Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

YES! YES! the replacement for Unskewed Polls is back for 2016! Yes!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • YES! YES! the replacement for Unskewed Polls is back for 2016! Yes!

    Everyone remember the 2012 website Unskewed Polls? It purported to give the REAL poll numbers behind those released by the polling companies.

    Well we have the 2016 version. The main webpage is here:

    https://www.longroom.com/

    Hardcore right 'news' sight. Well they've added a unskewed polls section.

    https://www.longroom.com/polls/

    LongRoom Unbiased
    They are showing Trump up by .9% nationwide right now. They also have a neato "Average Media Polling Bias" graphic dial thingy that is reading 4.2 towards Mrs Clinton right now.

    Here is there scoop:

    https://www.longroom.com/polls/methodology/

    The LongRoom Polling Analysis uses the latest voting data from each state's Secretary of State or Election Division. The voting data is kept current by incorporating the latest updates from each state as they become available. This means that the LongRoom Polling Analysis accurately reflects the actual voting demographics, precinct by precinct, county by county, and state by state.

    Because the LongRoom Polling Analysis is exclusively data based, it makes it possible to demonstrate from the crosstabs of an individual poll whether that poll is either left or right leaning.

    The analysis of the polls of each polling organization and the associated bias is illustrated in a line chart. The most recent poll results are displayed separately and a graphic representation of the amount the poll leans either left or right is shown.

    The graphs below cover the last three presidential elections and show the LongRoom Polling Analysis of polls for those elections. In all cases, the LongRoom Analysis was accurate to within +/- 0.3%.

    References for the voting data from each state are included below in the list of sources.
    Then they showed how their method would have predicted the last two President Obama wins and the final George Bush win. SO IT CAN'T be wrong now can it!!!!!

    Bookmarking this site, it will be fun.
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

  • #2
    Depending how you unskew the polls, Trump is currently trailing by 1-4%.

    He still has time to get his schist together... He can afford to be a bit of an Andrew Jackson-style angry populist... But he has to stop being an Andrew Dice Clay font of insults.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #3
      Right now I'll stick with todays RCP = Clinton +5.0 on the Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein chart.
      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
      “To talk of many things:
      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
      Of cabbages—and kings—
      And why the sea is boiling hot—
      And whether pigs have wings.”
      ― Lewis Carroll

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
        Right now I'll stick with todays RCP = Clinton +5.0 on the Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein chart.
        The problem with RCP is that it combines likely and registered voters into one average. Trump's down by 9-10% in an average RV polls, but only down 1-4% in an average of LV polls.

        There's also a tendency in most recent polls to over-sample Democrats and under-sample Independents. Although this doesn't make that much difference. The latest Fox News polls is a good example. If you adjust the ratio of D, R and I to match the 2012 exit polls, Her Hagness's lead shrinks from 10% to 7%. If you match the ratio to Gallup's current party affiliation survey, her lead drops to 1%; but independents tend to have lower turnouts than D's and R's.

        Despite the Dem's pulling off s very successful convention and Trump's recent amplification of his own rate self-inflicted wounds. he still leads among independents in most surveys. Which is amazing considering how many times in the past week or two he has shot himself in the foot and stepped on his own ****. That said, Romney won the independent vote and still lost.

        Trump is down right now... But not out, despite all of the media hoopla. But he will be out, unless he starts acting like he really wants to win.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          The problem with RCP is that it combines likely and registered voters into one average. Trump's down by 9-10% in an average RV polls, but only down 1-4% in an average of LV polls.

          There's also a tendency in most recent polls to over-sample Democrats and under-sample Independents. Although this doesn't make that much difference. The latest Fox News polls is a good example. If you adjust the ratio of D, R and I to match the 2012 exit polls, Her Hagness's lead shrinks from 10% to 7%. If you match the ratio to Gallup's current party affiliation survey, her lead drops to 1%.

          Despite the Dem's pulling off s very successful convention and Trump's recent amplification of his own rate self-inflicted wounds. he still leads among independents in most surveys. Which is amazing considering how many times in the past week or two he has shot himself in the foot and stepped on his own ****. That said, Romney won the independent vote and still lost.

          Trump is down right now... But not out, despite all of the media hoopla. But he will be out, unless he starts acting like he really wants to win.
          The importance of the "Independent" voter given in the press etc is silly. It's immaterial. Think about what it means, simply no party affiliation. Lots of conservatives have adopted this as their label in the last 10 years or so. Just because they are independent does no mean they are willing to switch between right leaning and left leaning candidates. You need to look at the middle of the spectrum, the moderates that the Tea Party hates. Voters who regularly approach an election and are willing to vote for one of either parties candidate depending on their stance on important issues.

          http://republic3-0.com/myth-independ...stefan-hankin/

          THE MYTH OF THE “INDEPENDENT” VOTER
          A new poll finds that just 5 percent of voters are truly “independent” – ideologically centrist and unaffiliated with either political party.
          Our latest polling for Republic 3.0 (a nationwide survey of 1,000 likely voters, conducted Sept. 30 – Oct. 2) shows us that the term “Independent” is fairly meaningless when it comes to thinking about key voters. In the news media, the terms “Independent” and “moderate” are often used interchangeably to mean those voters who fall in between Democrats and Republicans in their political beliefs.
          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
          “To talk of many things:
          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
          Of cabbages—and kings—
          And why the sea is boiling hot—
          And whether pigs have wings.”
          ― Lewis Carroll

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            But he has to stop being an Andrew Dice Clay font of insults.
            The difference is that the Diceman was funny.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by johns624 View Post
              The difference is that the Diceman was funny.
              Not really, but he wasn't running for President, so it mattered less.
              Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BF69 View Post
                Not really, but he wasn't running for President, so it mattered less.
                The Diceman absolutely was funny... the first time he delivered his comic insult-fest... after that, the humor value decayed exponentially.
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                  The Diceman absolutely was funny... the first time he delivered his comic insult-fest... after that, the humor value decayed exponentially.
                  I must have walked in after the first one then. It just sounded like a drunk in a bar who thinks insulting anyone & everyone is funny just because he does it. You can cover all the same ground he did & actually be funny....just not hte way the Diceman did it.
                  Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                    The importance of the "Independent" voter given in the press etc is silly. It's immaterial. Think about what it means, simply no party affiliation. Lots of conservatives have adopted this as their label in the last 10 years or so. Just because they are independent does no mean they are willing to switch between right leaning and left leaning candidates. You need to look at the middle of the spectrum, the moderates that the Tea Party hates. Voters who regularly approach an election and are willing to vote for one of either parties candidate depending on their stance on important issues.

                    http://republic3-0.com/myth-independ...stefan-hankin/
                    Actually, Independents have become a crucial bloc of voters. Here's some of why:

                    Depending on state, they can vote in the primary of their choice. This means there is no way for Republicans or Democrats to know who they might show up for or vote for in advance. Worse, they could "cross vote" by showing up for a primary and voting against candidates in a party likely to be selected, instead getting poorer candidates selected.
                    I suspect that is, in part, how Trump got nominated: Independents showed up in large numbers and voted for him rather than the selection of party hacks running. The Democrats had the same thing but for Sanders and only the Democrat system of super delegates and insider help saved Hillary.

                    Independents are growing in power to make voting districts. This will eventually break the lock Republicans and Democrats have on making "safe" voting districts.

                    They have made both major parties, minorities in terms of registration. Neither the Democrats or Republicans come close to having even a plurality let alone a majority of voters registered. In some states, like mine, Independents now represent the largest bloc of voters.

                    Independents generally don't give money to either party. That's a problem for fund raising. Both the Republicans and Democrats have become more dependent on a smaller number of big donors for money. That drives more people to leave what they perceive as parties driven by "special interests."

                    Coupled with the increasing use of cell phones and the internet, polling voters has become less reliable as sampling has become exponentially more difficult. Independents increase that problem as the two parties have less access to their demographics and personal information.

                    In fact, I'd say other than institutional inertia from an entrenched system, that the Republicans and Democrats as parties are doomed to failure within a couple of decades at most. Things are changing and neither party is going to have an easy time getting people to vote a straight party ticket, let alone vote for their party.
                    It's only the entrenched two party system that is keeping the Democrats and Republicans afloat at all.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      The Democrats had the same thing but for Sanders and only the Democrat system of super delegates and insider help saved Hillary.
                      That and 3.7 million more votes, over 300 more pledged delegates and the virtual inability of her opponent to mount a credible campaign in a decent sized state with a Primary (as opposed to a caucus) or more than 10% of the electorate non-white.

                      But hey, just keep repeating the same false stuff over & over again. That is what makes things become true!
                      Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BF69 View Post
                        That and 3.7 million more votes, over 300 more pledged delegates and the virtual inability of her opponent to mount a credible campaign in a decent sized state with a Primary (as opposed to a caucus) or more than 10% of the electorate non-white.

                        But hey, just keep repeating the same false stuff over & over again. That is what makes things become true!
                        That plus the DNC siding with, and helping Clinton against Bernie.
                        Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Tsar View Post
                          That plus the DNC siding with, and helping Clinton against Bernie.
                          Feel free to point out how that 'help' actually had a material effect. They said some mean things, briefed a couple of journalists and....? Debate timing? Sorry, no sale.

                          Oh, actual proof of impact required. Simple correlation = causation stuff won't fly, though far too many people seem to think it is actual proof. It isn't.

                          Sanders had next to zero outreach to black voters and poor outreach to Hispanic voters, which meant he effectively gave away any state that wasn't lily white. He also failed to make much impact on over 45s, the most reliable voter demographic. If the DNC sunk his campaign they must have had Bernie on side.
                          Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BF69 View Post
                            Feel free to point out how that 'help' actually had a material effect. They said some mean things, briefed a couple of journalists and....? Debate timing? Sorry, no sale.

                            Oh, actual proof of impact required. Simple correlation = causation stuff won't fly, though far too many people seem to think it is actual proof. It isn't.
                            Not always but it is some times.

                            I’m afraid I have no time, interest or stomach to wade through thousands of DWS e-mails. I will allow people with the time et. al., to do that and report on it for me. When they report that the DNC would tell the newspaper of record to stop talking about something and they did that tells me they have a disproportional influence on the actual campaigns.
                            Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tsar View Post
                              Not always but it is some times.

                              I’m afraid I have no time, interest or stomach to wade through thousands of DWS e-mails. I will allow people with the time et. al., to do that and report on it for me. When they report that the DNC would tell the newspaper of record to stop talking about something and they did that tells me they have a disproportional influence on the actual campaigns.
                              Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
                              Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X