Unskewing megathread - Latest: Trump will win in landslide because Twitter

[Doimper]

From /r/The_Donald:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ElectionsGuy]

Here's just a list of headlines to show its validity:

"What a Shock=> Trump Implosion Stories Completely Fabricated by Liberal Media Hacks"
"Libertarian Candidates Expose Themselves as Anti-Trump Shills for Hillary Clinton"
"Clint Eastwood assails sensitive Americans, makes Trump’s day"
"VIDEO : Lou Dobbs EXPOSES Clinton “Hillary Has NEVER Been Held Accountable for her LIES”"

Oh yeah, the next Newsmax.

[Cruzcrew]

I didn't know StatesPoll was a big part of this site

[/]

I love how they just copy parts of the html code for RCP and NYT and repost them with edited numbers.

[Breton Racer]

What are you going do? If they don't want to believe the poll numbers they don't have to until they are smacked in the face with the results come November 8th.

[Virginiá]

What are you going do? If they don't want to believe the poll numbers they don't have to until they are smacked in the face with the results come November 8th.

And then they will whine and cry that the election was rigged. Trump is preparing them for it already.

At any rate, it won't be long before this election is over with and these morons can go crawl back to whatever [1-9]chan.org they came from.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/5/12386128/trump-clinton-biased-polls

[Angel of Death]

Could easily be a new election rule (à la those given by poster J. J.):
Whichever side "unskews" the polls is going to lose.

[Likely Voter]

CNN had a segment today with just Trump surrogates and when the subject of polling came up, the unskewing came into full force, but this website didn't get a mention.
https://youtu.be/Rb-OiXyAq2o

But the surrogates were playing all the hits..
- It's just a DNC bump
- Trump supporters are more motivated, those saying they will vote for Hillary won't show up
- Too many Dems and minorities are being polled
- The media is biased and therefore their polls are biased

They even had a new one which was mind-blowing, Clinton is doing better because she has higher name ID? And then, there was the spin that even after Trump's horrible week (which of course was all due to biased media), Clinton was still not ahead by double digits, so again Trump will snap back in no time.

[Likely Voter]

The latest counterfactual working its way around, is that Trump is really winning and the proof is that he has more followers on Twitter. Conservative media are pointing to insightful analysis by the site 'truthdivision'...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This has been picked up by sites like Gateway Pundit and Breitbart and today on his radio show Hannity said...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ProudModerate2]

.... and today on his radio show Hannity said...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LMAO !
That is hilarious.
Hannity is the new Dick Morris for 2016.
LOL !

[BlueSwan]

It's gonna be interesting to see whether they can do this every election after being proved wrong again and again.

[Adam Griffin]

The latest counterfactual working its way around, is that Trump is really winning and the proof is that he has more followers on Twitter. Conservative media are pointing to insightful analysis by the site 'truthdivision'...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This has been picked up by sites like Gateway Pundit and Breitbart and today on his radio show Hannity said...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the comments on that article:



It's incredible to believe that these people actually exist...let alone vote.

[Wells]

That's stupid, because they should really weigh their results by population. It's not like people in Alaska are going to vote at the same numbers as people in California. And what's their phone bill after 50,000 phone calls?

[Desroko]

That's stupid, because they should really weigh their results by population. It's not like people in Alaska are going to vote at the same numbers as people in California. And what's their phone bill after 50,000 phone calls?

I have questions.

1. Did they use a random-digit dialer? Live interviewer or IVR, and were their known effects controlled?
2. Did they call cell phones or provide Spanish-language options? Blended-frame?
3. What were the timeframe and calling hours? How many attempts per number?
4. How did they randomize within households?
5. What demographic data was collected?
6. Were questions and answers randomized in any way?
7. Was the questionnaire tested for wording and order effects?
8. Was a likely voter screen applied? How hard were leaners pushed?
9. Was the sample weighted, and how? ACS, voter reg, both? Was aging out/in a factor? Was the process simultaneous, iterative, or both?
10. Do they know how to calculate the margin of error for each proportion? What confidence level was used?

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

That's stupid, because they should really weigh their results by population. It's not like people in Alaska are going to vote at the same numbers as people in California. And what's their phone bill after 50,000 phone calls?

I have questions.

1. Did they use a random-digit dialer? Live interviewer or IVR, and were their known effects controlled?
2. Did they call cell phones or provide Spanish-language options? Blended-frame?
3. What were the timeframe and calling hours? How many attempts per number?
4. How did they randomize within households?
5. What demographic data was collected?
6. Were questions and answers randomized in any way?
7. Was the questionnaire tested for wording and order effects?
8. Was a likely voter screen applied? How hard were leaners pushed?
9. Was the sample weighted, and how? ACS, voter reg, both? Was aging out/in a factor? Was the process simultaneous, iterative, or both?
10. Do they know how to calculate the margin of error for each proportion? What confidence level was used?

More important question: Are they just lying out their asses?

[Desroko]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whos-behind-a-mysterious-website-saying-polls-are-skewed-against-trump/

Good 538 investigation of Longroom. I guess it's progress that Dean Chambers was so stupidly confident that he publicly humiliated himself, while the owner of this site has taken steps to hide their identities. 

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I love the fact that there's a megathread for this.

[Likely Voter]

Newt sort of waded into unskewing territory today

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Maxwell]

Newt knows a profit stream from gullible morons when he sees one. He's been a huckster for years.

[Likely Voter]

Hannity has moved past the denial unskewing phase and right into the anger stage. For the last two nights he has been attacking the 'NeverTrumper's and blaming them for handing Hillary the election.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hannity-ingraham-team-up-again-for-2nd-straight-day-of-bashing-arrogant-nevertrump-ers/

It appears that for the most part the right aren't embracing unskewing like they did in 2012.  Right now the only post on The Donald on Reddit about polling is pointing to an online poll with Trump winning on the fake NBC website 'nbcpolls.com'...apparently some think it is a real NBC poll

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

My favorite part is how the bias for a certain pollster is something like 2-3 points, and then when they come out with a poll showing Hillary way further ahead it jumps up to compensate.

Okay.

It's amazing the mental gymnastics some Trump supporters will do, - I don't think I'll be able to keep myself from laughing at their tears come November.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

That's stupid, because they should really weigh their results by population. It's not like people in Alaska are going to vote at the same numbers as people in California. And what's their phone bill after 50,000 phone calls?

I have questions.

1. Did they use a random-digit dialer? Live interviewer or IVR, and were their known effects controlled?
2. Did they call cell phones or provide Spanish-language options? Blended-frame?
3. What were the timeframe and calling hours? How many attempts per number?
4. How did they randomize within households?
5. What demographic data was collected?
6. Were questions and answers randomized in any way?
7. Was the questionnaire tested for wording and order effects?
8. Was a likely voter screen applied? How hard were leaners pushed?
9. Was the sample weighted, and how? ACS, voter reg, both? Was aging out/in a factor? Was the process simultaneous, iterative, or both?
10. Do they know how to calculate the margin of error for each proportion? What confidence level was used?

More important question: Are they just lying out their asses?

Both of you are missing a VERY important point. They gave each state the same impact in their poll i.e  the poll acts as if all states are the same size.

Wyoming is not as big as California.

[Lyin' Steve]

Newt sort of waded into unskewing territory today

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans who are sure Hillary can't win West Virginia should read history of Truman's 1948 campaign.  Pollsters were off by 9 to 19 percent.

[Adam Griffin]

The latest counterfactual working its way around, is that Trump is really winning and the proof is that he has more followers on Twitter. Conservative media are pointing to insightful analysis by the site 'truthdivision'...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This has been picked up by sites like Gateway Pundit and Breitbart and today on his radio show Hannity said...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the comments on that article:



It's incredible to believe that these people actually exist...let alone vote.

LOL - this has now been published on "Constitution.com".

http://constitution.com/trump-leading-67-hillarys-19-national-poll-50000-voters/

You must be logged in to read this quote.