Rigged Polls General

...

what a day it'll be to watch you hang side by side.

I wonder how much time will they keep shut down longroom polls with corrected numbers.

Last time i checked it was 1% (Trump winning).

Nate Silver is a fucking cocksucker I mean look at this shit. Yes, you ARE reading that correctly his model is being "adjusted" and giving Clinton as much as FIVE EXTRA POINTS. EVERY POLL TAKEN GIVES HER A HANDICAP WHAT A DISINGENUOUS SCUMBAG.

Fuck off achmed. We hate both kikes and muzzies

Reposting these from another thread.

bumping for importance

Some hard links and archives for those images would be spectacular.

Hi, schlomo.
Ready for the holocaust to happen for real this time?

Trump will make second place great again.

Hi powerless pozzed nigger faggot.

Ready to shit all over yourself and rage on the internet when Trump loses?

4D chess though, rite?

You try way too hard, Chaim.

According to Zogby on August 16, the candidates are statistically tied.

archive.is/88MkU

Hey Holla Forums whatchu jewin?

You need a tea m8

Just because he's up in the polls doesn't mean we need to let our guard down. The election is still months away and a lot can happen between now and then.

bump

A follow up to that liberty blitzkrieg article posted yesterday:

archive.is/IbZKx

I havent looked at any (((official))) polls in over a week; are they still pushing the "Hillary is up 6 gorillion percent", or is it getting closer?

The spread has been pretty stable at around +6.0 since the beginning of August.

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

johnson needs to drop out that fag

degdeg

bumpo

I'm the guy who posted those, I have more now.

I also have some startling evidence brought forward by USAToday, here:

usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/

Seriously what the fuck, you think people would actually give a shit about something like this.

People are sitting around in large important threads because the catalog gets slid too hard.

Not a rigged poll, but Trump is winning again:

cesrusc.org/election/

A lot of people probably aren't even awake.
Have a bump.

….that was posted on Friday night, the time stamp even says so.

Shit, I'm retarded.

What polls are reliable at this point?

Only LA Times honestly, Reuters keeps cheating, but they are the "next closest thing" on the list. A lot of democrats are abandoning $hillary.

Did RCP stop using Quinipiac and Rassmusen in their averages, or am I being retarded again?
It looked like they started using different polls than they used to when the cooking really ramped up.

RealClearPolitics is practically using "fantasy" polls at this point, like that +15 Clinton poll that came out of nowhere, had never been used prior.

I wonder if it's a case of they were never good and people didn't notice, or a case of they used to be good but aren't now.

Nate Shillver is about to get a beat down, I wonder what that bastard will do when he is wrong.

Would be really funny.

They've been rigging polls since 1980

I like how the Green party is just a Bernie Lite clone w/ added Jewishness in the presidential candidate.

...

It recently dropped to around 5.7 as of the last time I checked. This is because some polls are showing them in a dead tie.

nice info but shitty crop

Huh, I thought it was a more recent tactic.
Time to study more political history.

I still believe massive voter fraud happened in 2012. I am however glad that Romney didn't win, I honestly didn't like him, but reluctantly voted for him anyways.

It seems likely, all things considered.

I still struggle to understand how anyone could vote for Clinton, outside diehard feminists. Even if you don't agree with Trump's positions, Clinton has none. Privately, she believes what the money tells her. Publicly, she believes whatever the public wants to hear. This has been demonstrated time and time and time again, but people just won't wake up.

Do the sheep today even deserve democracy?

It seems to be fear of the unknown.
The thought that Trump might change things, even if it's for the better, seems to scare them really bad.

why would trump be blue?

It's simply, it's because she's not Trump.
Also please refrain from posting your homosexual basket weaving caricatures here thanks

...

Reminder that in August 1980 Carter was about 15 points ahead of Reagan.

This is going to happen and there is nothing the shills can do about it.

...

There's still a lot of true Americans in Oregon. I know a guy, ex military sniper believe it or not, and I swear he's an undercover naziboo. Collects Nazi stuff and has respect for his race. Maybe he even posts here.

There are several thousand people in Oregon who never vote, but they will this time. A lot of people who have never voted before are coming out of the woodwork.

Trump could win California. Don't overestimate her support, everyone except the most extreme retards support her… and women.

I’d be willing to trade Wisconsin, Oregon, and Michigan to the marxists if it meant he gets his home state (and she loses hers).

I believe he "can" do it. We still have our ace in the hole, Julian Assange for October. She's going to prison and there's nothing any of the shills can do to stop that from happening.

Every state will finally be avenged come this November, the cuckoldry will finally be vanquished.

You forgot Hawaii.

We all know that's probably not going to happen unless Hillary isn't on the ballot.

you fucking homosexual go to hell and not posting your shitty manga trap in this thread

Am i the only one still waiting for Longroom polls to come up online again?

longroom.com/polls/

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if she drops 20 points across the board because of the debates.

Found a CTR shill

reddit.com/user/HamsterSandwich/submitted/#page=1

Rigged polls threads must remain pinned until Trump becomes president.

If not, can anyone make a Holla Forums.net/Rigged2016/ board on this topic? One w/ no faggotry and no shilling rules.

IT BEGINS ANEW
cesrusc.org/election/
archive.is/hnwUI

That's probably never coming back, CTR faggots DDoS'd it to hell. I think I'll start showing my own unbiased polls on my own website soon (to replace Longroom).

...

just like what happened with bush and obama?

trump has seriously opened MANY people's eyes to this corrupt bullshit

If the spread is far enough, voter fraud will not be enough to win. That's why I'm not concerned.

Trump is also hiring people in every state to watch polling booths.

What's the methodology?

All you have to do is basically check the data (if actually possible) and if the numbers don't say "44% D, 42% R, and 14% I" something is wrong.

I'm going to start organizing this shit here:

awoo.dog/

...

Notice HI is the only state without an incidence.

Open question to any user?
Does anyone have any infos on long room?
I check it every couple days and nothing.
Also any infos on the legitimacy of it?
I have suspicions but nothing concrete or any credible sources to go on/

Makes sense. Any WA anons remember the 2004 election?

More proof of bullshit afoot:

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

RealClearPolitics has been rounding UP whenever the number is at least 0.5 anything, but this time they decided to call LA Times Trump 0.6+ a "Tie". This is the kind of shit I'm talking about.

I used to work for Ipsos, and have done Presidential polling. I'll answer any questions you have.

Prove the poll rigging before Clinton assassinates you.

wew

How do they exactly rig the polls without some disgruntled person in the media exposing it? Do they pic and choose where to poll people? More liberal areas only? Or do they just leave out or manipulate the data before they release it and hope the public never finds out?

I can't prove the rigging, but I know it's being done.

We called it "Qualifying out". A series of questions are asked to each person, and depending on the demographics, race, age, or whatever else they (they being the people who send us the survey requests) were looking for, only certain people get to answer the survey. Very often you'd get people willing to participate, but turned down because too many white females had answered and they need more black females to answer, for example.

All this applies to the phone surveys, what I dealt with. Generally, we would use a cold-calling dialer, an automated system, to call numbers across the US. This dialer calls you and waits for a pickup. If you pickup, that puts your number in a higher tier in the dialer. The dialer then listens for anything on the other end: voice, noise, tones, anything, and then hangs up. If you've ever gotten a call from a strange number that hung up without saying anything, it was probably a dialer. Once enough "live" numbers have been generated, the dialer sends the list to the call center computer and the call center teams are put on it. People then sort through the answering machines, disconnects, fast busy, slow busy, trying to get live people. Once we get a person, and get them into a survey, then we would check their demos. The call center person has no idea what they're looking for, they just pick the responses from the computer list and read what comes up. The data manipulation is already done before the survey has even started.

Where might there be evidence of "qualifying out" so that the process can be called out and explained, as well as assurance you're not attempting to drop disinfo.

It all comes down to what has been set from above as to what they're looking for in a response from the survey, and where they survey. One would expect the people surveyed to line up generally with the population of the US, but while it can be explained to call quite a few California numbers, we often oversaturated on Colorado, Michigan, Maine, and Washington State. Those pop out on the top of my head. Other states, even big population centers like Texas, are generally under-represented. It got to the point once that some people had to be warned not to skip over the City/State questions on our survey (every question must be asked, in full) because they had gotten so used to seeing area code 303 and knew by heart it was Colorado.

The trouble is, I don't have any way to prove what I'm saying is true. I'm speaking only from personal experience. I was a mid-level supervisor at a call center, which enabled me to see everything that my team worked on and track the process of the survey completion, but it didn't give me access to the actual planning of the surveys. Site management sent down a plan, I assigned my team members to a survey. I could read that the survey called for, say, 1000 respondents, demos broken down 60/40 female (some were 50/50, some 100/0 female, very few preferred men). Within the demos were other stratification levels, say in this survey so many aged 18-24, 25-35, 36-40, 41-50, 51-55, 56-65, 66+. That's a typical layout, I think the 36-40 and 51-55 brackets are targeting those likely to have teenage children, and those likely to be planning retirement. If we can't get a specific age out of someone, we try for one of the brackets, and if that fails we try for a broad range, but sometimes you don't get this info. Same goes with yearly income, but that's usually stratified in $10k increments up to $125k. Race is listed in the expect demos for the survey, they only want so many white male/female, black male/female. Other races are treated as extra, and Hispanic is added as a Yes/No question regardless of which race you identify as. If, as was usually the case, we had enough white males answer the survey, when someone would tell the call center staff they were white and male, the computer would send them to the script page saying "Thanks for your time" basically. Then we'd stay on the survey until we got the demographic layout that was requested. Same goes for political party, when you answer the question "wrong" you're given the impression that you've completed the survey but your results are not sent forward. This is how they supposedly get balanced results, but when it comes down to getting completes the demographics are always skewed in ways that aren't reported openly. I did take a survey packet home once, because I was interested in what they were looking for and all the root trees of questions. When I innocently mentioned that I had done this I was told I could be fired for doing that, and not to do it ever again. I never did, everything stayed on the computer and no hard records exist in my possession.

I can prove it right now:

awoo.dog/index.php/rt_8-17

Reuters is probably the 2nd closest poll that reflects reality, after they dropped the "Neither" option from their polls, I started analyzing everything they were doing.

What this allows them to do is say: Overall, a survey of 1000 likely voters says this. Women say this, blacks say this, Democrats say this, Republicans say this, etc. What you never see, though, are the overall statistics that show of the 1000 people polled, 60% were women or 40% were black, or that with our "Nationwide polling" most of the respondents were from California, Colorado, Michigan and Pennsylvania. It's easy for them to put forth the appearance of impartiality by playing the race angles ("You're saying we talked to too many black people? Why is that a problem, you racist bigot.") and by surveying more women than men and lumping it in with the margin of error. The goals were always in the computer before we started, the call center folks just do their jobs and follow the scripts and read the next page the computer gives them based on the answers they put in. All that's ever released to the public are the results, because survey methodology is considered protected business practices or something similar.

Interesting stuff. Do you have an article on there yet that explains these processes and what was saying so all this analysis stuff is accessible from there alone?

You can tell by comparing the 2012 polling methods to the 2016 polling methods. Obama legitimately won, but not by very much, and nobody had to cheat to make Obama look better because he had the "race card" going for him. Reuters knew that and played along without cheating.

I didn't make it my man.

What are you going to do if Nate Pyrite comes after you?

Laugh at him, I'd love to see him defend his fucked up polls.

Honestly the polls are about as trustworthy as pics related. I'm not sure if anyone even takes them seriously at this point (most people I talk to are aware the system is rigged, but won't do anything about it. They'll still vote, though)

Anyone can tell you that the image on the right is real.

TRUMP NOW CLEARLY LEADING HILLARY SCHOLONGED

How well must you be doing to be leading in even RIGGED polls?

The funny thing about that poll is that it is actually 7 days behind current events. Trump could already be at +10 and rising.

Try this poll

netranger.org/poll/

I saw this on 4chan already, good poll effort I have to say.

You guys know whats most skewed about these polls? Standalone, they represent a very misleading idea. The way these polls swing push the idea that people say they'll vote Hillary one day, and Trump the next

It doesnt work like that and it shouls be more apparent. These polls are all bullshit no matter what they show.

The fact is, Ive personally seen Trump campaign stuff everywhere. I deal w a lot of people. And I bring up politics often. i have never ever seen NOT ONE person support shillary. I dont come off as or say im right wing first either.

NOT ONCE

And I live in now swing state FL too.

What's the advantage of rigging polls? You can create a sense of despondency in a side that thinks it is losing when it isn't but ultimately the polls are just going to be exposed as wrong on election day.

Sure, assuming election and voter fraud doesn't exist. The poll manipulation is just a prelude to the actual fraud that takes place during the voting process. It's to show the public what to expect after the votes have been counted.

PLACE YOUR BETS! What number will Trump reach tonight? I believe he'll hit at least "Trump +3" tonight.

strawpoll.me/11050323/

So what polls are there that are trustworthy? Which ones have a solid methodology? The one poll I've been relying on is the LA Times poll.

Clinton up by .2
CHANGE METHODOLOGY

There was a study that showed if someone is down in the polls their supporters are less likely to come out and vote.

...

sauce pl0x

Go to RCP. Look at the most recent polls. Leave Reuters out since we already know there is nothing mathematical about their polls. You will find that trump swings between 41 and 44 points which is the margin of error. This is what you expect. Clinton swings between 41 and 50 points. 9 point swings are no longer within the margin of error. Since the polls are all recent you would expect similar results inside the margin of error. The fact that the Hillary results are not indicates that various polls are trying different methods to pump up Hillary.

twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/767368958714474496