Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(90,152 posts)
47. Polsters response: "...well, that's a rational question...but fuck you ok? go fuck off k? " /sarcasm
Sat Nov 26, 2016, 02:11 PM
Nov 2016

Cause that's about what we're hearing from these polsters ... a buncha fuck you America... please believe us next time type of responses

The polls were wrong. Buzz Clik Nov 2016 #1
Were the 300,000 votes thrown out for wrong id also wrong? Tiggeroshii Nov 2016 #5
No they weren't. Private companies programmed the machines before 1 off was ever cast onecaliberal Nov 2016 #81
Which polls were wrong? ucrdem Nov 2016 #6
As I stated before, the polls weren't wrong. Just the data sets which were used in these data sets Exilednight Nov 2016 #11
Okay but didn't Trump's numbers in the same polls use the same data sets? ucrdem Nov 2016 #46
No, they used some shit from mars... they pulled DPutins LV out of their asses and threw them on uponit7771 Nov 2016 #52
Yes, every single one of those polls were wrong according to the msm... all the polling science uponit7771 Nov 2016 #48
duh Buzz Clik Nov 2016 #89
Polls couldn't be that wrong radius777 Nov 2016 #65
Even Nate Silver cautioned a couple days ahead of the election that HRC's lead was pretty thin... Hassin Bin Sober Nov 2016 #68
Yep SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #75
Or worse... Bob41213 Nov 2016 #105
Odds are just that. Odds. LisaL Nov 2016 #76
Yeah, Silver had the Cubs at 1 in 4 chance of winning the Series. Hassin Bin Sober Nov 2016 #80
No candidate in 50 years has lost with her type of leads radius777 Nov 2016 #104
You've got to be kidding. Were you not around for the primaries? Buzz Clik Nov 2016 #90
not that wrong MFM008 Nov 2016 #78
People used the wrong data when putting together these charts. Exilednight Nov 2016 #2
Isn't polling a SCIENCE cilla4progress Nov 2016 #7
Yes. But like any science it depends on the data sets that are used. Exilednight Nov 2016 #8
Yes and they worked before treestar Nov 2016 #10
It's NOT the polls that were wrong. It was the people interpreting the poll numbers. Exilednight Nov 2016 #20
It's most certainly ALSO an ART FBaggins Nov 2016 #15
Add to that, polling could potentially influence the results itself. LisaL Nov 2016 #16
Absolutely FBaggins Nov 2016 #17
That was my concern and I believe some of it did take place. LisaL Nov 2016 #19
I "thought" that they were safe too. FBaggins Nov 2016 #21
Campaign was presumably getting the same polling results showing these states were safe. LisaL Nov 2016 #26
So where was Trump getting his polling from? FBaggins Nov 2016 #57
if they had rigging operations in those states radius777 Nov 2016 #63
One didn't need polls to know she wasn't doing all that well with rural white voters. LisaL Nov 2016 #77
I agree 100% SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #35
Yes, but as the charts show cilla4progress Nov 2016 #18
First I would argue is that they weren't consistent. Exilednight Nov 2016 #22
They do their own calling FBaggins Nov 2016 #24
No they're not. They're a social science. There's no art involved. Exilednight Nov 2016 #23
There is a lot of guessing involved. LisaL Nov 2016 #25
There's no guessing involved, but there is a margin of error. Exilednight Nov 2016 #32
No guessing involved? LisaL Nov 2016 #34
Which is based off of data sets. It's not guess work. Polls showed that voter turnout was going to Exilednight Nov 2016 #39
Polls don't actually show anything. LisaL Nov 2016 #62
Sorry... that's self-contradictory FBaggins Nov 2016 #28
Social scence does include art, it just studies it. I've also never met a pollster that will tell Exilednight Nov 2016 #36
Really? FBaggins Nov 2016 #40
Did Mark Penn get this election right? Exilednight Nov 2016 #41
Lol... you don't realize the implication there... do you? FBaggins Nov 2016 #43
I do realize it. The implication is that any pollster that says polling is an art is going to get Exilednight Nov 2016 #44
Um... so where are the "scientific" pollsters who got it right? FBaggins Nov 2016 #45
There are lists of people who broke down the same polls and came up with how this election would Exilednight Nov 2016 #49
And you're hiding from naming them now because...? FBaggins Nov 2016 #53
Montgomery and Hollenbech from Vox got it right. Exilednight Nov 2016 #58
Now you're just grasping at straws FBaggins Nov 2016 #60
Yes, and? Bob41213 Nov 2016 #106
Provisional and cross check? Satch59 Nov 2016 #3
Excuse my ignorance - so... cilla4progress Nov 2016 #12
I'm confused also... Satch59 Nov 2016 #27
WI says they're looking SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #37
Wisconsin has has same day registration forthemiddle Nov 2016 #85
Got it SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #86
i recorded the show. let me play it back and see if i can clarify KewlKat Nov 2016 #61
Ok....here are my notes and quotes from the Joy Reid episode from this morning KewlKat Nov 2016 #70
Wow great report! Satch59 Nov 2016 #84
Palast warned us in August about the crosscheck purge but none of us screamed loud enough KewlKat Nov 2016 #87
I would not be at all surprised if there are uncounted... 3catwoman3 Nov 2016 #88
Same in other battleground states, same rigorous, accurate polling in all of them. Coyotl Nov 2016 #4
CrossCheat Zambero Nov 2016 #9
How likely is it to find this cilla4progress Nov 2016 #13
I'm wondering the same Zambero Nov 2016 #29
I'm pretty sure that Crossscheck SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #42
Polls don't win elections. LisaL Nov 2016 #14
However... Zambero Nov 2016 #31
But Crosscheck doesn't filter votes SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #74
I think it's now blindingly obvious that anamnua Nov 2016 #30
Not evidenced by thousands of Trump yard signs Zambero Nov 2016 #33
I wanted to put on a Hillary bumper sticker, but BlueProgressive Nov 2016 #102
I do not believe that for a second cilla4progress Nov 2016 #38
I don't know about that. Hassin Bin Sober Nov 2016 #71
This idea might have some merit, however Stargleamer Nov 2016 #51
Each state is different. LisaL Nov 2016 #59
Polsters response: "...well, that's a rational question...but fuck you ok? go fuck off k? " /sarcasm uponit7771 Nov 2016 #47
LOL. Remember 2004? ucrdem Nov 2016 #50
Yeap... these fuckers are either in on it or stupid beyond belief uponit7771 Nov 2016 #54
Yet Trump was leading Iowa. RandySF Nov 2016 #55
That's not what RCP reported IIRC uponit7771 Nov 2016 #56
IA/OH are swing states, WI/MI are not. /nt radius777 Nov 2016 #64
Obviously WI and MI are swing states because they swung republican this election. LisaL Nov 2016 #73
I think they were stolen. radius777 Nov 2016 #100
They were stolen triron Nov 2016 #101
Polls were off. They were overestimating turnout and were missing people. davidn3600 Nov 2016 #66
initial exits were wrong regarding Latinos radius777 Nov 2016 #67
The enthusiasm that was there for Obama just simply was not there for her davidn3600 Nov 2016 #69
Us democrats, we need to be excited in order to vote. LisaL Nov 2016 #72
True, but every candidate has flaws, and she was more than good enough radius777 Nov 2016 #99
WE are a blue state jodymarie aimee Nov 2016 #79
You aren't blue any more FBaggins Nov 2016 #83
Thank you, never doubted it ucrdem Nov 2016 #103
Post convention SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #82
They don't have TV, radio, print and social media? ucrdem Nov 2016 #91
I understand that SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #92
Hillary was there in March and April and Bill, Chelsea, Tim Kaine and Joe Biden ucrdem Nov 2016 #93
Sending surrogates SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #94
How would they even know? ucrdem Nov 2016 #95
Seriously? SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #96
Seriously. She WAS there, for several days. As to who won the state, that remains to be seen. ucrdem Nov 2016 #97
Yeah, she was there 7 months before the election SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #98
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Wisconsin 4-month run-up:...»Reply #47