HRC within margin of error in indiana

[bwframe]

I'd just like to know who actually answers their cell phones to unknown numbers?
For me, the very rare time I don't actually let unknown callers go to voicemail, there is nothing on the other end.
I would participate in polling, if I could identify them as polsters. I'm certainly not going to waste time answering dead calls though.

 

[T.Lex]

I'd just like to know who actually answers their cell phones to unknown numbers?
For me, the very rare time I don't actually let unknown callers go to voicemail, there is nothing on the other end.
I would participate in polling, if I could identify them as polsters. I'm certainly not going to waste time answering dead calls though.

I answered a cell poll during the last Carmel election, I think it was.

All the times I've answered polls, the Caller ID gave a hint of some sort like "Data Research" or "Policy" something or "Trump for America."

Nowadays, they are automated to the point where the call is initiated and a person only gets on the line if someone answers. The individual taking the information may not know anything about the person who was called.

 

[T.Lex]

Whew. Looks like Trump is back to +11 in Indiana.

That's both good news for him and me.

 

[LPMan59]

Whew. Looks like Trump is back to +11 in Indiana.

That's both good news for him and me.

Those 1000s of dead people being removed probably helps

 

[IndyDave1776]

Those 1000s of dead people being removed probably helps

 

[miguel]

Whew. Looks like Trump is back to +11 in Indiana.

That's both good news for him and me.

You're not going soft on me at the end here, are ya T?

 

[T.Lex]

Those 1000s of dead people being removed probably helps

That's even funnier when you stop to think about how dead people might answer a pollster's call.

You're not going soft on me at the end here, are ya T?

haha

Whatcha mean?

Just because I can't vote for Trump in good conscience doesn't mean I think the country wouldn't be better off with him as POTUS. Or at least, the risk might be worth it. HRC is a known commodity - especially if she has the Senate.

Trump could be much worse or about the same or less worse. No one really knows.

I just know I can't vote for him.

Hopefully I won't have to.

 

[foszoe]

That's even funnier when you stop to think about how dead people might answer a pollster's call.



haha

Whatcha mean?

Just because I can't vote for Trump in good conscience doesn't mean I think the country wouldn't be better off with him as POTUS. Or at least, the risk might be worth it. HRC is a known commodity - especially if she has the Senate.

Trump could be much worse or about the same or less worse. No one really knows.

I just know I can't vote for him.

Hopefully I won't have to.

You, my friend, are a tortured soul

 

[T.Lex]

You, my friend, are a tortured soul

More than you know.

 

[chipbennett]

Whew. Looks like Trump is back to +11 in Indiana.

That's both good news for him and me.

The continual, large swings should also tell you something about the accuracy of the polls. True public opinion simply doesn't change with such amplitude and frequency.

 

[T.Lex]

The continual, large swings should also tell you something about the accuracy of the polls. True public opinion simply doesn't change with such amplitude and frequency.

I disagree with your statement: public opinion is about as fickle a beast as you'll find. Polling can reflect that.

But, in terms of the polls, I tend to dampen or normalize them. That IN went from +11 to +5 then back to +11 tells me that there's baseline support of probably more than +5 and capricious support beyond that.

I've said this before, that any single poll is not a good reference point for anything other than those ~500 people answered a certain way. It is when you aggregate them over time that they can be informative.

So in that sense, polls should not be considered "precision" instruments, although they may be "accurate."

 

[Paul30]

Polls are about trying to control the election. Everyone wants to be a winner, or at least say they voted for the winner so they can also say they are a winner. The media is extremely biased towards Hillary and similar candidates. The owners of the media outlets are very liberal, and are trying to convince everyone that the candidate they want to win is ahead by a long shot, so you will not vote for the candidate you believe will do the best job, you will vote for the candidate they are trying to drive you towards. I had a friend explain that once his dad complained after an election that the candidate he voted for lost, he claimed "I knew I should have voted for the other candidate, I wasted my vote !" Same with the media spending very little time covering high crimes of Hillary, vs pumping out stories about ladies who had no problem with a Billionaire groping them, until a couple weeks before the election. One would think if he groped them, they would have hired a lawyer to get paid 30 years ago instead of waiting until the election is in the final stretch and becoming upset. Then again some of the released emails show where Hillary's campaign planned this for a long time. I think I am going to send a campaign donation to Wikileaks, seems to be the only ones interested in the truth lately.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

It is really sad a single man hold up in a Ecuadorian Embassy is doing more to promote the truth and expose corruption than nearly ALL of the media put together.Oh sure,I am going to believe a poll from the Alphabet news channels.

 

[T.Lex]

The continual, large swings should also tell you something about the accuracy of the polls. True public opinion simply doesn't change with such amplitude and frequency.

Heya Chip,

Nate Silver offered an opinion on your comment. (Well, not directly.)
Election Update: Is The Presidential Race Tightening? | FiveThirtyEight

Another potential issue is partisan nonresponse bias, the possible tendency of voters not to respond to surveys during periods of poor news coverage for their candidate, which can potentially exaggerate swings in the polls. I’m personally somewhat agnostic about how serious a problem this is and whether there are good ways to adjust for it. But certainly, when a candidate has several weeks in a row of very negative coverage, you shouldn’t necessarily assume the polls conducted during that period represent the “new normal” in the race.

I'm with him. I don't really put much stock in it, but it is apparently a quantifiable factor.

 

[LPMan59]

And.....same pollster now says trump is +11, bayh and young are tied and Gregg is +6

lol

i wonder what the internal polls show

 

[SLIM86]

Should have left Todd Young in the 9th and put Marlin Stutsman, a real conservative in position to win... but then again it is 2016 the year of crassness

 

[Shalashaska]

No way hilldog wins indiana.

 

[actaeon277]

No way hilldog wins indiana.

You underestimate people in Indianapolis and NorthWest Indiana.

 

[LPMan59]

You underestimate people in Indianapolis and NorthWest Indiana.

Pretty much. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[KittySlayer]

You underestimate people in Indianapolis and NorthWest Indiana.

On Fort Wayne radio this morning they hinted that because Marion County was allowing early voters to recast their ballots there may be a significant delay in reporting results from Marion County. My initial reaction to the recasting of early ballots was to accommodate disenchanted Hillary voters following the FBI announcement. Now I am starting to think it allows the Democrats a little slush fund of votes much like Richard Daley sitting on the Chicago votes for Kennedy until he knew exactly how many were needed to tilt the state results. Sadly her crew is so evil and dirty that I think this could be a possibility.