is a good site to read articles and check on polling.