Polling by right-leaning firms has exploded this cycle. Maybe they want to be accurate—or maybe they’re trying to create a sense of momentum for Donald Trump.
“The keepers of the averages insist that the impact is very minimal. Outfits like FiveThirtyEight; Split Ticket, the Times’ in-house polling tracker; and Nate Silver’s forecast all take methodological steps ostensibly to ensure that “garbage-in” polls don’t lead to “garbage-out” results. These include downgrading the “weight” of polls thought to be systematically biased so they have less influence on the averages than high-quality polls do. (FiveThirtyEight has detailed criteria for determining whether pollsters are high quality, including empirical accuracy and methodological transparency.) Another step is adjusting for a particular pollster’s “house effects” to downplay biases.”
This has always been the thing that has me concerned. They may have fucked polls, but the aggregation methods have weights to shit pollsters so even if they did give shit polls, the overall result is still “accurate” (Kamala not doing well)
Another thing mentioned, I didn’t actually consider, but is super fucked up:
They’re trying to divert Democratic funding away from states by making them appear like a lost cause through shitty polling. Talk about absolute fucking scumbags…
The last thing mentioned is also infuriating in that Magoos will see a tight race that shows Trump slightly ahead, but if he loses they use that as evidence it was stolen!? So what the fuck happened with Hillarys 95% chance to win then!? Was that stolen? Oh sorry, silly me thinking similar logic should be used in similar situations… It’s just whatever fits your narrative that is the only real valid thing, of course of course… Ffs…
“The keepers of the averages insist that the impact is very minimal. Outfits like FiveThirtyEight; Split Ticket, the Times’ in-house polling tracker; and Nate Silver’s forecast all take methodological steps ostensibly to ensure that “garbage-in” polls don’t lead to “garbage-out” results. These include downgrading the “weight” of polls thought to be systematically biased so they have less influence on the averages than high-quality polls do. (FiveThirtyEight has detailed criteria for determining whether pollsters are high quality, including empirical accuracy and methodological transparency.) Another step is adjusting for a particular pollster’s “house effects” to downplay biases.”
This has always been the thing that has me concerned. They may have fucked polls, but the aggregation methods have weights to shit pollsters so even if they did give shit polls, the overall result is still “accurate” (Kamala not doing well)
Another thing mentioned, I didn’t actually consider, but is super fucked up:
They’re trying to divert Democratic funding away from states by making them appear like a lost cause through shitty polling. Talk about absolute fucking scumbags…
The last thing mentioned is also infuriating in that Magoos will see a tight race that shows Trump slightly ahead, but if he loses they use that as evidence it was stolen!? So what the fuck happened with Hillarys 95% chance to win then!? Was that stolen? Oh sorry, silly me thinking similar logic should be used in similar situations… It’s just whatever fits your narrative that is the only real valid thing, of course of course… Ffs…
Consider this: given two options,
Which do you suppose would be more reliable?