A note about polling...

[Thespian2]

From the Guardian UK...Dan Roberts and Mona Chalabi...


But perhaps, like the uncertainty principle in physics, the more an election is scrutinised the more the scrutiny risks interfering. If this interference is compounded by technological shifts making traditional poll methods increasingly unreliable, there could be a far larger threat to the democratic process than simply the free speech of pollsters.


The influence is especially bad if the polls are paid for by political campaigns...

[cantbeserious]

1. This Citizen Suspects That Polling Is As Compromised As Electronic Voting

eom

[daleanime]

4. +1

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. + a GAZILLION!

I tend to believe CORPORATE OWNED pollsters are not only seeking the results their CORPORATE OWNERS wish to see, but are probably bought and paid for by a certain candidate. No one with such obvious lack of support in the REAL world and online, could possibly be ahead 30 points in polls. They think we're stupid. CNN showed us exactly how it's done. No poll should be trusted if it has HRH ahead 30 points. That's just ridiculous on its face! In fact, any poll that has her ahead, IMCPO, is flawed. She may get a few points on Bernie just because of her name recognition, but that's it and as soon as that person meets Bernie and knows his policies - who he is, those few points go to him.

In my world, I haven't met a single person who supports HRH nor have I seen any HRH bumper stickers or signs. The same cannot be said about Bernie.

Does HRH pull in 33,000 supporters to her rallies? I didn't think so.

CORPORATE OWNED polling is corrupt and not to be believed. Also, polls like PPP, as we know for a fact, can be bought and paid for by a campaign - and that campaign will get the results it paid for.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[Menshunables]

9. Agreed.

[Android3.14]

2. Thing is, the popularity of some of these candidates strains credibility

Trump's numbers are fairly spot on based on the people I work with. In my business, I interact with about a 60-40 split of conservatives and liberals. The number of Trumpsters is about 1-in-6, and the Sanders people are about 2-in-6, with both groups loud and enthusiastic. With Clinton, the only support I see is from a few of my southern Democrat acquaintances, and it is lukewarm at best. The other GOoPers are not even on the radar.

The published polls are just money manipulating the larger population demographics from which they draw their poll responses. For example, a poll can say that it draws from likely Democratic voters, but what they don't tell you is that it is likely Democratic voters who also watch Wheel of Fortune or Dancing With the Stars or some other criteria that tends to include a large number of supporters for a specific candidate.

Seeing how aggressive the HRC support has become on DU, especially as the numbers have contracted even further, it is obvious the internal polling is far different than what the campaigns are releasing.

My hope is that it is more difficult to cheat with a caucus tally than with the regular ballot box, electronic or paper.

[LiberalElite]

3. No matter what though, Pataki

around 1%, right?

(He was gov. of my state 3 times)

[Thespian2]

5. Thanks for this...

My worry is how much electronic voting can be compromised...election officials are rarely allowed to check electronic voting, and most of the companies producing the machines are controlled by Republicans...

Like polling, casting a vote and having it not count is a real fear...

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. IMCPO, BOTH political parties make use of the hackable evoting machines.

All they have to do is pay corrupt election officials some big bucks to change code on the memory card and voila! You elect your candidate.

Remember how KKK Rove was thrown for a loop and disgraced when he was absolutely certain Willard won Ohio in the last election? That's probably because they had hired people to hack machines, but so did Democrats, who hacked more/better than KKK Rove's operatives. That's why he was so shocked, but could never say WHY he was so sure Willard won...because what he had done (and what Democratic election officials do too) was ILLEGAL.

There's a reason evoting machines are still used. Even knowing they're hackable by any willing election official, Congress STILL hasn't outlawed them. WHY? Because BOTH parties make use of their hackability


PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[Thespian2]

8. YEP

Thanks for this...In other words, do not be surprised when a vote cast for Bernie in the primary goes to the 1%er...

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Exactly - that's why the CORPORATE OWNED pollsters must keep her numbers high.

Easier to steal an election. If both parties really wanted fair elections, evoting machines would be in the trash heap. They all know they're hackable.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE