11 November 2016

Pollsters Failed Big Time

Pollsters Failed
Pollsters are not reliable anymore. It means that when they say majority of Americans are in favor of gay marriage, that's a big lie. Just like the lie they tried to perpetrate by predicting that Hillary Clinton was the most favored candidate only to later flub it in seismic fashion.

Donald Trump's strong performance, which everyone already are aware except the media, dealt a crushing blow to the credibility of the nation's leading pollsters, calling into question their mathematical models, assumptions and survey methods.

Several months of intense polls pegged Clinton as the undisputed leader in the polarizing race and as the leader in many key battleground states. Now everyone knows that it was only a figment of liberal's imaginary world.

The reality is that most Americans want change. They had enough of Black Lives Matter (BLM), LGBT's despicable lifestyle and they want to be un-politically correct all the time. Trump offered them that and they help him in turn crush the leftist propaganda and conventional wisdom among pollsters. Late at night last 9 November, it was already clear that TRump and his supporters are outpacing projections across the board.

Epic Fail
The results suggest pollsters may have deliberately excluded the number of hidden Trump voters — people who stampeded to the ballot box on Election Day but were conveniently left out in the radar of surveyors.

There was one notable exception among pollsters.

The Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California tracking poll consistently pegged Trump as the leader throughout the final months of the campaign — and to much derision from political pundits.

Arie Kapteyn, director of the University of Southern California’s (USC) Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research, which jointly runs the poll, said some voters were apparently sheepish about admitting to a human pollster that they were backing Trump. But the L.A. Times/USC poll was based on an internet survey of a recruited group of voters.

"There's some suggestion that Clinton supporters are more likely to say they're a Clinton supporter than Trump supporters are to say they're a Trump supporter," Kapteyn said late Tuesday in an interview.

Kapteyn suggested that many pollsters may have incorrectly ruled out the prospect that people who didn't vote in 2012 would nonetheless cast ballots in 2016.

"But the people who didn't vote last time are more likely to be Trump supporters," he said, noting that the L.A. Times/USC poll gave more weight to whether voters said they planned to vote. "If you eliminate people who didn't vote last time, you may have eliminated too many Trump supporters."

Polls that should now be considered unreliable because they consistently gave Clinton a comfortable lead in recent weeks included Bloomberg Politics, CBS News, Fox News, Reuters/Ipsos, USA TODAY/Suffolk, Quinnipiac, Monmouth, Economist/YouGov and NBC News/SM, according to RealClearPolitics.

Of 67 national polls tracking a 4-way race since the start of October, only four gave Trump the lead, according to RealClearPolitics. Of 61 national polls tracking a 2-way race during that period, six gave Trump the lead.

And all six were the L.A. Times/USC poll.

In the much-followed business of projections based on an average of polls and added methodology, Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com and the New York Times' Upshot each gave Clinton a strong chance of winning.

Silver was the most conservative, pegging Clinton's probability of winning at 71.4 percent in one of his last pre-election assessments.

One assessment, the Princeton Election Consortium, raised eyebrows with its projection that Clinton had a 99 percent chance of prevailing.