Noticed Some Anomalies in the Reuters Poll

It's funny. I went to the barbershop today when, unprompted, one of the barbers and a patron started talking about the debate. One guy said Trump basically crushed it early on and was screwed over by the mod. The other guy said he was right, but disagreed over unrelated reasons with Trump.

Things being rigged isn't just a Holla Forums idea that stays on the internet. Even middle aged normies that can barely use the internet know what's up. The ONLY people I've met who were ever anti trump are either lifelong low information dem voters, or college kids who buy into narratives.

At this point I put nothing past these snakes

tell them that the dems can't rig the general election and that Trump won't sell out his own supporters like the massive kike he is

I was referring to Bernie, by the way

Your response to them is correct though, Republican Primaries turnout was millions of votes higher than the Democrats. Persuasion isn't as cut and dry as Dilbert guy makes it out to be, I'm no great orator but it definitely depends on your audience, because it is entirely rhetorical. Look at Trump himself, he constantly overshoots his facts in order to force people to fact check him, and then they find out he was right just not quite as right as he was saying. But this still gives him the floor and focuses the attention on him.

If you want to persuade people one-on-one, who haven't already bought into Trump, you'll definitely need to do it on their level.

I hate these traitors and kikes so much. They need to be purged.

Trump's rallies were significantly larger than Bernie's, and the DNC rigged the primaries against him (and we have evidence of this). And Trump had record turnout at primaries.

It's common knowledge to anyone who can be bothered to look that most polls are incredibly unscientific and massively tampered with.

Ultimately it doesn't matter though, the real purpose of polls is to create a framework for conducting election fraud.

New Update Male vs Female. It looks like Women are oversampled when a Clinton boost is necessary

pastebin.com/Fee1svd4

Fuck, put Sept 26 twice, getting too tired. Will do more thorough work this weekend, cause this is just blatantly rigged.

Interesting findings, user.

When both are combined

Women need to be raped into submission. Our civilization depends on it.

Push this shit to Drudge or other sites.
Shove it in their faces.

this
They're already registering dead people for massive election fraud.

This.

I made a short shitty video on the newest reuters poll pointing out the democrat bias and how you can get semi unbiased results using gallup voter ID data.

Does reuters say how men and women vote? You can try to reweigh the poll for the correct percentages of men and women see how the results turn out.

nice work OP

Hey OP, do you have population proportion estimates on the strata? It's much easier to do the statistical comparison if you compare the poll sample proportion to the estimate population proportion. Run this same test over all the polls conducted and plot the p-values and it should make the rigging so obvious that it's impossible to discount.

Bump this

Don't let this thread die, it matters

Bumping because I was swarmed by Hillary shills on Twitter earlier, they were making jokes about the polls trying to claim how great they are for Hillary (which is only true of a few biases sources), so I posted and they suddenly stopped replying. Obviously they did not like being confronted with this kind of information ironically coming from one of the same sources they often cite.

They want this covered up

It's conclusive proof of an actual conspiracy. Keep spreading it!!!

user Holla Forumstard pollster was right

You're doing God's work user, bless you.

I do my best to actively spread skepticism of the government from a neutral point of view. If normies are talking about politics, casually make them doubt the veracity of these polls by reducing the motivation behind them to money. To be quite honest though, I havent met many people who trust the government anyway, as of late. I dont think the media quite understands that this country could break into civil war at any moment

What's up with this thread being slid so much? Isn't this like exactly what we need to push to send Reuters into panic? Get some of the power-tweeters on this. I've been trying (~1600 followers) but still not big enough to get the ball rolling.

Doesn't this only work though if you assume the population is normally distributed and not naturally weighted based on their biases or whatever?

That is, political leaning means it won't be normal to the population, making it so that each area has its own views and leaning needing in the millions of collected data points across the country to get anywhere?

bumping important thread

Reuters does do a weighting of some sort, I've found out. Though I don't know the exact formula. The party identification distribution however, I don't believe is something that is weighted.

Anyway, I'm building a site that automatically checks Reuters for new data, shows these graphs I posted through highcharts, and also has the spreadsheet data available. Should be done sometime this weekend.

That sounds very promising. I'd love to check it out when it's done.

Shit, man awesome find.

Can confirm even the most mentally deficient out-of-touch normies are looking into Holt's fuckery. Either that he didn't ask Hillary enough questions or that he kept interrupting Trump.

Post-debate, people who voted for Obama twice are now considering Trump on individual policies (taxes, trade, etc.), and NONE of them believe that Hillary is legitimately honest when she "apologizes" for the emails.

Spoke to my plumber today and even he's now excitedly voting for Trump, shitting on polls and the media daily, and having fun. He's never voted in his life and he's well into his 50's.

Uh it's easy to analyze whether or not the data follows a normal distribution through dozens of methods. You should be verifying this shit anyway because that's the #1 rule in statistics - VERIFY YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.

If it turns out the data isn't normal, then you try linear transforms, or switch to nonparametric methods.

The point is all you're doing is looking at the difference between two population proportions, a retard could do this analysis.

I have actually seen the local news show a segment with a black democrat rep. who was talking about how we need new laws in our state to prevent election fraud, and especially anti-hacking the electronic voting kiosks.

useless.

No need of any election fraud… Trump will lose because all the blacks, the Mexicans, the women, will vote against him.

Trump: Make America democrat again.

When did it all go so right?

What is Aleppo? :^p

Also, Hillary Clinton is the new McCarthy, she's going to instaure gun control, hate speech control, and will send most of the alt-right activists to psychiatrist hospitals.

Huh a shill with OC.

Don't forget about Hungary going whole hog and banning that bank.
Hungary is making huge waves and pissing off all the right sort of people.

Hungary: 9 Million people. Nor a big city.

...

She'll be too busy engaged in WWIII and a civil war to do that.

Do you have the books in pdf or some other format?

Nah… Sending Internet alt-right Trolls in psychiatric hospital for being pedophiles is so easy.

Did you known 8ch is owned by CIA since years? Barack Obama asked to the services to make a correlation between the alt-right activist and the pedophiles. The result is kinda surprising: most of alt-rightards are also pedophiles.

Kill yourself.

Good thing we're not aut-right.

...

Rigged polls make it easier to justify ballot fraud.

how's that nine dollars an hour working out for you?
any new hires recently? i hear turnover is really high.

I'm not surprised. Look who owns reuters. Same with The Economist.

Keep a close eye on Syria. Their biggest high risk card is to agitate Russia to a point where diplomacy will be near impossible, even with Trump.

I think even they know Hillary isn't going to work and are just going to fuck shit up instead.

so is it possible to get a ballpark estimate of how he's really doing? or are there too many variables, such as knowing how many independents actually support him vs how many are represented in the polls in conjunction with oversampling women

the dem oversampling goes directly to a reduction of illary's score, because it's close to certain that they would all vote for her
and for the F/M oversampling you can begin with a crude guesstimation that half the oversample would vote for her (which is a minimal assumption because otherwise they wouldn't oversample
you will get a result in the ballpark of 60%Trump or more vs 40% the bitch with a 12 or 15% uncertainty or less
if the women vote at 75% dem, then the score could be around 70%/30% with a 8% uncertainty
reliable results almost all depend on the % of women voting for the she-beast

In the Brexit vote the result the polls out by about 5%. (favouring the left wing)

And in the 2015 UK election the polls were out by about 10%. (favouring the left wing)

In that case it wasnt due to oversampling it was due to 'shy conservatism'.
Where conservatives have been so browbeaten by the media that they just keep quiet and vote conservative at the ballot box.

This is why if Trump and Clinton are close and they dont cheat the election then Trump is sure to win.
But you shouldnt be complacent. Act like hes not going to win unless you get every single vote. Bring the neutrals to your side. Thats what we did.

In part, which is why the online polls were much more accurate than the telephone ones
yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/28/online-polls-were-right/
blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/eu-referendum-polls/

It was also because the turnout for leave supporters was much higher than expected; lots of people who don't usually turn out to vote voted and it was mostly for leave.

Turnout was especially hard to factor in in that case because it was a one of a kind referendum

Very true.

And it rained in London where all the Bremainiacs live. So a lot of them stayed home and virtue signaled on social media instead of going out to vote.

Where as the brave patriots voting to leave the EU would have gladly walked through fire and brimstone to cast their vote and save their country.

Anyone have that Reuters shut it down video?

...

CTR BUTTHURT AF

Fucking die, kike.

Reported, and filtered.

please quit pretending like South Park ever was or ever will be on our side.

Alright so I'm not being a defeatist shill, but how are we supposed to win when the votes are being rigged

It doesnt fucking make sense guys, if there are people actively fixing the election against us, and they won't be caught, then how can we win without killing clinton or some shit

Not being a defeatist shill means never having to preface a comment with "Alright so I'm not being a defeatist shill, but…"

Just fucking answer

Its funny watching teh SJWs freak out over it though.

by voting more than they can rig
the polls rigging mean nothing: if it did, the voting trends would have followed what the pollsters had tried to make the herd believe a year ago, and it can be debunked merely by the data posted in this thread
votes rigging would have to be monstrously high to beat Trump, so high that the riggers would be at risk to be shot down by the cops/feds/officials made aware of their crimes, because not doing so would mean the witnesses would be complicit in high treason
an a result too different from the will of public opinion would cause a civil war
so they will cheat on a few percent of the votes, they could manage to alter the score by 5% or maybe 6%
but they would need 30% to stand a chance
won't happen without rivers of blood

Get people to go out and vote. Depending on how they rig it, it might end up with a >100% turnout rate which will make the normies start asking some hard questions.

Democracy, especially in an armed society, only works as long as people think the result is legitimate and will peacefully acquiesce to the new government. There is a limit to the amount of rigging that can be done surreptitiously. They need the polls to roughly correspond to the result so everyone thinks these people exist and no one suspects it's fraudulent that the vote count shows a 30% Hillary bump. In response we analyze the polls. They need media complicity to keep people ignorant of the bullshit methodology used to manufacture the necessary polling numbers so the polls remain useful for narrative crafting. In response we bypass the media and get the word out.

The more work we put into ensuring the accuracy of the polls, getting out the vote, warning others of the impending steal, and keeping close watch on the election the harder it is for them to do it and get away with it. The best case scenario isn't them not doing it, it's them trying to do it and the world having a glorious "Hey Rabbi, whatcha doing?" moment.

Well clearly they do. Thing is, if you poll 50/50 dems and reps, you'll get 50/50 for the votes. I mean, that makes sense, they vote for their candidate.

The real question would be, how many dems and reps are there in America, and what ratio would be the most fitting for a sample. Because a 50/50 sample certainly wouldn't be a good one, unless there happens to be as many dems and reps in the US.

Otherwise you can't say their sample is bad, but then the conclusions they pull out of it certainly suck.

I'm bringin this old image for you guys.

The current representation of America is near 30% democrats, 25% republicans, and the rest are independents. A proportion that, somehow, it is not being represented in the recent polls.

why do you think that they will not rig this entire election?

Nice. One question the data seems to include those who say they 'lean' to one party, since the party identification rate is much higher, whilst the bottom one doesn't. are there alternative polls which include 'leaning' that could be used for the bottom graph?

I will never vote

(checked)

Nice work user. My head is up my ass doing something else right now to contribute but this looks very interesting.

Analysis is going to be very important in this election.

There's serious fuckery going on and the power of mathematics can actually prove it.

We need to get this on r/the_donald to give more public exposure to reuters.

Don't be a defeatist shill.

Collect data.

Win.

No "we" don't.

Harvest data before it gets wiped as clean as Hillary's servers.

ARCHIVE EVERYTHING AND STORE HARDCOPIES

Which episode? I stopped watching that years ago unfortunately

Sure, Assuming the 31D, 29R, 40I ratio.

Both get about 80% of their respective party.

D25
R23

There are generally some traitor R and almost no traitor D.

D26
R23

Trump is generally 15-20 pts ahead among Indy. Lets assume it's 20% D 40% R and 40% undecided. This is typical of all the polls I've seen when you look at the raw data.
D 34
R 39
With 27% undecided, going 3rd party or not bothering to vote.

Indy are under sampled because they often don't bother to vote. They wouldn't have turned out for jeb/cruz but they're turning out in droves for Trump. I'd be interested to see how many people at his rallies are registered R, I'm guessing its around half.

So Trump is probably up by about 5 points nationally. Oddly that means LA times of all polls is the most accurate.

They generally wont rig polls (or elections) by more than 10 points. It's too obvious. That's why you'll see most polls showing him down by less than 5.

National polls don't matter of course, but I think it would be a land slide if they elections weren't going to be rigged.

TL:DR; Probably ~5pts over what polls say. Max of 10 over for the most rigged polls.

You forgetting what happened to Bernie?

Vote TRUMP BABY

I told some jamoke in the other thread I am a traveler a buisness-man and I happen to be well initiated intertewined with the jewish community for I am actually jewish. I own multiple marketing companies you name it I just got back from venice had to Buy some real estate yea I own land in VENICE ROME. So you could say I am elite as a Jew And if we do not vote Trump we will not be happy with you shabbas yah goyim.

VOTE TRUMP DONT WORRY ABOUT IT

Pick one retard.

Thank you.

((((poll anomalies))))

Why wouldn't these spics want to go to Mexico though? It's their home. And no white people. And no blacks either.

Because the spics have never had a competant government and STILL hasn't been able to deal with the cartels despite using the military as a police force. Instead of fixing their own problems, they've all run to us. Technically, spics are refugees. All the more reason to give them the boot.

Trump should deport the spics to Africa just for the bantz.

So like, 70% of the polled people were dems, and 75% female, and Hillary still BARELY has a lead?

Man, if it was 50/50 I bet Trump would have a 20 point lead.

The most amazing thing about this is most of these people who want Trump to fail are SJWs who think that everything should represent the same proportions as the population. They believe every movie, game, comic, etc should have accurate representation of the population.

And here we are, those very same people are ignoring what they "believe" in to push their own political ideas. I guess it's super important to them to have media represent people what they consider fairly. But when it comes to polls and pushing their own agendas, they don't care at all and will gladly deny people representation in polls. Manipulating democracy to stop someone they don't like from winning is more important than upholding some of their core beliefs. Absolutely astonishing.

Stop, my penis can only get so erect.

Well the biggest problem is going to be how set Trump is on getting rid of ISIS. Once he gets on the other side he'll realize, holy fuck, we *literally* created ISIS and are funding everything they do. Or maybe he already knows and is just hiding his power level. Either way, gonna be interesting once he's on the other side of the curtain.

My greatest hope is that once Trump is in office and he starts going all-in on his "America First" stance, he pulls out of everything and tells Israel that they can handle themselves.

Why are libshits so defensive about the "we created ISIS" rhetoric? They seem to readily accept that the US created Al Qaeda, but dismiss ISIS as a conspiracy even though they're the same fucking thing.

Because they are emotionally involved in the issue. Admitting one means their enemy screwed up, the other that their friend screwed up. It has nothing to do with logic. It's side picking.

Since we're having this general,
how's the war in yemen going?

I have to say, Houthis seem to be getting pushed back bit by bit by the (((Saudis))), even if they are putting up a good fight

Pole rigging is coupled with good old fashioned election fraud.

youtube.com/watch?v=cVaVwnJki3g

Ryan or Sean?

voting was always rigged. vote for trump anyway. fuck the system.

Outstanding work user.

what's VENICE ROME like this time of year?

If they aren't already offended by his turning over his campaign contributions to defeat Hillary Clinton to Hillary Clinton, then perhaps they're beyond reason. But as one who didn't follow the Dem race very closely, I was never totally clear about the extent of Hillary "stealing" the election. I know that Sanders's popular vote wins were often counterbalanced by superdelegates, and that the DNC gave Clinton an unfair advantage in resource allocation. But I don't remember it ever being reported who actually won the overall popular vote, or the delegate totals minus the superdelegates (i.e., counting only delegates obligated to vote according to the outcome of the state contest). I can't see how it wouldn't give bernouts cause for outrage if their guy were literally fucked over, but who knows.

Yeah I remember when he was telling Steve Mall-Inn-Yoo about how he was able to manipulate an epic contrarian coworker by suggesting the guy do the opposite of what Adams actually wanted him to do, as though he was the first to discover reverse psychology.

The male/female ratio would indicate rigging because it's about 50/50 and nothing can change that, but how does the Rep/Dem ratio indicate rigging? That just shows how many people support that party and obviously that ratio is going to be about the same as the results for the candidates.

user pls

From my Berniefag times:
youtube.com/watch?v=GfN2-uV-ZuI
youtube.com/watch?v=eB3SWBDYung

Mods for fucks sake we have eight stickies

Just a usual day on Holla Forums.

9% of Repubes are traitors to the country.
12% of Dems are traitors to Clinton.

Did you read it? They changed the percentages.

wtf??? Mexico is perfectly competent. Why would they build a welfare state when they have a rich country to the north that will provide them one for free?

...

We should really focus on getting men to go vote. Apparently, fewer men vote than women. I think that would have the biggest impact. We would only target interests and communities that are generally male.

We could even do that with posting on sites by targeting male interests on youtube and other places. The people making videos do not even have to support a candidate. The fact that it is mostly men who watch would be a win for us regardless.

You would THINK so but even when you take into account the oversampling Clinton always lags a few percent where she would be if that were the case.

Hillary Clinton has burned a shit ton of bridges in her life, and she's been caught on camera doing shit that's either crazy or stupid multiple times. She's probably one of the most hated democrats in existence. Back when she tried this shit in 2008 Obama beat the shit out of her rather handily by calling it on her and that was BEFORE Benghazi and her concussion, let alone what she did to Bernie Sanders.

The amount of rigging she had to do just to get this far is fucking unreal. Remember that she lost half the super-delegates eight years ago but almost all of them flocked to her in the primaries and even when questioned refused to give explanation. She had to rig up the whole DNC on top of that, get cozy with every single media station, and on top of that spend like half a billion dollars too.

But despite all of that, she still essentially barely got the nomination.

In a real race with no fixing or bias she'd never stand a chance and she knows it.

Speaking strictly for Yuma County, "no one voted" because those fucking bernouts never registered to vote. They just thought you could show up and vote for whoever you wanted to. Around 200 people were turned away for ineligibility at my polling station alone, and I promise you over 3/4 of them were Berniefags. So long as we take steps to get people registered, we'll be good. and even then, most states have a rule where if you were registered for the primary, you're registered for the general.

OP here, here is how it will look. If you have a request for specific trends to look at in the Reuters data then respond to this and I will add it to a list.

Version 1 will show sampling differences between Republican, Democrats and Independents. Image attached represents how it will look.

Highcharts is nice since it allows you to snap a PNG image of the graph for immediate sharing.

Version 2 will deal with the men vs female sampling, since there is some problems that come up.

I don't have a background in statistics, I am just a developer. However, I will make sure all the data is available so people who are good in doing that type of analysis can just copy and paste the data into a spreadsheet.

user, you want my advice?

Post this on /r/the_donald. No, seriously. They have the numbers to raise a major spergout over this. Plus, we know for a fact that the Trump campaign monitors it pretty actively. Us knowing it on a Tibetan claymation critique board is nice, but doesn't accomplish that much.

Just don't link back to us.

just a graphic presentation suggestion
on the dotted line with the scale to the left representing the scores, you could add a bar graph anchored to the lines with a scale to the right showing the scores discrepancies if the sampling was correct
to get a correct sampling, you would need to find numbers of the [dem/rep | men/women | voting the_Don/illary], sorted by gender and affiliation
the bar graph would show the amount of alteration on each poll and would reveal when they minimize it to be able to increase it later

also I aggree with

i know you don't have any reason to believe me without a source but i've been crunching numbers here and looking at a lot of datasets and according to reuters' own methodology for calculating party ID minus leaners, 7 of that 43% leans democrat and 6 of that 43% leans republican. so including leaners:

Democrats: 37%, Republicans: 32%, Independents: 30%

as you can see, those numbers are still way off their actual polling numbers.

OP, how are you finding the demographics Reuters is using for these polls?

I've been looking all over the place and i can't find an answer other than that the data has been (((weighted))) according to age, gender, race, sex already before the raw numbers are published.

What's also interesting is the change in format to make it more difficult to find Reuters' exact methodology in 2016 compared to 2012:

2012:
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html#polls

ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=11840
ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=11798
ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=11965

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

realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/2016_Reuters_Tracking_-_Core_Political_9.27_.16__.pdf
realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/2016_Reuters_Tracking_-_Core_Political_9.20_.16_.pdf
realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/2016_Reuters_Tracking_-_Core_Political_9.13_.16_.pdf

Do this.

Post it anywhere you possibly can.

Can we get together a good pastebin or some kind of text dump that explains well?

I want to get it out to normies and a couple high-priority anti-Clinton contacts. I'd just need a write-up, but I haven't been following the thread too closely.

THIS
THIS
THIS

In the interactive Reuters chart, you can select Political characteristics such as Democrat and Republican. From there if you hover over a point it tells you the sample size. I just grabbed the json data and examined it. There is some weighting going on, but I'm not sure how it works.

×eries_columns=bucket-id,bucket-label,low,mean,high,count,weight,count-sum,weight-sum

wow i'm dumb. ok thanks.

i'm calculating the weighting by hand atm for the 9/22 - 9/26 Reuters/Ipsos poll that states:

clinton: 44%, trump 38%

i'll come back in a minute with what i've found when i'm done

I don't think he's CTR, but…

Hillary calling them basement dwelling ideologues probably hasn't helped with the Bernout vote.

scratch that, i'm just gonna do with the point data on the line plot for 9/25 since that's what we're looking at and the other one is taking longer than i want to deal with to get the exact number.

Just to follow up,

I want to get this to a few people ASAP

because this would be going to researchers and people that are literally one email Fwd away from the Trump campaign

Basic format:

You don't need to say that anybody here had anything to do with it, just a "look what was found" kind of message.

alright, so i haven't yet weighted it myself but i have verified with simple algebra that the aggregate data on the subset of likely voters is NOT weighted.

this is ridiculous considering the 9/25 sampling lists 1632 females and 869 males which isn't even remotely representative of the general electorate.

i'm going to weight it properly and see what their numbers for that specific date should look like.

wait, fuck i arranged a couple numbers backwards. for at least the date of 9/25 it IS IN FACT weighted 50/50 m/f.

just send a private tweet with a link to this thread to Junior
and also a link to the thread about the debate sound

I can do that, but think public. I can try to get something written myself once I sit down and look at everything.

Pre-written with smoking guns listed first is the best format if we want this on like ZeroHedge.

Yeah, I had a hunch that the male-female thing is a false path, since it's a physical characteristic.

Holla Forums will not write an article
hard data, soundbites, quotes, ok
but a fully fleshed article should be from a writer, campaign staff or something
you would have an article where half the sentences would be praises to Kek and the others Imperium Inquisition private jokes

yeah, it's not as simple as it looks. that would have been way too easy for someone to figure out anyway.

BUT

these charts in your OP post

show way too much of a correlation to be coincidence imo.

i think something else fucky is going on here, but they're not gonna make it easy for us to figure out. we just have to get a bead on what it is. any kind of bread crumbs that could lead us to the trail.

i'm going to check their weighting for dems/reps/inds now.

in the meantime, i think this is interesting:

supposedly these are from the same poll:
realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/2016_Reuters_Tracking_-_Core_Political_9.27_.16__.pdf
ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=15966

there's data in each that isn't in the other–not sure why they did that but whatever. it might help us get an idea of how they weight dems/reps/inds in their primary polls.

i think it's safe to say that in the running poll however that men and women are properly weighted so isn't necessary. i think the only reason for the correlation is because women are more likely to be democrats. but i don't think gender is the lynchpin here–i think it's party lean that they're messing with (if they're indeed fudging the numbers somehow)

These digits went unchecked for too long.

But the reason men don't turn out is because they haven't had anyone worth supporting in decades. Trump should change that.

...

i've finished checking to see if there's weighting and there is indeed some weighting, but it's gonna require more effort than i have the energy for to determine their exact weighting algorithm.

however, judging by the correlation observed in OP's initial post

i do however think it's reasonable to conclude that the weighting does *not* vary with distribution of party identification. this would explain why the numbers look wrong any time dems are oversampled above approx. 5% (absolute not 5% relative) more than reps.

they could probably get away with saying the variation is within their margin of error but i doubt that's why they left it as is (which could be for the reasons described in the archived post).

still, i'm not sure there's much else we could glean from this reuter's poll specifically beyond that they *might* be fudging the numbers by 2-5% on any given day which is still significant, but i'm not sure if it's the smoking gun we were looking for.

i think if we really want to find a smoking gun we want look for oversampling in the polls that make it to the RCP aggregate:
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

in order to confirm the archived post OP posted a screenshot of, we also need to compare the sampling patterns of each polling institution to their sampling patterns from 2012 (or earlier if you can find them):
realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html#polls

i've attached my math to this post so you can check it if you'd like.

Showing it unskewed based on party affiliation is somewhat complicated as I have to factor in how every subset votes, so don't expect something like that too soon.

Nice work.

Version 1 is available at

45.55.189.151/

It should automatically check Reuters for new data every day at 3pm and update accordingly.

That's a good idea, it's interesting, so for the 9/15-9/19 poll the share of Republicans in the sample was growing, however, after that poll that share immediately started dropping. Now this is just two points, but it does tie into the idea that they wanted it to look close before the debate and then make it look like "Trump free-fall" after the debate.

I think the problem is all of these aggregates don't save the Rep-Dem-Ind data, so I have to manually go in each and grab it.

...

bump for more awesomeness

This. South Kike has always been about pushing the JEWISH kid's SJW message. Literally. All those Kyle monologues…

So has all this begun to be circulated yet or is the research not finished?

More research needs to be done, Though think it's pretty clear Reuters oversamples Dems though. But nothing that's a "smoking gun".

Don't forget Reuters did a Methodology change after the RNC. I'm working on getting the political identification distribution for that data as well.

polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_13/filters/LIKELY:1/dates/20150731-20160726/type/week

Then, I'll combine it so we can take a look at a pre and post RNC view of the Reuters political distributions.

Interested to see how this pans out. So far there's been some hysteria among normies over the polls for no apparent reason. A lot of rampant blaming of the debate for it.

sleep tight little frogger