US Election: 2016

[larry Strong]

  [

 

[Kirkhill]

op:

 

[The Bread Guy]

:facepalm:

 

[a_majoor]

My question is how much of this applies here (and if you think it isn't happening in Canada, I have some bridges I'd like to sell you...) Some large JPGs at the site, so follow the link:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples"
by Tyler Durden
Oct 23, 2016 11:50 PM

Earlier this morning we wrote about the obvious sampling bias in the latest ABC / Washington Post poll that showed a 12-point national advantage for Hillary.  Like many of the recent polls from Reuters, ABC and The Washington Post, this latest poll included a 9-point sampling bias toward registered democrats.

"METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats - Republicans - Independents."

Of course, while democrats may enjoy a slight registration advantage of a couple of points, it is nowhere near the 9 points reflected in this latest poll.

Meanwhile, we also pointed out that with huge variances in preference across demographics one can easily "rig" a poll by over indexing to one group vs. another.  As a quick example, the ABC / WaPo poll found that Hillary enjoys a 79-point advantage over Trump with black voters.  Therefore, even a small "oversample" of black voters of 5% could swing the overall poll by 3 full points.  Moreover, the pollsters don't provide data on the demographic mix of their polls which makes it impossible to "fact check" the bias...convenient.

Now, for all of you out there who still aren't convinced that the polls are "adjusted", we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in detail, exactly how to "manufacture" the desired data. The email starts out with a request for recommendations on "oversamples for polling" in order to "maximize what we get out of our media polling."

"I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.
The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations.  In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:

Research, microtargeting & polling projects
-  Over-sample Hispanics
-  Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)
-  Over-sample the Native American population

For Florida, the report recommends "consistently monitoring" samples to makes sure they're "not too old" and "has enough African American and Hispanic voters."  Meanwhile, "independent" voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first.

-  Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state.
-  On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.
Meanwhile, it's suggested that national polls over sample "key districts / regions" and "ethnic" groups "as needed."

-  General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions
-  Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed
-  Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed"

And that's how you manufacture a 12-point lead for your chosen candidate and effectively chill the vote of your opposition.

Here is the full report of "Polling & Media Recommendations" from "The Atlas Project."

and

http://www.infowars.com/professor-who-predicted-last-five-elections-says-trump-has-87-chance-of-winning/

PROFESSOR WHO PREDICTED LAST FIVE ELECTIONS SAYS TRUMP HAS 87% CHANCE OF WINNING
Helmut Norpoth still confident despite polls showing Hillary ahead
Paul Joseph Watson - OCTOBER 24, 2016

Political science professor Helmut Norpoth, who has accurately called the results of the last five presidential elections, still asserts that Donald Trump has an 87% chance of defeating Hillary Clinton despite Clinton being ahead in the polls.

Norpoth’s model has correctly predicted the outcome of the popular vote for every election since 1996, including the 2000 race where Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush took the presidency.

“It usually turns out that the candidate who does better in his party’s primary beats the other guy who does less well,” said Norpoth, adding that Trump’s margin of victory in New Hampshire and South Carolina compared to Clinton (who lost in New Hampshire) was crucial to his model.

The other factor is the “swing of the pendulum,” which makes it far more likely for a change of government if one party has been in power for two terms.

Norpoth said he has gone “all in” on a Donald Trump victory and is sticking with his bet.

“There are also quite a few colleagues of mine who have a prediction that Trump is going to make it,” added the professor.
Many Trump supporters are now claiming that the media narrative that the election result is a foregone conclusion is a trick designed to convince potential Trump voters to stay home on November 8.

A confidential memo allegedly obtained from Correct The Record, a Democratic Super PAC, reveals a plan to “barrage” voters with high frequency polls that show Hillary ahead in order to “declare election over,” while avoiding any mention of the Brexit vote (which completely contradicted polls that said Brexit would fail).

Emails revealed by Wikileaks show how Democratic operatives planned to encourage “oversamples for polling” in order to “maximize what we get out of our media polling.” In other words, sample more Democrats than Republicans in order to make people believe that Hillary’s lead is far greater than the reality of a tight race.

Norpoth’s forecast of a Trump victory mirrors what’s taking place in the betting markets, with British bookmakers William Hill revealing last week that 65% of all bets on the market have backed Trump to win the election, a similar phenomenon to what happened before the Brexit vote, where the polls were proven completely wrong.

Considering that Western societies have been largely successful because they are (or were) "High Trust" societies, using dezinformatsiya on a large scale can only cause greater breakages in the bonds of trust that allow society to function on the scale and scope of Western cultures. Even the legitimacy of governments and institutions can and will be called into question if what we are being told diverges from an ever wider margin from what we actually see in front of us.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Thucydides:  I can't comment on your other sources, but on these, here's some other scoops from the same sites:

My question is how much of this applies here (and if you think it isn't happening in Canada, I have some bridges I'd like to sell you...) Some large JPGs at the site, so follow the link:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

• "Paris Attacks: Another False Flag? Sifting Through The Evidence"
• ""Why I Will Not Submit To Medical Martial Law" ... I can think of no rationale for government involvement in the treatment of an Ebola outbreak. If it is not pure incompetence on their part that has exacerbated the threat, then even worse, it is a deliberate program of genocide. In either case, no military or CDC “strike teams” should be allowed free reign in our neighborhoods, towns, counties, or states. DHS and FEMA Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) are also a no go, given FEMA's track record of dismal disaster response. They CANNOT be allowed to take control of our communities ..."

http://www.infowars.com/professor-who-predicted-last-five-elections-says-trump-has-87-chance-of-winning/

• "New Vaccines Will Permanently Alter Human DNA -- Why is the government so maniacal about injecting vaccines?"
• "Nearly two dozen medical studies prove that vaccines can cause autism"
• "9/11: CIA Likely Built Remote-Controlled Commercial Jets in Aircraft Boneyard -- This would explain how 9/11 hijackers were able to "fly" commercial jets with little experience"
• "Report: Brussels Attacks Are False Flags -- Governments of Europe brought in terror cells, protected them and let them attack"

Considering that Western societies have been largely successful because they are (or were) "High Trust" societies, using dezinformatsiya on a large scale can only cause greater breakages in the bonds of trust that allow society to function on the scale and scope of Western cultures ...

Unlike these sources, right?

I know MSM doesn't get everything right, and even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but really? Really?!? Can't we do better than this?

#CaveatLector

 

[Remius]

My question is how much of this applies here (and if you think it isn't happening in Canada, I have some bridges I'd like to sell you...)

Well I don't know for sure but here is some data here that might help.  The last general election is Canada was more or less well predicted in the polls leading into the election.

https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html

And for 2000-2008.

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/poll-results.html

The first link also offers some insight into bias corrections and the evolution of party support.  Not a bad resource.

 

[ModlrMike]

I guess we'll find out in three weeks.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I doubt polls are being rigged overmuch; pollsters only stay in business if people commission their polls (and whatever other output is produced), and inaccurate pollsters will not be much sought and will be increasingly ignored as their predictions fall into disrepute.  There might be methodological problems, but those don't require bad intentions to have effects.

The national polls (vote share) are not much use predicting what might happen with the Electoral College.  As I noted earlier, the Democrats and some of their affiliates have some very sophisticated information gathering and analysis teams and use those tools very effectively - a particular example is the 2012 presidential election - to identify pockets of overwhelmingly Democratic voters in selected districts of decisive states.  Then they follow up with a corresponding well-staffed "ground game" in those districts - maximizing "bang for buck" (focusing resources where they will have the most impact) - to help/motivate those voters to get to polls (or otherwise cast their votes).  There is no mystery or conspiracy - just effective number-crunching and allocation of people.  If they claim their polls are telling them they are going to win, that is probably the way to bet.

That it works effectively for the presidential contest but not other contests should be no surprise - although they might have the information, it is much harder to mobilize volunteers in the huge numbers that would be needed to effectively leverage the data in every House and Senate contest.

 

[Jarnhamar]

http://nypost.com/2016/10/24/clinton-ally-gave-500k-to-wife-of-fbi-agent-on-email-probe/

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton confidant, helped steer $675,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an FBI official who went on to lead the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email system, according to a report

Purely coincidence, nothing to see here move along lol

 

[cupper]

So, here is a question for y'all.

Which is the larger, more dangerous problem for the US electoral system: voter fraud, voter supression, partisan control of the state election board or commission, or gerrymandering.

The last two could be combined, since most state legislatures have redistricting committees which are partisan.

 

[FJAG]

So, here is a question for y'all.

Which is the larger, more dangerous problem for the US electoral system: voter fraud, voter supression, partisan control of the state election board or commission, or gerrymandering.

The last two could be combined, since most state legislatures have redistricting committees which are partisan.

In my view its the last two because they are real and not imagined. Gerrymandering comes out of partisan control of the redistricting process and results in voter suppression because it packs "contrary" voters into one specific district (seat) etc thereby conceding that one seat but simultaneously it allows "favourable" votes to gain a majority in several nearby districts (seats) and thereby providing for a numerical seat advantage in respective houses or senates.

Buzzfeed shows a few good examples (I picked this because it had the best graphics):

https://www.buzzfeed.com/qsahmed/the-10-most-gerrymandered-districts-in-america-dh45?utm_term=.wsR6rggdo#.xt4D077Q3

This is truly an equal opportunity process because Democrats and Republicans are equally adept at it.

:cheers:

 

[cupper]

The GOP enguaged in gerrymandering after the 2008 election to ensure that they achieved and maintained a "permanent" majority in the House. Known as REDMAP, they used the 2010 Census, voter data and the GOP controlled legislatures to achieve this goal.

http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/

This has no real effect on the Senate elections as they simply become a popular vote campaign, and appears to have no effect on the Presidential race as the 2012 election results show.

 

[McG]

My question is how much of this applies here (and if you think it isn't happening in Canada, I have some bridges I'd like to sell you...) Some large JPGs at the site, so follow the link:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

and

http://www.infowars.com/professor-who-predicted-last-five-elections-says-trump-has-87-chance-of-winning/

Considering that Western societies have been largely successful because they are (or were) "High Trust" societies, using dezinformatsiya on a large scale can only cause greater breakages in the bonds of trust that allow society to function on the scale and scope of Western cultures. Even the legitimacy of governments and institutions can and will be called into question if what we are being told diverges from an ever wider margin from what we actually see in front of us. 

Proper polling is done by random sampling of the population as a whole; it is not done by targeted sampling within demographic groups.  With a large enough random sample, the poll usually takes the characteristics of the population from which it was taken.  But, I have not been wearing my tinfoil hat and so maybe the government has told me to believe this.  Help me out.

How do you suppose this targeted polling occurs?  Do the polling companies have massive database that links phone numbers to known demographic groups so that the company can focus calls to the demographic targeted for over sampling?  Or do the polling companies throw away replies that don't match the desired demographic?

What is the goal?  I assume it is to create the illusion that the supported candidate is winning, but why?  Would this not encourage the opponent's supporters to come out to the vote while allowing the supported candidate's backers to become complacent?  There must be some good reason that companies would sacrifice their best practices and reputation to the Great Democrat Conspiracy.  What is the Great Democrat Conspiracy getting from this?

 

[Old Sweat]

Further to MCG's post, I am in the database of a major polling firm and am asked to participate in on line polls several times a year. How many others fit my group (retired senior citizen, married and relatively affluent with no debt, living in a rural area) I don't know and I don't know if my data are used all the time, if at all.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Further to MCG's post, I am in the database of a major polling firm and am asked to participate in on line polls several times a year. How many others fit my group (retired senior citizen, married and relatively affluent with no debt, living in a rural area) I don't know and I don't know if my data are used all the time, if at all.

Apart from the 'rural' qualifier, I'd say that your demographic represents about 70% of the population.....

.......that actually votes.

Young people? pfffffftttttttt ... who are they? They don't vote, so the political hacks don't care about them. True story.

 

[FJAG]

Proper polling is done by random sampling of the population as a whole; it is not done by targeted sampling within demographic groups.  With a large enough random sample, the poll usually takes the characteristics of the population from which it was taken.  But, I have not been wearing my tinfoil hat and so maybe the government has told me to believe this.  Help me out.

How do you suppose this targeted polling occurs?  Do the polling companies have massive database that links phone numbers to known demographic groups so that the company can focus calls to the demographic targeted for over sampling?  Or do the polling companies throw away replies that don't match the desired demographic?

What is the goal?  I assume it is to create the illusion that the supported candidate is winning, but why?  Would this not encourage the opponent's supporters to come out to the vote while allowing the supported candidate's backers to become complacent?  There must be some good reason that companies would sacrifice their best practices and reputation to the Great Democrat Conspiracy.  What is the Great Democrat Conspiracy getting from this?

Many years ago when I was more actively involved in politics, I saw the inner workings of the process.

All riding associations keep fairly meticulous data about their riding's population gathered during many hours of telephone and door to door canvassing. The aim is always to tell who is voting for your party so that on election day you can make sure that each and every one of your voters has gone to vote (party scrutineers check those people off at the polls and then telephone contact is made to laggards and rides are offered where necessary)

On top of that you get return lists from each each poll after the count to let you know exactly the number of votes that each party received and that gives you a very accurate micro distribution of votes throughout the riding's geographic area. On top of that a riding can be broken down by demographics through the data that Stats Canada issues.

In the end you have a very comprehensive contact list of all your core supporters.

I must admit I have never seen the lists used to "rig" polls to make it look like you are winning and am not so sure that one would. As you pointed out, the last thing that you want is to leave the impression that you are winning by a landslide and thereby have some voters think it's unnecessary to go vote. You always want the impression that every vote counts and to get every last one of your people out. Good riding "machines" can win elections.

:cheers:

 

[dapaterson]

Or you can avoid all those problems by fighting redistricting that might put seats into play that were otherwise yellow dog ridings.

 

[tomahawk6]

Its possible to win or lose the popular vote but lose the electoral college.Each state receives electors based on population.This is what the election boils down to.Trump needs all the normal red states plus some of the larger blue states to win.


http://www.270towin.com

 

[The Bread Guy]

Its possible to win or lose the popular vote but lose the electoral college.Each state receives electors based on population.This is what the election boils down to.Trump needs all the normal red states plus some of the larger blue states to win.

http://www.270towin.com

T6/any other American voter here:  Do I understand it right that each state has its own voter registration/polling/ballot system as well?  If so, that has to make it more complicated as well.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

http://blog.dilbert.com/

Caveat, I am not American and cannot vote in a US election.

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has come out fore square in favour of Trump as a reaction to what deems as systematic and organized harassment and bullying campaign from the DNC and Clinton supporters against his website and him personally.

Make of it what you will....