CNN, ABC Caught Fudging The Numbers To Tank Trump's Favorability

[Common]

Nothing normal americans didnt already know.

Fake Polls? How CNN And ABC Are Fudging The Numbers To Tank Trump’s Favorability

Two polls released Tuesday — one from ABC and a second from CNN — tout Donald Trump as being the most unfavorable incoming president in modern history — yet on second look, the data is clearly boosted by the pollers’ decision to oversample Democrats.


According to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx), 28 percent of Americans identify themselves as a Republican, while 25 percent identify as a Democrat.
Despite this information, eight more percent of participants in both the ABC and CNN polls identified as Democrats, leading to an 11 point swing in partisanship breakdown off the national average.
ABC’s poll sampled 1,005 (http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1185a2TrumpInaugural.pdf) adults across the nation. However, partisan breakdown shows that only 23 percent of participants identified as Republican.
Conversely, 31 percent of participants identified as Democrats and 37 percent as independent, while nine percent did not answer.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/17/fake-polls-how-cnn-and-abc-are-fudging-the-numbers-to-tank-trumps-favorability/

[Cannons Front]

What? We can't trust our media to report honestly without bias...... Who would have thought that????

Oh that's right The next President of the United States Donald Trump did............. AND THEY CONTINUE TO PROVE HIM RIGHT..............

[FindersKeepers]

This doesn't surprise me in the least. They were oversampling in the run-up to the election, and they're still doing it.

What they haven't figured out yet is that it doesn't help. It didn't win Hillary the election, and it isn't going to change the minds of those who voted for Trump.

Like we've said many times, journalistic integrity is dead.

[Common]

BUT the big but is that they are paying a price, the NYTs just announced another big layoff and another reduction in the newsroom, this is the third. They said they are retraining their reporters to improved "TRUST" and accuracy LMAO

[MMC]

ABC.....Always bout Clintons and, CNN.....the Clinton News Network, need to be put out of business. Their people need to be ran underground and their livelihoods destroyed.

There is no reason to wait any longer. They are a major part of this country's problems. They will only continue to make things worse. One thing is clear.....they are no longer a watchdog over government.

[Common]

The good thing is the cats out, america has no trust in the mainstream democrat media at all. The more they lie they more their viewership and ratings go down

[Cigar]

You're right, he's obviously more popular.

[Standing Wolf]

Please explain how Gallup and ABC are "fudging the numbers" by accurately reporting the results of their polls...and how the political affiliation of the respondents is the result of a "decision" by the pollsters.

In the case of Gallup, 24% of the respondents stated that they were Republicans, 32% said they were Democrats, and 44% claimed no affiliation. So...in order to make the poll "fair and unbiased", should the views of some of the Democrats have been thrown out? Should the views of the 44% who claimed no Party affiliation have been evenly divided between the two parties, thrown out all together, or...? (That, in fact, would have been "fudging the numbers".)

Who knows why more Democrats responded than Republicans?; maybe Democrats answer polls more frequently. I don't know. Does anyone? What if the pollsters had not even asked the question about Party affiliation?

In a popular vote, in order for the results to be fair and valid, is it necessary to have an exactly even number of participants, of voters, from both major Parties voting?

The entire premise of the OP - that the pollsters made a "decision" to "fudge the numbers", and even that the numbers were, in fact, "fudged" - is fake.

[Cannons Front]

Please explain how Gallup and ABC are "fudging the numbers" by accurately reporting the results of their polls...and how the political affiliation of the respondents is the result of a "decision" by the pollsters.


In the case of Gallup, 24% of the respondents stated that they were Republicans, 32% said they were Democrats, and 44% claimed no affiliation. So...in order to make the poll "fair and unbiased", should the views of some of the Democrats have been thrown out? Should the views of the 44% who claimed no Party affiliation have been evenly divided between the two parties, thrown out all together, or...? (That, in fact, would have been "fudging the numbers".)

Who knows why more Democrats responded than Republicans?; maybe Democrats answer polls more frequently. I don't know. Does anyone? What if the pollsters had not even asked the question about Party affiliation?

In a popular vote, in order for the results to be fair and valid, is it necessary to have an exactly even number of participants, of voters, from both major Parties voting?

The entire premise of the OP - that the pollsters made a "decision" to "fudge the numbers", and even that the numbers were, in fact, "fudged" - is fake.


Really not that hard to explain, the metrics are as follows 28 percent of Americans identify themselves as a Republican, while 25 percent identify as a Democrat yet in the given poll 23 percent of participants identified as Republican, 31 percent of participants identified as Democrats which is a 10% swing from the overall number. This alone can greatly modify the results and please tell me that you can see that. Was it done on purpose, who knows but it is simple to do, My wife has worked for a polling agency and they can easily control the results by who is paying or what the goal is. In this case with their track record of Anti Trump positions it is so simple, they focus their calls on areas that will most likely give the desired results. If they focus their calls in The NE, NW, California Detroit, Chicago areas they will get a far different result that if the focus in Ohio Texas, Tenn, Nebraska etc....


But if you believe that no respectful polling company would do such a thing..... I am sorry for your innocent beliefs

[Common]

You're right, he's obviously more popular.
His ratings are obviously being distorted by left wing media shitbags :)

[Dangermouse]

Fake news. Their numbers are correct.

[Bethere]

This doesn't surprise me in the least. They were oversampling in the run-up to the election, and they're still doing it.

What they haven't figured out yet is that it doesn't help. It didn't win Hillary the election, and it isn't going to change the minds of those who voted for Trump.

Like we've said many times, journalistic integrity is dead.

It did, however, result in polls that were dead on. Rcp average was +2 Hillary Clinton on election day. She won 48.2 to 46.1.

You can't get much better than that.

[Standing Wolf]

Was it done on purpose, who knows but it is simple to do...

The point of the OP is that it definitely was done on purpose. I'm not stating as a known fact that no deliberate manipulation of any kind was employed, but to state as a fact that the "numbers were fudged" is inaccurate - and the contention that anything of that nature was done deliberately is speculation.

My questions remain unanswered, by the way. How should the pollsters have adjusted for the fact that more respondents claimed to be Democrats than Republicans?

[Bethere]

The point of the OP is that it definitely was done on purpose. I'm not stating as a known fact that no deliberate manipulation of any kind was employed, but to state as a fact that the "numbers were fudged" is inaccurate - and the contention that anything of that nature was done deliberately is speculation.

My questions remain unanswered, by the way. How should the pollsters have adjusted for the fact that more respondents claimed to be Democrats than Republicans?

Look at this forum as a great example. Half of the Republicans here would cry if they were called Republicans.

The notoriously deadly internal polls don't rely on you to self id. They simply check public records.

Having said that, polls were spot on in 2016. People don't want to hear that but it is true.

[KathyS]

Really not that hard to explain, the metrics are as follows 28 percent of Americans identify themselves as a Republican, while 25 percent identify as a Democrat yet in the given poll 23 percent of participants identified as Republican, 31 percent of participants identified as Democrats which is a 10% swing from the overall number. This alone can greatly modify the results and please tell me that you can see that. Was it done on purpose, who knows but it is simple to do, My wife has worked for a polling agency and they can easily control the results by who is paying or what the goal is. In this case with their track record of Anti Trump positions it is so simple, they focus their calls on areas that will most likely give the desired results. If they focus their calls in The NE, NW, California Detroit, Chicago areas they will get a far different result that if the focus in Ohio Texas, Tenn, Nebraska etc....

But if you believe that no respectful polling company would do such a thing..... I am sorry for your innocent beliefs

I agree with the bolded. I hold a Masters in Sociology and as a Sociologist, much of the work is in statistics, and analysis. A good example of what you are pointing out are past claims by tobacco companies that smoking is not harmful. The tobacco industry hire firms to do surveys in which the questions are written in such a way that the results are skewed to favor the tobacco companies. This happens often in political surveys too.

[Cannons Front]

It did, however, result in polls that were dead on. Rcp average was +2 Hillary Clinton on election day. She won 48.2 to 46.1.

You can't get much better than that.

See now this is a perfect example of how you take certain parts of the truth and turn them into facts based on only pointing out what supports your position.
Pre Election polls all had Hillary in the lead where she needed to be state by state, Based on polling only 2 polls had Trump winning on election day, the polls were not just saying she would win the popular vote, they were saying she would carry 270 in the EC and be elected as the next President. Exit polls on Election day had Hillary skipping down the yellow brick road to an easy victory. Then the numbers started coming in, and America watched as the cake walk became a climb, the climb became a mountain and then the mountain became a cliff which she fell off. Now to try to vindicate their numbers all of the pollsters have started to go with well we were just saying popular vote.......... Really lets look 2016 Presidential Election Forecasts2016 electoral map projections from a wide range of sources
http://www.270towin.com/2016-election-forecast-predictions/

Nope looks to me that every single map showed Clinton winning 270+ according to their polls........ Not a single one showed Trump pulling off the upset..... But sure NOW the polls were right they showed just what everyone thought.......

Yea right

[Bo-4]

Keep the comedy coming!

:rofl:

Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/14/fox-news-poll-majority-feels-hopeful-yet-low-expectations-for-trump.html

Voters are about three times as likely to say he’ll be “one of the worst” presidents (31 percent) as one of the greatest, while 12 percent say “below average.” Sixteen percent peg Trump for “average.”

The bar is lower for Trump than it was for the man he will replace. A month after Barack Obama won the 2008 election, 19 percent said he would be one of the country’s greatest presidents, 43 percent a “good” president, and just 6 percent expected him to be one of the worst.

One-quarter of Republicans expect Trump will be one of the greatest presidents (24 percent). More than twice as many Democrats think he’ll be one of the worst (58 percent).

[Cannons Front]

The point of the OP is that it definitely was done on purpose. I'm not stating as a known fact that no deliberate manipulation of any kind was employed, but to state as a fact that the "numbers were fudged" is inaccurate - and the contention that anything of that nature was done deliberately is speculation.

My questions remain unanswered, by the way. How should the pollsters have adjusted for the fact that more respondents claimed to be Democrats than Republicans?
I would suggest that you sample via registrations contact X number of democrats, X number Republicans, X number of ind or no party. You call until you meet your sample size. If I call 100 people in a republican leaning district I will have different results than if I call 100 people in a democrat district.
Central Ohio is a good example Delaware County sits beside Franklin County, Delaware county is one of the fastest growing areas in the country, Franklin county is made up mostly by Columbus. Poll Delaware then Poll Franklin county call the same number of people don't ask party, see what the results are. I am local so let me tell you the results Delaware county will favor Republican views (there are no Democrat county elected officials and most offices run unopposed) Franklin will favor the Democrats as County and Columbus city officials are over 90% democrat. The only fix would be if you sample 100 each, Call 100R 100D 100 ind/other. Then see

[decedent]

Daily Caller is wrong, as they so often are. Oversampling is used to correct bias.


Trump really is the least popular President Elect.



I'm sure that Daily Caller, being such a great fake news organization, will do their own poll and show us the truth... because I've yet to find a poll that shows Trump being anywhere near popular, despite his best efforts.



But that's Trump's problem: he keeps trying to do what's popular and not what's right.

[Cannons Front]

Keep the comedy coming!

:rofl:

Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/14/fox-news-poll-majority-feels-hopeful-yet-low-expectations-for-trump.html

Voters are about three times as likely to say he’ll be “one of the worst” presidents (31 percent) as one of the greatest, while 12 percent say “below average.” Sixteen percent peg Trump for “average.”

The bar is lower for Trump than it was for the man he will replace. A month after Barack Obama won the 2008 election, 19 percent said he would be one of the country’s greatest presidents, 43 percent a “good” president, and just 6 percent expected him to be one of the worst.

One-quarter of Republicans expect Trump will be one of the greatest presidents (24 percent). More than twice as many Democrats think he’ll be one of the worst (58 percent).

I guess you forgot to copy this sentence "The new poll, released Wednesday, also finds 59 percent of voters feel hopeful about the outcome of the election."

Do I think he will be the greatest POTUS? doubt it but really that's an opinion, name one..... they all have reasons that they are not. Do I think he will be a horrible POTUS? Time will tell. Do I think we are moving in a better direction? Yes, at least that is my hope, if not in 4 years we will chart another course.

[KathyS]

Daily Caller is wrong, as they so often are. Oversampling is used to correct bias.


Trump really is the least popular President Elect.



I'm sure that Daily Caller, being such a great fake news organization, will do their own poll and show us the truth... because I've yet to find a poll that shows Trump being anywhere near popular, despite his best efforts.



But that's Trump's problem: he keeps trying to do what's popular and not what's right.

Unlike most politicians, Trump is following through on what he promised. D.C. hates him for that.

[KathyS]

Fake news. Their numbers are correct.
CNN is the king of fake news, lol. Their numbers were wrong prior to the election, and they're wrong now. But it really doesn't matter at this point, does it? He'll be sworn in as President on Friday, so we'll see how things go from there.

[Subdermal]

Look at this forum as a great example. Half of the Republicans here would cry if they were called Republicans.

You've whined about this claim for months. You started here based upon this ridiculous claim. You got nowhere with it, and looked like a total fool in that thread.

The notoriously deadly internal polls don't rely on you to self id. They simply check public records.
Having said that, polls were spot on in 2016. People don't want to hear that but it is true.

Total whitewash of reality. Polls regarding popular vote - which are far easier to predict than the actual and meaningful EC results - are easy to predict. They are matters of a percentage point; perhaps two.

Of course fools use popular vote projections to try to determine EC results - like you did, in predicting your ridiculous 366 EC vote count for Hillary.

Meanwhile, I and several others were were correct in our prediction that Trump would win.

Oops.

[Peter1469]

The news has been overly biased since around 2006-7. It won't bother me when the new administration blackballs certain news organizations. Obama did it too.

[KathyS]

The notoriously deadly internal polls don't rely on you to self id. They simply check public records.
Having said that, polls were spot on in 2016. People don't want to hear that but it is true.

This is in response to the above statement- I don't know who posted it.
Re bolded, do you have a link that proves your point? Because I can tell you, every survey I've created, every poll I've conducted, and every set of data I've analyzed has never been backed up by "public records." You know why? Because the respondents to polls and surveys are kept completely anonymous. The only time you may see a respondent and survey results linked are those fake political surveys mailed out by politicians which are sent directly to a person. Those "surveys"have the simple purpose of making the respondent feel special (the survey has the person's name on it and/or on the outside envelope)and for soliciting money. If a check isn't enclosed with the returned survey, it's tossed.
Data is collected and analyzed using tools such as SPSS to garner results.

[jimmyz]

Polls, fake news and bias will not stop Friday January 20, 2017 from coming.

[AZ Jim]

The news has been overly biased since around 2006-7. It won't bother me when the new administration blackballs certain news organizations. Obama did it too.Prove it! Give us a link!!

[rcfieldz]

And...National distrust of Media on rise.

[Tahuyaman]

The news has been overly biased since around 2006-7. It won't bother me when the new administration blackballs certain news organizations. Obama did it too.


Prove it! Give us a link!!

Classic response.

[Peter1469]

Classic response.

People forget real fast.

[Tahuyaman]

People forget real fast.


That suggests they were informed in the first place.

[donttread]

Nothing normal americans didnt already know.

Fake Polls? How CNN And ABC Are Fudging The Numbers To Tank Trump’s Favorability

Two polls released Tuesday — one from ABC and a second from CNN — tout Donald Trump as being the most unfavorable incoming president in modern history — yet on second look, the data is clearly boosted by the pollers’ decision to oversample Democrats.


According to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx), 28 percent of Americans identify themselves as a Republican, while 25 percent identify as a Democrat.
Despite this information, eight more percent of participants in both the ABC and CNN polls identified as Democrats, leading to an 11 point swing in partisanship breakdown off the national average.
ABC’s poll sampled 1,005 (http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1185a2TrumpInaugural.pdf) adults across the nation. However, partisan breakdown shows that only 23 percent of participants identified as Republican.
Conversely, 31 percent of participants identified as Democrats and 37 percent as independent, while nine percent did not answer.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/17/fake-polls-how-cnn-and-abc-are-fudging-the-numbers-to-tank-trumps-favorability/


We need to let it all show, the entire , ugly underbelly of American politics. From the actions of Both the RNC and the DNC to the "major party candidates" to their collaborating media. Let it all spill out,remember it and look it all over carefully, even , maybe especially if the disturbing information is about someone you support. The overhaul has just begun .

[Bethere]

You've whined about this claim for months. You started here based upon this ridiculous claim. You got nowhere with it, and looked like a total fool in that thread.


Total whitewash of reality. Polls regarding popular vote - which are far easier to predict than the actual and meaningful EC results - are easy to predict. They are matters of a percentage point; perhaps two.

Of course fools use popular vote projections to try to determine EC results - like you did, in predicting your ridiculous 366 EC vote count for Hillary.

Meanwhile, I and several others were were correct in our prediction that Trump would win.

Oops.

You can't blame polls. Probability makes most of them +/-4%.

Almost all were well within the margin of error.

But I do appreciate your admission that you've been trolling me since my first day on this forum. Your friends that day were ethereal and hanger4.

Little has changed.

[resister]

Please explain how Gallup and ABC are "fudging the numbers" by accurately reporting the results of their polls...and how the political affiliation of the respondents is the result of a "decision" by the pollsters.

In the case of Gallup, 24% of the respondents stated that they were Republicans, 32% said they were Democrats, and 44% claimed no affiliation. So...in order to make the poll "fair and unbiased", should the views of some of the Democrats have been thrown out? Should the views of the 44% who claimed no Party affiliation have been evenly divided between the two parties, thrown out all together, or...? (That, in fact, would have been "fudging the numbers".)

Who knows why more Democrats responded than Republicans?; maybe Democrats answer polls more frequently. I don't know. Does anyone? What if the pollsters had not even asked the question about Party affiliation?

In a popular vote, in order for the results to be fair and valid, is it necessary to have an exactly even number of participants, of voters, from both major Parties voting?

The entire premise of the OP - that the pollsters made a "decision" to "fudge the numbers", and even that the numbers were, in fact, "fudged" - is fake.
Come to dark side.... we have cookies!!