Donnie sues Des Moines register for fake news polling

[West]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-sues-des-moines-register-top-pollster-brazen-election-interference-fraud-over-harris-poll

[NAME REMOVED]

16 minutes ago, West said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-sues-des-moines-register-top-pollster-brazen-election-interference-fraud-over-harris-poll

LOL.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, West said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-sues-des-moines-register-top-pollster-brazen-election-interference-fraud-over-harris-poll

When are you going to learn that FOS LIES and Trump are PROVEN LIARS?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

When are you going to learn that FOS LIES and Trump are PROVEN LIARS?

Didn't ABC just have to cough up 15 million from one of his lawsuits?

[ironstone]

Anybody need a nice new watch?😀

https://gettrumpwatches.com/

[Deluge]

12 hours ago, West said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-sues-des-moines-register-top-pollster-brazen-election-interference-fraud-over-harris-poll

Let's see how much he gets out of this one.  

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

When are you going to learn that FOS LIES and Trump are PROVEN LIARS?

When are you going to learn that shilling for the democrat party is a complete waste of time? 

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Deluge said:

Let's see how much he gets out of this one.  

When are you going to learn that shilling for the democrat party is a complete waste of time? 

Says ^the guy who's defending FOS LIES posts cause ^he obviously doesn't CARE ABOUT CREDIBILITY.

[WestCanMan]

Fake polling is a means of election influencing. This is an important lawsuit. 

[impartialobserver]

I would need to see the micro data behind the poll in order to come to a conclusion

 

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I would need to see the micro data behind the poll in order to come to a conclusion

It's whatever they tell you it is. That's how polls work. Now you have all the data. 

The reality is that they said Kamala was winning b 3%, but se lost by 13%. 

Either polls are bullshit, or a lot of people changed their minds on election day because polls are bullshit.

Edited December 17, 2024 by WestCanMan

[impartialobserver]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's whatever they tell you it is. That's how polls work. Now you have all the data. 

The reality is that they said Kamala was winning b 3%, but se lost by 13%. 

Either polls are bullshit, or a lot of people changed their minds on election day because polls are bullshit.

There is a probably a way to get the actual person by person data behind a poll. Just like there is a way to get the survey results that underlie the unemployment rate.. It is quite onerous though 

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I would need to see the micro data behind the poll in order to come to a conclusion

 

For sure. A pole can be 100% legitimate and still produce  a bad result. 

This is especially true with those likely voter polls and there were a lot of those. This is where you weight the results by trying to guess what percentage of various age and sex groups are likely to show up on voting day ( i know you know that, i was explaining for the audience  ) 

That changes the result quite a bit, and it is notoriously difficult to get right. It is actually fairly easy to get voting intentions pretty accurate but not the number of people who will show up and from what groups. That has always proven very resistant to polling. 

So they could have made a number of bad assumptions, got a bad result, and still been 100% above board with their intent.

I guess we'll find out in the lawsuit. It will be up to trump to prove that they were acting in bad faith and not just screwing up

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's whatever they tell you it is. That's how polls work. Now you have all the data. 

The reality is that they said Kamala was winning b 3%, but se lost by 13%. 

Either polls are bullshit, or a lot of people changed their minds on election day because polls are bullshit.

Not to defend the democrats or their posters, but as long as they are consistent that can still happen legitimately. 

Most poles are weighted, which means they pull a thousand people but then select samples from each of the age groups and Sexes that they think is representative. No pull actually just produces its result they always wait it a little bit at least for age and sex. You can't predict who's going to reply to your poll so you have to try and cut it back so that the poles represents the same number of 20 to 30 year olds as the actual population has and same number as male to female as the population has

The problem comes when they try and adjust it for who they think is going to show up. You'll notice that some of the poles say lV and some of them say RV. RV is registered voters and it doesn't tend to be changed for voter turnout as much. LV is likely voters, and that is altered to try and reflect what they think the turnout is going to be. And those polls are very very often inaccurate compared to the RV poles, it just depends on how much they're altering the data based on who they think is going to show up.

 

So they could have just got it wrong because they're not very good at this. Or they could have deliberately put their thumb on the scale and weighted  things in favor of Kamala. It really could go either way. I guess we'll find out at the trial

[WestCanMan]

Just now, impartialobserver said:

There is a probably a way to get the actual person by person data behind a poll. Just like there is a way to get the survey results that underlie the unemployment rate.. It is quite onerous though 

I could do a "random" poll by wandering around my neighbourhood and seeing what campaign signs are on people's lawns, then just "randomly" choosing those addresses to call. Or having a computer 'randomly' select them. 

How are you really gonna get humans to do anything with allowing their bias to interfere? 

Even "Alexa" lied about the candidates in the last election. 

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I could do a "random" poll by wandering around my neighbourhood and seeing what campaign signs are on people's lawns, then just "randomly" choosing those addresses to call. Or having a computer 'randomly' select them. 

How are you really gonna get humans to do anything with allowing their bias to interfere? 

Even "Alexa" lied about the candidates in the last election. 

Valid.. I guess we shall see what comes out in trial. 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I could do a "random" poll by wandering around my neighbourhood and seeing what campaign signs are on people's lawns, then just "randomly" choosing those addresses to call. Or having a computer 'randomly' select them. 

How are you really gonna get humans to do anything with allowing their bias to interfere? 

Even "Alexa" lied about the candidates in the last election. 

Funny story but it is actually not uncommon to have "lawnsign" polls and they can actually be fairly accurate  

And the famous food polls (buy red muffin if you're voting liberal, blue for conservative, etc etc) which have also proven strangely effective  

They only become misleading if you present them as being something OTHER than what they are or otherwise 'weight the scale' without disclosing that. If you pretend the lawnsign poll is a more standard poll when it isn't, that's a thing. or if you only travel around select parts of town. etc. 

 

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This is especially true with those likely voter polls and there were a lot of those. This is where you weight the results by trying to guess what percentage of various age and sex groups are likely to show up on voting day ( i know you know that, i was explaining for the audience  ) 

Sure. But:

1. the polls are either in the ballpark or they are not useful
2. federal polling has exaggerated the liberal candidates' totals in the US and Canada for at least 3 elections in a row on each side of the border now. That's the last 6 elections, total. 
3. Fake polling data is great for influencing elections. It's also great for elections where you're gonna cheat, but you want the final "results" to look realistic. Eg., "Polling suggests that Pablo Escobar will receive 100.0% of the votes", followed by "Some brave election volunteers gave their lives while managing to preserve the integrity of the election. A few fake votes ended up being cast, but Escobar still won by 98%." 

[NAME REMOVED]

What kind of thin-skinned clown sues a local newspaper, due to their mistake in polling numbers. He won, so why does he care? It reminds me of when Hilary Clinton won the popular vote, and although Trump won the election, he would not shut up about it for months.

[CdnFox]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

Sure. But:

1. the polls are either in the ballpark or they are not useful
2. federal polling has exaggerated the liberal candidates' totals in the US and Canada for at least 3 elections in a row on each side of the border now. That's the last 6 elections, total. 
3. Fake polling data is great for influencing elections. It's also great for elections where you're gonna cheat, but you want the final "results" to look realistic. Eg., "Polling suggests that Pablo Escobar will receive 100.0% of the votes", followed by "Some brave election volunteers gave their lives while managing to preserve the integrity of the election. A few fake votes ended up being cast, but Escobar still won by 98%." 

Sure. All valid. I'm not really questioning your underlying premise very much, you're right.

I was just pointing out that it is possible to have a bad result and even a consistently bad result without malice.

It's important to remember the public polls are done for free by the polling companies and they put less energy into it than they do for the polling that the parties pay for but are internal. So you have to remember what you're getting. Somebody gives you free cookies you're not allowed to complain that they're oatmeal  

With regards to the numbers, as I said the numbers are always dependent on voter turnout and that is impossible to predict accurately, nobody has gotten that right ever. There is some plausible reason to believe that liberals will tend to answer polls more frequently even though they don't necessarily turn up at the polling stations more frequently. The rest of us are working and tend to hang up  

So you have to take that with a grain of salt. Everybody knew that trump was likely to outperform his polling numbers. And that's because he's very hard to pull because many of the people who vote for him are the type who will tell pollsters to f off and die

Fake pulling data can possibly influence an election but probably not as much as you think unless it is grossly exaggerated. If you make it seem your candidate is doing way better than they should a lot of times voters don't show up to vote thinking they've got it in the bag. That has actually cost many candidates who were legitimately ahead of Elections because their voters thought there's no point everybody's voting for this guy already I don't he doesn't need my vote.

Likewise, show your candidate is too low and people may decide that he's already lost there's no point in getting involved and you could repress turnout.

I agree that if there is any kind of deliberate attempt to put the thumb on the scale those people should be held to account and should be civilly liable to the party they have injured. I just wanted to point out that there are legitimate reasons why you can see discrepancies even consistent discrepancies as a result of certain modeling and methodology which is 100% legitimate

But this is also why I have repeated a million times that you have to look at polls as something that produces trends rather than absolute predictors of outcome. They are more valuable in showing who has momentum and what the trends are and giving a general ballpark of where the parties are at and even then you get some real shockers like BC when Christy Clark won against the NDP.

 

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Says ^the guy who's defending FOS LIES posts cause ^he obviously doesn't CARE ABOUT CREDIBILITY.

Says the loser who believed Kamala.

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Fake pulling data can possibly influence an election but probably not as much as you think unless it is grossly exaggerated.

In Canada the media has even used polling data to minimize Trudeau's scandals. 

"Lookie here... he was at 47% in May, then after the scandal he was at 46.9%, and a week later he was back at 47%. No one cares."

[CdnFox]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

In Canada the media has even used polling data to minimize Trudeau's scandals. 

"Lookie here... he was at 47% in May, then after the scandal he was at 46.9%, and a week later he was back at 47%. No one cares."

Yes, but they commission those polls to be wrong.  They ask the questions in such a way as to get the results they wish. 

Here is a shockingly accurate reinactment of how that works   This show was almost shut down in enland btw for being 'too accurate' and therefore 'mocking the gov't.  It's completely worth watching this clip